umphantly inquires, "what must we think of this chapter of Moses which represents God not only in the shape of a man, but laboring, moulding clay, wearied and resting like him?" A general answer to all such objections as this was given in the preceding section of this work. But it may be necessary to remark, that Moses does not, in the chapter referred to, represent God "in the shape of a man ;" and surely no one who considers the noble account there given of the creation, that God is represented as having only spoken and it was done, can reasonably imagine that Moses represents the Almighty as laboring like a man, that he was tired with that labor, as though he had moulded every thing with his hands, and that he lay or sat down for rest. If any doubts remain concerning the true meaning of Moses, it can be ascertained by appealing to some one of the other writers of the Old Testament Scriptures, as Mr. Olmsted himself has done, to ascertain what he meant by the word heaven. And Isaiah "Hast thou not known, hast thou not heard that the everlasting God, the creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary?" Now what must we think of this Infidel, who says of the sublime narrative which has been under consideration, that it is "not only false, but a farago of nonsense and irreverence that would disgrace a Hottentot?" Are we not forcibly reminded of that saying, "Where angels tremble, fools rush in?"

says,

The infidel Taylor and others have urged against the credibility of the Mosaic account of the creation, that the human race has a much higher antiquity than Moses represents, and they found their argument on the zodiacs in the temples of Latopolis and Tentyra, two ancient cities in the upper Egypt. The argument is rested on a great astronomical fact, the precision of the equinoxes. The equinoctial and solstitial points, do not invariably occupy the same places in the ecliptic, but have a retrograde motion of about 50" degrees in a year; by which they will accomplish a revolution in about 25.750 years. Now, in the zodiac of Latopolis, the modern Esneh, we are told that Leo is represented as the last of the ascending signs, and it is asserted that a sphinx there represents the sun at the summer solstice, just in the point where the last degree of Leo meets the first degree of Virgo. But at present the colure of the summer solstice is in the first degree of Gemini; and therefore it is inferred, that as the space between the first degree of Gemini and the last degree of Leo, is to the whole of the ecliptic, so must the period elapsed since the construction of the zodiac of Latopolis be to 25.750

and Religion, gives the following reply: "This inference would no doubt be consequentially drawn, if it were proved that the above was a true explanation of the zodiac of Latopolis, and that that zodiac was a correct picture of the heavens at the time of its formation. But on these points doubts and suspicions crowd in upon us. Plutarch and Macrobius would have been surprised and amused to hear the sphinx spoken of as an emblem of the sun. The Egyptians, it is true, worshiped that luminary under different names and symbols; but the sphinx was not one of them. To imagine then that this symbol represents the sun, is a gratuitous and unauthorized assumption.

Besides there is no good reason to believe that the zodiac of Latopolis was a correct picture of the heavens at the time of its formation. Although we allow the highest praise to the genius and industry of ancient astronomers, yet it cannot be denied that their instruments were rude and clumsy, and many of their observations inaccurate. They erred more than half a degree in the latitude of Syene, a place at no great distance from Latopolis; and does this encourage the presumption that they were qualified to give a correct delineation of the zodiac? The Egyptians were, moreover, very vain, and boasted of a high antiquity. After the days of Hipparchus, might they not give false representations of the heavens with a view to countenance this vanity?"

Dr. Richardson, who examined the drawings in these temples, thinks that it requires a good deal of imagination to make them zodiacs; and some late interpreters of the hierogliphics make them the work of Roman emperors. That of Tentyra, the modern Dendera, by M. Leloncien, has been removed from the temple of Isis, there, to Paris. From the inspection of the annexed plate of it, it is believed the reader will agree with Dr. Richardson that it requires a considerable stretch of imagination to make this a zodiac. But supposing that it is, it will be seen that what has been taken for Leo is not represented as the last of the ascending, but as the first of the descending signs. And this shows that at least one of these zodiacs is posterior to the time of Hipparchus. For if one of these zodiacs represents Leo as the last of the ascending and the other as the first of the descending signs, (supposing them to be correct,) this is a demonstration that the solstitial, and consequently the equinoctial points are movable. But this, as is well known, was the grand discovery of Hipparchus; a discovery in no degree owing to the zodiacs of Latopolis and Tentyra, but made by comparing his own observations with those of Arystellus and Temochares about one hundred and fifty years before. Hipparchus diligently inquired into all the observations of the Chaldean and Egyptian astronomers; but

although it is probable that the former of these nations cultivated astronomy before the latter, yet he could find no observations that had been made at Babylon, previous to the reign of Matonassar, seven hundred and forty-seven years before Christ. Berozus, a Chaldean, who lived about three hundred years before the Christian era, knew of no monuments of Chaldean astronomy more ancient than four hundred and eighty years before his time; and neither Hipparchus nor Ptolomy ever heard of observations for nineteen hundred and three years, transmitted by Callisthenes to Aristotle, about the year 381, before Christ. Lemplicius, a peripatetic philosopher, and commentator on Aristotle, who lived in the sixth century of the Christian era, makes mention of such observations; but his authority, and that of Porphyry, from whom he borrowed the story, are too modern to be entitled to any regard. In short, these supposed zodiacs were unknown to Hipparchus; and if they had existed in his time, they would not have escaped the notice of that careful observer and indefatigable inquirer. To them he would have appealed, as well as to the observations of Arystellus and Timochares, in proof of the procession of the equinoxes. But it is unnecessary to dwell upon the subject, for there is no evidence that the Egyptians had zodiacs, with our signs, and names, before the establishment of the Greeks in that country.

This vindication of the Mosaic account of the creation, cannot be better closed, than by the following very judicious remarks of Dr. Keith in his demonstration of the truth of Christianity. "Astronomers have written on "the construction of the heavens,"" the architecture of the heavens," while geologists have described the successive formations in the crust of the earth. Moses records the creation of the heavens and of the earth. Their conjoint subjects are the same as his.

Astronomers have designated the first and the rudest form in which matter is visible, as nebulosities and nebulæ, i. e., cloudiness and cloud, and have termed their component substance the nebulous (or cloudy) fluid. And how else could waters without form and void, or vapory and uncondensed, be more appropriately designated? The nebulosities are without form, and diffuse or void. And so also were the heavens and the earth, after the light rendered them visible. As exhibited by the great brightness in some parts, and extreme faintness in others, of the same nebulosity, the light may be seen divided

The reader is specially referred to the very interesting and able work of Dr. Nichol, Professor of Practical Astronomy, Glasgow University, in which the sub