144 
This being premised, I beg to say that I am unable to accept the view 
advocated by Mr. Titcomb, that the cosmogony of Gen. i. was revealed to 
Moses by “ vision,” and that he made it known to the Hebrews in a form 
suitable to their powers of comprehension. If revealed by vision, in what 
respect does this mode of communication differ from inspiration, and why 
not admit at once that this portion of Scripture gives the ipsissima verba 
which Moses, or whoever was the writer of it, was inspired by the Spirit to 
write ? If it be anything short of this — if any human element was con- 
cerned in framing its language — it is of no value whatever. Since, as is 
admitted, future events can be predicted only by inspiration of the Holy 
Spirit, a revelation of what took place long anterior to all human experience 
equally required the inspiration of the same Spirit. Accordingly, it may be 
asserted that the real author of Gen. i. was perfectly acquainted with the 
process of the creation from beginning to end, and the purposes for which it 
was planned and executed. 
Next, I remark that of itself it seems wholly unreasonable to suppose that 
the Holy Spirit meant to tell us that the Creator of the universe, after com- 
pleting His work, rested twenty-four hours, or that the seventh day was a 
natural day. But besides the intrinsic unreasonableness of this idea, the 
sacred narrative itself, if viewed without preconception, would, I think, be 
seen to contain a refutation of it. For it asserts that three of the creation- 
days had already elapsed when the light of the sun began to define the 
natural day, evidently thus making a distinction between the two kinds of 
days. 
Further, the interpretation put upon Gen. ii. 2, in Heb. iv. 3-10, forbids 
taking the duration of the seventh day to be that of a natural day, inasmuch 
as the author of that epistle places in juxtaposition (verses 4, 5) the state- 
ment in Genesis that God rested on the seventh day, and a passage in the 
Psalms (xcv. 11), containing, as spoken by God, the words, “ If they shall 
enter into my rest”; and it is clear that he intends thereby to indicate that 
the same rest is spoken of in both passages, for he argues that the rest 
remains for the people of God, “ although the works were finished from the 
foundation of the world.” This last sentence refers to the ending of the 
works spoken of in Gen. ii. 2, and implies (by the word “ although”) that in 
that passage the Holy Spirit declares proleptically the completion of a plan 
designed from the beginning ; so that this declaration is not inconsistent with 
a seventh day of rest to come. In the mind of the Eternal Spirit the design 
and the execution are one and the same. 
But if this be so, the sixth day is not yet ended. Now, it is particularly to 
be observed that the terms which narrate the creation of man on the sixth 
day, and his dominion over the whole of the earth and all living things, arc 
in accordance with this inference, inasmuch as the creation and sovereignty 
of the race (nv0f>w7roc) are there spoken of, the creation of Adam and Eve, 
the first individuals of the race, being recorded in Gen. ii. So long as the 
succession of generations goes on, the creation of man is not finished, and 
the seventh day not come. 
