Page images

If a

[ocr errors]

concludes thus:- -“ Nor must we forget that we are always speaking of living species, formed to inhabit within or near the tropics ; the coal plants were of perfectly distinct species, and may have been endowed with a different constitution, enabling them to bear a greater variation of circumstances, in regard to light,” (b. i, ch. 6.) This I conceive to be the true solution of the difficulty, for I seem to discover that those primeval plants were created under a sunless sky. gigantic vegetation, such as that of the coal measures, necessarily entails rain, as well as a humid atmosphere, I shall, of course, be happy to see Mr. Clarke's promised explanation of this phenomenon upon natural principles; but I would draw his attention to the important consideration, that the coal plants grew under circumstances very different from any on the present face of the earth—viz., in a continually clouded atmosphere, and under an increased protection from the direct rays of the sun; nevertheless, his arguments may

be cessfully applied to the period between the first appearance of the sun and the deluge.

Mr. C. farther objects : “ If then there were no ruminantia before Adam, why was there grass, or green herb, (Gen. i. 11.) We may be certain that they were not created without a use; and I believe that Moses has stated nothing respecting the creation which is not strictly and scientifically true.” Now I am not aware that any of the Hebrew words can be strictly limited to the botanical family of grasses; and, to find some use for the green herb, there lived before Adam (1) the herbivorous saurians, of the secondary formations, and (2) the paleothere, &c., of the tertiary strata, which were herbivorous, though not ruminant.

The introduction of carnivorous animals presents another difficulty. At whatever period of the earth's duration the gigantic Saurians, of the secondary formations, may have lived, some of them were herbivorous, others carnivorous, (Lyell

, b. i., ch.6 ;) and ferocious animals have existed through the different successive creations from that time to the present day. Mr. C. supposes that the first pairs of herbivorous creatures, at the time of Adam, must have been permitted to make considerable progress before the creation of the first pairs of wolves or lions; or rather, before the ferocious properties of the latter were developed. Now, if we are to be confined to first pairs of animals, I should say, by a similar mode of reasoning, that the first specimens of herbs and plants must likewise have been allowed to disseminate themselves widely before the creation of the first pairs of herbivora ; but I do not see any authority for either case; although the coats of skins for Adam and his wife seem to imply, either that Adam lived for some length of time in his innocent estate, or that more than single pairs of herbivora were originally created. My opinion is, that the whole dry land was variegated from the first with thicket and jungle, and the green herb, and was filled at once with the various genera of animals, in such proportions as would preserve the balance nearly as it is at the present day. And I farther suppose that the antediluvian hyenas, tigers, bears, &c. (all of species now extinct,) were created contemporaneously with the numerous “ beasts of the field,”

or pasture; yet since beasts of the field were alone taken into paradise to Adam, no mention is made of the creation of carnivora, for the history there seems confined to those transactions only in which Adam was personally concerned. I unequivocally state that this is only supposition, but it appears quite as reasonable as the opinion supported by Mr. Clarke, that the lion originally ate straw like the ox, and that the ferocious properties of beasts of prey were developed as man became tainted with sin. Indeed, if any of the animals, on leaving paradise, were rendered savage, as a punishment for Adam's transgression, might we not expect that this important change in animal nature would have been expressly mentioned, together with the other part of his penal sentence-the curse upon the ground?

W. B. WINNING. Bedford.

BAPTISM. Sir,—In districts in which there is a Baptist teacher situated, there are usually many persons who have never received the rite of baptism. It frequently happens, from a variety of causes, that some of these persons forsake the meeting, and become constant attendants at their parish church, and yet do not feel the privilege and necessity of receiving baptism, having been brought up in the idea that baptism is not only unlawful, when administered to infants, but the is unnecessary, and of no avail in any case where the person does not feel a special call urging him to it. The same class of dissenters are at great pains to deter churchmen from having their children christened, by crying down the rite itself, and by raising difficulties in the minds of those who are called upon to undertake the office of sponsors. Some good might perhaps be done in counteracting these dangerous errors, by putting into the hands of those who are wavering a short and comprehensive treatise, which should point out, in a plain and comprehensive manner, the value and importance of baptism generally, and not merely with reference to infants, or the manner in which it is administered by our church. If you would inform me of any tract most proper for this purpose, you will confer a great favour on, Sir, your obedient servant,


