A Virginia paper states that a company boring a solid rock in the bed of Elk Greek for salt water, at the distance of about 24 feet, struck a large vein of beautiful water, exceedingly cold, and a little brackish to the taste, which discharges itself at the top of a small gun inserted into the rock, and about 18 inches high. At the distance of about 118 feet, they passed through a rich vein, or bed of copper, about four feet in thickness; and at the depth of about 180 feet, they opened a strong vein of wind, which instantly found vent at the top of the well in a tremenduous roaring and spouting of water, throwing up perpendicular columns of that element, to the distance of 30 feet!! Although the diameter of the well is not more than 2 1-4 inches, it is supposed there is not less than 190 gallons of water discharged in one minute of time!! For some distance round this perpendicular shoot of water, plays an imperceptible gas or vapour, so very inflammable, as instantly to take fire whenever that element comes in contact with it. The verge of the circumference of this gas is not perceptible, therefore, those who are unacquainted with its ignitible qualities, in the act of putting fire to this curious lamp of nature, have found themselves enveloped in flames, and well singed before they had any idea of being within reach of its torch! It has been tried in vain to extinguish the flames with water. The only effectual method is to smother it with a large cloth, which can only be applied when the spouting and flame has somewhat abated. The intervals between the times of spouting are uncertain, it has been known to spout two or three times in a week, and may be seen to spout at any time, by putting down the poles after the well has been eight or ten days unoccupied. There are nineteen newspapers published and circulated in the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada. Six of them are published twice a week. Four are published in Quebec, and seven in Montreal. One in each of these places is published in French. Previous to 1809 there were only four papers in both provinces. A letter describing a visit to Waterloo in July last states that "three conspicu ous monuments are erected on the field. One to he memory of Col. Canning, who had served as aid to Wellington during the wars in Portugal, Spain, and France, and was killed on the spot. Another bears the names of about 40 Belgian Officers, who fell under the command of the Prince of Orange; and he third, or Prussian Monument, denotes the spot where Blucher entered the field. A noble Monument is to be erected on the place where the battle closed. It is to be 180 feet high, 700 broad at the base, and 140 at the top. Seven hundred men and three hundred horses are now employed in this work, and it will be completed next year. It has already gone up 20 or 30 feet. Some workmen employed in removing the earth while I was there, came to a grave where many had been buried in their clothes. I was surprised to notice that although the flesh had perished, the hair of several was uninjured.” Moscow is gradually rising from its ruins more regular and more fine; but it has lost its ancient Asiatic physiognomy. It now resembles the other capitals of Europe. In 1805 it contained more than 1500 gardens, and in 1812 it possessed 9158 houses, of which 2567 were of stone; 6591 of wood In 1820 it had 1020 gardens, 8 or 9000 houses, 6 cathedrals, 21 convents, 267 Greek churches, and 7 belonging to other forms of worship. Before the fire, it contained in winter, 312,000 inhabitants, whereas at present it has not more than 200,000. In England there are 19 Dukes, 16 Marquisses, 105 Earls, 21 Viscounts, and 143 Barons, making a total of 304 Peers of Great Britain. To these must be added the 16 elective Peers of Scotland, and 28 for Ireland, and 9 Peerages which are at present held by females, and it gives a total of 357; the whole number of which the House of Lords can consist, without new creations. Not a fifth of this number ordinarily attend, many very seldom, and some never. Answers to Correspondents. OUR Number for September it will be recollected contains a Review of Sermons on the Atonement. These sermons had excited much attention in the community; and one of them in particular, had been the subject of much remark and much diversity of opinion. They had been reviewed in most of our religious journals, and even commented on in the news 1824.] Letter from Rev. Dr. Dana. 659 papers. It seemed a duty,therefore, which we owed to our readers, We regret, however, that one of the authors themselves should feel aggrieved by our review. And we regret this the more, because it compels us to resume the subject; for having once given it our notice, we would willingly have let it rest, especially till the excitement and prejudices which it had occasioned should have passed away. But if by any means we have "misconceived and misstated" a writer's opinions, truth and fairness require that he should be allowed to correct us. We therefore readily admit the following communication, and shall endeavour to give it that attention which it claims. To the Editor of the Christian Spectator. SIR, In page 486, the Reviewer charges But the charge is grounded in mistake. The word substantial, as used by me, is obviously a qualifying term, and opposed to literal. And I appeal to scholars, and men of observation, whether this use of the term is not familiar, and well understood. What more common, than to remark of a narration of a matter of fact, that it is substantially true, where the meaning is, that it is not literally and circumstantially correct? The Reviewer, then, was under no necessity of misunderstanding me; and had he understood me, might have spared his sarcastic remarks. This representation, thus obviously grounded in mistake, becomes the more injurious, on account of the use which is subsequently made of it. Towards the close of the Review, the writer, alluding to the expressions last quoted froin my sermon, respecting the execution of the law, remarks as follows: "Because Dr. M. does not express himself in the same, or similar language, Dr. D. proceeds to say, that he has presented a scheme of the atonement which "tends apparently at least to subvert the law;" which "gives such views of the divine character as are equally inexplicable and distressing;" which, for aught that can be seen, "comprises in it a virtual denial of the atonement itself," which calls for the interrogation, "where then is the foundation of the believer's hope?"