Church in the United States, whenever, in the judgment of the Bishop, it shall be consistent with the good faith which she owes to the Bishops and Dioceses with which she has been in union for the last

four years.

Resolved, That deputies be elected from this Diocese to represent Georgia in the Council appointed to be held in Mobile in November next, with the understanding, that if any contingency should arise whereby it should become expedient that this Diocese should be represented in the General Convention to be assembled in October next, the same deputies shall be deputies to that Convention, with power to fill any vacancies in their own body.

By order of the Committee.

W. H. HARISON, Chairman.

The report was, on motion, received, and the resolutions adopted. The following are the deputies elected under the second resolution:

INTERCOMMUNION BETWEEN THE WEST AND THE EAST.

While we of the American Church are discussing the practicability of Intercommunion between ourselves and the Eastern Church, the English Church has well nigh settled the matter in an exceedingly simple and practical way. An English Priest, the Rev. William Denton, travelling in Serbia, and who has long labored in behalf of Unity between the Anglican and Orthodox Church of the East, says: "When I made my arrangements in London for spending a few weeks in Serbia, I immediately wrote to the Metropolitan, the Archbishop of Belgrade, and to the Bishop of Schabatz, informing them both of my intention to travel in this country, and requesting them to admit me to communion simply on the ground of my being a Priest of the English Church. On my arrival at Belgrade, I called, the Saturday before Whitsun-day, upon the Archbishop, who fortunately was at this moment attended by the Bishops of Tschatchat and Schabatz." The result was, a decision on the part of these high dignitaries that he might commune; and that decision was looked upon by both parties, as settling the great general principle. He says in a subsequent letter: "There now remained the general question of the right of all members of the English Church to communicate simply as members of the English Church, and without any test beyond that of their loyal membership in their own branch of the Church Catholic; and your readers will be glad to know-I cannot say with what joy I write this

news-that on the production of a simple certificate of real and living membership, settled by the Bishop and indicated to me, all such persons will, from this time forth, be received as communicants of the Orthodox Church in Serbia. And intercommunion with one portion of the Orthodox Church cannot long precede the formal concession of the same intercommunion with the whole Eastern Church. Here is real intercommunion on the true catholic basis-the beginning, I trust, of wider union."

The English Churchman, which publishes the letters, says: "There are affinities between the two Churches. To the many points of agreement between our own Church and the Orthodox Communion, the points of a married Clergy, a single Altar, a vernacular Liturgy, an open Bible, a parity of Bishops, an administration of the Blessed Sacrament in both kinds, the Serbian Church adds one other, which rendered mutual recognition and union more easy to her than to other branches of the Eastern Church. She allows, as our Church allows, Baptism by affusion. Immersion is with her, as with us, the rule; but affusion with her, as with us, is not only allowed, but frequently practised."

THE MORAVIANS AND THE MORAVIAN EPISCOPATE.

To the Article on this subject, in the last Review, "The Moravian" (Newspaper) makes no reply in the way of argument, or even the show of argument; but vents its bad temper in such an outpouring of scurrility as is in sad contrast with the very extraordinary pretensions of this Sect. In its heat of passion, however, it unwittingly makes a disclosure, which is of some importance. It shows in what light the Moravians really look upon the overtures and concessions, which some Churchmen, with the best of motives, and in good faith, have, for the sake of Unity, been ready to make. We more than doubted the propriety of such overtures before; we do not doubt it the less now. "The Moravian" says: "Have the Moravians ever made the most distant advances, officially or unofficially, toward the Episcopalians? Have the Moravians ever written, or published, a single line, or uttered a single word, expressive of a desire, on their part, to be recognized by the Episcopalians? Have the Moravians ever, in the remotest degree, hinted that they would deem such recognition to be of any value? Have not advances invariably proceeded from the Episcopalians; and, while they have been reciprocated in the spirit of our common Lord, have the Moravians ever given the Episcopalians the slightest cause to believe, that they felt themselves flattered? Have they not rather, at all times, avowed that such reciprocations were nothing more than what they were accustomed, and happy to do, in the case of all other evangelical churches?"

In all this, there is exhibited at least one feature of Moravianism, about which, henceforth, there can be no possibility of mistake.

ART. I.—THE ORIGIN AND ANTIQUITY OF MAN: DARWIN, HUXLEY AND LYELL.

PART III.

The Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man, with Remarks on Theories of the Origin of Species by Variation; by SIR CHARLES LYELL, F. R. S. Philadelphia: 1863.

HAVING exposed the fanciful scheme of Mr. Darwin, and the illogical argument of Mr. Huxley, in the two preceding Parts of this Essay, we now come to the conclusion of our task, and propose to examine, critically, the views of Sir Charles Lyell, promulgated in his latest work on the "Antiquity of Man."

It is said that Napoleon Bonaparte rebuked the religious infidelity of Marshal Duroc, who had, on a certain occasion, expressed his belief in a very incredible story, by the remark, "there are some men who are capable of believing every thing but the Bible."

The three authors whose works are reviewed in this Essay, furnish an apt illustration of this remark. Mr. Darwin is unable to credit the Scriptures, which declare that all the forms of life were originated by a Divine Creator, and that all the

laws of Nature emanate from a Divine Lawgiver; yet he has no difficulty in believing that all the distinct species of animals are the results of accidental variations of some common non-descript germ; and that the laws which govern their existence have been determined by some imaginary and impossible principle of Natural Selection, which they themselves have fortuitously given birth to, in their struggle for existence. He requires us to disbelieve the authoritative Revelation of the Creator, the authenticity of which is capable of verification,and proposes, for our acceptance, the most improbable scheme of Creation which an unbridled imagination can devise, based solely on his own gratuitous assumptions. He rejects, as unreasonable, Moses' account of the successive acts of Creation, which is in perfect harmony with the disclosures of science, and his statement, that the distinct forms of animal life were created separately and independently, which also comports with all known facts: but he can see no difficulty in believing that all the distinct species of animals were produced by accidental transmutation, under the guidance of a physical divinity, itself accidentally developed,—although not a single fact in science can be adduced to prove even the possibility of such an occurrence, or the probable existence in Nature of such a chimera as he designates under the name of "Natural Selection." Truly, the credulity of scepticism exceeds belief!

Next comes Mr. Huxley, a practical anatomist of distintuished merit, who believes that the suggestive and fanciful vagaries of Mr. Darwin furnish a sound basis for scientific theorizing. He accordingly lays down his scalpel, and takes up the pen, and by an argument founded on the differences of animals, which is not only illogical in itself, but absurd in its application, he endeavors to prove, in contempt of such "timehonored theories" as the Bible propounds, that Man is the lineal descendent of the gorilla.

Lastly, Sir Charles Lyell, who has devoted a long life, with renowned success, to practical and theoretical Geology, is infected with the same credulous scepticism, and renounces, in his old age, the firm convictions of his vigorous prime, which were then in accordance with Revelation. With garrulous

prolixity, he has reproduced his accumulated store of facts, and written a book of 513 pages, to endorse the visionary notions of his friends, Darwin and Huxley, and to prove that man, if not of bestial origin, at least commenced his career as a brutal savage, and dwelt on this earth a hundred thousand years ago, the Bible to the contrary notwithstanding.

We shall deal with Sir Charles in the same manner that we have with his two friends. We will frankly admit, so far as possible, all his facts; but we will subject to rigid scrutiny the inferences which he draws from these facts, and will test, by a rigorous analysis, the soundness of his theoretical speculations.

It is important to state, at the outset, that Sir Charles Lyell's estimates in regard to time are to be taken with great allowance. From the commencement of his career as a Geologist, he has always been a strenuous advocate of the theory, that all the changes which this earth has undergone have been brought about gradually, by the uniform action of the same causes which are now at work, modifying its PRESENT surface. This theory, which is in direct antagonism to the more prevalent one of cataclysmic convulsions, requires, as a necessary element, illimitable periods of time, to account for successive geological formations. Consequently, this claim of epochs of immense duration, in connection with his pet theory of gradual change, became, and still is, a special hobby of Sir Charles Lyell. It governs all his geological speculations, and gives a bias to all his inferences.

On the other hand, many other geologists equally entitled to respect, and some who rank higher, such as Elie de Beaumont of France and Sir Roderick Murchison of England, maintain the opposite theory, of sudden changes, produced by paroxysmal convulsions. Lyell has satisfactorily demonstrated the probability, that certain formations have been gradually produced by existing causes, acting during immense periods of time, but he is constantly forced to admit that these causes may have acted with very different degrees of energy at different times. This admission is fatal to any dogmatic assertion in regard to absolute time; for the varying ratio of increase, being unknown, the time necessary for a formation must also