denied. To a very great extent it may safely be asserted that the fossil phenomena it has brought to light-the remains of organized beings, which in their peculiar type characterize each successive stratum-have wonderfully corroborated the statement of physical truth supplied to us in the first chapter of Genesis. If geology has not done everything, its discoveries and deductions have done much, and may yet do much more, to prove the veracity of the Mosaic record. The chief, if not the only difficulty, is in respect to the time which elapsed in the production of our earth according to its present configuration. Scripture says, "In six days God created the heaven and the earth." Geologists say, the phenomena we produce demonstrate this to be untrue. What are we then to say? Nature is God's book. The Bible is God's book. Is God, then, in nature and revelation, opposed to Himself? This cannot be. It would end the whole controversy, if we could prove that by the word " day," in the Mosaic record, is meant an indefinite period of time. Philologists have laboured to prove this. They say the word bears this extended sense, and that it is so used in the following chapter: "These are the generations of the heaven and the earth. . . . in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." This may be so. But, as it has been justly objected, the expression, "the evening and the morning"-" the evening and the morning were the first day"-plainly defines the sense in which the word is used in the first chapter. "Day, Day," as there used, means unquestionably, or as far as biblical criticism has at present reached, a natural day of twenty-four hours' duration.* Here, then, Revelation and Science join issue. How shall we reconcile them? There does not at present appear to be any way of doing so. Not one of the attempts to do so is thoroughly satisfactory. But it is demanded of us, because we cannot reconcile them, that we should give up this sublime record of Creation. It is scientifically false, say geologists, and therefore cannot be part of an inspired revelation from God. To this some have answered, that it is not the object of Revelation to teach man physical truth, but simply to instruct him in those spiritual truths which he has no capacity in himself to discover. But have we not here a detailed statement of physical truth, the very method and phraseology of which suggest a claim for authoritative teaching? Others, again, assert that, three centuries ago, the corrected view of the heavenly bodies overthrew * According to both Parkhurst and Lee the Hebrew word has this signification. Parkhurst says it denotes "tumult." Hence its signifi cation "day," from the tumultuous motion or agitation of the celestial fluid while the sun is above the horizon. Lee: "The natural day from sunset to sunset, including the space of twentyfour hours." the then established theory of the universe, and thus contradicted Scripture; but that, though Scripture, which employed the common phraseology of mankind, adopted from the apparent motion of the heavenly bodies, was thus contradicted, no one has thought of giving up Scripture in consequence. If it were argued, that Holy Scripture, which survived that contest, will probably survive this, we could go entirely with those who use this argument. But as to analogy between the two cases, there is none. We are not called upon, in the matter before us, to judge by the appearance of things, but by facts. The sun appears to us to this very hour to revolve round the earth, but it never appeared to any man that the world was created in six natural days. The foundation of our belief of this is the record before us, and this alone. No: to use plain language, we must look this difficulty in the face. What, then, we repeat, shall we do? Shall we give up this history of Creation? How can we do so? Does what has been advanced in its support establish its claim to our reception? Has it always formed part of those writings which have been accepted and accredited as the inspired will of the Creator of the Universe? Was it written by him who claimed to have received the religion he taught by the inspiration of the Almighty? How then can we give it up? We cannot do so. Shall we, then, turn round and say, it is not Scripture, it is Geology, that is in error? This, too, would be unreasonable. Its phenomena are established facts. The steps which have led to its conclusions are as rational, clear, and consecutive, as those of a rule-of-three sum.* Those conclusions cannot be contradicted. It would be folly to deny them. You cannot persuade a geologist of the untruth of his position, in the face of the physical phenomena presented to the plain cognizance of his senses. His assertions remain to this hour uncontradicted. What, then, in this difficulty, are we to do? We have good ground for believing the Mosaic record of creation to be a true one. We have good ground for believing the deductions of geology to be true also. Neither can yield. What are we then to do? What it appears right to do is this: We must wait; and we must wait with patience. The cause of truth will not be forwarded by hasty demands on either side. A question of such momentous importance requires the utmost caution, calmness, and forbearance. The language of triumph may be hastily adopted before the victory is achieved. Let us wait with patience. On the one side, Biblical criticism, still advancing * The abandonment of the igneous theory in the formation of the primary rocks—a long-established fact of geology-does not interfere with this remark. with a steady progress, may throw fresh light upon the Sacred Record, and thus clear up what is at present dark and unintelligible. On the other side, the continued investigations of scientific men may modify the objections which their own discoveries have raised; and the Temple of Truth, so far from being demolished by the Genius of Science, may be more firmly fixed upon its basis by its future revelations. At least, let us bear in mind that geology is a science scarcely yet out of its infancy, and that the very rapidity of its growth has led to the surrender of some of its earliest theories. Let neither