taken place-perhaps it is even stronger. The truth of Holy Scripture, therefore, stands on its own impregnable foundation. What then, although unquestionable facts seem to oppose some biblical truth? We ought to believe that they only seem to do so. The apparently militating truths are unquestionably consistent with each other, although, for the present, we cannot tell how to reconcile them. Let it be remembered, that it is not merely in regard to this subject, that what we here demand is required. It not unfrequently happens, in natural science itself, that phenomena apparently inconsistent and contradictory appear. And what do the teachers of that science say in such cases? They say that there is either a mistake, in taking both these things for facts, or else that the manner of reconciling them is not yet discovered. Accordingly they re-examine the phenomena. Sometimes they discover that one thing which they took for a fact, was not so in reality; and here the embarrassment ends. In other instances, they are obliged to admit, and do admit, that facts really exist, which, although there can be no question that they are reconcileable, yet for the present it is not known how it is to be done. Now, all we ask is exactly this. If some facts in nature seem to contravene those of revelation, admit the facts on both sides. Say you know they are reconcileable, but for the present you cannot tell how. This is strictly philosophical. And in the case we consider there is the more reason to take this course, because in numerous instances facts which appeared to militate with Bible truths, have actually been discovered not to contravene those truths, but to confirm them. A remarkable instance of this is given in our November number, to which we have already referred. From what has actually taken place, therefore, independently of any other consider ation, the presumption is of the strongest kind, that any thing in natural science, or in historical records, that seems to contradict the Scriptures, will eventually be shown to have no bearing whatsoever of that character. Hence we must, for ourselves, entirely disapprove of such an attempt as that of the justly celebrated Mr. Faber, who endeavours to interpret the Mosaick account of creation, in such manner as to extend the six days, mentioned in the sacred record, to we know not how many ages, in order to gain time enough for the fossil formations of geologists. 4. It should be remembered that the science of geology is yet in its infancy. There has not yet been time sufficient to examine the actual bearing of facts discovered. The depth to which the earth has been, or probably ever will be explored, is less in proportion to its whole diameter, than the thickness of an egg shell to the diameter of the egg. Nor are there yet any sufficient and well ascertained data, on which to form rational analogies, from what is known to what is unknown. In our first volume, we gave a general view of Penn's remarks on the subject of formations, which geologists in general suppose must, in all cases, have taken place gradually. We believe with Mr. Penn, that there is no just foundation for this supposition at all. Because we observe that certain kinds of stone and rock may be formed gradually, and in fact are constantly forming in this manner, is that a proof that all those kinds of stone and rock were formed in this manner? We think not-We think it far more rational to believe, that the Almighty Creator formed some rocks when he created the world; and that then he also formed those several substances which, by union and induration, will still produce rocks. As Mr. Penn remarks, we might as well say that no animals were ereated originally in a perfect state, because they now always arrive at perfection in a very gradual manner, as that no rocks were created perfect, because they are now gradually formed. These fancies of geologists make us think of the old puzzle, whether the egg was before the bird, or the bird before the egg; since there can be no egg without a bird, and no bird without an egg. Moses assures us, that as to animals and vegetables, they were created in perfection at first, and with the intention that each should afterwards propagate its kind: and to us it seems most rational to believe, that almost every kind of rocks were created at first, as being necessary to the existence of the globe in its succeeding state; and that the after formations afford no evidence whatever that such was not the fact. 5. We now come to the work of Mr. George Bugg. He, it appears, published a book, entitled "Scriptural Geology," in reply to the Geology of Professor Buckland, Mr. Bird Sumner, Mr. Faber, and others whom he names. On this work of Mr. Bugg, two writers in the Christian Observer, the one taking for his signature Cantabrigiensis, and the other Oxoniensis Alter, offered a number of remarks, not favourable to Mr. B.'s theory. To these he replied in the same periodical, in several papers of considerable length. The scope of his essays is to show, that the modern Geology, as taught and defended by the gentlemen named above, and others who adopt their theory, is both unscriptural and unphilosophical-not only inadequate to account for the phenomena, but in some respects selfcontradictory. At the same time, he insists that the general deluge, of which we have an account in the book of Genesis, will far better account for the fossil strata, and other appearances, of which modern geology says so much, than any theory which its favourers have been able to set forth. We