· Are the systems of French, German, or English unscriptural philosophers so perfect, so wise, or so unchangeable, that our bibles must be misinterpreted, if not contradicted, to favour them? Are they not often crude and foolish, and perpetually undergoing alterations? Did not Leibnitz teach that the world is' an extinguished sun, a vitrified globe'? Buffon, that it is a fragment of the sun, struck off red-hotand must be finally a globe of ice'?-Lamark, that 'microscopic insects' were the first inhabitants of the world, which in the course of ages, magnified themselves into the larger animals,' and so on progressively? Did not Monboddo maintain that man was originally an ape? and Demaillet, that he was a fish? And have not all these theories been successively entertained and discarded, believed and abandoned? What would have become of Christianity, if the scriptures of truth had been twisted, transposed and metamorposed to suit them all in their turn? Why then should we attempt to compromise with theories, newer indeed, and less absurd, but quite as contrary to the inspired record? At any rate, let us wait until some system of geology has as many years upon its head as the Bible has centuries, before we mutilate the word of God, in order to accommodate it to the wild vagaries of men. The chief argument that has been put forth to palliate this immense folly, is, that it must have taken a period of time far exceeding six thousand years to reduce the universal kingdom to its present state: and indeed, before Crosse's invaluable discoveries, almost a million of years were pronounced necessary for the formation of a crystal. Admitting the fullest force of this argument in itself, we dispute the pre mises on which it rests. It takes for granted that the minerals, earths, &c., were created in certain simple states, whence they have been changed to their present conditions; but who can prove this? We may well address the asserters of such a proposition in the sublime language of the most ancient author now extant,-"Where wast thou when God laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in search of the depths? Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare, if thou knowest it all. Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?" (Job xxxviii. 4, 16, 18, 21.) No; we can only know what God has been pleased to tell us of those primæval days: and He has not informed us whether He created metals in the massive or the crystallized, the native or the acidulated state; nor whether the simple minerals were at first unmixed or compounded. We only know that there reigns throughout the works of Omnipotence a vast and harmonious analogy, and we may thence infer that the universal kingdom was produced at first in as great beauty and perfection as we know (upon express Divine authority,) that the vegetable and animal kingdoms were? Were the "green herbs," the grass, and the trees created as puny seedlings? No; they sprang up at once, "bearing seed," and "yielding fruit, each after his kind,” in their full maturity. Were the animals produced in the infant state? No; the original Hebrew gives the creative command thus-"Let the waters be alive with creeping things that have life, and let fowl fly in the open firmament of the heavens;" they started into life at once, swim ming, creeping, flying, in their full strength. Was man created "an infant of days?" No; it has been universally admitted by all rational disputants, that the first man was created in the prime of life; if he had not been so, how could he have tilled, dressed, and kept the garden of Eden? an office to which he was immediately appointed. If, then, all other things were formed in a state at which they now arrive only after various periods of growth, why might not metals be at first created in their crystals, and minerals in their compound structure, as we now find them? Before I quit the subject of creation, I must invite the attention of my readers to a curious passage from Eusebius (book 3, c. 11). He says, 'The Egyptians call the Creator by the name of Kneph, and relate that he sent forth an egg from his mouth; which in their symbolic language denotes that He produced the universe.' Now, among ancient nations, the egg was the emblem of the universe; which is supposed to have arisen from a corrupted tradition of the Creative Spirit moving (Heb. fluttering) over the deep, whence they imagined Him to have been in the form of a bird, and the production to have been an egg. Thus the Chippeway Indians say that originally the world was one vast and entire ocean, inhabited by no creature, except a mighty bird, whose eyes were fire, and whose glances were lightnings, and the clapping of whose wings was thunder. This bird flew down to the sea, when the earth rose out of the water, and remained stationary. (See Mackenzie's Travels.) But the Egyptian idea that this egg proceeded from the mouth of Kneph appears to me very striking, when we recollect the declaration of the Psalmist:"By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." Thus even the idolatrous figments of ancient Egypt, and the romances of the wild Indian, approach more nearly to the truth than the theories of some who call themselves Christians, and who have the word of God lying open within their reach. Alas for modern wisdom and philosophy! X. Q. IF you be one who passes current with the world for a good Christian of the average stamp, but no enthusiast,-one who has just religion enough to make a decent show, just as much as gives a zest to carnal enjoyments, but never disturbs the conscience,-one who is only a Sunday-worshipper and a festival communicant,- -one who takes a glance at the cross of Christ on the Sabbath, and enjoys a surfeit of mammon during the rest of the week,-one whose religion is all of times and places, just such a religion as the devil most delights in,-if you be such an one, "suffer, I pray you, the word of exhortation." You are trying to make an union between Christ and Belial, but it will not do; you are endeavouring to effect that which is impossible; you cannot join the two-all hell can't do it!-Rev. T. Dale. PETRARCH-A PROTESTANT. DEAR MADAM, As every testimony against the mystery of iniquity is valuable, I think it may prove beneficial to the good cause, to give insertion in your valuable Magazine to the following most apocalyptic sonnet, written in the fourteenth century, by the illustrious Florentine, Francesco Petrarca. I remain, dear Madam, Your faithful servant, L. H. J. T. SONETTO CVI. (Edizione di Firenze, 1815.) FONTANA di dolore, albergo d'ira, Ricchezze tante? or Constantin non torna, |