LAWSON'S ROMAN-CATHOLIC CHURCH IN SCOTLAND. SIR,-Mr. Lawson, at p. 291 of the above work, has the following passage :

“ The Roman-catholic church in Scotland, at the present time, has no hierarchy, such as it possesses in Ireland, where it has all the apparatus of an establishment, the Romish bishops calling themselves by the names of the respective sees which belong to the protestant church, and boldly claiming to be the indigenous clergy of the country. In Scotland, and in England, the Romish church was not only deposed, but its episcopal succession became extinct; while in Ireland it was simply deposed, and supplanted by the protestant established church.”

If I understand his meaning correctly, it is this—that while the Romish church in England and Scotland became extinct, by reason of the deprived bishops not keeping up a succession, the case was otherwise in Ireland; and that the Romish bishops there did keep up the succession; and that the present Romish bishops in that country are the descendants and representatives, by episcopal succession, of the original Irish church.

That such an assertion has been made on the part of the Romans, I am well aware, having heard it myself from a priest of that communion; but the result of all the inquiry that it has fallen within my reach to make, leads me to the conclusion that it is utterly without foundation.

As the truth or falsehood of this alleged fact is, at the present moment, of more than ordinary interest, very materially affecting the light in which the protestant episcopal church in Ireland must be regarded, Mr. Lawson, I hope, will not be displeased at having his attention thus plainly called to it, and an opportunity afforded him of either verifying his assertion, if he is able to do so, or of openly withdrawing it, if, upon inquiry, he shall find that it is not borne out by historical evidence.

On this subject the learned Mr. Palmer, in his “Origines Liturgiæ," (vol. ii., p. 251), has the following remarks :

“ The Irish bishops almost unanimously consented, in the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, to remove the jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff. See Leland's History of Ireland, vol. iv., cb. 1. The consequence was, that for a length of time there were scarcely any popish bishops in Ireland. Macgaeran, titular Archbishop of Armagh, was sent over from Spain, and slain in the act of rebellion against his sovereign. In 1621, we are informed by O'Sullivan, (Hist. Cath. Iberniæ,) that there were two popish bishops in Ireland, and two others who resided in Spain. These persons were ordained in foreign countries, and could not trace their ordinations to the ancient Irish church."

From the tables in Beatson's Political Index, drawn (if I recollect right) from Sir James Ware's Catalogue, it appears that, out of the twenty-six or twenty-seven Irish bishops, whom Queen Elizabeth, at her accession, found possessed of the Irish sees, two only—that is to say, William Walsh, Bishop of Clonard, A.D. 1563, and Thomas Liverous, Bishop of Kildare, A.D. 1560—were deprived for refusing to acknowledge the Queen's supremacy. There was one other, John Brady, Bishop of Kilmore, deprived, but that was for immorality. Two others, namely, Lacey, Bishop of Limerick (1556) and Skiddy, Bishop of Cork and Cloyne (1557) resigned.

If these documents are to be relied on, it will appear that the Romish church in Ireland, at the time of the Reformation, was not deposed, but reformed itself, its spiritual rulers themselves rejecting the Roman yoke to which their church had been the last in Europe to submit; and that the protestant episcopal church now established there is the sole representative, by episcopal succession, of the ancient Irish branch of the catholic church.

A. P. P.

THE OCTOBER FESTIVAL. [The following P.S. to “W.F. H’s” letter arrived too late to accompany it; but it is important, and is therefore given.)

