a most exact fulfilment of the predictions of that revelation in which we trust; and while it operates to try our faith, it contributes also to strengthen it. In these predictions the characters of scoffers and false teachers are drawn with a graphic hand. No one can mistake the picture. They are known and distinguished as "walking after their own lusts," and "denying the Lord that bought them ;" and many, it is affirmed, shall be drawn to "follow their pernicious ways, by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of." But their fate is as clearly pointed out by the same unerring inspiration, as is their character and their career: "Whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." They "bring upon themselves swift destruction." God, who spared not the old world, nor the angels that sinned, nor the filthy inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, will not be mocked forever. He will in due time punish the guilty who despise his offers of mercy and profanely trample upon his goodness;— "but chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lusts of uncleanness, and despise government; presumptuous are they and selfwilled; they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities." "As natural brute beasts made to be taken and destroyed, they speak evil of the things that they understand not, and shall utterly perish in their own corruption, and shall receive the reward of unrighteousness as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time." Let these predictions be compared with the history of every infidel club of whom the world have ever had knowledge, and if their inspiration be not admitted, the coincidence of a perfect likeness must at least be accounted extraordinary and inexplicable.

ART. VIII.-GEOLOGY.

THE following article was written a few weeks since, with the intention of forwarding it for your Magazine. But I concluded at first thought, after it was finished, that it was not of sufficient value. A second thought has induced me to forward it, as it may be of some service in calling attention to the subject. It will not, I hope, be objectionable because it first appeared in another periodical. G. F. C.

GEOLOGY, or the science of the structure of the earth, and of the substances which compose it, is at the present time receiving unusual attention.. And from the popular lectures of scientific men upon the subject, and some short articles in various periodicals, it has become more or less the topic of conversation and reflection among the great mass of readers. So far as this inquiry may lead us to a knowledge of what the earth is-what are its elements, and what its organization-and of the laws which may be found universally to prevail in controlling its substances-society will evidently be benefited. And in this labor of science we bid every geologist good speed. But there is one branch of the doctrine, which, although it

seems to be pursued with great ardor by men of learning and piety, we are apprehensive will have an unfavorable bearing upon reve lation. We refer to the ANTIQUITY assigned by geologists to the earth's origin. We doubt if either the Bible, or analogy, or any correct mode of reasoning, will justify the opinion that the earth received its formation at periods so interminable as are assigned to it by geologists. We have no doubt, indeed, but that such a theory may be reconciled with the first chapter of Genesis; and it is gratifying to find a mind of so august a character as that of Cuvier coming to such a conclusion. We do not think it particularly inconsistent with that short history to believe that the present form of the earth may have been created from pre-existent matter, although one of the first critics of Europe has remarked that the term translated "created" (*,) implies formations from nothing. This, too, is the unanimous opinion of the Jewish rabbins. But our objections lie on other grounds. The science itself is too infantile to demand any new interpretations of the Bible. Scientific men have proved themselves to be too great errorists to claim the homage of our belief until their theories have been demonstrated.,

Brydone, a celebrated writer, and who was a F.R. S., in his "Tour through Sicily and Malta," attempts to prove from the fact that, in an excavation of some depth, at the base of Mount Etna, he ascertained there were seven distinct beds of lara, most of which were covered with thick beds of rich earth—that the mountain must be at least fourteen thousand years old; because it was then an assumed doctrine, by some, that it required at least two thousand years to form a bed of earth upon one of lava such as was there seen. But the whole of this theory was overthrown in a moment, by a fact that any one may examine at his leisure. Mount Vesuvius, in an eruption, buried the city of Herculaneum in A. D. 79. But we are informed by Sir William Hamilton that the matter which covers the ancient town of Herculaneum is not the result of one eruption, but it is covered with six strata of lava, between each of which there are veins of good soil. But according to Brydone's reasoning, Herculaneum has been buried twelve thousand years, instead of seventeen hundred. We give this fact as an evidence of error among philosophers!

