357 
the earth existed , not into which it passed. True, the same verb 
( n -7) is used here which elsewhere throughout the chapter 
undoubtedly signifies succession or becoming (see note, p. 347); 
but then it is used in a totally different form and construction 
(nrpn no t such as is not elsewhere used to express 
succession or becoming, but rather existence or state. So far, 
therefore, from the text countenancing the idea of the chaotic 
condition of the earth being subsequent to its original crea- 
tion, it rather, by rejecting the form of the verb which would 
have naturally expressed this, and adopting another, distinctly 
discountenances it. 2nd. No one who attentively reads the 
description itself can fail to see that in every particular it has 
reference to what is to follow, not to anything that may pos- 
sibly have gone before. Thus “ empty and desolate” is con- 
trasted with the fulness and order about to come “ darkness ” 
with the light, “ the deep ” with the divided waters and dry 
land; while the “ hovering” of “the Spirit of God” is the 
natural preliminary to the creation of life. Of any previous 
order, fulness, light, or land, we read nothing. Lastly, 
on this point we have not only the clear language of 
Genesis, but the if possible still more conclusive words in the 
fourth commandment, whose importance as an authoritative 
re-statement of the main outlines of the cosmogony none will 
dispute. Here it is stated categorically, “ In six days Jehovah 
made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in 
them” (Ex. xx. 11) ; and, again, “ In six days Jehovah made 
the heavens and the earth” (Ex. xxxi. 17). Anything more 
precise than this can hardly be imagined. This point being 
settled, then, we turn — 
Secondly, to the question. Is the word “day” to be taken here 
in its ordinary sense, or otherwise ? If the word “ day ” be 
used of a period of time, we find in Scripture, as everywhere 
else, but two meanings which can be assigned to it — a period 
of twenty-four hours, or a period of twelve. True, occasionally 
in prophecy days are made the symbols of longer periods, as years 
(e. g. Ezek. iv. 4-6) ; but this in no way affects the question at 
issue, since (1) the natural sense of “day” is not even herein 
the least put aside, but merely used as a type or emblem of 
something else; and (2) the cosmogony is not a symbolical 
prophecy, but an historical narrative. True, further, that not 
unfrequently “ day ” is used in a loose, indefinite sense, as in 
the phrases “ day of judgment,” “ day of the Lord,” &c. This 
also, however, is useless for our present purpose, since we have 
not here any longer or different period of duration spoken of, 
but rather the whole idea of duration put out of sight, and 
“ day ” used merely in the sense of epoch, as is evident from 
