ties appointed for it, from whence it had issued, verse 8. In so retiring, either at this or at some former period or periods, it produced the primitive mountains. For as the rivers, after Noah's deluge, seem to have returned to their former channels (Gen. ii. 10-14), so the generality of the larger mountains now existing, though covered with the deposits of the last deluge, are, by many, supposed to have been formed by previous deluges. And why should we not suppose water, and land, and atmosphere, to have literally existed from the beginning, rather than a chaos of elements? The earth and the heavens are specifically mentioned, Gen. i. 1; the earth, the deep, and the waters, verse 2; the waters, verses 6-10, as being the same with the great deep and the sea; and the very same deep of waters caused the deluge of Noah, Gen. vii. 11; viii. 2, 3, 5. In the civth Psalm the inspired author seems to be meditating on the creation. The heavens are first mentioned, verse 2; then the waters, the clouds, and the wind, verse 3; the earth is then clearly described, verses 5 and 6, as (in the passage already quoted from Job) "covered with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains," which were, therefore, already in existence. "At thy rebuke they fled, at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away," verse 7. I cannot feel contented with the exposition of one who says, "perhaps there was a clap of thunder;" but I would rather suppose a universal tempest while the great deep was retiring to its former bed, and the atmosphere, under the influence of a "rushing mighty wind," was gradually clearing. In thus retiring, verse 8, the waters rushed by and over the mountains, and down the valleys, to their appointed reservoirs; whence (though they once reissued, at God's command, to drown a guilty world, in the time of Noah) they shall never again return,--for so God has promised, Gen. ix. 11.

CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 292.

The 8th verse of the 5th chapter of Amos seems to me an exhortation to man to seek the favour of Almighty God, who made the stars, and caused darkness upon the earth, even at noon-day, which he afterwards turned into light; and who called forth the waters of the great deep to deluge the world. The passage, 2 Pet. iii. 5, 6, seems to me to refer to the creation, and also to a deluge wherein all creatures had perished; and if so, it could not have been that of Noah: indeed, the transition from the creation of the heavens by the word of the Lord, to the deluge of Noah, seems to me too sudden for admission.

If the hypothesis I have here offered (of considering the Mosaic description of the creation to regard appearances as they would have presented themselves to a spectator on the surface of the earth, and on a particular part) be considered fanciful, let the objector reflect that the holy Scriptures expressly state, that "darkness was upon the face of the deep." I am not bound to believe that it existed any where else; either, as some commentators say, above our atmosphere, or, as others will have it,

beyond the remotest orbit of Saturn, no longer accounted the remotest orbit, and beyond the chrystalline orbs, which no one now admits to have ever had existence.

The surface of our globe was destined to be the residence of man. As he was to view all things from this station, so all descriptions in the sacred writings have a reference to this station. Thus, the word "heaven," is used for the expanse or atmosphere between him and the clouds, and also for whatever he sees through this transparent medium; as the sun, moon, and stars, which, when the sky is unclouded, appear to him as if fixed in this firmament. Thus again, our great spiritual adversary is called "the prince of the power of the air," (Ephes. ii. 2,) as I suppose, because he is "the god of this world," in the air of which man 2 D

breathes. And as to my confining these appearances to one particular part of the surface, I have done so because time is necessarily reckoned on some particular meridian when it is said, "the evening and the morning were the first day." It could not, without an express miracle, be evening or morning to all the world at once. In the development of creation, time must have commenced on some particular longitude,and from some particular event. The meridian I have chosen is that on which man was first created; and the event, that which is first recorded, the moving of the Spirit of God on the face of the waters. This mode of reckoning from noon to noon was continued by many nations, and is so still by astronomers. The generality of modern commentators oppose the idea of the Holy Spirit having employed the instrumentality of the wind. Some say the atmosphere was not yet created: but the theory now offered supposes that it was. Others consider that the employment of any natural agency would be degrading to the narrative; and so indeed it would, if a natural agency were substituted for that of the Divinity. But I need not enter upon an argument to shew (what is not disputed), that God frequently makes use of natural means to effect the purposes of his will. Many writers, both Jewish and Christian, held that a wind was thus employed; and many heathen philosophers have their traditions respecting it. The Hebrew, Greek, and Latin words for "spirit" also signify "wind;" the latter being a striking symbol of the former, being invisible, though powerful in its operations. (John iii. 8.) The Holy Spirit, on the day of Pentecost, came from heaven "as the sound of a rushing mighty wind." (Acts ii. 2.) When our Lord Jesus Christ bestowed on his disciples the gifts of the Holy Spirit, he "breathed upon them.' (John xx.22.) With this the following texts perfectly accord. "By the word of

