
 
		verse,  and  as  the  commencement  of  the  first of  
 the six succeeding days, in which the earth was to  
 be  fitted  up,  and peopled  in  a manner fit for the  
 reception  of mankind.  We  have  in  this  second  
 verse,  a  distinct mention  of  earth  and waters,  as 
 very probable that bara, “ created,” as being the stronger word, was  
 selected to describe the first production of the heaven and the earth. 
 The point, however,  upon which  the  interpretation  of  the  first  
 chapter of  Genesis  appears  to me  really to  turn,  is, whether  the  
 two  first verses are merely a  summary statement of what is related  
 in  detail  in  the  rest  of  the  chapter, and  a  sort of introduction to  
 it,  or whether they  contain an account of an act  of creation.  And  
 this  last  seems  to me  to be their true  interpretation, first, because  
 there is  no other account of the creation of the earth ;  secondly, the  
 second  verse describes the condition of the earth when  so  created,  
 and thus prepares for the  account of the work of the six days;  but  
 if they  speak  of any creation,  it  appears  to me  that  this  creation  
 “ in the beginning” was previous to the  six  days,  because, as you  
 will  observe, the  creation  of each day is  preceded  by the  declaration  
 that God  said,  or  willed,  that  such  things  should  be  (“ and  
 God  said”),  and  therefore the very form of the narrative  seems  to  
 imply that  the  creation of the first day began when these words are  
 first used, i.e. with  the creation of light in  ver. 3. The  time then of  
 the creation in ver.  1  appears  to me not to be defined :  we are told  
 only what alone we are concerned  with, that  all  things  were made  
 by God.  Nor  is  this  any  new  opinion.  Many  of  the  fathers  
 (they  are  quoted by Petavius,  l.  c.  c.  11, §  i.—viii.) supposed  the  
 two first verses  of Genesis  to contain  an  account of a distinct and  
 prior act of creation;  some, as Augustine, Theodoret,  and  others,  
 that  of  the  creation  of matter;  others,  that  of  the  elements;  
 others  again  (and  they  the  most  numerous)  imagine  that,  not  
 these visible heavens,  but what they think  to  be  called  elsewhere  
 “ the highest heavens,” the “ heaven  of heavens,” are here spoken  
 of, our  visible heavens being related  to have been  created  on  the  
 second day.  Petavius himself regards  the  light  as  the  only act  
 of  creation  of the  first  day  (c.  vii.  “ de  opere  primse  diei,  i. e. 
 25 
 [already  existing,  and  involved  in  darkness;  
 their  condition  also  is  described  as  a  state  of  
 confusion  and  emptiness,  (tohu  bohu),  words  
 which  are usually  interpreted  by  the vague  and  
 indefinite  Greek  term,  “ chaos,” and  which  may 
 luce”), considering  the  two  first verses  as  a  summary  of  the  account  
 of  creation which was  about to  follow,  and  a  general  declaration  
 that all  things  were made by God. 
 Episcopius  again,  and  others,  thought  that  the  creation  and  
 fall  of the bad  angels  took  place  in  the  interval here  spoken  o f :  
 and misplaced as  such  speculations  are,  still  they  seem  to  show  
 that  it is natural  to  suppose  that a considerable interval may have  
 taken  place between  the  creation related  in  the  first  verse  of Genesis  
 and  that of which  an  account  is  given  in  the  third and  following  
 verses.  Accordingly,  in  some old editions  of the English  
 Bible, where there  is  no  division  into  verses,  you actually  find  a  
 break  at  the  end  of  what  is  now  the  second  verse;  and  in  Luther’s  
 Bible (Wittenburg,  1557) you  have in addition the figure  1  
 placed  against the  third  verse,  as  being  the  beginning  of  the  
 account of the  creation  on  the  first day. 
 This  then  is just  the  sort of confirmation which one wished for,  
 because,  though  one  would  shrink  from  the  impiety  of  bending  
 the  language of God’s book  to  any other  than  its  obvious  meaning, 
   we  can  not  help  fearing  lest  we  might  be  unconsciously  
 influenced  by the  floating  opinions  of our own day,  and  therefore  
 turn  the more  anxiously  to  those who  explained  Holy  Scripture,  
 ibefore these  theories  existed.  You must  allow me  to  add  that  I  
 would  not  define further.  We know nothing of creation, nothing  
 of ultimate  causes, nothing  of space,  except  what  is bounded  by  
 actual  existing bodies,  nothing of time,  but what is limited  by the  
 revolution  of those  bodies.  I  should  be  very sorry  to  appear  to  
 dogmatize  upon that, of which  it  requires very little  reflection,  or  
 reverence,  to  confess  that we are necessarily ignorant.  “ Hardly  
 flo we guess  aright  of things  that are upon  earth,  and  with  labour  
 do we find the things that are before u s ;  but  the  things that are  in  
 heaven who hath searched  out ?”— Wisdom, ix. 16.—E. B. Pusey.