spired history, can it be shown that the term day is employed in a sense approaching to the meaning which some geologists would have us attach to it; and it is an important law of interpretation, that one part of any author must be explained by another, that if the meaning in which a writer uses a word in one place be doubtful or obscure, this obscurity will be best removed by the sense in which it is known to be used in other places. The Bible has accordingly been esteemed the best interpreter of itself, and great pains have been taken in collecting parallel or corresponding passages of scripture to aid us in finding out its true meaning. But where will a parallel passage be found to corroborate the meaning which some geologists seek to put on the term day, in the Mosaic account of creation? For the ordinary sense, passages innumerable can be adduced; for the special view,' not so much as one.

6

It is, secondly, a well-known law of Bible interpretation, that God employed such language, in making known his will to men, as would be best understood by the persons immediately addressed, and most calculated to impress the truth on their minds. Eastern customs and Jewish antiquities have therefore been assiduously studied, as one means of enabling us to discover more clearly the import of the sacred writings; and this is also the judgment which respect for the character and perfections of the Divine Author of the scriptures imperatively demands of us. But it is not pretended that so much as one of the vast congregations of Israel, in whose hearing God proclaimed the ten commandments with his own mouth from Sinai, understood, or could properly understand the term day in the new sense. It is supposed, according to the special view,' that God gave such a record of his doings to the church, and so enforced the performance of duty on men, that the meaning of the language which he employed behoved to be misunderstood from generation to generation, for thousands of years, by all who enjoyed the scriptures, and that the true meaning of plain scripture narrative and precept could not so much as once have entered into the mind of man, till the key to its interpretation was dug up by geologists from the dark recesses of the earth. Should it be objected that it was so also with regard to astronomy, it might be easily shown that the cases are not parallel. For the discoveries of astronomy require us to put no new meaning on the language of scripture different from that in common use. Though they have given us many new and sublime ideas, as geology also has, we continue to use the same language to express things as they apparently are to this day; though, were we to express the reality, our phraseology behoved to be extensively changed.

As if by anticipation, the Spirit, in the third place, has been at more than ordinary pains to keep us from supposing that the days of creation are not days in the proper sense and of the ordinary length. He first speaks of them as consisting of evening and morning. It is difficult to conceive for what end God, in a narrative so concise, should be so careful to speak of the days of creation, in a way calculated to lead all who read his word to think of them only as literal days, if it was not of literal days that he spoke, but of immensely

protracted periods. Again, to be if possible still more specific, this enumeration of days is prefaced by a declaration that God called the light day, and the darkness he called night, most explicitly in accordance with the practice of men in speaking of day and night literally; and further, that he set the sun, the greater light, to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. All these things combine to show, in the clearest manner, that the Spirit is here employing the term day in its simple literal meaning, and not in any extraordinary

sense.

In the fourth place, the language of the Spirit, respecting the seventh day, is still more incapable of being interpreted in any other sense than that of a literal day. The words of the sacred text (Gen. ii. 2, 3) are: 'And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made, and he rested the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work which he had created and made.' Here it is to be marked, that the seventh day, on which God rested, is said to be the day on which God ended his work which he had made; an appropriate expression to intimate the day immediately after his work in the literal sense, but not so appropriate were that day to be understood of an immensely-protracted period. Again, God's resting is not spoken of here as present and protracted, but as past. Not God rests or is resting, but rested on the seventh day. And again, it is said that God blessed the seventh day, because in it he had rested. Once more it is to be marked here, that it is the same day expressly on which God rested that he blessed and sanctified. The language is mathematically explicit as to this, And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work which God had created and made.' Thus the friends of the Sabbath must cease to appeal to this passage to prove that the Sabbatical institution was not a Jewish peculiarity, but given to man at his creation; or it must be admitted that the day on which God himself rested is the identical day which he blessed and sanctified as a day to be kept holy by man. But the language of the fourth commandment so harmonises with the words of the inspired historian in Genesis, as to put it beyond all reasonable controversy that they refer to the same thing, and that the day on which God rested is the very day which God set apart to be kept by men as a Sabbath of rest as a commemoration of his rest on that day from all his works. The words of the divine precept are-'Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work.' Why? For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,' etc., and rested the seventh day wherefore,' that is, because he rested on it, the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day, and hallowed it.' There is a remarkable harmony between the commencement and the conclusion of this precept. In the preceptive part they are called to remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy; and in the reason annexed to this it is declared, that God blessed the Sabbath-day and hallowed it. Again, it is the seventh day that they are to keep as a Sabbath; and as a reason for

