high, as full of light and mystery, as the rays of light His mere word kindled into being. The gospel is called a revelation; we call it a thin veil, which rather hides our poor mortal eye from the excessive glory of His Godhead. Once the writer stood amid the orange groves of the valley of Sharon. The green fields and dark-leaved trees had just been visited by the "latter rain." One cloud with its silver lining lingered as a thing of beauty, on the dark-blue Syrian sky. Its power to conceal the sun became less and less, until itself was all aglow, and it became a chariot of light. The real source of its splendor was invisible, but it became more and more radiant, until the sun would burst the veil, with its overwhelming effulgence. So grief, too sad for childish tears, Then comes the dreary autumn time, Not autumn with its crimson dyes, But there are days when fitful blasts Go moaning o'er the plain, O world, to pilgrims journeying through, Thus the gospel conceals, rather than unfolds the Divine Decorum of the Lamb of God. In His presence, Bible saints seem vile, classic heroes seem feeble, Greek and Roman sages, fools. A single word, "with-Yet once, when deepest shadows fell, out sin," scatters like a thunder bolt, and in the garden, His foes fell as before a flash from the Judgment throne! He either had angels for historians, or men had a DEITY for a hero. W. H. VAN DOREN. TEARS. The angel voices sang, "Peace be on earth, good will to man," And God, who gives, as seasons roll "Weeping may endure for a night, but joy They, like the mists of early morn, cometh in the morning."-PSALM XXX. 5. Amid our happiest childhood hours, There comes some times of sadness, How fierce and wild are storms that sweep Then blossoms sweet, the forest's pride, May lengthen out the night, This world, and all its storms and tears, Will gladder make the heavenly dawn, As one on some lone out-post far, To catch the first faint beams of day, So we who wait that endless morn, C. S. B. 'GEOLOGY OR GOD: WHICH?". BOTH. In a recent number of a New York paper, the above question is asked; and from the spirit of the article, it would seem that the writer considered it triumphantly asked. He challenges us to make our choice. It is as much as to say, Reader, you cannot choose both-" which?" No one ever excels in many things-rarely in more than one; but that excellence in one or more things may induce a man to speak positively of matters of which he knows little. That paper, when it speaks of Christ, faith, and the gospel, has few, if any equals. Like the sword of Goliath, "There is none like it." But geology is a subject on which it would be wisdom if it would not attempt to enlighten its readers. In proof of his questions and positions, the writer quotes Ephesians i. 10, "That in the dispensation of the fulness of times, he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him." The writer infers from this passage, that the headship of earth, past and future, is vested in man— in the past, in the race; in the future, in the Divine man. The author is not clear. His conclusion is, therefore, that earth never could have had any other than a human head-that there could have been no long genesic periods, during which the highest created being on earth was a brute. While the proof text reveals glorious things in the future, I am too blind to see that it sheds any light on all the past, especially on the ante-Adamic past-that it tells us what kind of a terrene head earth had during the fourth and fifth days of creation. I should as soon have thought of quoting that passage to prove what kind of a created head Jupiter had during its fourth and fifth genesic days. It is admitted that until the creation of man earth had no human head; and as far as the argument is concerned, it matters not whether that space was one hundred and forty-four hours, or forty-two thousand years. It must be admitted, there was a period, be it long or short, during which earth had no human head-a period during which earth's created head was a brute. I confidently believe the original of God's word teaches us that the period of creation which was pre-Adamic was 42,000 years, or nearly that time. But if it had been only one hundred hours, or half that time, the argument of the writer fails. The writer's inquiry is, "Geology or God: which?" I most heartily answer, both. The God of the Bible is the God of Geology. He who made the Bible made the rocks. Both are equally worthy of him-equally trueequally free from error and deception. I know God could cause the snow to fall with the appearance of human tracks in it, so that men should appear to have been where they have not; but I do not believe God ever has, or ever will thus deceive men. So I know God could cause magnificent human palaces to spring up in the desert, where men had not been, apparently skilfully built by man, but I should as soon expect to find a lie in his blessed Word. So I believe God might have made the rocks with beautiful gold watches, clocks, &c., in them; or what is still more wonderful, with bones, coprolites, and other animal remains in them, when no such animals had ever lived, moved, eaten, and perished; but I do not believe that He who will not deceive us in his Word, could have deceived us in his rocks, nor in any of his works. He who is infinitely holy can no more deceive us in the one than in the other. In our ignorance we may misinterpret either, or both, but that is our fault, not God's. We only need to understand the volumes of revelation and nature, and we will find perfect harmony existing between them-not one jar. We will be perfectly assured that the author of the one is the author of the other. Those Christians who are afraid to