that is also by far its most common acceptation throughout the Scriptures. A clear sky, a clear atmosphere, a clear heaven, are synonymous expressions. A sky deformed with clouds, an atmosphere deformed with clouds, a heaven deformed with clouds—all mean the same thing. But, though heaven and firmament be synonymous terms, as in the case of many other synonyms, we may perceive a slight distinction between them; firmament refers more directly to the invisible atmosphere; heaven, to the visible expanse above our heads, and the things seen in it by means of the atmosphere, and the light of the celestial luminaries.

The firmament or atmosphere is not an object of sight; it is, however, the medium through which objects, otherwise not discernible, become distinctly visible, and are seen to be arrayed in every imaginable hue and colour. Without the firmament, the sun would be powerless in bestowing colour and beauty on things, whether on earth, or in the profound vault of the sky. The direct, immediate, and most obvious result of the atmosphere, is to make things visible, and to adorn them with all those gorgeous charms and attractions, which, from the constitution of nature, belong to them. This is a visible, palpable, and everywhere present, effect of the firmament; this effect is properly named "heaven;" and it would seem that, because it is an effect so apparent and so ubiquitous, "God called the firmament Heaven." One reason, as has already been said, why God did not pronounce the firmament good, may have been that the firmament is not an object of sight; and one reason— -it may be the only reason why "God called the firmament Heaven" may have been, because heaven is an object of sight— something visible—the broad, bright expanse over our heads. And, let the reader bear in mind, that it is no uncommon thing in language, when an effect is palpable, but not the cause, to bestow the term that pro

"cold

perly belongs to the effect on the cause: as, a sweet smell"" a bitter taste"-"a hard stone"lead."

In the following lines, the firmament is described as vast; the sky and heavens as visiblę :

"The spacious firmament on high,
With all the blue etherial sky,

And spangled heavens, a shining frame,
Their great Original proclaim."

Bearing in mind the plan of operations which God was pleased to prescribe to himself for our benefit, we can, without much difficulty, apprehend, how the formation of an atmosphere could engage the attention of the Creator for the day-light part of a natural day. But how the creation of an atmosphere, to a tiny globe like ours, could employ the Creator for the space of twenty thousand years would baffle a Newton or a Herschel to explain. But enough surely has been said about the absurdity of endeavouring to make the phrase "the evening and the morning" denote a long geological period.

A word here by way of conclusion: It is far more difficult to discover satisfactorily the object which geologists have in view by their unreasonable assumptions, and their forced and unauthorised explanations of the Record of creation, than to defend the Record from their wanton aggressions. Though the phrase "the evening and the morning" were proved to denote a long period (which it never can be) there exists not the shadow of a reason why it should be named geological; and the giving of such a name to it would benefit geologists about as much as the dipping of their dirty fingers into the so-called holy water benefits Romanists; if there be any difference, the Romanists have it in their favour; for the Romanists may leave some of the dirt behind them in the water; but the geologists misrepresent the Record, without in the

least benefiting themselves. The second day corresponds in point of mere number to the triassic period of the strata. The strata of the triassic period abounds in both plants and animals; but no mention is made in the Record of the creation of plants till the third day, and none of animals before the fifth and sixth days. Though the second day of the Record, therefore, were a long period, not one essential point of agreement would be found to exist between it and the second period of the strata. Thus, whilst the proofs are strong and conclusive for asserting this second day to be a natural day, every view which we take of the matter is utterly hostile to its being regarded as any thing else. The creations of an epoch are at one end of it; its geological formations, at the other; it is the creations only of which Moses speaks throughout the Record, and these creations all belong to one period ;namely the human. When geologists contend for the days of the Mosaic Record being long periods, they are utterly blind to the pernicious consequences of the headstrong course they are pursuing. Were it possible for them to succeed in proving the days of the Record to be long periods, instead of producing harmony between that piece of history and the researches of geology, as the periods of the Record would not agree in one essential point with the periods of the strata, the inevitable result would be, either that the Mosaic Record was not genuine and authentic, or that the findings of geologists were unfounded and false; and men would be at a loss to know which to believe, and which to disbelieve. On the contrary, when, in obedience to the dictates of philology, we view the days of the Record as natural days of twenty-four hours each, the fullest agreement and harmony are found to exist between the statements of Moses and the facts of geology. Therefore, in arguing for the days of the Record being natural days, I consider myself as doing

important service to geology-a service, however, which geologists are not at all sensible of, and for which they will not thank me. Still, notwithstanding their blindness and ingratitude, I am acting towards them the part of a friend, whether they choose to regard me as such, or not.

THIRD DAY.

The simple shades of night momently become less apparent; not the semblance of a cloud is to be seen in the whole vault of heaven; the pale beams of the dawn become more and more bright as the sun draws nearer the horizon; the morning stars sing together, and all the sons of God shout for joy: The Creator is again present at the scene of his miraculous operations, and ready to proceed with the works of the third day:

Ver. 9. "And God said: Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear: And it was so."

Ver. 10. And God called the dry land earth, and the gathering together of the waters called he seas: And God saw that it was good."

The phrase "the waters," verse 10, includes all seas; but in verse 9 the fiat is specially addressed to that part of them which had flooded the dry land. In "the waters under" there is opposition or contrast implied to "the waters above;" the contrast here, however, is not so strongly brought out as in the account of the second day's work, where both kinds of waters are described together.

A somewhat nice question here presents itself respecting the fiat or fiats of the ninth verse. Is the command to do something to be understood as addressed, in the same sense, to both the waters and the dry land?

In other words-Does the command imply movement on the part of both the waters and the land, or on the part of the waters only? That the waters move is unquestionable. But it may be, that, while the waters are retiring to be gathered together into one place, the dry land is rising to occupy their place, and prevent their return; and, in that case, there would be actual movement as well of the dry land as of the waters. Now, this point can never be satisfactorily determined by guess-work or assumption, a method which has done so much towards the perversion of the Record. We must carefully examine the expressions employed to convey the divine command. The phrase used to denote the motion of the waters is not only strongly expressive of action, but very particular as to the nature of the action—“be gathered together"-whereas, the word employed in reference to the dry land-" appear" -is applicable to either motion or rest. Now, it is a rule which may be pronounced universal in good writing, that when two things are brought together, as in the text, to express particularly and with precision what is said of each, and thus place them in close and strong contrast. In the text we have the particular nature of the movement of the waters brought out exactly as the above rule requires; but, if action be implied in "appear," it is not expressed in the strong manner which the rule calls for, and the peculiar nature of the action (if action there were)—that is-the upward movement of the land-is not in the word; whereas, "let appear," and the corresponding Hebrew wordtheraach-place in strong contrast the precise state of rest the land would be in after the waters had retired. We thus find the philology of the case hostile to there being any movement at all of the land, and favourable to its being described as in a state of rest.

Further: in all cases brought about by the operation of natural causes, in which either the land, rising