strain of Scripture confirms the first natural common interpretation of Genesis. "For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited," Isa. xlv. 18. "I have made the earth, and created man upon it; I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded." Our Lord, the Creator of all things, speaks in the same way: From the beginning of the creation which God created," Mark xiii. 19. "From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female." Mark x. 6. Peter replies (chap. iii. 4) to the mockery of infidels, by showing that all things have not continued in the same state from the beginning; for there has been a flood; not, there have been many creations and destructions.

It may be said, this refers to the change which the Mosaic creation made on the surface, but the sacred writers call the Mosaic creation, (the only one they knew,) the laying of the foundations of the world, not the rebuilding of a ruined edifice on old foundations. Hebrews iv. 3, applies this phrase to that creation which took place when the Sabbath was instituted to celebrate God's rest from the Mosaic creation. If it is possible that all this may be fairly har monised with the Geologist's theory of ante-Mosaic creations, I do not yet see how.

Is it probable that God should place our first parents on the earth, to study these works, and leave them under the false impression of being in a new house just made for them, when it was in reality thousands of years old, and had been destroyed over and over again? Yet, if Adam knew the Geologist's theory he could not fail to impart it to his sons, who would have handed down some tradition of it. But both the Jewish and Christian churches, the former under inspired prophets, including Moses, the historian of creation; the latter under Christ the creator, and his inspired apostles, have always believed that the opening of Genesis recorded the first creation of all things. Those pretended histories that give a date much prior to that of Moses, still suppose that the earth has been inhabited by man from that time to the present. On this paragraph I do not lay much stress; but it deserves consideration.

I now appeal to the Deluge. For this

destruction of the earth, Scripture assigns a moral cause-the sin of man, the moral agent, the Lord of the earth. Geology supposes many a destruction of the earth without a moral cause; for there was no moral agent then on the earth. When we view the marks of the deluge, we see God's wrath against man's sin. But as the sublime prophet asks concerning the drying up of the Red Sea and the Jordan, was the Lord displeased against the rivers ? Was thy wrath against the sea? We ask, Was the Lord wrath with the Saurians? was his anger against the Pterodactyli? Who was to be punished or instructed, by the destruction of worlds without souls? When Noah warned his sons against sin, saying, "You see God's displeasure against it in the marks of the flood;" if they were Geologists, they would reply, "Not so. There were worlds upon worlds destroyed, before there was any sin, and there fore this last desolation is no proof of the evil of sin; but of the Creator's love for dashing worlds to pieces."

Now of these and other scriptural objec tions to the Geologist's notion of worlds made and destroyed thousands of years before that of which Moses speaks, we who are no Geologists can judge as well as those who are. Nay, we are more likely to be impartial judges; for when a man is enamoured of the Saurians of a former world, he is in danger of putting Scripture to the rack to make it speak the language of Geologists.

It may, however, be said that this is setting up Scripture in opposition to science, which exposes Revelation to the contempt of the scientific. We answer, that the true meaning of Scripture and true science, coming from the same author, will never be in opposition; and if we discover the meaning of Scripture, we have at once what science will at last confirm. But we contend that though the facts of Geology are the elements of science, the theories that have been formed concerning the causes of these facts are not necessarily science. Many of them are now exploded as false, and therefore these were not science when they were called by that name; and I now proceed to show why I reject the assumption that worlds were created and destroyed immense periods before the Mosaic, and that this is the true science of the history of the earth.

I have already shown that the earth has not been sufficiently investigated, especially in that part which is most

important, which was the cradle of

the human race, and has most relation to the Mosaic history of the creation and deluge.

Time is the grand plea of the Geologists. They say the facts require more time than the Mosaic chronology affords. Of this we are not competent to judge. Beyond a certain point, time is of no advantage. When once waters are still, their deposits may be made with the same effect, in a short time, according to the pressure; and all time, afterwards, goes for nothing. Mr. Cross's experiment shows that we have been much out in our calculations of the time that is required to produce certain effects. Agassiz says of the layers of fishes in ancient marine strata, that the rate of deposition of these strata must have been almost inconceivably rapid. We know that the carbonate of lime in the dropping well at Knaresborough covers and apparently transforms to stones, birds or other substances, with surprising rapidity. The footmarks of living creatures in rocks show that these must have been rapidly covered by other strata; and that living creatures were passing over the earth when what are now hard rocks were yet soft, indicative of a rapid succession of events. Williams, the Missionary, contends that the theory of philosophers concerning the coral isles is refuted by well-known facts in the Pacific.

