the institutors of these dissenting bodies so careful in all cases to avoid giving unnecessary pain to the members of the church from which they separated? There remain two observations, to which I wish to draw attention, in order, so far as I can, to place the reader in the light under which I view the subject, that he may the better judge of my feelings, and the spirit in which these remarks have been written. I. If the apostolic succession-episcopacy-distinction of orders→→ unity-obedience to properly appointed pastors-schism-be not doc-. trinal facts of the Christian religion, but if they are only topics either in themselves non-essential to Christianity, or, which comes practically to the same point, topics on which we ought not, in Christian charity, to think of determining or insisting on, in reference to dissent as it exists around us, then I must confess my honest opinion, that the subject of separation is, generally speaking, very unfairly and hardly judged among zealous churchmen. Certainly my own view of it would un dergo a great change. At present I term that man, and that man only, a conscientious dissenter, who feels obliged to secede from the the church, having, upon trial and experience, found the insufficiency of her doctrines towards holy living, and who therefore concludes, that an adherence to her tenets, or a continuance in communion with her, which would be a tacit adherence to her tenets, would be to endanger his eternal salvation. Unless his strong feeling and conviction amount to this, I conceive a man to be wrong in seceding. But give up the maintenance of the above grounds for conformity, as doctrinal truths, which I firmly believe them to be, and then I should conceive any of the following to be justifiable grounds for separation :—e. g., if a man thinks the dissenting system better adapted to the religious state of the times, or of himself in particular-or that, upon the whole, the cause of religion would be served by the abandonment of the present church system-or that he prefers the dissenting modes of teaching, or preaching, or their services, or general administration, &c. &c. My opinion may be right or wrong, but it accounts for my pressing an open assertion of these subjects by the clergy in the course of their ministry, because they appear to me to involve the very essence of our churchship. Most of the other grounds, which are usually brought forward in defence of the church, seem to me mutatis mutandis* to be applicable in defence of any other dominant ecclesiastical system. The ground here insisted on seems to me to suggest the most proper answer to the question-Why am I a churchman? It seems to me rather a confusion to answer, as is often done, that the doctrines [* I say mutatis mutandis, because my assertion of the paramount claims of the church is, so to say, external to all consideration of the soundness of its particular doctrines. Suppose a member of the church of England to think some doctrines of the Romish church more scriptural than ours, another, or some among any other denomination of Christians, well, the argument here followed precedes these considerations, in that it goes to establish a prior claim of authority for the church's exposition of doctrine; and so is a protest against the entire independent right of private judgment, and a caution against its licentious use. and ordinances of the church are strictly scriptural, or that services similar to those which it uses have been in use among Christians from the earliest ages; or that the beauty and excellence of its Liturgy and Articles is such. For, in a certain way, answers of a somewhat similar kind might be made by members of dissenting bodies; and therefore they do not apply exclusively enough to our own. Further, such answers do not appear to me either apposite or logical. For the question does not imply a doubt on these points, but rather presupposes the contrary: for if a man were doubtful about these, the more natural form of question would be-Why should I belong to a body which has this antecedent objection against it? The state of the case, upon their own shewing, between the church and certain dissenters, is this:-we, in common with the church of England, hold all essential doctrines, and therefore it is for you members of the church to shew cause, why, upon this assumption, it should not be free to any to leave your communion without further reason than some preference for us, even though he have no objection against you. They are here met upon their own grounds, and both the paramount claims of the church, and the nature of the sin in such principle of dissent would be asserted and explained. II. In speaking of dissenters, my remarks apply exclusively to those who have become such, who, having been born and bred members of the church of England, are no longer so. These are properly separatists, and these are the persons here in view; to bring whom to a careful reconsideration of the grounds of their separation seems to me the principal aggressive measure which churchmen are called on to adopt towards dissenters. Those who have been born and bred otherwise are not strictly to be termed separatists, nor do I regard them as such. They are, and always have been without, but they went not out from us. We consider, indeed, that they are in profession of error, but they have not exchanged what we hold to be truth for that