« PreviousContinue »
earth. Upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life,' chap. iii. 14.
“8. Geology teaches that, at a period more recent than the creation of the present races of animals, the earth has been covered and washed with a deluge of waters. The proof of this is furnished every where. We cannot dig into a sand. hill or gravel-pit in any place, without discovering evidence of this deluge. We learn, too, from various indications, such as the deltas at the mouths of rivers, the amount of lava which has subsequently been issued from volcanoes, and the detritus which have fallen from the sides of mountains, that this terrible catas. trophe cannot have been a very remote event. We know, from bones which are found in the diluvial formations, that it occurred since the existence of the present races of animals, and probably since the existence of man. The Seriptures inform us detinitely when this great event did occur, and why; and its representations accord entirely with the conclusions of science on the same subject.
“9. Geology teaches that the deluge, of which we speak, must have come over the earth suddenly, by some violent interruption of the regular course of nature. The waters seem to have rushed with great violence from the north to the south, overtopping the highest mountains, and carrying along with them prodigious quantities of stones and earth. As to the extent and suddenness of the deluge, the Bible teaches the same doctrine. We are told expressly that the waters covered the highest mountains. We are told, too, that the guilty inhabitants of the earth
were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, and knew not,'-50 sudden was the event to them-they knew not till the food came, and swallowed them all up.' (Matt. xxiv. 37–39). The fountains of the great deep were suddenly broken up, and the waters seem to have rolled over them in one wide wave of instant desolation.
“10. Geology informs us that the same species of animals existed before the deluge which exist now. Consequently they must have been in some way preserved through the deluge, or, contrary to previous analogy, the same races which had been destroyed must have been re-produced afterwards. The Scriptures inform us that the different kinds of antediluvian animals were preserved through the deluge, and how they were preserved. They were safely lodged with Noah in the ark."
I will only say of the above extract, the value of which I trust will make amends for its length, that when such men as the writer of the above are accused of neology, infidelity, and even atheism, I had rather be the accused than the accuser. Here is a manly and Christian dealing with facts ; and no misgiving that the word of God will not bear the test of their application.
A SCRIPTURAL GEOLOGIST.
CHEAP WAY OF SUPPORTING CLERGYMEN.
To the Editor of the Christian Observer. An article signed URBANUS, in your last Number, reminds me of the following advertisement which appeared some two or three years ago in a newspaper, headed “Very Eligible Curacy.” If Urbanus has never read that advertisement, the coincidence between his sentiments and the sentiments there expressed is certainly remarkable :
Very Eligible Curacy. “The rector of a country parish wishes to resign the whole charge of it into the hands of an experienced curate. The parish contains 1700 inbabitants. Many families of distinction reside in it; therefore it is essential that the curate should be an accomplished gentleman, educated at Eton, Westminster, or Winchester; and that his name should be found amongst the highest honours at Cambridge or Oxford. He must be of sound Church of England principles, decided piety, and moderate in politics. He must possess a strong, clear, well-toned voice, and a graceful delivery, and be qualified to preach either with or without his MS. He
must have been not less than seven years in priest's orders. He must be bold and decisive in opposing dissent and popery; yet charitable and conciliating. He must not belong to any secret society. The services required of him are, two full services on Sundays, and a full church service on Wednesday evenings; three weekly cottage meetings, daily attendance at the school, and a devotedness to pastoral duties ; also to read three hours every day with the rector's two sons during their holidays. The highest testimonials will be required. Remuneration-an unfurnished house ; the produce of a small garden, well stocked with potatoes, cabbages, and onions; half the profits of an Alderney milch cow, and the services of the gardener and his wife. The man is competent to look after a pony, and his wife is a very fair plain cook. They are obliging people, and, as they will receive their regular wages, they will not expect, for waiting upon a stranger, more than a small douceur of about five shillings per week, with all the spare vegetables. N.B. The preference will be given to a married man, with a truly Christian wife.”
Now Urbanus says, “We widely circulated an advertisement announcing what kind of clergyman we wanted. He must, besides his religious qualifications, be a man of talents and learning ; must have taken a high degree; must be a gentleman in his habits, possess considerable powers of eloquence, devote all his time to public duties, &c.” Then for remuneration, a part is “ cast-off clothes,” and “a sub-; scription for a volume of sermons.” Indeed, sir, my attention has long been called to the general style of clerical newspaper advertisements, and I esteem them a grievous abuse, greatly needing correction. I trust Urbanus' sentiments may be yours, and that you will not let the subject drop.