side presume, but each patiently, and in a truth-loving spirit, pursue its investigations. We need have little fear but that ultimately they will be found to harmonize, and that in Revelation and Nature God's teaching will be found to be one. In the meantime, let us beware lest, infected by the sceptical spirit evoked by these difficulties, we are led to denounce a Revelation which we are too idle or too wicked to peruse. There is an eternal world, let us remember, where our responsibilities in this respect, as in every other, must be accounted for. Let us humbly believe, that if in a prayerful spirit we "search the Scriptures," we shall be made wise unto salvation; and that any difficulties which, in spite of all our inquiries, remain, will be there for ever removed. In heaven, at least, our knowledge will be perfect. "In an eternity, what scenes shall strike! If inextinguishable thirst in man To know; how rich, how full, our banquet there? Its ample sphere, its universal frame, In full dimensions, swells to the survey, And enters, at one glance, the ravished sight."-YOUNG. ANTICHRIST. DANIEL the Prophet, John the Divine, and Paul the Apostle, have all written, in the Scriptures of truth, concerning Antichrist. We understand the word in its twofold and full signification. The long-lasting adversary intended, is not only a determined enemy to Christ and His truth, but one who usurps the place, and claims to be the representative, of Christ-His Vicar upon earth. Romanists and Tractarians, almost without exception, look upon Antichrist as an adversary who has not yet appeared. "We Christians," says Dr. Pusey, "look for an Antichrist yet to come. Our Lord has forewarned us of him, and his deceivableness; and St. Paul describes such an one as Daniel speaks of." (Daniel the Prophet, page 89.) We Protestants look upon Antichrist as long ago developed and matured; and we are now waiting, with the most intense expectation, for the terrible overthrow that awaits him in these last days; and we know from the sure word of prophecy, that his manifold abominations and his long-lasting tyranny are about to come to a perpetual end. If, it has been said, the Pope of Rome were indicted upon the charge of being the Antichrist described in the Holy Scriptures, and twelve impartial men, acting as a jury, were to hear him tried, after all the evidence by which the charge was substantiated, there can be no doubt they would every one be agreed in their verdict, and with one voice they would pronounce him guilty, and the charge proven. One memorable passage of Scripture (2 Thess. ii. 3—12), if others were wanting, to our mind at least would be amply sufficient to justify such a verdict. Very decisive was the language, and very animating was the manner, in which the blessed apostle had spoken to these Thessalonians in his first epistle of the second and glorious coming of Christ,-" The Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air." These words, and others of a similar import, the believers to whom they were first addressed had not rightly apprehended. They inferred from them that the coming of Christ was close at hand; and they felt stumbled and disappointed that it did not immediately take place. It was to rectify their misapprehension of his words that the apostle gave utterance to the marvellous prediction before us. tells them expressly that Christ would not come until there had He been first a most grievous and long-lasting apostasy from the faith once delivered to the saints. It is true he does not mention the time of its continuance. But he speaks of its gradual development; and from his description, the inference is plain that it must necessarily be extended through a lengthened period. In addition to this, he affirms positively, that one of the ends to be answered by the coming of Christ, will be utterly to destroy, in the most terrible and glorious manner, the ringleader and the main upholder of the monstrous system of fraud and hypocrisy, delusion, and wickedness, which he describes. Now, with all solemnity, and without the slightest doubt or hesitation upon our mind, we assert that this chapter is a most wonderful prophecy of the rise and progress, the character and the doom, of the Papal apostasy, as governed and directed by the Pope of Rome. Neither let it be said that this is a mere "private interpretation" of a difficult and obscure prediction. The great and blessed fathers of the glorious Reformation unite to a man in the interpretation which we adopt. They shall speak for themselves. Never did the blessed Apostle of the Gentiles make a more noble defence, both of himself and his doctrine, than he did on the memorable occasion when it was said to him, "Paul, thou art permitted to speak for thyself." And never, we feel persuaded, are the true doctrines and genuine principles of our Reformed Church so unmistakeably to be learnt, as when the same licence is given to the Reformers themselves. Let us hear what they say. "The Romish Antichrist," says Cranmer, the first Protestant archbishop of Canterbury, "to deface the great benefit of Christ, has taught that His sacrifice upon the cross is not sufficient without another sacrifice, devised by Him, and made by His priest." In speaking of our Reformed Church, these are the words of Grindal, the first Protestant archbishop of the northern province :-"Not only are all the impious traditions and ceremonies of the Papists taken away, but also that tyranny, which the Pope has for so many ages exercised over the Church, is altogether abolished; and it is provided that all persons shall in future acknowledge him to be very Antichrist, the son of perdition, of whom St. Paul speaks." "The See of Rome," says the martyr Bishop Ridley, "is the seat of Satan, and the bishop of the same, who maintains its abominations, is Antichrist himself indeed." Equally explicit is the testimony of the blessed Hooper, both martyr and bishop. These are his words:"The very properties of Antichrist-I mean of Christ's great and principal enemy-are openly known to all men that are not blinded by the smoke of Rome." Here is another witness. "In testimony of this faith," said the holy John |