look into science, or into nature, lest, perchance, they may see an argument against the Bible, greatly dishonor its Author. They are the aids of the sceptic. They calm his conscience. It is perfectly natural for infidels to try to find a want of conformity between revelation and nature, for they hate the Bible, and do not wish to believe it. They hate the book that assures them that they are sinners-that tells them of Jesus, and a sal vation which is all of grace. It is comparatively easy for men to believe what they wish to believe, and vice versa As they hate the Bible, they take a one-sided, prejudiced view of it, and delight in any thing which may seem to militate against it. They are ever ready to jump at conclusions, and to form their opinions before they have sufficient or sure data. But that men who love God and hate all sin, should not love science and all God's works, as well as his holy Word, is truly mysterious. For men to confess their great ignorance of God's word and works, is right and proper, for, alas, it is too true. "We know but in part-see through a glass darkly." We are now in the mere infancy of our knowledge, just as we are of our existence. But what can we say of the Christian who can sneer at geology, and talk as though He who made the Bible had not made every science? He puts himself on a par with him who sneers at the Bible. They speak ignorantly of things of which they know not. Truly silence would be more becoming to either of them. The writer referred to speaks of those who say the Bible was not made to teach science. Whether it was or not-whether it teaches geology or not, I do most heartily believe it is in conformity with all true science. That proves the divine origin of both-that He who made the sciences made the Bible. He who sneers at either of them, whether ignorantly or not, sneers at the God who made them. I do not believe the Bible teaches absurdities; and if the views of such anti-geologists are correct, it must. We are told, (Genesis ii. 5, 6,) "And every plant before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." Up to the third day, "the whole face of the ground" was covered with water. On that day the first upheaval took place; and as a necessary consequence, the water flowed into the lowest parts, and formed seas. This being done, the dry land appeared. On the sixth day man was created, and up to that time it had not rained, but the thirsty earth was refreshed by a mist rising up and watering "all the face of the ground." In that way the face of the ground is now watered and refreshed in some parts of the earth, where there is no rain. Mist was the substitute until rain was given. If the creative days were literal, of only twenty-four hours each, then from the third to the sixth day it had not rained; that is, in less than eighty-six hours it had not rained, and to preserve the earth and vegetation from suffering from so long a period of dry weather, the mist was a necessity! God caused it to rise up and "water all the face of the ground." Certainly there can be no limit to the credulity of him who can believe that. Up to the third day the earth was covered with water, soaked with water, but on that day the waters were gathered into seas, and the dry land appeared. If the days were only of twenty-four hours' duration, God by a miracle must have dried up "the whole face of the ground," and have so overdone itmade it so exceedingly dry, that it was necessary to raise a mist to refresh the suffering vegetation! When the earth was covered by the waters of the flood, and God had assuaged the water by a wind, stopped the fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven, and restrained the rain, at the end of one hundred and fifty days, or about five months, yet the water had not so far subsided as to cause the ark to rest on the mountain top till the seventeenth day of the seventh month, and the mountain tops were not visible till the first day of the tenth month. Forty days after that, Noah sent forth a raven and a dove, but the timid dove finding such a world of water, and no rest for the sole of her feet, at once returned to the ark. Seven days after, when the dove was again sent forth, she returned in the evening bearing an olive leaf. At the end of seven other days, the water had so far disappeared that that gentle bird could find rest, and so did not return to the ark. But not till the end of fourteen months and twenty-seven days was the earth so dry that Noah could leave the ark. From the time the water began to subside, it was over nine months before Noah could leave the ark. If God, when there was no man and no animals imprisoned in an ark, and with eternity in which to perform his work, dried up the water-soaked earth in three days and so overdried it that it was necessary he should water it speedily, why should he not thus speedily have dried it at the flood? At the flood, we can see a reason why he might have wrought a miracle to dry up the earth; but at creation, we can see none. When we look at the whole history of God, as revealed in his Word and in his works, we are justified in saying such a miracle would have been un-Godlike. portant facts. Can it be that the days were literal, and that he considered it of sufficient importance to inform all coming generations that the water-soaked earth had no rain for a period that was less than eighty-six hours! Various parts of the earth have frequently been many months without rain, and on one occasion Samaria was, for more than three and one-half years. Was it then so strange and wonderful that the virgin, water-soaked earth should be less than three days without rain, that God thought Moses must inform all coming generations of the