« FöregåendeFortsätt »
may set the principle in a clearer light, and have left very little doubt on my own mind of its substantial correctness.
Thucyd. i. 46. Θύαμις ποταμός ορίζων την θεσπρωτίδα και Κεστρίνην. “ the common boundary of T. and C.”
Td. ii. 49. εν τώ ομοίω καθειστήκει τό τε πλέον και έλασσον ποτών.
Td, i. 51. αι είκοσι νήες.. διά των νεκρών και ναυαγίων προσκομισθείσαι. των ν. και ναυ. “ the mingled mass of dead bodies and wreck.
Χen. Cyrop. vii. 8. το μεν μη πτύειν μηδε απομύττεσθαι έτι διαμένει. un ar. and un dr., involving the same principle, were component parts of one system,
Plato, Apol, Soc. 27. οι τούτων πατέρες τε και οικείοι (scil. εμε εξελώσι.) Here 7. and oix. are parties uniting in the pursuit of a common object -i.e., joint agents. The following are examples of the opposite rule :
Χen. Cyrop. ν. 5. ο Κυαξάρης δε και ο Κύρος αναβάντες επί τους ίππους Gyoūvto. Thus far there appears no reason for the second article ; its insertion, however, is at once explained by what immediately fol. lows :-και επί μεν τω Κυαξάρει οι Μήδοι είποντο, επί δε το Kύρω οι Πέρσαι. .
Plato. Menex. 3. έκ τε γάρ του Πειραίεως και του άστεος ως ασμένως και οικείως αλλήλοις συνέμιξαν οι πολίται. .
Ηeb. ii. 20. ευλόγησεν Ισαάκ τον Ιακώβ και τον Ησαύ. « Jacob and Esau were separately blessed." It is not intended to be inferred that several nouns &c. nay
be included under a single article, some of which are incongruous with it in number or gender. Of this an expression such as, Tūv rólewe kai očkwv ràs cioódovs, (Longinus de Sub. c. xliv.) is no example.
If you should consider these remarks to be worthy of insertion, I may be induced to consider more fully the usage of the New Testament on this point.*
ON THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS.
Sir,—Many writers have pointed out a general coincidence between the order of creation as stated in Scripture and the arrangement of the fossils in the different strata ; but we may advance a step farther in this comparison ; for, even assuming that the actual order of creation is in some degree natural and fitting in itself, and therefore might have been hit upon by a happy guess, still the Mosaic statement attaches to the production of each day certain conditions which are purely arbitrary, and do not necessarily arise out of the transaction itself. These arbitrary conditions may be shewn to agree with the inferences of geology, and it is the object of the present remarks to point out this more remarkable correspondence.
The Editor requested “ X.” to look at the passages collected at pp. xxvii -- xxix of the last edition of Bishop Middleton, three or four of which seem to him not explicable on this rule. He hopes that the time is not so long past that “ X." cannot be induced to fulfil his promise as to the New Testament. -Ed.
Any cosmogonist would naturally provide a fitting surface for the vegetation and animals that were to follow, but there could be no obligation to clog his statement with the particular doctrine of the subaqueous formation of all dry land and its subsequent elevation from the deep. (Gen. i. 9.) “It is concluded, as a fundamental maxim in geology, that the whole area now occupied by dry land was formerly covered by the sea; we may next inquire into the agencies by which the land was redeemed from the waves.”—Phillips's Guide to Geology, § 43.
Again,-a good cosmogonist would take care to create berbage before the animals that were to feed upon it; but he would hardly see the necessary fitness of making his primitive vegetation such as would grow under a humid and sunless sky. (Vide Brit. Mag., yol. ix., p. 57.) “An elevated and uniform temperature, and great humidity in the air, are the causes most favourable for the numerical predominance and the great size of these plants within the torrid zone at present.
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." -Lyell, book i., ch. 6.
The creation of the sun on the fourth day is the most arbitrary circumstance of the whole, and arrests the attention of the most cursory reader. Daylight was the work of the first period, but the shining of the sun was deferred till the fourth. However unexpected the detail of this arrangement may be, it most satisfactorily explains the geographical distribution of the coal plants, and supports the geological opinion that the temperature of the earth was originally independent of the sun. “We have thus found clear indications that the ancient climate on the land was such, over a great portion of the globe, as to nourish plants of tropical forms.