—and which, in conclusion, "is utterly irreconcilable with Scripture." 66 In another passage (p. 486.) the Reviewer declares that these observa tions of mine proceed on the supposi tion, that the law was literally executed upon the Saviour. Let me now, Mr. Editor, call your attention to the real fact. In my sermon (p. 13.) the theory collected from Dr. M.'s discourse, is thus characterized. "A scheme which represents the atonement as an exhibition or display; a symbolical transaction merely; which rejects or omits the Saviour's substitution; which denies that his sufferings were vicarious, and of course denies that they constituted a proper satisfaction for the sins of men." Be pleased to remark, that it was on this scheme, considered as a whole, that the observations so obnoxious to the Reviewer were made. This is perfectly plain to every reader. Yet, in the face of this undeniable fact, the world is told that the whole ground of all this reprehension, is a mere difference of expression, between Dr. M. and myself; and not only so, but that I have severely criminated him for net acceding to a sentiment which I had myself explicitly discarded! I feel myself authorized to say, that all this is not merely unjust, but the extreme of injustice. To the charge of "misrepresenting Dr. M.'s discourse," I have nothing to oppose, but a simple denial. So serious a charge ought to have been substantiated by an induction of particulars. If, in my attempt to trace his principles to their practical results, I have erred, this may be false reasoning; but it is not, properly speaking, misrepresentation. Nor shall I offer any reply to the candid suggestion of the Reviewer, that in the opinions I have formed and expressed of the tendency of Dr. M's Sermon, I have been influenced, rather by circulating rumours, than by the nature and merits of the case. This and some other remarks, admit no reply. Points of decorum are not matters of argument. And if the Reviewer has wandered from his path, it is no part of my duty to follow him. Much, however, is said respecting the points in which the three sermons agree" the necessity of an atonement -the fact that an atonement has been made the character of the Saviourthe fact that the atonement is the only ground of salvation-and the sufficiency of the atonement to answer fully the end to be secured by executing the penalty of the law on transgressors." The Reviewer then asks, “Are not these the great and leading points of doctrine which the subject embraces ? Do they not constitute the whole subject, so far as it is clearly a matter of revelation ?" I readily answer, yes, with one exception only-THE ATONEMENT ITSELF. This is surely a point of some importance; and on this point, it was natural to look for information in a sermon professedly written on the nature of the atonement. In that sermon (Dr. M's) we are informed that the Atonement "was in its nature, simply a display or exhibition, intended to impress on all creatures a deep sense of "the righteousness of God" as a moral governor. The grand defect of this account is, that it represents that as the essence of the atonement, which is one of its great appendages, or results. Because God has set forth Christ as a propitiation, to declare his righteousness, it certainly does not follow that the propitiation of Christ, and the manifestation of God's righteousness are synonymous and convertible terms. With just as much reason it might be contended, that because the miracles of Christ manifest his divinity, therefore the manifestation of his divinity constitutes the essence of his miracles. That the atonement affords an illustrious manifestation of the righteousness of God, is unquestionable; but this manifestation is its result, its effect, not its essence. That sermon, moreover, omits, and apparently rejects the doctrine of the Saviour's substitution in the place of sinners; denies that his sufferings were vicarious (in the received sense of the term) and of course denies that they constituted a proper satisfaction for sin. My sermon, as it is well known to all who have perused it, maintains the affirmative on all these points; and contends that in these, mainly, consists the essence of the atonement. I have no hesitation to add, that on these points, I have the support of Professor Stuart. The doctrine of his sermon is, that Christ suffered as our Substitule; or, that his sufferings and death were an expiatory offering, on account of which our sins are pardoned, and we are restored to the divine favour. This doctrine he proves by the induction of such Scripture texts as these: Who his own self, bore our sins in his own body on the tree..... by whose by whose stripes ye were healed.