this it is said, that it was the seventh day on which God rested, and that very day that he blessed. No intimation is given that the term day is not used in the same sense throughout, much less is there, in the language, the least shadow of ground for inferring, that it is used in an almost infinitely different sense in the first and last part of the precept, or in the two last clauses of the precept. Either the seventh day on which God rested was a literal day, or it was not a literal day that God blessed-but his own long Sabbath; and this would destroy the force of the words as a reason. It is manifest, we think, that the seventh day on which God rested is a day of ordinary length, and if so, the point is settled, Mr Miller himself being judge, that the days of creation in Genesis are literal days.

This is confirmed, in the fifth place, by the fact, that the day in which any good began to be enjoyed has usually been set apart as a commemoration of that event-not the whole period during which the enjoyment of that good lasted. We have a striking instance in perfect accordance with the common view, in the days of Purim kept by the Jews to commemorate their deliverance from the wicked conspiracy of Haman. They appointed these days to be kept, because that on them they had rested from their enemies. But no one infers from this language that their rest was only of two days' duration. It is distinctly understood, that these days were kept on the day in which their rest from their enemies commenced. Such also were the other days appointed to be observed by the Jews as annual commemorative festivals; and it remains to be shown, that there ever has been so much as one instance of the consecration of the whole time that succeeded any deliverance, or during which any good was enjoyed, so that the reason for the sense in which it is urged that God's seventh day of rest must be understood, is unheard of, as well as the sense itself.

In the last place, Mr Miller's arguments for God's Sabbath of rest being a protracted period, though ingenious, and stated in such a way as is calculated to strike the fancy, are in themselves liable to objection. According to them there is, so far from being an identity between God's Sabbath and man's, that men profane six parts of the time that God keeps sacred. The Sabbath, too, was appointed to man in a state of innocence, and is thus not exclusively connected with the work of redemption. Nor is God's government and work, since the introduction of man, either exclusively a moral administration in the sense suggested, or connected wholly with the work of redemption. He is still ruling the affairs of the physical world by physical laws, as well as the rational and moral by laws corresponding to their nature. Mr Miller's good sense might have taught him that his argument was too fine spun, and led him to suspect that he was putting a wrong interpretation on Bible language, when, in order to render his interpretation of a precept addressed to all, tangible, he behoved to have recourse to algebraic formula, with which the great body of those who are called to obey the command have no acquaintance.

The new theory, of interpreting the fourth commandment and the

480

LETTER ON THE CULTIVATION OF SACRED MUSIC.

JULY,

days of creation, does not seem therefore to have any thing to support it that should in the least shake our confidence in the soundness of the common view.

(To be concluded in our next.)

LETTER ON THE CULTIVATION OF SACRED MUSIC.

(To the Editor of the Original Secession Magazine.)