acknowledge our selves fully satisfied that Mr. Bugg has the best of the argument. We did intend to give extracts from several of his papers; but on looking them over with this view, we found that we must either mutilate and do injustice to his arguments by our abridgment, or occupy more of our scanty pages with this subject, than we think would be agreeable or profitable to our readers. We have therefore determined to give no more than his concluding summary. Those who wish to see the detail of his statements and reasoning, must have recourse to the Christian Observer, or to his volume on the same subject-the latter of which we have not seen. Mr. Bugg's last essay concludes in the following manner: "Without anticipating further objections, I will recapitulate a few matters respecting modern geology, and "scriptural geology." The reader may then be fairly left to his own reflections respecting this discussion. I. Modern Geology. In all fairness, I trust, it cannot be denied that I have proved the utter incompetency of the modern geological theory. 1. As to its evidence: That it is wholly assumed; that even the evidence alleged is derived very frequently from imagination, and not from knowledge or information; that the testimony of facts, adduced by themselves, is positively against them.* * In addition to the evidence which is adduced in my "Scriptural Geology" upon this point, I may be allowed to refer to the testimony of more recent discoveries. In the Christian Observer for March last (p. 201), is the following his torical anecdote :-"Some impressions have been discovered in a red sand stone quarry in Dumfriesshire, which Dr. Buckland thinks are the footsteps of antediluvian quadrupeds, which had traversed the rock while in a soft state." May I express a wish that Dr. Buckland would explain how he supposes such "footsteps" such a fact can consist with the modern could have occurred, and especially how geological theory? When does Professor 2. That this theory, supported by no evidence, affects the verity of no small part of Divine Revelation, with which it never has been, and, as it appears to me, never can be reconciled; that the Scripture his tory of creation, and in no small degree even the history of the deluge, is nullified by it. 3. That the physical formation of the strata is, according to this theory, impossible in fact; and in volves the most manifest inconsistencies, absurdities, and repeated miracles, as well as numerous new creations. 4. That there is nothing in nature, known or recorded, which bears the least available analogy to the operations and revolutions comprised in the theory of modern geology. 5. That Dr. Buckland's theory of the caves, and of the denudations, is built upon the same foundation as the general theory of Baron Cuvier, and is as demonstrably erroneous. II. Scriptural Geology. 1. The Scriptures are positive as Buckland imagine that the "red sand stone" was found in "a soft state?" Immediately upon its original formation, or that it became so at some subsequent period? If at a subsequent period, why might it not occur after, as well as before the deluge? Are there any formations lying above this sand stone in the quarry, which forbid the supposition? Then how will such fact consist with the modern theory? What (in geological language), what red sand stone is this? The "old red sand stone?" Then, according to Baron Cuvier's scale, it is twelve for mations, (and, if it be the "new red sand stone," it is, according to the same au thority, six formations,) beneath the "Paris formation," in which the "earliest" deposits of "quadrupeds," agreeably to the modern theory, are ever found! But if the "footsteps" be found there, why might not the foot which made those steps have been there? With such facts this geological theory cannot stand. The "human skeleton" of Guadaloupe, imbedded in hard, compact, limestone rock, is a demonstration which never has been, and is never likely to be, got over by modern geologists. to the earth's surface being "broken up" at the deluge. 2. It is obvious that such an eruption must have caused immense masses of debris, [rubbish,] and might produce all sorts of mixtures, such as we find in the strata, both of the vegetable and animal creation. 3. That such debris and such mixtures might be subsequently hardened into strata, comprising all the variety of formations which we now contemplate." 4. That the operations of the deluge had a natural tendency to produce the effects in question, and that they were sufficient for all the effects which geology has developed. 5. That it is the province of Revelation to inform us of the "beginning" of nature; and of the ground, the reason, and the mode of such changes therein as are supernatural. 6. That the scriptural history of the deluge affords a moral and rational cause for that catastrophe, while all the revelations of modern geology find NO CAUSE, either moral or physical, for their production. 