Page images
PDF
EPUB

knew not God:" "If the world hate you :" "Who taketh away the sin of the world."

The general meaning of the Apostle is often summed up in the assertion that Adam is represented as our federal head; in whose fall "all die," as by the obedience of the "second Adam," all are, in some sense or other, "made alive." This opinion-I should rather say this language-will lead us to the same conclusion: for it is surely no article of faith that Adam was the federal head of the brute creation, or that they are concerned in the dispensation of redemption.

If we now turn to the introductory chapters of Genesis, we shall find several indications, more or less clear, that the lower animals, even before the fall of Adam, were liable to death. It seems improbable that no mention of this infliction should be found in the curse denounced upon the serpent, if the animal, to which that curse in its literal sense refers, then first became subject to mortality. Nor is it easy to conceive how the waters and "green herb" of Eden could have been used as food, consistently with the preservation of the minute insect tribes. To these suggestions it may be added, that many peculiarities of organic structure in animals bear an obvious relation to the ferocious habits of the species in which they occur. As an instance, I select the case of venomous animals: the fang of the serpent and the sting of the wasp appear to be designed for the end which they now accomplish, and to be incapable of any other application.

These difficulties may not be insurmountable; and they certainly ought not to outweigh a clear and decisive declaration of Scripture: but it would be utterly unreason able to lay them aside, in determining the probable meaning of an ambiguous text.

I believe this subject is sometimes regarded in a different point of view; as if the fall of man explained the suffering condition of

the brute creation. But this is certainly a mistake: with our short sighted and infinitely imperfect knowledge, we are not required to vindicate the Divine government in this matter; but it is obvious, that any attempt to do so must proceed on grounds unconnected with the moral condition of man. On the whole, therefore, I think we are warranted in saying, that the Scriptures contain nothing whatever bearing on our present subject, which needs interfere with the freest exercise of our judgment on geolo. gical phenomena.

The other objections urged by Mr. Bugg turn on the interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, and one or two texts nearly coincident in meaning. This part of the inquiry is not without its difficulties; but I do not think either of the systems which he condemns really inconsistent with the authority of the Mosaic account. I will first exa

Inine that which confines the six days of creation exclusively to the preparation of the earth for the reception of man.

Mr. Bugg supposes that this interpretation would leave us without a scriptural proof that matter is not self-existent. But this is a mistake: at least it is not a necessary part of the system we are considering. It may be, as I think it ought to be, admitted, that the first verse of Genesis records a creation in the most absolute sense of the word. The point in controversy will then be, whether the inspired history, after announcing this great fact, does not pass over an interval, the events of which it has not pleased Providence miraculously to disclose; resuming the subject at the period when, the earth being without form and void, the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters, and the first day of preparation for the present state of things began. Considering the sublime and abrupt brevity of the Scriptural narrative, (I might add, I believe, the paucity and consequent ambiguity of Hebrew

[ocr errors]

particles and inflections,) it does not appear to me that this interpretation is inadmissible; but it certainly may be thought, on a first view, scarcely consistent with the language of the Fourth Commandment, and some parallel texts. The following consideration appears to me, in a great measure, to remove this difficulty. Among the transactions of the se cond day, we find the "making of a firmament, which received the name of heaven, This "6 making" seems to have been merely a sepa ration of the atmosphere from the chaotic mass: but the language used fully bears out the assertion, that the heaven was made on the second day. Again in the course of the third day, the dry land on its emergence received the name of earth; and the gathering together of the waters was called sea. This latter name then, is, on some account or other, inapplicable to the previous state of the waters; and the sea, properly speaking, did not exist before the third day. It seems as if the same remark would apply to the dry land, which received the name of earth. It may be argued, therefore, with much appearance of reason, that the recorded occurrences of the second and third day, though confined to the remodelling of previously existing matter, do of themselves warrant the declaration, that "the heaven, the earth, and the sea, were made" in the "six days" of the Mosaic history. I do not propose the preceding interpretation as free from all doubt and difficulty; but I could adopt it, if sufficiently supported by geological facts, without losing my reverence for the Pentateuch, or my conviction of its inspiration. I do not see much in 'the objection drawn from the language of the Second Commandment. Its literal meaning, on the above supposition, will forbid the worship of the heavenly bodies, (which were "made*," however we

It seems most probable that the sacred record merely informs us at what period, subsequently to the commence

may understand that term, on the fourth day); as also that of all plants and animals in existence at the promulgation of the law: its spirit surely condemns, with sufficient clearness, the worship of the mammoth and the ichthyosaurus.

It will be said, that the interpretation I am discussing, though it leaves untouched the evidence for an original creation, reduces to insignificance the transactions of the "six days." I reply, that on these so-called insignificant transactions depends all the importance, to mankind, of the original creation of matter. If this answer be not sufficient, I would refer for an instance of similar phraseology to 2 Peter iii. 5-7; where the effects of the deluge are considered as amounting to a destruction of the old "heavens and earth," and a substitution of those which "now are." It must be remembered, too, that "the heavens and earth," including the waters of the great deep, were unquestionably created either on or before the "first day" of Moses. Whatever, therefore, becomes of a particular hypothesis, the transactions of the second and third day, including the "making " of the hea vens, must be explained as a remodelling of pre-existing matter.

