concerning the creation and early history of the globe, the geologist takes our planet as he finds it, and goes to work to determine from the globe itself its genesis, and in the tablets of its rocks and strata reads the incontestable proof of an immensely greater antiquity than that which appears to be ascribed to it by the literal record of Moses. The evidence on this head is such as the human mind, by its inherent laws, cannot possibly resist, when it is fairly spread before it. The enlightened geologist has no more doubt in regard to his conclusions, than the astronomer has in regard to his. They stand upon the impregnable basis of a sound scientific induction. And we ask again, Is he doing wrong by thus going on, in the first instance, independent of revelation, and working out his problems by the light of the evidence which the phenomena of the earth itself afford? Is science sacrilege in this sphere of its operations? May not the earth be studied, as well as the sun and the stars? And may not induction here be as legitimate and unimpeachable as in the sphere of the kindred science? Yet here too we know that the same jealous fear of periling the interests of revelation has been evinced as that which impeded the progress of astronomical truth. The bare whisper that a longer duration than 6000 years is to be ascribed to our earth, has been drowned in a tempest of remonstrance on the score of endangering the credit of the Mosaic annals. But the disciples of geology, assured that truth may be known to be truth, have calmly held on in the career of observation and inference, till at length there be

tion of Cardinals" established the earth at the centre of the system, where it properly belonged, the sun was sent again whirling upon his daily circuit, and the arch-heretic by a dash of his pen, or a word of his lips, transmuted into a true philosopher and a saint worthy the calendar! What a pity that, after such an orthodox adjustment, the solar system should itself have fallen back into the very heresy which its expounder had renounced, and should have obstinately continued in it to the present day!

gins to be a turning of the tide, and many of the earlier opponents of the modern geology are openly ranging themselves in the ranks of its converts.

The question now comes up whether we shall not regard the human body and the human soul as just as truly a lawful theme of independent research, analysis, and solution, as the starry heavens or the solid globe. Are we not left as free by the Creator to abide by the ascertained results of physiology, as by those of astronomy or geology? Is not certainty of conclusion as attainable in the one case as in the other? And is it not just as probable that the Scriptures should speak according to appearance, and in conformity with the then state of knowledge, on this subject as on any other? Does revelation in this department, any more than in any other, preclude the additional light which may result from clearer investigation and deeper insight in after ages? Is all knowledge exhausted by what is contained in the literal statements and allusions of the sacred writers in respect to the constituent properties of our being? On what principle by what law-shall we hold ourselves interdicted from the most zealous prosecution of our inquiries into this department of the Creator's works?

But if inquiry here be lawful, are not the conclusions to which it brings us to be affirmed with all the confidence which the evidence warrants? And suppose those conclusions should be widely diverse from those suggested by the literal sense of the scriptural language, are we therefore called upon to forego them at once? Or, if we adhere to them, are our ears to be greeted with the fearful mandate issuing from the ecclesiastical tribunal,-abjure-detestcurse as was enjoined upon Galileo?

What now is the obvious matter of fact as regards the particular subject of our present discussion? Are not the Scriptures constructed on this point, as on all others having respect to physical subjects, in reference to the then state of knowledge-to the popular impression and belief-among

those for whom they were originally designed? And did the Jews and the early Christians know what we know in relation to our physical organization? Was the science of animal chemistry developed in those early ages? Were they skilled in anthropology? Did they know any more of the settled truths embraced in this sphere of knowledge than of those which fall into the department of astronomy or geology? It avails nothing to say that the Spirit which indited the Scriptures knew these truths, if the writers did not. The Spirit knew too, equally well, the true structure of the solar system and the age of the globe upon which we dwell. Yet he has not seen fit to speak according to his knowledge on those points, and why should he any more on this? If there are actually stages in the progress of human intelligence; if the collective mind of the race, like that of an individual, passes through the grades of infancy, childhood, youth, and maturity; must not a revelation from God, vouchsafed to the earlier generations of men, adapt itself to their existing intellectual state? Can a child comprehend the deep things of a man? Who then will suppose that the obvious sense of the letter, on subjects that admit of continually growing light from subsequent discoveries, was intended as a fixed standard of import from which no departure was to be allowed? Would not this be like requiring the man to continue to wear the garments of the boy?

And yet it is unquestionable, that in nothing is the divine wisdom more conspicuous than in what we may term the elasticity of import in the language of the sacred volume. Emanating from that infinite intelligence which "understands the end from the beginning," which embraces all truth, and foresees the developments of all created intellect, the inspired word is so constructed that its language frequently adapts itself, in a remarkable manner, to the growing light of successive ages, and falls more or less into harmony with the ascertained verities of things. We do

not say, indeed, that this is universally and in every respect the case; for we have seen that in the departments of astronomy and geology the simple import of the letter does not accord with the reality of the facts which we are compelled to regard as conclusively established. Nevertheless, the remark will be found to hold good to a far greater extent than we should à priori imagine; and as to the particular subject of the present discussion, no devout reader of the Book of books can be insensible to the pleasure of finding, that the confident assertion of the results of his rational inquiries brings him so little into conflict with the plain averments of Scripture; that a fair and faithful exegesis of the sacred text discloses so striking an accordance between its true sense and his previous conclusions. Upon this department of our investigation we now enter.

CHAPTER II.

The Old Testament Doctrine of the Resurrection.

THE emphatic declaration of the Apostle, that Christ, through the Gospel, "hath brought life and immortality to light," is evidently not to be understood as carrying with it the implication, that the doctrine of a future life, and of a resurrection of some kind, is not contained in the Old Testament Scriptures. The genuine import of the original term parisεw, conveys the idea rather of shedding additional light upon an obscure subject, than that of announcing, declaring, or disclosing it de novo; and this is confirmed by the words of the Saviour himself, Mat. 22, 29: "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God;" from which it is evident, that had they rightly scanned the purport of their own Scriptures, they would have recognized the indubitable traces of this grand doctrine. Still it cannot

be denied that the informations couched in the Old Testament on this theme are comparatively dark and shadowy, more like the dim and feeble glimmerings of the morning twilight than the unclouded blaze of the noonday sun. Nor can we deny that its intimations do not distinguish very precisely between the doctrine of the resurrection, technically so termed, and that of a future existence or immortality. So far at least as the tenet of the resurrection is supposed necessarily to include the idea of the living again of the physical body, we shall probably look in vain for a single passage which unequivocally asserts it; and for the same. reason we shall probably find ample grounds for doubting whether that view of it is sustained any more by a sound interpretation of the New Testament. At any rate it may be pronounced a question of very difficult solution, why, if it be taught in the New Testament, it is not taught in the Old, and vice versa.

It is indeed true, that the doctrine of the resurrection enters into the articles of the Jewish creed, and as their creed professedly rests upon the Old Testament alone, it would seem a problem difficult to be solved, whence their faith on this subject was derived, if not from the writings of Moses and the prophets. Moses and the prophets do unquestionably contain explicit intimations of a future life, even when we can detect no traces of an allusion to the revival of the defunct body; and these scattered notices the Jews have wrought together into the semblance of a theory of a corporeal resurrection. They have, doubtless, been the rather led to this conclusion by understanding, in a literal sense, a number of passages which, rightly interpreted, speak only of a mystical or allegorical resurrection-a class of scriptures which we shall shortly bring under review.

To one who has made the Rabbinical writers on this head a study, the force of their testimony will be vastly weakened by their pressing into their service a multitude of texts which obviously have not the slightest relation to it,