error, nor have they contributed at all to the breaking up of church unity. Neither is it to be expected that the arguments in behalf of the church views should have the same force when addressed to them, as they undoubtedly ought to have had when addressed to those who, in spite of them, and in spite of predilections of birth, education, &c., have yet abandoned the church. Moreover, they are no otherwise comprised in censures passed on dissent as such, than every Mahommedan or Jew is to be considered as individually condemned by every condemnation of the religion which he professes, or than every individual Israelite in condemning the ten tribes as rebels. Still further, however, to claim for these opinions a fair and serious consideration, and still further, to protect them against a careless rejection as bigoted and illiberal,-terms, from the application of which I would wish to shield them, only in order to their obtaining an impartial hearing, and in the hope of their working on any one a practical conviction at once of their truth and availableness,—I shall conclude with the words of one, to whose memory scarce any educated man would venture to attach such a charge, and of one whose metaphysical powers and strong religious feelings give weight and value to his judg VOL. VII.-March, 1835. 2 N " ment, whether as a philosopher or a Christian :-"The only true spirit of tolerance" (says Coleridge) "consists in our conscientious toleration of each other's intolerance.' And, speaking more at large on the same subject, he continues-" But notwithstanding a deep conviction of our general fallibility, and the most vivid recollection of my own, I dare avow, that as for opinions and not motives, principles and not men, I neither am tolerant, nor wish to be regarded as such. According to my judgment, the profession of perfect tolerance in respect of all principles, opinions, and persuasions, those alone excepted which render the holders intolerant, is mere ostentation and hypocrisy. By so saying, a man either means that he is utterly indifferent to all truth, and finds nothing so insufferable as the persuasion of there being any such mighty value or importance attached to the possession of truth, as should give a marked preference to any one conviction above any other; or else he means nothing. That which doth not withstand hath itself no standing-place. To fill a station is to exclude or repel others; and this is no less the definition of moral, than of material solidity." Under such protection I am content to leave my opinions. Be these opinions right or wrong, let the words of Coleridge shelter me from the charge of uncharitableness, because I positively assert them. Would that the sight of his name would so far influence any reader as to lead him to a serious and careful investigation of these subjects, both as to the proofs by which they are supported, and as to their practical bearings, with a full determination to act upon the conclusion to which such an investigation may bring him. For myself, I have a deep and strong conviction that they are truths of great practical importance, that the gradual disuse or withdrawal of them has been of serious detriment to the interest of the church, and indeed I may say, of true Christianity; and that the revival and public assertion of them, after a time and when the first appearance of aggressive hostility in so doing has passed away, may, by God's blessing, work a good effect upon the minds of all well disposed churchmen, as well as of many who are not with us, but have the cause of truth at heart, and who seek for it with diligence and earnestness, and, above all, in a humble, charitable, and Christian spirit. R. F. THE ADAMIC CREATION. THE second chapter of Genesis is, I believe, generally considered as a recapitulation of the first, with some additional circumstances; but I think there is sufficient reason for supposing it a distinct account of a totally different transaction. In the second chaptery we read of beasts of the field and plants of the field (or cultivated land); in the first we are told of beasts of the earth, of herbs and trees upon the earth. This is at least a remarkable distinction, whatever the meaning of it may prove to be. The conclusion I have come to concerning it is this:-that early in the sixth period of creation, before the existence of man, the earth was occupied by animals and a vegetation but ill suited to the comfort of the human species; and that, upon the creation of man, there were formed other animals and another tation expressly adapted to the wants of the last and noblest work of God. vege The clause, Gen. ii. 4-6, marks the line of separation, as well as forms the link of connexion between these two distinct acts of creation: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth at their creation, And before any plant of the field sprung up; When the Lord God rained not on the earth, And watered the whole face of the ground." "Then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, and there he put the man whom he had formed: And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food; also trees of life within the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil." These trees of life were peculiar to Paradise, and were fitted to preserve man in an immortal state; when, however, in consequence of the transgression, he incurred the penalty of death and