Humboldt long ago expressed the necessary consequence of this pervading high temperature, by saying, that in this condition of the world there was properly no peculiarity of climate, but a general superficial warmth, depending on the then greater or nearer influence of the interior heat.”—Phillips, $ 65.
After the emergence of the land from the sea, the soil might easily be considered sooner adapted for the habitation of amphibious reptiles than for the abode of land animals; but among the numerous forms of amphibious creatures it was quite an arbitrary selection to fix on “great dragons,” (Gen. i. 21); the gigantic saurians of the geologist are here quite anticipated. “It is very remarkable," says Cuvier, “ that the first quadrupeds are reptiles of the lizard tribe; they are of various forms, and of a gigantic size.”
The examples already given are sufficient to establish my position ; but if any force be allowed to my distinction between the beasts of the earth and the beasts of the field, I might proceed to speak of the intercalation of a whole creation of herbivorous non-ruminant animals between the period of great dragons and that of the beasts of the field for the use of Adam. Why was there any intermediate step, or why VOL. IX.-March, 1836.
one only, between the amphibious and land animals ? Geologists inform us (vid. Lyell, book iv., ch. 18,) that this intervening class consisted almost entirely of such land quadrupeds as inhabit alluvial plains or marshes, and the banks of rivers or lakes, and that their habits were like those of the present rhinoceros, hippopotamus, tapir, and pig; consequently, they formed a class graduating between the strictly amphibious reptiles and real land quadrupeds. The fossils of this half-amphibious creation are found only in tertiary formations, and are confined to the regular strata of that period; on the contrary, the beasts of the field (the horse, ox, deer, that are associated with the other antediluvian genera,) occur only in diluvial loam or gravel, and are never found in any of the solid strata.
These remarks give no support to the common theory of a progressive development from a less complicated to a more perfect organization, but they certainly afford some grounds for maintaining a gradual desiccation of the earth's surface and of its atmosphere; for we may observe that the successive creations were adapted to the different stages of a decreasing humidity. (1.) Plants that grew in a humid and clouded atmosphere. (2.) Reptiles strictly amphibious. (3.) Quadrupeds half-amphibious, and frequenting lakes or rivers. (4.) Real land animals. (5.) Postdiluvian origin of rain. I have stated on a former occasion my reasons for supposing that there was no rain before the flood; its occurrence afterwards, by increasing the average dryness of the air, was a step onward in the course of desiccation, if rain be considered the drainage of the atmosphere, as rivers are of the earth's surface. Bedford.
W. B. WINNING.
SCHISMATICS. SIR,-Having given in your September number some remarks on the intercourse of churchmen with dissenters, allow me to continue the subject, and enter into a detailed examination of a view that is very common amongst certain members of our church in the present day. They do not deny that dissenters are guilty of schism, but they deprecate the application of St. Paul's words to them, because, say they, these men have dissented under peculiar circumstances, which have to a great degree divested the act of its criminality.
Now, were the circumstances they allege most accurately true, and did they really distinguish present dissent from that in apostolic times, is it not enough that our dissenters are essentially schismatic ? They may differ from those in apostolic times. Of course schismatics in different
ages will always be found to differ in some respects; and it may be very useful to examine that difference and its causes. But can it have anything to do with this question? It is surely nothing to the present purpose to consider even whether schism is a sin, much less whether the degree of its sinfulness varies in its different varieties. The fact that schism is committed is all we inquire into in considering this question. In like manner, we have nothing to do with the question- Whether a dissenter be a "good man' or not on the whole, (1 say on the whole, because, as a dissenter, we believe him to be in some degree wrong,) or whether, as “ Juvenis” would say, he can “lay his hand on his heart," and protest that he is our brother? The question is settled without any reference to these points; but consider also, at our very best, what insufficient judges we are of any defence or palliation which may be made for schism. God alone can judge of its merits, and to Him does the judgment belong; and it is presumptuous, it is unwise, and it is grossly unjust in us to attempt to decide respecting it ourselves.