SIR,-May I be permitted, through the medium of your Magazine, to make a few remarks on a subject, the importance of which,—as that of many others of equal or greater moment,-is readily admitted in theory, even when most neglected in practice. As there must be an existing cause for this discrepancy, it might be well to inquire into it, with a view to its removal, and the remedy of the evil to which it gives rise the evil, namely, of the very defective, and to many, positively offensive manner in which the worship of God, by means of congregational singing, is conducted. If there is one part of sanctuary service more than another in which the church above and the church below unite, it is in the exercise of praise. If there is one part of that service more than another by which God is especially glorified, it is the sacrifice of praise. If there is one occasion more than another in which the many voices of past generations, whether from the orchestra of David's choir, the stocks of Thyatira's prison, or the heather sward of Scotia's hills,voices for ever silent on earth, but vocal in heaven-can blend with the strains of their posterity all down the stream of time, it is in the offering of praise. Nor can it be supposed that the melody of the heart is all that this offering essentially implies. Shall we then serve our God with that which costs us nought-no attention, no cultivation, no effort, and leave the votaries of antichrist, the votaries of the devil, to pour forth strains of sweetest sound in honour of theirs? Was not the Jewish church reproved for offering a blemished sacrifice (Mal. i. 13); and although under the christian dispensation the external rites of that symbolical economy have passed away, yet the sacrifice of praise by articulate sounds is still as much a divine requisition as the spirit of praise. It is recorded of the infant christian church-of the children of the bride-chamber, while the Bridegroom was yet with them,' when they had sung an hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.' May we form any conjecture who was the leader of that hymn? May we imagine that He who spake as never man spake, also sang as never man sang-that in this sense, too, grace was poured into his lips? Surely at least he who had an eye and an ear for everything, wanted not the most exquisite human taste, which can be gratified by the most exquisite human skill. Ascending to that higher and holier region, where we might listen to the bursting chorus of the redeemed, 'Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive all honour, and glory, and dominion, and power;' and thus realising at once the humanity and divinity of Emmanuel, should we spare any pains to render even the audible expression of our praise as perfect as human science and human skill can make it?

Surely it is not befitting any living church, still less one so zealous for the faith once delivered to the saints, one so champion-like in defence of the truth as it is in Jesus, in all the symmetry of its perfect proportions, as that which your periodical represents, to leave any department of sanctuary service so much at the mercy of jarring discord, as in too many instances the Presbyterian psalmody of Scotland undeniably is. Far be it from me to supersede the intelligent melody of the spirit-toned voice of man by artificial substitutes, calculated as they are to insinuate the piety of the senses, instead of the piety of the soul. It is the due cultivation of the human voice itself, that most perfect of all musical instruments, that needs to be urged, the selection of qualified leaders of the public praise, and the promotion and encouragement, in every legitimate way, of a style of sacred music keeping pace with the proficiency of the children of this world, in what is characterised, and but too often justly, as profane.

By way of practical suggestion-in congregations where an efficient leader is not to be depended upon among the members, might not such be secured by means of a small fund raised by collections or otherwise? Might not congregational classes be recommended, especially amongst the young, for the weekly practising of psalmody under a competent guide, whether a member of the congregation or not? The cultivation of such a taste might tend to prevent the formation of those ruinous habits often arising out of the weariness of unemployed leisure, besides raising the tone of moral feeling, and promoting the object more directly in view.

I have only to commend my remarks to the serious consideration of those who may peruse them, and myself to your kind indulgence, A PHILHARMONIC READER.

as

THE LATE JAMES HALLEY.*

Of all the varied forms of literature, we have ever been disposed to assign to biography the highest place. "The study of mankind is man ;" and certainly there are few pursuits more interesting than to trace the development of character, to watch the secret springs of action, and trace the influences that mould the life. If biography generally is thus interesting, to christian biography may be attached the additional characteristic of being most profitable. 66 Example is better than precept;" and so it happens, that while often the profoundest discourses on religion are listened to or perused with apathy, and soon forgotten, the story of a life exemplifying the law of God written in the heart, and adhered to in the conduct, never fails to produce a powerful impression and lasting influence.

The book before us is eminently fitted for this purpose. Its pious editor has already felt it his duty thankfully to record that it has been useful to many, and we doubt not it is destined to be useful to many more. The present edition is the third, and has been carefully revised, and somewhat condensed, enabling the publisher to offer it at a price which will, we trust, put it within the reach of very many. It has been compiled with great care, and

Memoir of the late James Halley, A.B., student of theology. By the Rev. William Arnot, Glasgow. Third edition, revised. Glasgow: David Bryce.