was to be reduced to a mortal state, then God drove out the man from the garden of Eden, that he might no more put forth his hand and take of the trees of life, and eat, and live for ever. "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them." These beasts of the field, as distinguished from the beasts of the earth, can mean only such gentle animals as are fitted to hold intercourse with man, and are contrasted with those which are of a wild nature and roam the earth at large. Thus it would appear that only the tame or useful animals were tenants of Paradise with Adam, and not every living creature which the wide earth had brought forth during the sixth day: we certainly cannot suppose that any carnivorous or venomous animals were there. The serpent indeed had a place in Paradise; but it was originally more familiar and intelligent than any beast of the field, on which account it was selected for the purposes of Satan. The subsequent change in its nature and habits is expressly accounted for:-" Because thou hast done this, cursed be thou above every beast of the field." When the Lord brought every beast of the field unto Adam in Paradise to see what he would call them, it certainly was not in order to shew him the whole extent of the animal creation; it was rather with a view of making him experimentally acquainted with the qualities of the domestic animals with which he had to do, and of giving him a practical lesson in the use of language. The Almighty could at once have inspired Adam with a perfect command of language, and with all knowledge, but it is more in accordance with the general course of his Providence to work by the use of ordinary means. Thus he instructed Adam how to clothe himself, by exhibiting to him the process of making tunics of skins: numbers also were practically instilled by his remembering the seventh day to keep it holy.* For the sake of comparison, I shall now add a brief statement of the discoveries of Geology, as far as they relate to the present subject:The study of fossils makes known to us the important fact, that, previously to the existence of man, the Author of Nature had created different species of plants and animals at successive and widely distant intervals of time; that a very large proportion of the creatures, which lived in the later periods, had become extinct; and that they had been replaced, before the creation of our first parents, by the animals which now exist. The remains of tropical animals and plants, which are found in northern countries, prove farther that changes of climate no less remarkable have taken place; and that a heat equal to that now experienced in equatorial regions must have formerly prevailed in the most northern latitudes. The greatest degree of heat seems to have existed during the deposition of the inferior beds of the secondary strata; and it appears also, from the nature of the fossil plants found in these strata, that there must have existed, at the same time, a very considerable degree of moisture in the atmosphere. The striking coincidence between the scriptural account of creation and the order in which the fossil remains of creation are found deposited in the superficial layers of the earth, has been long pointed out; but the existence of strange and monstrous animals, before the era of man, has hitherto been considered to receive no shadow of support • Philosophers fondly assert that the art of counting originated in an endeavour to designate numbers by means of the fingers, and that this humble method was gradually improved into the convenient decimal system of numeration. This very probable supposition they consider to be demonstrated by the researches of philology.— "The word ten, German zehn, Latin decem, is well explained by means of the old German or Gothic, in which it is expressed by taihend: i. e. the old article thai, the, and hend, the two hands, or ten fingers, which afforded to man the original instruments of counting, as they still do to children, and from which have arisen the whole decimal system. The Roman notation, also, points to the same origin. The numeral V represents the outspread fingers of one hand, as X does those of both. Among the Germans, taikend was contracted into ten; which, with a dental or sibilant prefix, became zehend, zehn. The Latins changed the guttural h into c or k, and thus formed the word decem."-(Professor Jäkel's German Origin of the Latin language, p. 98.) "For five, for ten, for hundred, for thousand, there is not a universal, but certainly a very general agreement in all the languages of the eastern islands, from Madagascar to Easter Island, in so far as the yellow complexioned race is concerned. . . . . One of the most universal terms throughout is that for five, which in some of the languages, particularly those of Celebes and some of the Philippine Islands, also means the hand, obviously in reference to the five fingers."-(Foreign Quarterly Review, No. 28, p. 390.) Numbers are not a human invention, but a Divine gift, like many other arts of which proud man takes the credit to himself. Though the hands certainly did not give rise to the art of counting, or to the decimal system, yet it is very probable, as the remoter tribes became uncivilized and lost the higher numbers, that five and ten would be preserved through their application to the fingers, which might hence give their name to these numbers. |