mere poetic and fabulous representation, and not as a real narrative of events which actually occurred, there can be no difficulty in the work of reconciling Scripture and science; for, in fact, there is nothing to reconcile, according to this supposition. But a far greater and more insuperable difficulty is thus created within the sphere of Scripture itself. For, assuredly, if we may apply such a principle to the interpretation of this portion of the word of God, bearing as it does all the semblance of a veritable history, and entering into details in the way which might be expected in such a history, then there is no part of the Sacred Volume, whether of the Old or New Testament, that can be shielded from a similar application and a like process. The Bible in whole, or in great part at least, will or may be thus reduced to a series or concatenation of poetic legends, to be interpreted and understood according to any fashion which the prevailing philosophic system or organon of the age may seem to dictate or require.

It is no part of our present object to discuss the comparative merits of the several methods, by which it has been attempted to harmonize the language of Genesis with the incontestable facts of science. But to treat it either as a myth, or as a poetic and fanciful cosmogony, is to do violence to the most obvious principles of sound and legitimate interpretation. Whether the "days" refer to periods of indefinite duration, or to the limited space of time usually so denominated; whether the magnificent series of geological revolutions, whose records are written upon the pillars and foundations of the earth, took place before "the beginning" indicated in this book, or whether we are to find room for them between the event announced in the first verse understood as the creation of the material of the universe, and the events disclosed in the subsequent verses, understood as the ordering and arranging of the present condition of our planet, or of a portion of it; or whether, again, their place and period are to be fixed within the "days" understood as lengthened eras in the history of the system,-whatever view we adopt on these points, we are shut up, by all the laws of a

valid exegesis, to take the account as a narrative of real phenomena, clothed, it is true, in a poetic form, expressed in terms of lofty eloquence, and dealing largely, no doubt, in anthropomorphism, but nevertheless real and true. And this is our position, whatever hypothesis we may form as to the conditions under which the narrative was composed (whether from preëxisting materials or not), and whatever opinion we may entertain as to its date. Let the Bible be explored by the lights of a sound and just hermeneutics, and Nature by the lights of a sound and just, an inductive philosophy, and we have no fear as to the results. Not a few of our modern sciences have seemed, at the outset of their course, to assume an antagonistic aspect to Revelation; but, in each and every instance, the issue of further investigation has only served to illustrate more fully the unity of all truth, and to demonstrate more clearly the divinity of the Bible. But in order to realize such an issue, Nature and Scripture (both revelations from God) must each be studied according to its own distinctive laws, neither being allowed to invade the province of the other, or to supersede its rightful claims. This, however, by no means forbids the inquiry, so important in our times, Can the scriptural narrative of creation be so interpreted, as that, while no sacrifice is made of the principle now stated, its several parts shall be seen to be in perfect unison with the conclusions which are necessitated by our inquiries in another field? It is perfectly possible, that the current interpretation of certain portions of the Bible may be false; but, as the word of God, it is utterly impossible that any portion should be found incapable of being reconciled with truth, in whatever department that truth presents itself.

Having said so much, however, we must not advance farther in this line of observation. We believe there must be a close and intelligible connection between the reason assigned in the fourth commandment for the observance of the seventh day, and the order and sequence of time mentioned in the beginning of Genesis. The "days" must mean the same thing in both places, if there is any validity or coherence in

the language of the decalogue. It has been suggested by a recent writer, that the "day" of Genesis might be used for an indefinite period, and yet the term in the fourth commandment be employed to denote a natural day; and that, still, the language of the decalogue enforcing the observance of a seventh portion of our time for sacred uses, by a reference to a sevenfold division and order of the epochs of creation, might be perfectly warrantable and just. But we confess our inability to take this view of the matter. It is the dedication of each revolving seventh day, and not merely of a seventh portion of existence that is enjoined in the Sinaitic law, and the measure and interval of time are alike enforced by a consideration of the time of the creative process and the time of the Creator's rest; and this in such a manner that we cannot but regard the Divine as the model and exemplar of the human. The reasoning of Mr. Powell, if such it may be called, presents another instance of the way in which even men of great ability impose upon their own understanding, when there is some favorite scheme of opinion to be supported. Who can, for a moment, seriously believe that the great fundamental truths of religion could be rendered more impressive, and clothed in more commanding forms, by having recourse to deceptive representations? - and deceptive they must be regarded, since they were presented in the guise of veritable history, and made the basis of actual and positive religious institutes. Does not this seem very much like doing evil that good may come? How these truths could be said to be, by this method, "impressed under the most awful sanctions," and the means thus taken to promote and secure the fulfilment of Sabbath observance be regarded as a proof of "wisdom," we are entirely unable to discover. In our estimation, the whole would only exemplify the sinister expedient to which human policy resorts in its weakness, rather than the wisdom and righteousness that must ever characterize the legislation of God, in his majesty and strength. Besides, if the "work of creation with reference to the different classes of beings was associated in the minds" of the Jews "with each of the six days," this could be only as the