-For he hath made him to be sin [i. e. a sin offering] for us, who knew no sin. "He was not," says the Professor, "an isolated monument of suffering, and of God's displeasure against sinners; not merely a sign that sin could be pardoned, by which only an abstract testimony could be given, like that which the rainbow gives of God's covenant to drown the earth no more, &c. &c." Such being the case, Mr Editor, the ingenuity and labour employed by your Reviewer, to convince the publie that the points in question between Dr. M. and myself, are points of small importance-are ingenuity and labour thrown away. Indeed, the attempt seems much like an insult on the public understanding. The points in contest are vital to the Christian scheme and the Christian hope. And without fear of contradiction I affirm that they have been so regarded by the great body of approved divines, from the Reformation to the present time. It is not less important to add, that these doctrines have ever been the grand support of the humble and pious, in their anticipations of death, and their approaches to eternity. Here too, the heart-broken and self-despairing have found refuge and rest. Let them not be driven from this last resort. If philosophers in their bold speculations, are determined to cast all other gospel doc trines into a mould of their own con- Permit me, Mr. Editor, with all due pered; and that your respectable journal may be long and increasingly a blessing to the interests of our Country, and of Zion, is my unfeigned wish D. DANA. and prayer. Londonderry, N. H., Oct. 20, 1824. The first thing complained of by Dr. D. is, that we charge him with "holding that in the sufferings of Christ there was a literal execution of the law." This statement,besides needing some qualification, would seem improbable on the face of it. For it was our leading object to render what we supposed might be a very acceptable service, not only to a very considerable portion of the community, but to the parties themselves, by showing that they actually agreed on points where they were supposed, with discredit to themselves, to differ. We had quoted a passage from Prof. S., and another from Dr. M., in which they disclaim the opinion that there was a literal execution of the law on Christ and to show that Dr.D. concurred with them,we quoted the very passage in which he says he expressly disclaimed the same opinion. Still, being desirous to ascertain if possible where the alleged disagreement between him and Dr. M. existed, we quoted the passage in which we thought it might be found" His sufferings were a substantial execution of the law," &c. Here we seemed to have detected the phantom; and we pronounced the supposed difference very shadowy. For we judged the passage previously quoted from Dr. D. to be a sufficient warrant for our pronouncing an agreement with the Professors on this point, and that he did not, whatever might seem to be the import of the supposed contradictory passage, intend to deny what he had so plainly asserted in another. Dr. D. is under a mistake, then, in supposing that, in citing the passage in question, we intended to attribute to him the belief of a literal execution of the law on Christ. We simply quoted the passage containing the shadowy difference,'and said in reference to it, that Dr. D. seemed in this instance, either to use language which conveyed no very definite idea, or to be inconsistent with himself, rather than to advance any opinion, opposed to Prof. S., or Dr. M. It seems hardly necessary to add, that we had no design to fasten on Dr. D. the charge of self-contradiction, though we confess that, to avoid imputing to him a sentiment which we verily believed he did not entertain, we were obliged to say, it looked more like an inconsistency with himself, than like an opinion contrary to that of Prof. S. and Dr. M., especially as the same phraseology was repeated in his sermon in opposition to the state ment of Dr. M. that the atonement was a substitute for the execution of the law. Our difficulty was to put the two passages together, so that Dr. Dana should agree with the professors and also with himself, when in one he did so expressly declare the same thing that they declare, and in the other furnished so plausible an occasion for supposing that he held a different opinion. Whether we had reason for feeling this difficulty, the passage which occasioned it must decide. "Inasmuch as the scripture expressly declares that, in redeeming us from the law, he was made a curse for us, we are constrained to conclude that his sufferings were a substantial execution of the law; a real endurance of the penalty, so far as the nature of the case admitted or required." It seems, however, Dr. D. did not mean by substantial execution of the law, even in connexion with the phrase "real endurance of the penalty, &c." a literal execution. And whether the sense he gives to the term substantial be authorized by usage or not, we are willing to give up words for things, and are happy to find by so doing that the agreement between Dr. D. and Dr. M. is even more unquestionable and exact than from the unexplained language of the former, we had felt authorized to make it. Dr. D. had passed severe reprehension on the sermon of Dr. M. and he represents us as telling the world that the whole ground of all this reprehension is a mere difference of expression between Dr. M. and himself." If Dr. D. supposes we meant to assert that he thus severely reprehends Dr. M. merely because he has not used the consecrated phraseology which belongs to the subject, while he did not suppose the opinions of Dr. M. to be reprehensible, he has greatly We expressed our mistaken us. conviction that he did honestly misapprehend Dr. M.; and if Ďr. D. understands us to say the novel and somewhat peculiar phraseology of Dr. M. occasioned the misapprehension, and consequently the severe reprehension, of his sermon, he understood us correctly; and we feel competent to defend our language thus understood; remarking by the way, that we cannot see it to be either unjust, or the extreme of injustice, simply to say that, on account of the peculiar phraseology of a writer, another has honestly misapprehended him, and through such misapprehension, passed a severe sentence on his production. Regarding then, the peculiar phraseology of Dr. M. as the source of misapprehension, we did represent it as the ground of Dr. D.'s severe censures; and we ask, what else could be the ground? Dr. D. would have it to be the theory collected from the sermon. But we say the sermon does not contain the theory: we have shown, as we believe, that it does not. And if it does not-if the opinions reprehended are not to be found in the sermon, they are not in fact the ground of the reprehension, for they do not exist. We have no |