E. H. We are not quite sure whether E. H. argues upon the ground that the paper of Urbanus, and also the advertisement of the “Very Eligible Curacy,” are ironical ; but we have received a very serious reply to Urbanus from Clericus * (we place stars for his locality, as bis friends might conjecture the writer), who shews, with much gravity and solid reasoning, how unjust and ungenerous would be such a scheme as Urbanus proposes. He is of course displeased at us for so far countenancing such a base project as to print it; but that any reader, much less any clergyman, should dream that Urbanus was recommending, not denouncing, the muzzling of the ox that treadeth out the corn, was beyond comprehension. Clericus * shews with much honest indignation, how unjust and disgraceful it would be to condemn the children of the clergy to associate with no person beyond the rank of “a petty tradesman," and to be clad in “ the cast-off clothes of opulent tradesmen and retired tobacconists;" and he trusts we shall never allow a writer who urges such projects to darken our pages in future. We will copy one paragraph, which shews that Urbanus has succeeded in impressing his intended moral; for Clericus claims in the right place, both respecting the “unprincipled" project, and the portrait of ministerial devotion, just as Urbanus clearly intended :
“Truly, this is ‘a cheap way of supporting new churches'!! I, however, totally deny your correspondent's wise-headed inference, where he says, This is a great advantage ; as the money which his (the clergyman's) congregation thus save, fructifies and enables them to do good in many other ways.' What unprincipled nonsense this is ! Nevertheless, I admire his portrait of clerical disinterestedness, and am happy to know that in many instances, where necessity, not arrogant selfishness, calls it into being—it is true to the life; and I only wish he would be equally urbane in pouring forth his opulence upon laudable objects. He would escape a few of the temptations to luxury and indulgence,' and your readers would commend him, provided he never again contributes anything to the pages of the CHRISTIAN OBSERVER!!" Now, we being as grave persons as E. II. or Clericus will seriously
Christ. Observ. No. 16. 2 F
touch upon the subject. We are not great admirers of irony in any form ; and with regard to the advertisement copied by E. H., it seems probable, from its wording, and from its being paid for as an advertisement, that it was not ironical, for a good object, but was personally satirical, in reference to some clerical advertisement or negotiation, being perhaps written by an individual who felt vexed or aggrieved ; and if so, it was revengeful, and therefore unchristian. But Urbanus evidently intended only to shew how unjustly and unscripturally the clergy are too often treated ; as if it were enough to build churches, and to leave those who minister at their altars to starve with their families in the midst of abundance. We really hope that the paper of Urbanus may cause discussion, and do good where grave arguments have failed. It is not enough that a congregation aid their minister's schools and societies; they ought to ask whether he is personally placed in as reasonably comfortable a condition, in regard to his temporal things, as they can secure to him. Many clergymen in large parishes, or with repectable, perhaps “ opulent,” congregations, are reduced to extreme distress in maintaining a decent appearance, and bringing up their families. Ought this so to be? Does a merchant build a handsome counting-house, and then advertise for clerks who have it in their will and their power to bestow their services without proper remuneration ? It is to the honour of the clergy that so many are willing to do so; and to the mercy of Divine Providence that some are able ; but to take advantage of the willingness of some, or the necessity of others, in order to reduce the scale of ministerial stipend to the lowest degree-such a system cannot have God's blessing upon it. We rejoice that churches innumerable are being built; but we lament to say, that enough is not done locally to support the pastors who officiate in them ; too much is hoped for from general charitable funds and pastoral aids ; whereas, if the neighbours would zealously set themselves to compass the object, they might often effect it without any great inconvenience. What is the good of giving a man a magnificent piece of plate as a memento of “his valuable labours” during the twenty years he and his family were allowed to starve in acquiring a title to it?
HON. AND REV. B. NOEL ON THE PRIZE ESSAY ON SCHISM.
To the Editor of the Christian Observer. MY DEAR SIR,-I have just seen your remarks (Feb. 8, pp. 113–116) upon the Essay on" Schism," and beg to say that I cannot be in the least responsible for the expressions of the author. I agreed with my friend Mr. Sherman in preferring the work very much on account of its moderation. Although I have not read it through since it has been printed, I perceive that in revising it the author has added many sentences to which I could not have consented. If I remember right, no part of the paragraph to which you reasonably object, was in the manuscript as it left my hands; and I much regret to find that, in other places too, the author has introduced expressions which, in my opinion, detract from the general merit of the work. I remain, dear Sir, yours very truly,
BAPTIST W. NOEL,
THE APOSTOLIC CHURCHES NOT A REPUBLIC.