result of oral or written tradition, credited as fact and history, before the time of Moses, or, at all events, before the composition of Genesis in its present form; and if this be admitted, there is no possible ground to doubt that "the seventh day was identified with the entire completion of the work, the Divine rest and cessation from it," also, before the era when this inspired narrative was penned. The weakness of the reasoning exhibited in this part of the Article, can be paralleled only by the reckless daring displayed in the closing assertion, "It cannot be history-it may be poetry." If the first chapter of Genesis be poetry, then what of the second and following chapters? And where is the point of transition from fiction to fact, from the creations of fancy to the sober realities of truth? The writer of the book has certainly furnished no marks or criteria, by which this important and vital point can be determined; nor does it seem possible to us, except by the aid of an hypothesis which begs the whole question, to draw any line of distinction, where the style of narration, or of apparent narration, is throughout so uniform, so straight-forward, and so simple. In conclusion, we must say that assumptions should not be mistaken for arguments, nor preconceived theories for the sound conclusions of a patient and extended process of induction. We are greatly in need of a more faithful application of the great Baconian principle in the sphere of theological, not less than in that of ordinary and natural, science. This would terminate many a controversy which has agitated the church; and while it would tend to dry up the sources of logomachy, it would open wide the fountains and well springs of truth.

It constitutes no part of our present object to endeavor to define the mode in which the Sabbath was at first observed. But regarding this primeval appointment as the foundationstone of the whole structure of Divine legislation upon the subject, it is important to keep in view the three inscriptions, or emblematical devices, it contains. It speaks of rest, of blessing, and of sanctification: God "rested from all his work." The figure, no doubt, is anthropomorphic;1 but

1 Vide Hengstenberg on "The Genuineness of the Pentateuch," for an interesting brief discussion of the principle of Anthropomorphism.

there is a real solid fact beneath, and one full of meaning and suggestiveness. We might have supposed that the Omnipotent, by a single fiat, would have at once summoned into being the entire creation in its full magnificence and perfection, instead of extending the creative process over a series of days. How did He need repose who "fainteth not neither is weary," who "worketh hitherto," probably in the actual formation of new worlds and systems, but certainly in what may be deemed equivalent, as it regards power and majesty, in the sustentation and government of those which exist. But the whole work was thus lengthened out and thus closed and crowned, perhaps for other reasons at present inscrutable to us, but obviously for this special one, that we might have a Divine model and law of successive labor and repose. And this repose, it is manifest, was one associated with blessings adapted to the lofty nature and destinies of the new made creature. It would indeed be a style unworthy of inspiration, as well as a sad mockery of the high faculties and yearnings of the great and holy soul, fresh from its Maker's hand, and bearing upon it the Divine stamp and impress, to speak thus of blessing and setting apart a period, the benefits and privileges of which terminated and centred on the mere animal nature and condition of man. Doubtless the day was encircled by a spiritual halo and brightness, such as could be caught only from the light of the celestial throne falling upon it in fuller, richer radiance, than upon any other of the seven. Doubtless it was a day in which heaven seemed to bend down more sweetly, and to embrace more lovingly, the new made world with its garden of delights, because on this day man, freed from even the slightest earthly cares, and ceasing from "his own works as God did from his," was wholly absorbed in the more clevated engagements and the more rapturous pleasures of immediate, uninterrupted communion with his Father, God.

As yet the creation had not been doomed to groan beneath the burden of human transgression, and to long for deliverance from the "vanity" to which it has since become "subject." As yet, it found a voice and interpreter in man, still