the Lord (John i. 1,) were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath (or spirit) of his mouth.' (Ps. xxxiii. 6.) "By his Spirit (or by the breath of his mouth) hath he garnished the heavens." Job xxvi, 13.

Many annotators appear to hold the same opinion with myself as to the actual creation of land and water on the third day, and think they were rather separated than made. And thus, at the subsiding of Noah's flood, a wind was the immediate agent employed to effect the same purpose. Gen. viii. 1.

If it be asked why I am contented to assign no natural cause for the creation of herbs and plants in full perfection, while I endeavour to account for other appearances from natural causes, I reply that it does not follow that the creation of plants should be thus accounted for, any more than that of Adam himself. God sometimes uses means, and sometimes uses none. Commentators inform us, that many writers, both Jewish and Christian, both ancient and modern, have held that the sun, moon, and stars, were not literally created, but caused to appear on the fourth day. “But it rather seems," says one of them, in offering his own solution of the difficulty, "that God took the light, which he had created separately to cause the day, and put it into the sun and stars, which till then were opaque bodies." Such an incomprehensible theory requires better support. I admit that the sun, moon, and stars, do serve for the divisions of time into day and night, months and years, and, by the help of eclipses especially, into still longer periods. That the sun and moon, and even the stars, in an unclouded atmosphere, give light, cannot be denied. They serve also "for signs and for seasons:" to the husbandman they give notice when to plant and to sow. To the traveller on the desert, or the navigator on the ocean, they are natural beacons. But that the primary use of the

fixed stars is to give light to the earth, few will now venture to assert. They are generally allowed to be self-luminous, and incalculably distant, bodies, very probably the suns of other systems; since it is ascertained that our sun, if removed to such a distance as any fixed star is known to equal or exceed, would appear no larger or brighter than that star. Many thousands of the stars emit so feeble a ray, that they have been seen only by the aid of the most powerful optical instru ments; and that, perhaps, but once in the lifetime of the most diligent and accurate observer. Had they then been designed merely to give light to this planet, would they not have been placed nearer, or made larger, or brighter, by Almighty and Infinite Wisdom? If it still be thought that the words, "he made the stars also," cannot bear any other sense than that they were literally created on the fourth day, let it be observed that the words "he made" in our version are in italics, having been inserted by the English translators with the view of making the sense clear: but it is, I believe, very generally acknowledged that they are better omitted; for the meaning seems to be, that as the sun governs the day by the superiority of its light, so the moon rules over the night, and over the stars also. Some commentators seem to suppose that God, having previously made the sun and stars, set them in their places on the fourth day, and thus garnished the heavens with them, as a robe is decorated with spangles. But the passage from which the idea seems to have been taken (Job xxvi. 13.) may (I conceive) be reconciled with the theory now offered. By his Holy Spirit he made those stars, originally, with which the heavens were garnished, on the fourth day, through the operation of the wind dispelling the clouds which had hid the sun and stars from the face of the great deep. A passage (Gen. ii. 5.) has been quoted by some annotators, to

shew that the waters above the heavens (Gen. i. 6, 7,) were not literally rain. All that I perceive it to mean, is, that there had been no rain since the creation.

