the earth, in all its beauty, and furnished with all its elements and apparatus, into existence by one single fiat. He who could turn water into wine, who could turn a little bread into enough for five thousand, had only to speak the word, and the earth would have sprung into its orbit, beautified with all its terrestrial clothing. But he did not do so; he was pleased to arrange, not by an act, but by a process. And this seems to be the method of God's dealing in all things. Great good is achieved in nations, not by a sudden start-by a vast revolution-but by a gradual and progressive reformation. The human heart seems to undergo change, and to be converted and made fit for heaven, not by a sudden stroke, but by a progressive process. Summer comes on gradually and slowly. In fact, God takes time for all his work; and, in general, we do not see, in the course of our own experience, anything done well by fits and starts. So, God was pleased to take six days to arrange our present economy. Why wherefore I cannot explain; the fact is asserted, and that fact is in perfect harmony with the analogies that we see around us.

-

To show that this process of creation in six consecutive days is the original of the custom, that prevails in the world, of dividing time into weeks, I would just ask any one to suppose Genesis extinguished, and the facts of the creation in the Mosaic page obliterated, and then to say how he accounts for the almost universal division of time into periods of seven days, or a week. I can understand the occurrence of the division of time into years, from the quasi-motion of the sun, and into months from the motion of the moon; but how do you account for time being divided into periods of seven days? Is there anything more natural in seven than in fourteen or twenty? And how do you account for this fact, that when the French, in one of those paroxysms to which as a nation they seem liable, obliterated the division of time into seven

days, as being a memorial of Christianity, and substituted, about A. D. 1790, decades, or periods of ten days, the nation instinctively rushed back into its ancient habit, and that the French have now weeks of seven days, just as we have? There must be something in this. It looks like a surviving influence projected from Genesis into the natural habits of mankind, retaining, where there is no Christianity, the traditional recollection of God's ancient institution, that in six days God created heaven and earth, and all the things that are therein.

I may notice that there seems to occur a mis-translation in that passage at least, I think so - where we read that there had been no rain. I allude to the 5th and 6th verses, "The Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." The Hebrew conjunction "but" is frequently translated "nor," "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, and any likeness," &c.; but we very properly translate it, "nor any likeness," &c. And, therefore, the sixth verse of this chapter may be read thus, and in far greater conformity to the text, while it alters the meaning entirely: "The Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. Nor did there go up a mist from the earth, to water the whole face of the ground." The assertion is, not that a mist did go up, but that a mist did not go up; in other words, that there was no provision for that peculiar economy until afterwards, when man was introduced, and that provision began.

It is recorded that there was "the tree of knowledge of good and evil." Many persons have speculated about what it can mean. Sceptics have tried to mock at it, and Christians have sometimes been puzzled by it. Was it a literal tree that was the medium of these moral effects? Or is there

ever.

any tree still, to eat which is to learn what is good or what is evil? I think not; I do not gather there was anything in that tree more peculiar in physical character than in any other tree in the garden of Eden, except in its selection. The reason of it was this:-Man must, even in Paradise, have some visible and sacramental symbol, to show him that he was a creature under law, and dependent upon a higher Being; and therefore God said, This tree shall be that sign and symbol. You touch it, and you will not find that anything will rush from the tree and smite you, but that you have broken the law of your being, and the allegiance that you owe to God, and the consequence of it will be that you shall surely die; and, on the other hand, if you shall not touch that tree, you will live in holiness and happiness forGod might have said, There is a river; if you drink of that river you shall surely die. Or, There is a little inclosed ground; if you enter that inclosure you shall surely die. It was meant simply to make man feel that he was a creature, and to let man prove, by his allegiance to God, that as a creature he would stand, or, by his disobedience to God, that as a sinner he could fall. It has been thought—strange to say—that the fig-tree was the "tree of knowledge of good and evil." It is certainly remarkable that the fig-tree has been selected as the exponent of evil among mankind, and in Scripture we read of the fig-tree generally in a bad sense; and it is remarkable that a bad character among the ancient Greeks was called a sycophant, which means "a man that shows figs," thus indicating that there was some bad association connected with the fig-tree; and other proverbs associated with the fig-tree were used by classical and heathen nations, generally having a bad reference. Hence, some persons have argued that this tree must have been the tree of knowledge of good and evil." But that is to assume that there was something morally bad in it, which we cannot prove. I do

not think there is any evidence to show that it was a tree selected in consequence of any inherent or peculiar qualities, but simply as a symbol of a creature's allegiance to God.

We read, in the next place, "A river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads." This has puzzled many persons, since it seems as if the one (Eden) had been very far separated from the other (the garden). But perhaps the strict meaning is, that the river sprang up out of the garden of Eden, and thus watered it. It does not necessarily mean that it came from one distant place (Eden) into "the garden" (another distant place); but that it sprang up in Eden, and went to water the whole garden.

Where Eden was, is a question, I think, we shall never be able to solve. It is quite plain that the Noachian deluge very much altered the whole geographical aspect of the earth we live in, and that the last traces and remains of that gar

den are swept away. And you will recollect that this account by Moses was written between two and three thousand years after the facts recorded; and Moses alludes, in the course of his narrative, to what was its geography while he was writing, and therefore he speaks of the name of the first river being Pison," that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;" hereby describing what existed in his own days, when he, an historian, was writing, and what existed in Paradise when it was in its full bloom, and beauty, and perfection. It has been thought, however, by most Christian geographers, who have turned their attention to the subject, that Eden was situated somewhere extending from the Indus, on the east, to the Nile on the west, embracing the fairest part of Asia, and a good part of Africa; and containing the countries now known as Cabul, Persia, Arabia, Abyssinia, and a portion of Egypt. It has

been thought that that was the district in which this fair spot was situated, and in which man was placed, in order to cultivate it.

We learn from the expression, "The Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it," that labor is honorable, and that it is compatible with a state of innocence. The curse in labor is the excess You will find that the horse

of it; labor itself is enjoyment. feels it enjoyment to put forth its strength; and so, man felt it enjoyment to put forth his energies in rearing the flowers that God had planted in the midst of Eden. The curse is not labor, but the excess of labor. It is a very absurd notion that prevails, that labor is a sort of mean thing; it is a most honorable thing; it was a feature of Adam in his innocent and Eden state; and the poorest laborer is just as honorable as the greatest noble, if he be a Christian. We must not estimate men as we do the cinnamon-tree, the whole of whose value is in its bark, but by the heart that beats beneath, and the intellect that thinks, and the life that shines out in obedience to the will of God.

Adam gave names to all the creatures in the garden, and these names are in the Hebrew tongue either expressive or suggestive of the properties or qualities of these animals. Of course, there is a difficulty in conceiving how all the genera and species of all the animals of the earth could have been gathered round Adam. We know not how long he retained his innocence; we know not how this was done, or whether these genera or species could be reduced to a much less number. We all know that zoology has discovered that animals which seem to us distinct are often connected with each other; for instance, the lion, the tiger, and the common house cat, all belong to the same great class. Very probably, the animals were generically very few, as they might be now reduced to very few great divisions, and these were gathered