In the New Testament we have a similar indifferent use of the words and in a great number of passages. The former is applied to the origin of the world in Hark xiii. t9, and to the formation of man in t Cor. xi. 9, and in some other places ; but most remarkably in Col. i. of. The same word is also applied in a spiritual sense in Eph. ii. so and other passages, in which the figure clearly involves formation out of what existed before ; as also in Eph. iv. 24, Col. di. to, etc. It manifestly implies previous materials in Heb. ix. xr, as in the Septuagint version of the corresponding passage in Lev. xvi. 16. But more particu larly in Rom. i. zo, the expression ra -yap a6para avrou drrb xTioewr K607.400 TOiS rotly.caol vooNievct places in synonym the substantives corresponding to the verbs ` create ' and ` fashion,' or form.' This appears to be nearly the whole substance of what we can collect from the Scriptures, whether Jewish or Christian, as to the force of the verbal expressions and the idea implied by the term Creation.' If from the subject of the general idea of creation we turn to that of the particular mode in which the `formation' of existing things (whether the crude material existed pre viously or not) is represented to have taken place, we find more extensive and express declarations in various parts of the Bible. It is not our purpose to furnish a concordance of texts, nor to introduce quotations of all that btar upon the subject, any more than our readers probably would look for it. It will suffice to observe that we have many general statements of the kind, and one or two very circumstantial representations. Of the former kind we may remark that almost all refer to the attributes and ,erfettions of the Deity evinced in the work of creation, rather than to any precise explanation of boon it was accomplished. The sacred writers also refer largely to the divine will and the announcement of that will by his word as the immediate agent, as in Ps. xxxiii. 9, and cxlviii. 5 ; Rev. iv. xx, and many other places ; and this reference to the divine word is considered by many to be in effect the same with the more direct ascription of the work of creation to the divine 716'yo5 in John i. 3 ; which again is explicitly referred to the Son of God in Eph. ui. 9, and Heb. i. 2, 3 ; and again, Co]. i. 16. It would lead us too far from our immediate object here to discuss more minutely the precise doctrinal bearing of the passages last referred to, and others of similar import ; and our readers will find full information on these topics under other more appropriate heads. We will merely observe further, that these general representations of the creation all agree in speaking of it in terms of the most unbounded ex tent and universality of operation ; this is observable in the last-cited texts, and not less pointedly in Acts xiv. z5, and xvii. 24; Rev, x. 6 ; besides many others ; but it is to be observed, it is not expressed that this universal act took place at one and the same time, nor whether it was instan taneous or gradual.
We come next to those Scriptural representations of the creation, which are more precise and circumstantial. Of these the earliest in order of time is that stated to have been announced by the divine voice from Mount Sinai, in the delivery of the law to the Israelites (Exod. xx. sx), where the entire and complete work of creation is described as carried on and ended in six days. The description pointedly applies to the whole universe ; and the great work was suc ceeded by a seventh day, of rest or cessation, implying, that is, the final perfection of the process.
When the books of the Old Testament were afterwards written, the Mosaic history naturally opened with a general statement to the same effect. It is well known to be the
opinion of some of the most learned critics, that the book of Genesis, in its existing form, is properly a compilation of more than one ancient document, portions of each being mixed in different parts of the narrative. Thus the short account of the creation in Gem ii. 4 is considered to have been the commencement of the most ancient record, while the more expanded account in Gen. i. and ii. x-3, was pre fixed from a later document. [Bauer's Theology of the Old Test. p. If, Eng. Tr. r838.] A deeper meaning, however, is given to the Elohistic and Jehovistic distinctions of Genesis, and one consistent with the uniform composition of the book, by many scholars, particularly by Hengstenberg (Disserta tions on the Genuineness'°, the Pentateuch, Eng. Tr., Edin.
The points most important to be noticed are the following —The first sentence is taken by many to stand distinct from what follows, as a first general announcement, or title, as it were ; then, after a break, the account of the six days' work is supposed to begin. The description in the second verse (commonly conveyed by the term Chaos) is supposed by some connected with the first verse ; by others, with the subse quent. Either way it positively expresses a state of uni versal ruin, disorder, and darkness. Out of this chaos the divine word evokes light, and, by degrees, order and organisation ; but by several successive and beautifully appropriate stages, divided into periods called nights and days ; in which first the grander distribution of the inert materials of the universe into their respective places occurs, and then, progressively, the stages of organised existence from the lower up to the higher forms : until at length the whole is crowned by the introduction of man, who is con stituted lord of the inferior world, and the spirit of life breathed into him—when the majestic scene closes with the final cessation put to the work in the Divine rest on the seventh day, and the pronouncing of a peculiar benediction and sanctification of it.
On the sublime and unapproachable magnificence of this description it is not to our present purpose to dilate; but there is a peculiar character of unity of design and sub ordination, and connection of parts observable throughout it, which, in any human composition, we should instantly refer to the most exalted poetical genius, and recognise as mark ing the most profound skill in the composition and invention of the narrative, the disposition, as ir were, of the whole machinery of the great drama.
Very different is the view which some modern Com mentators have been induced to take of it. It will neither be necessary nor pleasing to enter into detailed descriptions of them. But the following very brief sketch of some of them is necessary :—Some do not make the separation of the first Verne before alluded to, but, taking the whole to refer to one single creative process, stretch that process out to a vast, and, in fact, unlimited length of time, by interpreting each of the six days (though most expressly described as alternations of day and night) as meaning periods of thousands or millions of years ; and alleging, as their authority, that in certain parts of the prophetic writings, the term 'day' is used for an indefinitely long period, and that it is salt. with God ' a thousand years are as one day I When, however, they come to the seventh day at the close (which is, nevertheless, obviously spoken of in the very same terms), they then go back to the ordinary sense of a natural day.