wonderful fact? But if each Genesis day was 7,000 years, then it is evident that during those thousands of years the surface of the earth must have been watered in some way, or all vegetation must have, perished. The How is an important inquiry? Science could never have taught it to us, but God has taught us in Genesis ii. 5–6. Paul tells us, (Heb. i. 10.) "And thou, Lord, in beginnings, hast laid the foundations of the earth." The original is not "in the beginning," but xar'ägxàs—“in beginnings." So that geology or no geology, God has created our earth, or laid its foundations, not in one, but in various begin According to some writers, at the end of nine months the water had only receded from the highest grounds; and we are told by them that it may have required years, before all the face of the ground was dried up. But our Anti-geologists have such a facile credence, in certain directions, that they can easily believe the water-soaked earth would be so completely dried in less than eighty six hours, that in the absence of rain, vegetation required to be watered by anings. So other portions of the original mist! Again, it would task credulity to believe that the earth, which was covered with water till the third day, before the evening of that day could be dry enough for the production of vegetation! It is also highly probable, from the language used, that before the close of the third day vegetation needed to be watered by a mist. How wonderful must have been the action of the heat and of other agencies, and yet the sun had not appeared. Moses, in seven short chapters, has given us an epitomized history of creation, and of about one thousand six hundred and fifty-six of the succeeding years. The consequence is, he only gave the most im teach us the same truth, as, for instance, the omission of the article in Genesis i. 1 and John i.1. They, together with other originals, must point to more than one beginning. The rocks also inform us of beginnings. They point to periods when there must have been an entire extinction of animal life, and an after creation of entirely new species. Indeed, that geologist must be blind who cannot see more than one beginning in the rocks. Anti-geologists say, there was but one beginning. God, in his Word and in his rocks, says, there were "beginnings." Which shall we believe? Do they know more than God? Are they wiser than he? JAS. KERR. IMMENSITY OF THE POWERS OF NATURE. A correspondent of the Smithsonian Institution, who has made the measurement him self, reports that Niagara Falls give a power of 11,363,036 horses. By the last census there are 51,017 water-wheels in operation in this country, giving a power of 1,130,416 horses. WEATHER PREDICTIONS.-Seventy-six per cent of the weather predictions for 1872, made by the signal service of the War Department, proved to be correct. One-half of the other twenty-four per cent. were a little in advance of the storms or clear weather announced as "probable." The wonderful success of this new department of government services has given it a strong hold on public favor. It is now proposed to extend it, as far as possible, to the ocean as well as the land. ITACOLUMITE. Itacolumite, or flexible stone, which is a rare and curious mineral, has been found in Stokes county, North Carolina. In Brazil, and also in the Ural mountains, diamonds have been found in the itacolumite rocks; but more commonly they are obtained from the soil in the vicinity of such rocks which have gradually been decomposed in past ages. THE MUSCLES OF THE ANIMAL FRAME.It is said that there are 25,000 muscles in the body of a silkworm; 8,000 in the trunk of an elephant; and in most serpents more than a million. On the instrumentality of these organs, the flexibility of the boa constrictor, as well as his power depends. By the contraction of the muscles the great Python of Africa crushes a living lion into a shapeless mass for swallowing with appar ently the utmost ease. SILK MANUFACTURE IN THE UNITED STATES. From a mere experiment, but a few years ago, silk manufacture in the United States has assumed really vast proportions, and promises to become one of the leading pursuits of the country. According BRIDGES DECREASING THE NUMBER OF PEARLS. It is a popular theory in Scotland, that "the building of bridges diminishes the number of pearls in the rivers." At first sight this seems very much like making Tenterden steeple responsible for the existence of Goodwin Sands; but the naturalist finds that the theory has a basis of scientific truth. Before the bridges were built, the cattle, in fording the stream, trod upon the mussels, and the injury done to the shells caused the formation of pearls; but now that the cattle cross by the bridges, the secretion of the pearls is no longer promoted in that way. The peasant could observe the fact, though he could not give the philosophy of it. THE DARWINIAN THEORY.-Prof. Agassiz evolution, on the ground that Darwin "preutterly rejects the Darwinian theory of sents views on scientific principles, which are not even based on real observation; that he has not shown evolution, or the power of evolution in the present day, and hence is not entitled to assume it in the past." He further characterizes the whole theory as ་་ a mire of mere assertion." The most that Darwin can say, is, that perhaps such an evolution, and such and such changes may have taken place, thousands or millions of ages back. But he forgets that true science knows no "perhaps;" it must rest on actual observation. ONE OF THE USES OF PAPER.-Formerly paper was scarcely thought to be of any use except for printing, writing, or wrapping. One of its modern uses is for collars. According to the Internal Revenue returns, |