P.S. Since writing the above, it has occurred to me to quote an authority which even “ Luther” will respect, for I find that Abp. Cranmer, in his preface to the Bible, makes precisely the statement for making which I have drawn down upon my head the wrath of your correspondent. In defending the publication of an English Bible, in 1540, that excellent prelate, to whom our church is, on many accounts, deeply indebted, remarks:—" If the matter should be tried by custom, we might also allege custom for the reading of the Scripture in the vulgar tongue, and prescribe the more ancient custom. For it is NOT MUCH ABOVE ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO since the Scripture hath not been accustomed to be read in the vulgar tongue in this realm ; and many hundred years before that, it was translated and read in the Saxon's tongue, which at that time was our mother's tongue, whereof there remaineth yet diverse copies, found lately in old abbeys, of such antique manners of writing, and speaking, that few men now been able to read and understand them. And when this language waxed old, and out of common usage, by cause folk should not lack the fruit of reading, IT WAS AGAIN TRANSLATED INTO THE NEWER LANGUAGE, whereof yet also many copies remain, and be daily found." (Jenkyn's Cranmer, vol. ii., p. 105.) So that, if I erred, Cranmer erred likewise. He asserted all that I ventured to assert-viz., that the study of the Scripture was considered a duty in the church of England, proved by the fact of there being translations thereof till within a little more than one hundred years of the Reformation. Cranmer professed only to return to the good old practice, and he therefore would not have considered the publication of Bp. Coverdale's Bible in the light in which it was regarded by those who remarked the 4th of October.

“ Luther’ seems, in one part of his letter, to lay a stress upon authorized translations, as if he imagined that the translations of the bible was authorized in 1535, whereas, if he wished to celebrate the first authorized version, he ought to have waited awhile—there having been no authorized version till the publication of Matthew's Bible in 1537.*

• It was thought better that “ Luther" should see “W.F.H’s” letter (as he might like to reply to it) before his own reply to the Editor's note was printed. If he does not wish to reply to “W. F. H.,” that letter shall appear in the next number. The Editor very much regrets that what has been said has produced so uncomfortable a tone of correspondence. His own note, certainly, merely defends his own opinion, and says not one word either unkind or disrespectful to “Luther." Surely it is allowable to defend one's opinion without giving offence.

“ Luther” will see, by “W. F. H's” reply, that his tone of remark is felt, and that it gives pain.



On the Mental Illumination and Moral Improvement of Mankind, &c.

By T. Dick, LL.D. Glasgow : Collins. 1335. 12mo. pp. 672. Tuis book ought to be very popular with all the improvers of education, for it is full of all their usual harangues on the folly of occupying so much time with Latin and Greek, and gods and goddesses, and the necessity of teaching children ideas and not words. All human beings hitherto, it seems, have been educated in the most absurd manner-all schools were bad, children ill-dressed, ill-taught, kept too long in school, too much whipt, &c. &c. In short, that we all escaped being rickety and idiots seems next to a miracle. However, Dr. Dick is going to set all right. There is a grand chapter on the intellectual instruction of infants, explaining how they are to be taught the sonorous qualities of bodies, &c. &c. Commencing at this point, prescribing the proper dresses for little girls, and giving instructions as to rocking the cradle, Dr. D., in this one volume, goes through all the sciences, and teaches how they should, and may, and ought to be taught,-gives plans for building schools, where all is to be done, explaining the machinery to be used, -gives long lists of philosophical experiments, and ends with some grand chapters on the benefit of general education, the progressive glories of humanity, and the assurance that the Millennium may begin whenever we please. The only impediment, as he seems to hint, to any of his plans, is, that people will not give money. To do him justice, there is a great deal of truth in what he says in this part. They who call out loudest about the low tone of morality and religion, are very unwilling to give money to raise it; and, strange to say, Dr. D. declares that the Irvingites, expecting what they do, still keep a very resolute hold on this world's goods.

The fact is, that Dr. D. seems a sincere Christian, and is, doubtless, very anxious to do good; but like a great many other visionaries, he makes himself rather ridiculous by thinking that he can do every thing, and that all his plans are feasible, when nine-tenths at least are mere dreams. He had better speak, too, a little more decently and charitably of persons rather wiser than himself, though they do defend the political and religious institutions of past times.

Dissent exploded; or the Bubble burst. By Parrhesiastes. London:

Hatchards, &c. What possible good can be done by such harsh words and weak arguments? The author has, doubtless, the best intentions, but he can only injure the cause he wishes to serve by the use of language and expression of feelings which are any thing but such as the spirit of the church would countenance.

« PreviousContinue »