To the Editor of the Christian Observer. I HAVE taken up for perusal the Prize Essay on “Schism.” The writer, as appears by a list of publications at the end, “By the same Author," and which have his name on their title pages, is the Rev. John Hoppus, “ Professor of the Philosophy of the Human Mind and Logic in University College." I am sorry to say I have stumbled at the threshold of the book ; for I find Mr. Hoppus asserting, in his preface, that "the churches of the apostolical age appear to have been a kind of spiritual republics." I cannot wonder that a zealous Independent, a coadjutor in the Eclectic Review, if not a conductor, and the author of some of its most pungent articles, should think the republican form of church government most suitable since the apostolic age; but that he should discover its existence during that era is not a little extraordinary. I thought that there were two points agreed upon between Congregationalists and Presbyterians on the one side, and Episcopalians on the other : namely, that during the lifetime of the Apostles, the Church was under a regimen the very opposite to that of republicanism; and that after their death it came to be so also ; the contended question being, not what was the system in the days of the Apostles, either when they ruled in person, or when they vested Timothy and Titus with powers to ordain elders and to govern the churches; but only whether all the features of this system were intended to be so special and temporary, that diocesan episcopacy, which Church history testifies existed from the apostolic times, was a usurpation grounded on an unwarranted analogy, and not upon any sanction of Holy Writ.
But I am thankful to Mr. Hoppus for his declaration ; for if it be necessary to the congregational or republican scheme of spiritual government, that it should be proved to have been the plan of government in the apostolic age, we may rest assured that few unbiassed persons will see their way to such a conclusion; and the extravagance of the assertion may be useful in guarding the inquirer against placing too much confidence in intrepid assertions.
ON THE LAST DAYS OF DR. JOHNSON.
To the Editor of the Christian Observer. As I do not recollect seeing the following extract from Prior's Life of Goldsmith in the Christian Observer, I transcribe it for the benefit of your readers. I stop not to comment on any expression : it certainly seems to corroborate the valuable account which has appeared in your pages, as to the penitent and believing frame of Dr. Johnson's mind, during the latter days of his life. The writer is described “a lady of consideration and much good sense, now resident in Pembrokeshire ;" the testimony was that of the painter, Barry :
“I remember, he told us he had occasionally visited Dr. Johnson; and more than once during his last illness, when the mind of that eminent man was clouded by the prospect of death, of which he spoke with more apprehension than became so good a Christian, and so great a philosopher. All the statements of Mr
Barry on this point, corroborated those which are to be found elsewhere, of the great sense of his imperfections entertained by the moralist. Latterly, however, these fears gave way, or rather his confidence in the merciful forgiveness of God became strong; and, on one occasion, he expressed himself so tinely and eloquently on this head, that Barry said he always regretted not having written down the particulars on retiring from the interview.” Joining in this regret, I am, &c.
D. M. T.
Acts xxii. 9, says,
ACTS ix. 7, COMPARED WITH ACTS xxii. 9.
To the Editor of the Christian Observer. Do you observe, that in p. 131, line 25, of your last Number, J. M. H. says, that the men who journeyed with Saul, neither saw the Saviour, nor heard his voice? whereas Acts ix. 7, says expressly, that they “stood speechless, hearing a voice.” It is very important to be correct in Scripture quotations and references.
E. “ They saw indeed the light, and were afraid ; bit they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.” Some commentators suppose that they heard the voice of Saul, but not of Christ;—others, that they heard a sound of thunder, but not an articulate voice ;—others, that they were Hellenist Jews, who heard words, but did not understand the Hebrew language, in which they were spoken. Doddridge, with Whitby, thinks that they were so confounded that they heard the sound of a voice, but did not understand what was said, which he illustrates by John xii. 29, when some who were present at the voice which came to Christ took it for thunder. Scott says, “ They heard a sound, but did not distinguish that articulate voice in which the Lord Jesus addressed Saul by name.” Mant and D'Oyly say only,“ They heard not the voice;—they understood not the voice."
DEFENCE OF CHILLINGWORTH.
To the Editor of the Christian Observer. Being myself a native of Sussex, and having passed some portion of my youth within the diocese of Chichester, and in the vicinity of that city, I feel some local interest in behalf of a divine to whose intellectual worth the attention of every stranger who visits the cathedral is recalled by a memorial of the illustrious Chillingworth. I am the more induced, at the present time, to refer to the name and opinions of this theologian, because he was one who, though not so distinct in his doctrinal views of justification by faith as some others, yet has left on record, that he believed the Scripture to be the only rule whereby to judge of controversies, and has exemplified the need of the Holy Spirit as a teacher of the understanding. This Scriptural test has recently been called in question at Episcopal visitations, by the advocates of tradition, over the burial-place of this champion of Protestantism, whose ashes, notwithstanding, are more indestructible than the mythological bird of Clement's uninspired epistle.
The father of William Chillingworth was a respectable citizen of Oxford, where he served the office of mayor. In that city his illustrious son was born, in the year 1602. He became a scholar of Trinity College in 1618; and after taking the degrees of Bachelor and