Mr.

3. If we judge by analogy from what we know, we shall conclude, that God does not create, and then destroy so completely as to make it necessary to create over again, according to the Geologist's theory. Of the last revolution, which, Cuvier says, is the one best proved, we have a record in Scripture; and we know that the Creator preserved men and beasts and vegetables, so that there was no necessity for a new creation; which term Scripture has reserved for spiritual changes. The identity of fossil organisations with existing things, is, I believe, now admitted to extend more widely than was formerly supposed. If some species or genera that once existed are now extinct; wolves once existed in this isle, and are now extinct; as are other creatures that once were seen here. That there has been but one creation, and one partial, not complete, destruction, is the opinion best supported by existing facts; and by all that we actually know, whether by history or revelation.

4. I do not find, amidst all the theories that have been formed, any adequate attention to Revelation, or even to the oldest and most respectable history, taking Moses simply as a historian. Geologists seem to take it for granted that they have exhausted the whole range of hypotheses, and that there is none that can accord with the Scripture record of one creation and one destruction. But there is yet room for other theories. It is too readily assumed, that Moses asserts the whole earth to have been at first fitted for the abode of man. To me this seems neither asserted nor probable. What was the necessity, or use, for such an arrangement, when only a single pair were created ? It was enough that the earth was fitted for them, as far as they could inhabit it; and the Garden of Eden indicates the fitting up of a central spot for the special use of man. All the rest of the world might have been left in the state in which Geologists suppose the whole to have been, before the Mosaic creation. There was plenty of room for the Saurians, without disturbing Adam, or frightening Eve.

But, then, it is generally supposed that mankind multiplied rapidly, and covered the whole earth. This I do not believe. Noah, in the six hundredth year of his life, reckoned eight persons, as forming his whole family. If this was an average number from one man, in six hundred years, the race could not have multiplied very fast, and we may see why the merciful Creator determined that it should not-that the judgment inflicted by the deluge should not be so severe as it would have been if the whole earth had been inhabited. The Scriptures suppose the whole world to have been within the reach of Noah's warning voice and actions; and the most rational supposition is, that the human race did not extend over a very large circumference from the central abode of the first parent. There was then space enough and time enough, in 1656 years before the deluge, for the most mighty changes in rapid succession. If the earth was then heated all over to a tropical temperature, as is supposed, the rapid advance of animal and vegetable life may have afforded opportunity for all the productions and destructions which the phenomena require. But when the flood broke up the cradle of the human race, "the fountains of the great deep being broken

up," this part of the earth was again fitted for the abode of man, while yet there was no necessity that the rest should be restored. On the mountainous region of Ararat, it was natural that men should long linger, before descending into the plain of Shinar. The sending off of colonies was probably the consequence of discovering that other lands had become pleasantly habitable in the days of Peleg. But they would extend their circle, as they multiplied, and found other habitable regions. For hundreds of years, then, the greater part of the earth might still have been subject to violent changes, though only that one is noticed which was most important, as affecting the abode of man.

But this jeu d'esprit of a non-geologist will be thought to be the systemmaking which I condemn. It is, however, not world-making, especially it is not the creation of worlds before that of which the Creator has informed us. It is merely designed to show that there is an open field for hypotheses, within the bounds of revelation.