Such seems to me the only sound view of this subject. But should a man fail of seeing it in this light, and fancy still that his conduct towards dissenters should depend on the degree of their sinfulness compared with that of their predecessors in the first century-should he be of this opinion, and forthwith plunge amongst pleas pro and con, and weigh with judicious brow all that his own ingenuity and that of others can say on the subject, when he is tired he will, no doubt, gravely decide on something. But, agreeably to reason, can such a consideration lead to anything but interminable doubt ? We know a few facts on either side may be, and this affords us sound ground for a short distance; but we soon reach a bog, on which there is no longer a secure footing, and, though fancy may descry a path across it, straight as an arrow, easy as an arrow's flight, a man of sense will reject such jack-a-lantern guidance; and when he returns from his fruitless search, convinced at last that it must, in the nature of things, ever be fruitless, what so natural to him, if he is in any degree a sincere churchman, as to do what he should have done long before-turn to the church He will then learn her deliberate decision, formally repeated not so very long ago-a decision which, he will not fail to remember, the church has never recalled, and which, therefore, notwithstanding our neglect,-yes, and even our contempt,—we all are at this day bound to obey.
But, as there may be still some who will persist in calling our attention to their long list of the exculpatory circumstances which they fancy accompany present dissent, let us examine some of them. I will take those mentioned in a letter on “Intimacy with Dissenters," already referred to. I have nothing now to do with their truth or their fairness, but merely examine whether we have any right to say they are peculiar to our dissenters, and tend, on the whole, to prove their schism less sinful than that of disorderly persons in the apostles' days. If I am not mistaken, such an examination, if it leads to nothing else, will at least shew the truth of what I stated above, that these comparisons can only confirm our doubts. To proceed, then:
First, amongst the list of circumstances supposed to make the schism of our dissenters more excusable than that in the apostolic times, appears—“Education, which makes many dissenters, while its prejudices keep them so."
Had not the first Christian converts to struggle against disadvantages of this sort, from a general tendency to dissent arising from the nature of their education? The Greeks, for instance, accustomed from their youth to revel in the most unrestrained philosophical specu. lation,-who, having lost their national liberties, clung to this their last remnant with peculiar affection-how indignant must they have felt at a stranger who ventured to exercise amongst them such narrowminded exclusiveness as to discard at once from his society any fol. lower who might presume to differ from him?
2. Ignorance of the nature of the visible church.—No Greek convert could probably remain long ignorant on this point, because it seems to have been a part of the Christian system on which the apostle, for some reason or other, and no doubt a wise one, laid considerable stress. Our dissenters are ignorant of it, because our clergy do not at present follow their example in this instance; and our churchmen, for the most part, are lax in following their directions respecting it. To set against this difference, however, between the parties, we must remember that Greeks would feel a stronger natural objection to this doctrine than Englishmen. If they knew it, they knew it as a stumbling-block. All orientals, and the Greeks especially, were distinguished above other people by their natural turn for heresy and schism. Witness their conduct during the early ages of the church. There was an intellectual subtility general among them--a mental defect peculiar to them, that made them prone to it to a degree of which we have little idea. When we balance this natural proneness on their side against the ignorance on that of our own dissenters, which, though gross, is neither universal nor often found entire, the advocate of the English schismatics can hardly claim the decision as in their favour.
3. Few dissent from “envying" and “strife" in these days, it is said. I hope not. But how do we know that it was otherwise in apostolic times ? I really believe many have been led into a notion that it was so from those words, 1 Cor. iii. 3:" Whereas there are among you envyings and strife and divisions, are ye not carnal ?” &c.! The inference is, indeed, passing strange; and I should not have supposed it possible, but that I know it is not without many well authenticated parallels. At any rate, no one has a right to assume that more used to dissent from envy and strife in St. Paul's days than do now.
If he can prove it, let him do so; I have never seen it done, and do not believe it possible.
4. Dissent is not disgraceful now, and with some quite the contrary. To which I answer, must not dissent always have been honourable amongst dissenters? Would not a Greek in old times have been as likely to take pride in thinking for himself as a dissenter now-a-days ? Can any one suppose that the early church did not number among her members many men of weak characters and indifferent principles, who would think schismatics “ had a good deal to say for themselves,” though, from what of energy of character, or other circumstances, they would not care to join them? Can more be asserted than this respecting our own times ?
5. Dissenters in the first century could not have been so without disregarding much that the whole Christian world then esteemed