We need only mention the strange theories that have obtained for centuries in astronomy, anatomy, and almost every phenomenon that has occurred on the earth's surface; and this too by learned men. Even as late as Tycho-Brahe and Kepler,-one of whom, if we recollect rightly, supposed that some of the heavenly lights were living animals swimming in ether-and the other adopted the idea that the earth was motionless, and the centre of the universe, we see evidence of most egregious errors; and this too when the science of astronomy had been the great object of inquiry among the learned for ages. We say then to every man, receive not hastily from any geologist a new interpretation of the Bible.What they present as facts receive-but of the theories of the earth's formation, of which no geologist in the world can speak with certainty-believe them not at present.

We have another objection to the age of the earth, as given by geologists. While revelation makes the creation of the earth the

work of a MIRACLE, the basis on which geologists build their theory makes the earth the sole work of NATURE. It has come to its present maturity, as they suppose, by mere chemical and natural changes. All that they will allow that God created, properly speaking, is a gaseous substance-or a kind of fiery atmosphere, which at length consolidated into the present world. Buffon thinks that the earth was a fragment originally struck from the sun!! and at length assumed its present form.

But let us seriously ask the philosopher what he gains by even such an admission on our part. If geologists allow that God created even a gaseous substance, they meet with every important difficulty that would be found, if they admitted that God created, in six natural days, the present earth. Could they find the elements of a gaseous substance, they would see all the evidence of periods that they now see; and were they to allow time for nature to form those elements, they would find the same necessity for interminable years that they now do.

But we ask serious-minded men, if the Bible does not universally represent the creation of the world as the result of a miracle? Does not the whole tenor of Revelation point to such a conclusion? And does it not say expressly that "the worlds that were framed ** were NOT made of things which do APPEAR?" And was not this remark designed to strike against the peripatetic philosophy, (or doctrine of Aristotle,) which taught that it was created out of pre-existing matter? or rather, which assumed that the world was eternal? We confess it appears to us that the Scriptures teach the miraculous creation of the earth. And if this be true, it was not done by the slow process of nature. God spoke, and it was done ;He commanded, and it stood fast. How infinitely sublime such a thought! But how meagre the thought, that first a gaseous substance was seen floating about in the heavens, intensely heated, which finally consolidated, became a heated mineral ball of fire, which afterward cooled and then oxidated, till we had a crust of the earth! A salt sea sprung up! and then some animals, which were destroyed by some terrible convulsion of nature—and finally, after an interminable length of years, it became the abode of man-who, by the way, presents as many incontestable evidences of periodic formation, as any rock in the universe. And do geologists pretend to believe that the first man was formed as slowly as the first rock? And yet why not? Could a geologist find a bone of Adam, he would see evidence that that bone was twenty or a hundred years in making. And yet God made it mature in a moment. The same reasoning would hold good with regard to the first tree. Could we find that tree, it would give evidence of periodic formation. So also would the first animals.-But if we allow that God created the first tree, the first man, the first animals, exhibiting the same phenomena that appear in animals and trees formed by the slower process of nature, why can we not admit the same reasoning in reference to a rock, and the formation of the earth? If we allow only that God made the seeds from which trees sprung, it presents nearly all the difficulties that can be found in the earth's present structure. A philosopher would tell us of a seed, that it was so many months arriving at its present maturity; and if it were a

common seed, his reasoning would be true; but if it were the first seed made, there would be no truth in his philosophy. Thus of geology.

We have another difficulty. If the earth was formed by the slow degrees contended for by geologists, it is probable that the Moon was formed in the same way; the Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Vesta, with the other planets, indeed all the fixed stars! These were all commenced with gaseous vapors! But where is the proof? Do we see such changes now in the heavens as would authorize such a belief? Indeed we do not. Besides, what gave to the earth its nice balance, what gave to the universe this?-He who said, LET THERE BE LIGHT, AND IT WAS;-was, in the twinkling of an eye.

ART. IX.--CHARACTER AND TENDENCIES OF THE CATHOLIC RELIGION.

BY W. FISK, D. D.