I am encouraged and induced to dispute the ante-Mosaic theory, because I know that practical men, who have advantages over what Cuvier calls closet Geologists, seriously adduce their reasons for thinking that the present course of scientific men is no more in harmony with sound philosophy than with Revelation. But one of these Geological dissenters, Dr. Young, of Whitby, has lately been reviewed most unfairly in a religious periodical, whose editor naturally committed the work to the criticism of a Geologist, and he, instead of fairly giving Dr. Young's reasons for adhering to the Mosaic date of the world, has, rather superciliously, attempted to overwhelm him with authorities, of which Dr. Young knew more, perhaps, than his reviewer. It is remarkable, that the only argument brought against the Scriptural Geology is derived by travelling out of the record, as the lawyers say, and, from Geology, passing over to astronomy. Dr. Young appears not to be aware, the reviewer says, of the argument, that there are parts of the luminous heavens from which the light which makes them known to us, has taken two millions of years to arrive at our globe. Dr. Young might fairly say, "One thing at a time, Gentlemen. Geology to-day: astronomy to-morrow."

This is a twin sister to the argument I refuted in my first paper, which, it is notorious, has been ostentatiously_paraded, notwithstanding all that J. P. S. says. But the reviewer evidently thinks much of his astronomical argument; and there really is nothing in it, for it proceeds from a principle that he must reject. Otherwise, from the first moment that the Scriptures present our first parents as full grown people, he must say, "It cannot be less than twenty or thirty years since they entered into life; for it takes so long time to bring a human being up to that maturity which this pair now exhibit. In like manner, all the creatures around them, whether animals, or trees of the garden, must be pronounced many years old, from the first moment of their creation; for Adam had ripe fruit to eat, from the sixth day." How would the reviewer meet this difficulty? By abandoning the principle of his astronomical argument. He must say, that creation is a miracle which follows not the present course of nature. The first living being must of necessity be a miracle; for it could not have sprung from others, by the law that now prevails; and if Adam had not been endued from the first with that maturity which we now acquire by a long course of years, he must have perished. We cannot then apply the laws by which things continue, to their origin, when the law itself received birth. Apply this reasoning to the stars; and you see them shining, from the moment of their creation, upon Paradise and its Lord, all endued in a moment, with the maturity that might be thought to demand years or ages of advancement. Man is full grown, trees are loaded with fruit, and stars have shot their beams to earth. So much for the astronomical argument of the ante-Mosaic worlds.

The conclusion of J. P. S. demands a word. He says, that "the crystalline, or unstratified rocks, have originated in the melting action of fire."

Can he tell us at which of the extremities, the gaseous, or the solidified state of matter, the Creator ought to begin? Can he inform us why matter ought not to come crystallized from the Divine hand? Is not this the form it seems naturally to take in inorganic substances, by which they are distinguished from the organic? But I forbear, though I have a host of observations, for which I

could gladly ask room. I conclude with saying, that I am not insensible to the real claims of Geology; while I find myself in the position, that compels me

to take the sage advice, "Where you are in the dark, and know not which way to go, stand still." BETA.

To the Editor of the

THE title of this article, Mr. Editor, intimates that it is designed for general readers, and not for the learned. And if I concede again, that I have made a free use of several esteemed and standard old authors, I may still be able to present what shall be new and interesting to most of them. The glory of the Divine word is admirably glanced at by our inimitable Cowper :

"A glory gilds the sacred page,
Majestic, like the sun;
It gives a light to every age;

It gives, but borrows none."

Bishop Taylor says, "Let us go to God for truth; for truth comes from God only. If we miss the truth, it is because we will not find it; for certain it is, that all the truth which God hath made necessary, he hath made all legible and plain; and if we will open our eyes we shall see the sun, and if we will walk in the light we shall see the light."

Under the auspices and sanction of so great a name as that of Taylor, I beg to call the reader's attention to the Apostle's authority:-"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness," 2 Tim. iii. 16. I shall offer, not a sermon, but some concise and suitable remarks on this memorable passage, memorable from its adaptation to men in every age, and in every variety of condition and character.

To prove the perfection of Scripture, let us reflect on its inspiration: for it is "given of God." Its authority, its majesty, its immutability, and its influence are derived from "the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." If the apostle, in the above passage, alluded in the first instance to the Old Testament Scriptures; yet now that the canon of the New is complete, and added to the Old, with what greater satisfaction and delight

sion.