7. That the deluge of Noah is therefore rationally conceived to be the only true, sufficient, and sole cause of all the "fossil strata,' which so much puzzle and confound our modern geologists. In concluding the above very brief and imperfect summary of this discussion, I have no hesitation in saying, that the scriptural history, respecting the deluge, and the ideas consequently suggested thereby, relative to the formation of the fossil strata, are rational, philosophical, and adequate; while the whole theory of modern geology implies what is antiscriptural, unphilosophical, and absurd. If modern geologists think my arguments and conclusions to be erroneous, let them come honourably and fairly before the world and prove them to be so. I have fearlessly endeavoured to lay "the axe at the root" of their whole system. Let them pursue the same equitable and necessary mode, if they choose to answer 66 Scriptural Geology," and the result will show who is right. Every writer on such a subject, ought to be able to say, in the words of a great man, "I have an instinctive abhorrence to spend time and argument upon non-essential and trivial points; I love to grapple with the nucleus" of a subject. It is certainly unworthy the conduct of philosophers and divines to do otherwise. GEORGE BUGG. P. S. Should any persons choose to write any thing in answer to the above remarks, I trust they will not be weak enough to say, as a writer in the Oxford Herald has said, and as I have heard it this day (and frequently repeated)-namely, that I have "mistaken the entire subject, for that Dr. Buckland no more intends to injure the Divine Record than I do." I must request such persons to recollect that I have not so mistaken the subject; nor is there a single argument urged throughout my book, that supposes any such design in Dr. Buckland, or in any other English geologist. ANECDOTE OF REV. MR. EASTBURN. A letter from a correspondent, who witnessed what he relates, contains the following remark and statement." If any further proof of Mr. E.'s concern for the spiritual interests of seamen were necessary, the following might be offered.-At the meeting of the General Assembly, previous to his death, a day of humiliation, thanksgiving and prayer was appointed, and different officers of the church, who were not members of the Assembly, were invited to attend. The forenoon was devoted to prayer and praise, and reading certain portions of Scripture. After one or more prayers "My God!" the beauty oft exclaim'd, With soul uprais'd to Heaven, Her daily offering of praise, Her song of gratitude. And in the festive hall, Mid scenes of mirth and mockery proud, She named the Lord of all! She called upon that awful name, When laughter loudest rang- The most unmeaning jest, I thought-how sweet that voice would be, W.C. Review. A DISCUSSION ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, as to its subject, its mode, its history, and its effects, upon civil and religious society. In opposition to the views of Mr. Alexander Campbell, as expressed in a seven days' debate with the author, at WASHINGTON, Kentucky, October, 1823, and in his spurious publication of that debate, and of a previous one, of two days, with the Rev. John Walker, of Ohio. And in opposition to the views of the celebrated Mr. Robinson, and other Baptist authors. In two volumes. By W. L. M'CALLA, Pastor of the Eighth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, and author of "A Discussion of Universalism." Vol. I. Philadelphia. Published by George McLaughlin. 1828. pp. 398. This work is understood to contain the substance of the arguments used by the Rev. Mr. M'Calla, in a seven days' dispute with one Alexander Campbell, in Washington, Kentucky. It appears that, after settling preliminaries, the parties met; and, in the presence of a vast multitude of people, discussed the subject of infant baptism, during the space of seven days, in alternate speeches, of a limited length. From the work now under review, and from other sources, we learn that Mr. Campbell had been before engaged in a controversy, on the same subject, and conducted in a similar manner, with a Mr. Walker, of the state of Ohio: and that, at the close of the dispute, he had openly challenged any Pædobaptist to meet him, and publickly discuss the subject. This challenge, it seems, was the occasion of bringing about the meeting between M'Calla and Campbell. The correspondence which took place, and the events which occurred previously to the time agreed upon for the dispute, were published by Mr. M'Calla, in a pamphlet, some time since. Mr. Campbell has also given to the publick a narrative of the controversy, with a view of the arguments on both sides. His book we have not seen; but Mr. M'Calla has made us, in some measure, acquainted with its spirit and contents, by his citations from it, and by his animadversions on the partiality of the author, in representing the arguments of his opponent. Before we proceed to make any remarks on the work before us, it may not be amiss to inquire, whether this mode of controversy is useful and expedient? And the answer to this question must be made out, by a comparison of the good and evil, which commonly is the consequence of such disputes in the presence of the multitude. For, to the most superficial observation, it is evident, that the effects are neither unmixed good or evil. Some of the benefits are, that the attention of the publick is strongly drawn to the consideration of the points in dispute; and, if the discussion is conducted with any degree of ability, there must be a large increase of knowledge to many among the auditors. The great bulk of the people are in such a state of apathy, in regard to the doctrines and institutions of the Bible, that unless their attention is aroused by something of an exciting nature, in the midst of the means of instruction they will remain nearly as ignorant as the heathen. Beside, it affords to those who have been misled by viewing only one side of a subject, an opportunity of knowing what can be said on the other side: And, although prejudice and sectarian feelings are, with the most, sufficiently strong |