This argument from geology is at once an evidence of the weakness and presumption of human reason. Suppose all the learned geologists in the world were to agree, that, according to the time occupied in the formation of the strata of the earth, in all parts where the examination has been made, and the date of the formation ascertained, the date of creation should be fixed six thousand years before the date of Moses, what reliance could be placed on this description of evidence? Let the philosopher dig his fossil from the earth, or rend the granite from the mountain; let him examine its structure and analyze its essence, and calculate the time requisite for its formation by the action of fire and water, and what will be the strength of his argument? How easily may he be met by the Christian, and told that God might have formed and arranged all those particles just as they are, at the birth of creation: This simple proposition, bearing upon its face the evidence of its truth, shall scatter to the winds the boasted argument of the philosopher. Creation, in all its parts, had a beginning; men, trees, and plants, no more certainly than rocks. Man was not made first an infant, but he appeared at once in the maturity and perfection of his powers. The plants and trees did not originally commence as seeds in the earth, but they were formed in a mature state. Why might we not build a similar argument from the folds and circles apparent in the wood, when the tree is opened for the inspection of its internal structure? From this examination the naturalist might decipher the age of the stately oak or cedar; but may we not suppose that a tree of similar species, a few days after the birth of creation, would have presented a structure in its parts similar to what was afterwards formed by the same species, in passing by a regular process of years to maturity? Might not the same be the case with rocks and fossil remains? May not God have formed the substance at once of precisely such character as would afterwards result from a long-continued process of precipitation and crystallization? And where, then, is the argument of the geologist? It is surprising that any one should attach the least importance to an argument upon this subject, founded upon geology. But even if the argument could not be silenced in the manner above specified, revelation has nothing to fear from the science of geology; for the learned Cuvier has satisfactorily shown, that the discoveries of geology only tend to confirm the Bible history. Thus the Mosaic account of creation stands vindicated and established as the only accredited record of the origin of man and the world we inhabit.

III. THE EXTENT of creation is the next point to be considered.

Before we commence our inquiries concerning the things produced by creation, according to the account with which we are furnished, it

may not be amiss to mention one or two questions, rather curious than useful, which have frequently been agitated in connection with this subject.

First; we are asked, whether the "six days" mentioned by Moses are to be taken literally, or for periods of an indefinite but more extensive duration? It has been argued, in opposition to the literal interpretation, that for the regular formation of the earth a greater length of time was necessary in passing from fluidity to the state of solidity, and the peculiar structure to which it must have attained in the days of Moses; and besides, the stupendous works produced seem naturally to require a greater length of time for their completion.

To all this it may be replied, that the infinite power of God could have accomplished the whole work, however complicated and stupendous, just as easily in an hour as in a thousand years; therefore, to speak of a great length of time being requisite for perfecting the work of God, seems inconsistent with the correct view of his infinite perfections.

Again; it would be unaccountably singular, if, in the plain narrative and detailed account of creation, we are to understand the word day in a figurative sense, when it is everywhere else in the Bible, in the narrative style, to be taken literally. When we notice the distinct manner in which the day is defined as "the evening and the morning," if the term were not understood literally, we could scarcely vindicate the inspired historian from an intention to mislead.

A second question of great interest to many minds, though perhaps more entirely speculative than the one above named, is this: - Are we to suppose that Moses gives an account of the entire creation of God; or merely of our world, and those worlds with which we are more or less connected, while many other systems and worlds, throughout the immensity of space, may have been created for perhaps millions of ages anterior to that date?

On the one hand it has been said, that to suppose the Almighty to have remained alone, a solitary Being amid immensity, from all eternity, till a few thousand years ago, without once putting forth his creative energies, does not comport with a rational view of the wonderworking Jehovah.

Again; it is argued, that "the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy," at the birth of creation; and that, as we may conclude from the history of the fall, the angels must have been created some time previous to the Mosaic creation, that sufficient time may be allowed for their apostasy and subsequent early attack upon man in Paradise.

To all this, it has been replied, first, that however long the period which we suppose creation to have commenced previous to the "six days" of Moses, still, if it had a commencement at all, there must have been an eternity before it commenced, and, therefore, the Deity must have existed alone, just as long as if nothing had been created till the "six days" specified by Moses; unless we say that one eternity is longer than another, which is absurd. Again; with regard to the angels rejoicing at the birth of creation, it is replied, that they might have been created on the first or second day, or among the first of God's works, and so have been ready to rejoice as they saw the different parts of creation rising up after them. As to their having had time to fall from their first estate, and appear so early in Paradise to seduce our first parents, it is replied, that none can tell how suddenly they may have rebelled and been expelled from heaven, or how long man may have existed in Paradise before he was visited by the tempter. Upon so difficult a question, we would scarce volunteer an opinion. This much, at least, seems clear, that the entire system of which our world forms a part, was created in the "six days."