If it be objected, that, by supposing the creation a deluge, I am confounding two very different operations of the Deity, very distinctly described in the holy Scriptures (as Gen. ii. 1-6. and viii. 1—5.) I reply, that, though the Mosaic creation may have sprung out of a deluge, the restoration of the earth, and its inhabitants, after the flood of Noah, could not properly be called a creation. In the former, all creatures seem to have been destroyed: "the earth was without form and void." In the latter, men and animals were miraculously saved. The fish were, perhaps, not injured; and the sceds of the plants were, possibly, preserved. The Mosaic account, then, begins (as it should do) with the preparation of this planet for the use of man. With its former state we can have no concern, and therefore it was not mentioned. That the last flood retired through the chasms of previously formed strata, is, I believe, generally acknowleged; and that those strata were formed by the subsiding of a still remoter deluge seems more than probable. One difficulty (as the Christian Observer has justly remarked) is common to all theories. Human bones have not been found in a fossil state. But I would submit that they have not been sought for where alone they should be expected, that is, in such alluvial soils as are acknowledged to be the certain deposits of Noah's flood. They have hitherto been looked for in the solid rock, where animals, fish, and plants are sufficiently abundant. But if a single human skeleton is found in gravel, though at an unaccountable depth, some murder is suspected: and if a number of skeletons are found together, then a battle is made to ac count for the fact; but that they were antediluvian, seems not to have been even suspected.

To conclude, then, I conceive that not only angels and fixed stars, but that the sun, the moon, the planets (and our own planet among the rest), may have been created as described in the first verse of Genesis, long before the period mentioned in the following verses. And, indeed, I feel persuaded that never was there a period in which the Creator existed without a creation, though he was prior to any and every one of his works. This idea, however, has no tendency to establish the eternity of matter; for, every work of God had its beginning from God. God alone is from everlasting. Man deals with time and place; God with infinite space and eternity. These things may, there fore, be incomprehensible to man; but, surely, they cannot be proved to be false.

C.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. It was declared by our blessed Lord, that not many of the wise, or rich, or mighty, should enrol themselves among his disciples; and there are numerous passages both in the Gospels and the Epistles, which prove, that, in general, the early Christians were a poor and despised community. This circumstance, so humbling to the self-esteem of human intellect and dignity, was perhaps providentially ordained, in order to evince the truth of Christianity by the triumphs which it obtained, not only without the assistance, but amidst the opposition, of all that this world accounts wise and great. The infidel, however, has unfairly wrested it into an argument, to prove the incompetency of the first believers to investigate the claims of the religion which they espoused. "Have any of the Scribes and Pharisees believed on him?" has ever been the language of those who looked for interest or authority, rather than the force of truth, to decide their belief. But it is not in reality, the fact,

that our Lord's first followers were in general persons grossly ignorant, or in abject circumstances of life : few of them, perhaps, were persons of this description. The great majority appear to have been persons of decent or respectable circumstances, though not distinguished by rank, or affluence, or learning; persons capable of forming a sound judgment, and having at least some little stake to lose in the world. The following list will prove the truth of this remark; and it may not be thought uninteresting,as also incidentallythrowing some light upon the sort of channels through which our holy religion made its way to public notice and esteem. The list indeed, after all, is but humble; but it is' not despicable : it is at least a much more numerous, as well as miscellaneous, jury than is thought necessary for deciding the most important secular interests. A few names are introduced of persons who are not expressly recorded to have been Christians, from the circumstances under which they are mentioned having a bearing upon the general argument. John the Baptist was the son of a priest, Luke i. 5. Mary, the mother of our Lord, was cousin to this priest's wife, and so intimate as to spend three months on a visit at her house, Luke i. 36, 56. Joseph, betrothed to Mary before the miraculous dispensation began: he was, therefore, probably of equal rank in life with herself. The circumstance of his being a carpenter does not prove deep poverty. James and John were the sons of Zebedee, who was rich enough to have hired servants, Mark i. 20: they wished St. Paul to remember the poor, which seems as if they had not reckoned themselves such, Galat. ii. 10. A centurion, having soldiers and servants under him, Matt. viii. 9. We find