MESSRS. EDITORS,-Having given an account in the preceding letters of the more prominent ceremonies of the Catholic Church, it may not be unprofitable, in the present letter, to make some reflections upon the character and tendencies of the Catholic religion. This is a subject that is at this moment attracting to itself intense interest, and especially in the United States. The time having passed by, we hope for ever, in which the advocates of this religion can, as formerly, enforce their dogmas by the sword and by the authority of the secular power, they now find it necessary to try the strength of the question on moral grounds. This is a position to which the opposers of Romanism have long wished to press the question, and they have partially succeeded; and in the United States particularly the question presents itself exclusively upon this ground. As in the despotisms of Europe the old ground of propagation is abandoned, the experiment is now to be tried whether the sentiment can prevail in a country of free discussion. Here, and on these principles, we ought to be prepared to meet it. Let us then examine some of its claims and tendencies by what we see and know of its character. For Romanism, to be known and judg ed of, must be seen and scrutinized where no motives of policy force it into unnatural positions or concealments. In short, in Italy and in Rome itself this system can best be tested. Against this Catholics cannot object, for if, as they teach, Christianity has a grand central capital, and that is Rome-if it has one single head on earth to whom, as the vicegerent of Christ, the keys of the kingdom of God have been committed, and the pope is that head-then here certainly, under the influence of the pontifical court, and under the very droppings of the pope's sanctuary, we may hope to find concentrated all the excellences of this church. Here, if anywhere, impurities will be discarded and abuses discountenanced.

ROMANISM HAS A STRONG AND DIRECT TENDENCY TO IDOLATRY.

I will not say that a Roman Catholic must necessarily be guilty of idolatry; nor will I now argue from the fact that the Catholics

have left out the second commandment from many of their editions of the commandments, because it speaks so directly against their image worship,-which seems to be a tacit acknowledgment by themselves that they must, if judged by the light of Scripture, be convicted of idolatry.

Neither will I now insist upon the glaring idolatry of worshipping a wafer in the form of a consecrated host, because if a Catholic can really believe that this wafer is converted into a God, as some of them perhaps do, he does not worship the thing that is, but the thing which he believes it to be; and, therefore, he may even in this worship be held in the sight of God innocent of idolatry. But whatever some of strong faith, or, more properly, of irrational credulity, may believe on this subject, there are many, doubtless, who are led into this worship, following the example of others who, as the apostle expresses himself on a somewhat analogous subject, "with conscience to the idol unto this hour" bow down to it as to what their senses tell them it really is, a portion of matter, and yet a portion of matter which, like the gree-gree or the amulet, has some peculiar charm and talismanic virtue, and thus their consciences are defiled," and their minds are sensualized. Indeed every one, it appears to me, who attempts to believe in transubstantiation lays a snare for his conscience; and the church which inculcates this doctrine lays a broad foundation for materialism. And this the Catholics do, not merely in this doctrine, but in their veneration for relics. Rome and all Italy is full of sacred relics: they are considered as possessing in themselves peculiar virtue. Here are stones that sweat blood-here are martyrs' bones that raise the dead, and pieces of the cross, and scourges, and pillars of stone, and holy staircases, and a thousand things which have wrought more miracles than were ever wrought by Christ or his apostles.

When an ignorant African pagan talks about the virtue of his gree-gree, and relies upon it for his protection, we call him an idolater, and so he is. But is he more so than the Catholic who believes in the virtue of his crucifix or other trinket, because it has been blessed by the pope, or because it has been shaken in the porringer which, as is pretended, contained the pap from which the holy child Jesus was fed?

But another soure of idolatry is the numerous subordinate mediators that enter into the machinery of the Catholic religion. In my former letter an instance is given in a very solemn and imposing service, performed by the pope himself, in which pardon was supplicated through the merits of saints. Angels are prayed to. Saints, male and female, are prayed to, and especially and above all the blessed Virgin is an object of universal veneration and worship. It is in vain for Catholics to plead that they only solicit the aid of these personages to present their suit to God; for, in the first place, many of the prayers are direct, and imply that these saints have power in themselves to give the necessary aid. Besides, the very idea that the Virgin, or that the angel Gabriel, or St. Peter can hear the prayers of Catholics, praying, as they do, in different and distant parts of the world, clothes these saints, in the opinion of the worshippers, with omnipresence- -one of the attributes of the Deity. Nay, to show that many of the people do directly worship