what he here presents as parallels lies in the ordinals; first, second, third. The things that are thus numbered have no analogy whatever. What likeness is there between the first day and the first seal, the first trumpet or the first vial? What analogy is there between what was created on the first day and what was transacted by symbols under the first seal, the first trumpet, or the first vial? The writer is plainly proceeding on the absurd assumption that, inasmuch as several series of symbols in the Apocalypse were presented under seals, trumpets, and vials, that are numbered first, second, third, fourth; therefore all other things, whether periods, agents, objects, acts, or events that are numbered in the Scriptures are also symbols. But if that be just, then, for a like reason, the fact that a far greater share of the symbols of the Apocalypse are not numbered according to the order in which they were seen in the visions, must be an equal proof that all other agents, objects, and events that are presented in the other parts of the sacred word are symbols also. Why not? If the fact that certain symbols were in a series that is numbered, is a proof that all other things that are numbered are symbols;—why will not the fact that many symbols are not in a series that is numbered, prove that all other things that are not numbered are also symbols? But if that be so, then everything like literal history, biography, laws, maxims, hymns, and language predictions is struck from our hands. They are only representatives of something else. We not only have no history of the creation; we have none of the fall, of the flood, of the patriarchs, of the migration of the Israelites into Egypt, of their passage thence through the sea to the wilderness, of the institution of the law with its typical ritual, of their settlement in Canaan, of their apostasies, of their subjugation by foreign nations, of their return from Babylon, of the incarnation, ministry, death, and resurrection of Christ; nor of the proclamation of the gospel, and institution of churches by his disciples! All are turned into mere symbols, of other agents, acts, and events, but who, what, or where, no one can know or conjecture! And all this being in order to save Genesis from confutation by geology, and bring revelation into harmony with science, the way in which that is attained, is by emptying

revelation of every fact and truth that is a subject of science, or has any relation to it, and converting the pages of Scripture into a blank, without an inscription or sign! What an exquisite device for a Christian philosopher! What lofty powers! What adroit training it bespeaks!

His construction of Genesis on this theory, is as lawless and absurd as the principle itself is false.

"What effect, then, would interpretations [on this principle] have upon the history of creation, as symbolizing the history of the world, or rather of the church; for the world exists only for the sake of the church? Might we not read it thus ?

"The first day's work, which consisted in the creation of light, symbolizes the revelation of the gospel in Christ as the object of faith. This was first published in Eden.

"The second day's work, which consisted in the creation of the firmament, symbolizes the institution of civil government.

"The third day's work, which consisted in the separation of the land from the sea, and the creation of vegetation, symbolizes the institution of the visible church in the call of Abraham. May not vegetation symbolize spiritual nourishment, whether it be ordinances or the word of God? If so, may not the creation of grass, herbs, and trees, symbolize the contemporaneous ordinances, revelations, and covenants, which always accompanied each fresh consecration or limitation of the church?

"The fourth day's work, which consisted in the creation of the sun, moon, and stars, symbolizes the rise of the central monarchies, beginning probably with Babylon, and ending with Rome. (This is rendered the more probable from there being no sun in the new heavens of Revelation.)

"The fifth day's work consisted in the creation of birds and fishes. Perhaps we have no warrant for any interpretation of this symbol: but there is some slight reason for supposing that the development of a higher type of animation in the sixth day's work, above the fishes and the birds of the fifth, points to the institution of the Jewish Church as an imperfect development; and consequently the sixth day's work, in so far as the lower animals are concerned, would represent the New Testament dispensation, as the perfecting and fulfilment of the old. This, however, may be mere fancy, as it has no warrant in Scripture.

"The sixth day's work, which consisted in the creation of the beasts, and then of Adam and Eve, symbolizes the incarnation of Christ, the image of the invisible God, receiving his humanity

from the dust of the earth by the Virgin Mary by the immediate act of Deity in Trinity, and his establishment in the government of the world.

"The seventh day symbolizes the rest of God into which we

are to enter.

"How, then, are we to understand the Mosaic narrative? Is it a mere allegory? By no means: else were every other portion of the Books of Moses an allegory also. Every single portion of them is typical, and yet they are authentic history. So it is with the first chapter of Genesis; we may affirm it to be a history as real, and a record as literal, as was at all possible, consistently with the purpose for which it was written. It was written for the Hebrew bondsman, as well as for the Christian philosopher-to reveal the great features of creation to the one, as far as it was possible for him to receive them, without anticipating the discoveries of science for the other."-Pp. 134-136.