a

mentioned a certain scribe, Matt. viii. 19; Matthew, the Evangelist, collector of customs, Matt. ix. 9; Jairus, a certain ruler, Matt ix. 18; Mark v. 22; and a woman, who was at least rich enough to have suffered many things of many physicians, upon whom she had spent all she had, Mark v. 26, Luke viii. 43, for the ancient physicians were very rapacious. James, the son of Alphæus, Matt. x. 3, is perhaps the same as Levi, the son of Alphæus, Mark ii. 14. As Levi was collector of customs, Alphæus was probably a respectable man. Perhaps Matthew and Levi were the same in this case, James was Matthew's brother. Mary, the woman with an alabaster box of very precious ointment, was sister to Martha and Lazarus, Matt. xxvi. 7, John xi. 2, xii. 3; and Martha had a household so large as to be "cumbered about much serving," and was "careful and troubled about many things," Luke x. 41, and (perhaps) made a supper, John xii. 2. Lazarus, the brother of these, seems to have been a man of some consequence; for at his death, many Jews came to comfort Mary and Martha, and he was buried in a costly sepulchre,John xi. 19, 38. Pontius Pilate's wife perhaps believed, Matt. xxvii. 19. The centurion that watched the crucifixion, Matt. xxvii. 54, Luke xxiii. 47; Joanna, the wife of Herod's steward, Luke viii. 3. Perhaps her husband also believed. Susanna, and many others, ministered to Christ out of their substance or property, ibid.; Joseph of Arimathæa, a rich man, Matt. xxvii. 57; A scribe, not far from the kingdom of God, Mark xii. 34; The good man of the house where the last supper was eaten, perhaps a believer; his house was large, Mark xiv: 14, 15; Mary, probably one of the women who ministered to our Lord out of her substance, Mark xv. 40, 41; James the Less, Joses, and Salome, her sons, probably believers like their mother, ibid;-Simon Peter, partner of James and John, master

fishermen, Luke v. 10. He declares he had forsaken all to follow Christ, Matt. xix. 27, implying he had something to forsake;-Andrew, Simon's brother, Mark i. 16;—The centurion whose servant was sick, Luke vii. 2;-Widow of Nain: as "much people of the city were with her," she was probably a woman of consequence, Luke vii. 12; The publican or collector of taxes, represented, in the parable, as offering the acceptable prayer, Luke xviii. 10; Zaccheus, chief among the publicans, and rich, Luke xix. 2; Cleophas, husband of one of the Marys before-mentioned, Luke xxiv. 18, John xix. 25; Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, John iii. 1; A certain nobleman, whose son was sick, John iv. 46; His whole house, ibid. 53; Officers, sent to take Jesus, who probably believed, John vii. 46; James, Joses, Juda, and Simon, our Lord's brothers, and of course connexions of Zacharias the priest: they became believers, Mark vi. 3, Acts i. 14;-Many of the chief rulers, John xii. 42, whose faith, however, was doubtful: "they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God," 43;-Joses,surnamed Barnabas, a possessor of land, Acts iv. 36, 37; Paul, the apostle, known to have been a respectable man, Acts vii. 38; Simon, the sorcerer, who was baptized, Acts viii. 13; Ethiopian eunuch, "of great authority," ibid. 27; Tabitha, a woman in good circumstances, Acts ix. 36; Simon, a tanner, probably in easy circumstances, ibid. 43; Cornelius, the centurion, Acts x. 1, 2; His kinsmen, and near friends; ibid. 24; Manaen, brought up with Herod, the tetrarch, Acts xiii. 1; Sergius Paulus, deputy of Paphos, ibid. 7; Lydia, seller of purple, evidently in easy circumstances, Acts xvi. 14; Her household, ibid. 15. The gaoler must have been a man of some respectability, ibid. 33; His household, ibid.; Not a few chief women of Thessalonica, Acts xvii. 4; Jason was able to receive the brethren in his house, ibid. 7. Per