It remains to examine the hypothesis which supposes the days of creation to be periods of considerable length; but as I am unwilling to extend this paper much beyond its present limits, I shall content ment of the "first day," the heavenly bodies began to warm and illuminate the surface of our globe. Anyexplanation of the usual language of Scripture on astronomical subjects, may be easily extended so as ing. The uneducated man says, that the I prefer the followsun moves daily from east to west. Is he wrong? Undoubtedly he is, if he means the huge globe described by astronomers; but he means no such thing: he means a flat circular disk visible in the sky; in that

to include this case.

"firmament" in which the clouds move. Of this sun, perhaps a joint result of the central globe of our system, and the properties of our own atmosphere, it is said, and no doubt with the strictest truth, that it stood still upon or over Gibeon.

myself with referring to Mr. Faber's chapter on the subject, extracted in your volume for 1823, pp. 419, 480, 551, and 623: and, in conclusion, shall call the attention of your readers to a particular point; the probable designs of Providence, (if we may venture reverently to inquire into them), in revealing the secrets of creation, so far as they are disclosed in the first chapter of Genesis. The details there given have no visible bearing on religious faith or practice, and are certainly too concise to convey original knowledge of practical utility. No man indeed can be insensible to the sublimity and interest of the narrative; but it is not the ordinary, as it does not seem the natural, scope of revelation, merely to gratify our taste or curiosity. We must look therefore for some other and higher end; and I am disposed to think that the progress of geological discovery is destined ultimately to explain and verify the Mosaic account; and thus render it an important witness to the inspiration of the Pentateuch. On this supposition, the first chapter of Genesis may be not inaptly termed a prophecy of geological discoveries; and, like other prophecies, it will probably be unexplained, till Time, "the great interpreter," shall remove its obscurity. In the mean while, we may reason by the common rules of science, as we should act according to the ordinary maxims of morality and prudence; in assured confidence that the book of experience, whether we consult its historical or its philosophical chapter, will eventually bear testimony to the book of God.

U. U. S.

ON A NEW BREACH OF CHURCH DISCIPLINE.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

UNAVAILING as each attempt may prove to stay the anti-religious spi

rit of the "Gentleman's Magazine," there is something so eccentric in a charge which it lately preferred against a young clergyman, that I cannot refrain from submitting to your readers a few observations on the subject. The charge occurs in a review of Mr. Rose's sermons preached before the University of Cambridge. "Mr. Rose," says the editor," tells us, that instances have very recently occurred of deacons, when attending a bishop for examination, previous to their ordination as priests, exhorting in the inn near his residence, and defending their conduct for so doing; notwithstanding it was a mistake of the extent of their ministerial commission, and a breach of church discipline." While ruminating upon this heavy accusation, two questions presented themselves to my mind: 1st. What is to be understood by that" exhortation" which is here complained of? and 2d. In what respects is it opposed to church discipline?

As to the first question, I have no means of ascertaining the precise nature of the act which has proved so offensive to the reviewer. Whether the "exhortation" was sober, or intemperate, addressed to an individual, or to an assembly; whether under circumstances of retirement, or display, I am wholly unable to decide. Possibly, however, it may serve to throw some light upon the question if I state what once occurred to a clergyman, when passing the night at an inn, situated in a large city.. About eight o'clock in the evening the waiter, somewhat unexpectedly, informed him, that "there was a clergyman in an adjoining room who intended to have family prayers at nine o'clock; and that any person who might be staying at the inn would be at perfect liberty to attend them." The individual who received this message considered himself bound, more particularly as a clergyman, to accept it. He attended at the hour appointed, and was much pleased, both with the:

manner in which the service was conducted, and with the deportment of those who were present; among whom were the landlady, and several servants belonging to the inn, both male and female. On leaving the room the last-mentioned clergyman took occasion to say to the landlady, "I am surprised to find that it is possible thus to assemble your servants for the purpose of family prayer." "Oh, sir," she replied, "it is not only possible, as you perceive, but we are. much obliged to any clergyman who will kindly undertake the office: our servants are so ignorant and thoughtless, that we are glad to have them thus instructed in the Bible, and taught to pray to God." Not being aware that he was violating church discipline, or not having Mr. Urban at his elbow as a religious Mentor, the clergyman in question pledged himself without hesitation to follow the laudable example of his reverend brother, whenever he might again pass a night at the inn. Again, and again, has he, by redeeming his pledge, violated, it seems, church discipline. In plain words, he has repeatedly read and expounded a short portion of Scripture to as many of the servants of the inn, as, together with the landlord and landlady, were at leisure to attend; and he concluded the service with an evening tribute of prayer and thanksgiving to God. Of a similar cha racter, perhaps, was the "exhortation" so loudly complained of, and so pointedly reprobated, by the reviewer. Yet in so doing, the clergyman seemed to himself to seize that religious opportunity, the neglect of

In answer to those who would contend, that it is the office of the minister of the parish to instruct the servants in question in the all-important matter of religion, I would remark, how frequently it happens, that Sunday travellers so occupy the waiters' time, as almost necessarily to preclude their attendance on the services of the church. If, therefore, some extraordinary efforts be not made for their instruction, they are too likely to remain ignorant of the "one thing needful."

CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 326.

which might have risen upag aint him in the judgment, as a breach of his Christian obligations, if not a contradiction of that avowal which he made at the time of ordination, relative to his being "moved by the Holy Ghost,"-" to serve God for the promoting of His glory, and the edifying of His people."

How far I was right in my conclusions may appear, as I now consider our second question; namely, In what respects the "exhortation" above mentioned is opposed to "church discipline."

The reviewer having, it seems, identified-for his language is unlimited in its range-every such "exhortation" as he has alluded to with "the breach of church discipline," I would first beg to be informed to what part, or item, of that discipline he immediately refers. Let him name either the canon or act, the Scriptural or the Liturgical authority, by which he would support his grave and injurious charge against a deacon of his own church; a charge," too, which he would point by adding that the exhortation in question was made " near the bishop's residence;" a circumstance, the effect of which surely should not be to damp the fervour of ministerial zeal, nor to restrain its sober exercise.

66

Yet, in undertaking to become the apologist of the deacon assailed by the reviewer, I would be understood to speak with all necessary regard to the time, the place, the manner, the spirit, and, though last, not least, the length of such an " exhortation," as may be delivered by a clergyman, whether priest or deacon, at an inn. Where such "regard" is wanting, it is obvious that a religious exercise which in itself is not merely allowable, but laudable, may become liable to serious objection. "Let all things be done decently, and in order." The best things may be spoiled by indiscretion and mismanagement. Still, while I admit that his diffidence 0

should ever be proportionate to his youth, I would maintain, that so long as a clergyman undertakes such a service in a spirit of "sound wisdom,"and scriptural devotion, to charge him with a "breach of church discipline," is an unjust as well as severe reflection, Is it not, in fact, to say, that, in order to maintain such "discipline," we must withhold spiritual instruction from those who may peculiarly need it; who are apparently disposed to profit by it; and who, in many cases, I fear, if not zealously furnished with such extra" exhortations" as those which the reviewer has condemned, must remain destitute of all pastoral advice? If such ideas of church discipline be correct, it would be difficult to reconcile with them the language of St. Paul, respecting the duties of a bishop, "apt to teach;" as also the Apostolic precept immediately addressed to Timothy, "Be instant in season, out of season."

Your readers may be not less astonished than myself that the reviewer should have noticed an "exhortation delivered at an inn," as apparently the only-certainly the most flagrant-breach of church discipline, which has lately come under his observation. Is he prepared to shew that for a clergyman to join a hunt; to expose himself to the pollutions of a theatre; to pass the night at a ball; to be present on a race course; to harangue at the hustings, or to enter into the jovial spirit of a public dinner; to play at cards,-habits, all of which are happily declining in the clergy of the Established Church, and which are expressly forbidden by the canons, -is no breach whatever of church discipline?

I would conclude by submitting to your readers some reasons for and against the practice under consideration. To begin with the latter. It is an unusual thing for a clergyman. to deliver an exhortation, or to have family prayers, at an inn; it

[ocr errors]

must, therefore, attract notice, and probably expose him to animadversion, and even ridicule: it may even prove offensive to his patron, and thus injure his prospect of preferment.

The reasons in favour of the practice are such as the following. A thing is not wrong because it is unusual. The servants at an inn are singularly debarred of those general opportunities of religious edification which are afforded to others on the Sabbath. Some one is surely bound to minister to their spiritual necessities; and who is more qualified to do so than a clergyman, who happens to be sleeping at the inn? Even the clergyman of the parish, on account of the lateness of the hour when the family might assemble in the evening, would be far less capable of acting in the case here supposed. Above all, by heartily endeavouring, in dependance on the grace of the Holy Spirit, to bring those to the knowledge of a Saviour who are too generally ignorant of Him, we are so far obeying the commandment to "do good unto all men ;" and in a dying hour we shall escape the dreadful retrospect of having willingly neglected those who may be "perishing for lack of knowledge."

[ocr errors]

To prove that we may make ourselves remarkable by neglecting to admonish those who are not our immediate charge, as ministers of Christ, I may state the following fact. A clergyman, on reproving a determined swearer on board a ship, was asked by the captain of the vessel if he was not a Dissenting Minister? For," said the captain, "I thought that none but Dissenting Ministers would have reproved a man for swearing." The circumstance occurred some years since; and I conscientiously believe that such an opinion would be unfounded, and I hope is obsolete in the present day: still the anecdote may not be without its use.

Πισις

« PreviousContinue »