Can it be that the writer sincerely thinks the history in Genesis is relieved by this device from the objection of infidel geologists? It looks far more like a treacherous surrendering of the truth of the sacred narrative. For, first, assuming that there is but one method of vindicating it from confutation by geology, he then admits that that method is without authority and defeats itself! "Is it," he asks, “a mere allegory?" and he answers, "By no means; else were every other portion of the books of Moses an allegory also." It is not merely ideal representation, then, but is literally descriptive of facts. He accordingly says, "it is a real authentic history:" yet he claims that it is "typical." But if it is a real and authentic history of facts, its being typical-supposing it to be so-does not save it from irreconcilableness with geology, if the facts which it narrates are in direct contradiction to the postulates or conclusions of that science. So far from it, if the facts that are asserted to be types are false, it will follow that that which they typify is also false. For nothing but realities are used in the Scriptures as types; and they are all used as types in their real genuine nature, and in spheres that were real and natural to them. If, then, the facts related in Genesis are false facts, and yet are used as types, that which they typify must be equally unreal and false; and the infidel, accordingly, may claim that by this writer's own principles, the church, the Jewish institutions,

the incarnation and work of Christ, the gospel, are all mere fictions; as far from the truth, as, on his views, the Mosaic narrative of the creation is from harmony with the doctrines of modern geology! And this, with scarce an attempt to disguise it, he admits, in his closing paragraph, in which he represents that a true history of the creation would have given all the supposed facts of modern science: and that it was to avoid such premature disclosures that the history received the shape it bears, by which it conceals the genuine truth and gives false views. "It was written [not] to reveal [but to conceal] the great features of creation as far as was [necessary to avoid] anticipating the discoveries of science." In what form could this writer more stupidly, or treacherously, whichever it may be, yield to the infidel all he asks? The Bible has no worse enemies than those who undertake to save its first chapter from confutation by theories borrowed from the great corrupters of religion, Origen, Swedenborg and their followers-that empty the whole of its teachings of their genuine meaning, and turn them into senseless myths and deceitful shadows.

He next attempts to prove that the Mosaic history of the creation is in harmony with the nebular theory of the formation of worlds. His assumptions, however, and misconstructions are so groundless and wild that it is not necessary formally to refute them. He proceeds confessedly on mere hypothesis, and is not at all embarrassed by the irreconcilableness of his construction with the language of the sacred narrative. The earth is turned into water, the water into air, and the air into gas, at his bidding, with the utmost ease. We will quote a single passage in which he attempts to show, by a series of suppositions, how the creative acts of the fourth day may be construed into harmony with the theory that millions of years intervened between the periods denoted by the first and the fourth day.

"We may observe, that if in accordance with our chemical understanding of earth and water, [that they mean gas] the atmosphere was at one time burdened with the entire mass of the ocean in a state of aqueous vapor; and if, moreover, the sun be continually increasing in its bulk and splendor, these two circumstances, taken together, would sufficiently account for

all that is stated by Moses on the subject. If some 30,000,000 of years ago, the sun had only one-half of its present diameter, and only one-quarter of its light; and if at that period the atmosphere of our planet resembled the present supposed atmosphere of Jupiter, in being several thousands of miles deep, and varying in its density and temperature to a degree such as we can scarcely understand; it is evident that although by the rotation of the earth on its axis there would be a succession of light and darkness over its surface, still the sun, as we know it now, did not then exist, and could not have given any indication of its presence in any visible form. It could only be at a period long subsequent, when the sun had attained a magnitude somewhat approaching to its present size, and when the atmosphere had considerably decreased in density and increased in transparency, that the sun, moon, and stars would become visible at the surface of the earth; and then it might be said, in the language of inspiration, that they would rule the day and the night; and be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and for years."-Pp. 146, 147.

To what lower level could the most rabid infidel wish the authority of the Divine word degraded, than it is in this professed attempt to save it from confutation by science? If the terms of the Mosaic record may be assumed to have meanings that are wholly unknown to them; if the facts which they express may be taken to be what the nebular theory affirms; then the record and the theory are identical as far as the record extends! But this reckless trifler seems not to have seen that if the principle on which he proceeds is legitimate, it is as applicable to the nebular theory, as it is to the history in Genesis, and as effectually shrinks his 30,000,000 of years, and his ocean of gas extending half way to the moon, into the dimensions of the Mosaic narrative, taken in its literal sense, as it works the opposite effect in the six days, and the earth, water, air, and sun of the Mosaic history. If four days may mean 30,000,000 of years, because this writer of the Stars and Angels has a particular "chemical understanding of earth and water;" why may not his 30,000,000 of years be but four days, inasmuch as Moses had a "chemical understanding of earth and water," which implies that that was the period occupied by the creator antecedent to the fifth