The moral character of these holy men is a proof of their inspiration. They were men of eminent piety towards God, and equally known for their universal integrity towards all men. Their well-known sanctity and good character gave weight and authority to their messages to mankind, whether of judgment or of mercy. For they dare not deceive, nor utter that as a revelation from God, which they were not satisfied came from him. Their authority — “Thus saith the Lord"-had a power and pungency in it that became irresistible: and the same authority, sustained by such exemplary characters, should forbid all doubting and debating in our minds.

We may inquire into the doctrines, or communications of these men of God, and we shall find, that they could not proceed from themselves, but from him who sent them. Their doctrines directly maintain the supreme authority, majesty, and glory of God; and hence they tend to abase the guilty race of man, "that no flesh should glory in his presence." A revelation from a holy God must directly enjoin and promote knowledge and virtue; and hence it teaches and commands mankind to deny "all ungodliness and worldly lusts, and that we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world." While revelation contains things sublime, and above our comprehension; yet there is nothing unreasonable, and nothing op

posed to human happiness; "for this would be to make the all-wise God to set up one light to extinguish another."

Consider now the external proofs, or credentials, that these holy men have given of their inspiration; and these two are, miracles and the fulfilment of prophecy. Take two instances respecting miracles. When Moses and Aaron were summoned by the authority of Pharaoh "to show a miracle," as a proof of their mission; Aaron, at the previous command of the Lord, "cast down his rod before Pharaoh and his servants, and it became a serpent." But when the magicians of Egypt did in like manner produce serpents, it is added, "but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods," Exod. vii. 9-12. When John Baptist sent to inquire of Jesus whether he was the Christ or not? Christ replied, "Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see; the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the Gospel preached unto them," Matt. xi. 4, 5. And so confident was the Saviour as to the unanswerable nature of the test of his own miracles, that he could demand the belief of his enemies in his Divine mission,-"Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, or else believe me for the very work's sake. Can any man do the miracles that I have done, except God was with him ?" How confounding, if not convincing, was this appeal!

In the fulfilment of prophecy also, we have abundant proof of inspiration. What mere man can foretell the events of the morrow? who can tell what shall transpire in ages to come? This is the sole prerogative of God, who alone knows the end from the beginning. These holy men must then have known that they were inspired; for they often declare, that "the word of the Lord came unto them at such a time;" and this accounts for their bold and imperative mode of address:-"Thus saith the Lord: Hear the word of the Lord, which he spake, &c." Upon the most substantial proofs, therefore, the Jewish people were satisfied, and received the writings of their prophets into the canons and rule of faith. Let these brief arguments be duly weighed, and carried out in all their bearings, and you will have the most satisfactory evidence that the Old Testa

ment Scriptures were truly given by the inspiration of God. You may expatiate at leisure on the records of infirmities and sins, which the several writers give, and often against themselves, their families, and friends; on the glorious promises they announce; on their sublime strains of devotion; on their holy commands and moral precepts; and on their awful threatenings of God's wrath against his enemies: all these attest the divinity and perfection of the Old Testament writings.

But we who live in these last ages of the church and the world have the striking and additional reason for our faith, in all that relates to the fulfilment of the prophecies concerning the person and kingdom of Christ Jesus, to the end of time. Hence the apostle, who wrote to the Hebrews, could say, that "God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake to the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." And surely this proves, that if Jesus Christ is the Son of God, his doctrine, relating to his person, his kingdom, and glory, must be a revelation from God. How strange is it that the Jews, and other unbelievers should dare to deny his claims to be the Messiah, the Saviour of a lost world! For only at the passing minute inquire, what was prophesied of the Son of God?—That he should be incarnate before the sceptre should depart from Judah; that he should be born of a virgin; that he should be of the seed of David, and of the tribe of Judah; that he should be born at Bethlehem; that his name should be Immanuel; that he should appear in the form of a servant; and after a life of poverty and contempt, he should be betrayed by one of his own household, and be cut off for the sins of the people. Well might our Lord upbraid his disciples with this powerful reproof:-"O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?" Luke xxiv. 25, 26.

Then, in confirmation, let it be remarked, that the gracious miracles our Saviour performed, the sublime doctrines he delivered, the holy life he exhibited, and the amazing death he endured; these were all demonstrations of the truth and perfection of the word of God, that had thus announced his coming into the world, with his sufferings