Again; it has been asked, is creation limited in extent, or is it spread out infinitely throughout the immensity of space? To this, we may be allowed to reply, that as creation must be finite in its different parts, it cannot be infinite in the aggregate; for infinity cannot be made up of finite parts; therefore, whatever we may say as to the unlimited nature of simple space, we conclude that the creation of God must be limited in its extent. At the same time that we avow the belief that the creation of God is not absolutely unlimited in extent, we must also admit that we have abundant reason to infer that the works of God are vast and extensive. This world of ours is only a speck, compared with the numerous and extensive orbs connected with our own system. How exceedingly small, then, must it appear, when we embrace in our contemplation those numerous systems which we may suppose to be spread out amid the vast expanse around us. Το suppose that the Creator had formed so great a number of mighty globes for no grand and important purpose, would directly impeach his wisdom; therefore, the reasonable inference is, that they are peopled by an innumerable multitude of intelligent beings, brought into existence by the power of Omnipotence, for the wise and good purpose of showing forth the perfections and glory of him who "filleth all in all."

But we would now inquire more particularly concerning the INTELLIGENT part of creation. So far as our information has extended, the intelligent creation may all be embraced in two classes, Angels and Men. The Bible furnishes some account of the history, character,

and employment of these two classes of beings; and we will endeavor to ascertain, to some extent, the important information within our reach on this interesting theme.

(I.) ANGELS. The term angel is from the Greek angelos, and signifies, primarily, not a nature, but an office. It means a messenger, or one sent on an embassy.

But the term is very generally used in Scripture to denote a superior order of intelligences inhabiting the heavenly regions. Here, in the very threshold of the subject, we are met by a sceptical objection. Some have even denied the very existence of such beings. In the 23d chapter and 8th verse of the Acts, we learn that the Sadducees denied the existence of angels and spirits. This ancient heresy has had its advocates in almost every age of the world, even among professed believers in revelation. As the Scriptures in numerous passages speak of angels as intelligent and real beings, those who have denied their real existence have been compelled to explain all these passages in a figurative sense. Thus, when unholy angels are spoken of, we are told that nothing is implied but evil principles or unholy thoughts; and when holy angels are spoken of, we are told that nothing is meant but good principles or holy thoughts. To such as make thus free with their Bibles, and entirely subvert, by so palpable an absurdity, the plainest declarations of Scripture, we would only say, go on, if you choose. If the plain account of Scripture does not convince you of the real existence of angels, to reason with you would be perfectly useless. Indeed, if the entire Bible history of the existence and doings of angels is an allegory or figure, we may as well discard the whole volume of revelation, as an idle dream or a silly fable.

From the Bible we learn that there are two descriptions of angels,— fallen or unholy spirits, and holy or good spirits. We would inquire briefly concerning each.

1. Of UNHOLY ANGELS. That these, as they proceeded from the hand of the Creator, were both holy and happy beings, we may clearly infer from the Divine character. He who is perfectly holy and good. could not have produced unholy and miserable beings. His nature forbids it. In confirmation of this truth, we read in the first of Genesis, "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good." Well may we be assured that every creature, as it first came from the creating hand, was free from the least taint of moral evil. That these evil angels were once holy and happy, and fell from that exalted state, is clearly taught in the following passages: John viii. 44. "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do: he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode

not in the truth; because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it." Jude 6. "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day." 2 Pet. ii. 4. "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment."

From these texts we learn that the devil "abode not in the truth," (implying that he was once in it,) and that the sinning angels have left their original habitation, and are now dwellers in the regions of darkness. These are the plain scriptural facts.

The question has often been asked, how came they to sin? There has been much curious speculation in endeavoring to account for the origin of moral evil. That the angels were under a law, is clear from the fact that they sinned. And if under a law which it was possible for them to violate, they must have been in a state of trial and accountability to God. With all these facts in reference to their condition before us, we see no more difficulty in accounting for their fall, than for the fall of man, except that no foreign tempter could have seduced the former. Here we are asked, how could they fall into sin without being first tempted? And how could they be tempted, when, as yet, there was nothing evil in the universe? This much we may say in their case: First; that they did sin and fall, the Scriptures declare.

Second; that there was no evil being in the universe to tempt them to sin, we may clearly infer from the Scriptures.

But how it was that they sinned without being tempted; or, if selftempted, how they could have originated the temptation within their own nature, which as yet was holy, perhaps we cannot fully comprehend; but the facts are revealed, and we are compelled to believe them. Some light, however, may be reflected upon this subject, when we remember that the possibility of sinning is essential to a state of accountability. And, therefore, to say that God could not make it possible for angels to sin, without first creating moral evil, would be to say, that God could not create a moral accountable agent, which would be alike irreconcilable with the Divine character and the Bible testimony. Having premised these things, in reference to the fall of angels, we would now inquire concerning their nature, employment, and destiny.

(1.) THEIR NATURE. That they are spiritual beings, is evident from the Scriptures: "He maketh his angels spirits;" but to comprehend the precise manner in which these spiritual essences exist, is, with us, impossible.