« AnteriorContinuar »
not precisely the same as the postdiluvian.” But do they differ so much as to constitute a new creation ? or is the difference in their organization simply a correspondence with the difference of the climate, suitable, not so much to new habits, as to a modified condition of the earth and the air, consequent in the great catastrophe that had taken place ? If we are to build upon such differences, let us know exactly what they are. It appears to me to be far more agreeable to reason and analogy, and to what is revealed in Scripture, to suppose, that whilst man was innocent, and “ every thing" on earth continued a very good," the ferocious properties of the beasts of prey were not developed ; and that when sin had introduced death into the world, then it was that death of and by animals first took place; (and it would appear that the brute creation suffered at the deluge equally with man on that account, (Gen. vi. 11-17) as co-partners in corruption and violence;) and that, at the deluge, the same power which afterwards “shut the mouths of the lions” so that they hurt not Daniel, shut their mouths when they entered the ark; (for though Noah was then saved, the decree of temporal death was only suspended, and men were afterwards, as well as animals, to be born in their natural condition ;) I say, it seems more reasonable to suppose this, than to suppose that after Noah, who was then the representative of Adam, in a state of comparative righteousness, had survived the flood, fresh races of ferocious and blood-thirsty animals should be created anew, when the creation of such creatures would only imply the creation of so many scourges for the family so recently and so mercifully spared. It is far more probable that the animals which took possession with Noah of the baptized earth, retained their restored ancestral simplicity so long as Noah's family remained untainted, and that the curse upon Adam's posterity, awhile suspended, returned in all its force when disobedience to the law expressly given at that time (Gen. X., 5) was shewn. I see nothing more extraordinary in the notion of “the lion” literally “ eating straw like the ox,” which Mr. Winning has, in previous papers, rejected, (vol. vii. p. 414,) than I do in the fact of Nebuchadnezzar“ eating grass like oxen," which, we are told, did take place, (Dan. iv. 33). The Scriptures bear frequent testimony to the conclusion, that the Almighty has, for a specific end, temporarily changed the characters of brute creatures ; and it is no less contradictory to reason to say, that there must have been a new creation at Noah's deluge, than to say, that when God opened the mouth of Balaam's ass, he created an animal of a species not precisely like that of the animal usually known by that name.
Mr. Winning must be aware what a powerful weapon would the doctrine of new creations be in the hands of those who are jealous of ONE UNIVERSAL CREATOR, and how dangerous it would be to truth to let them create ad libitum, which Mr. W. has actually done in this instance, though with a different aim.
As for any conclusions drawn from the at present undiscovered traces of human bodies in the strata of the earth, such conclusions must be premature, till the earth has been thoroughly investigated, especially those countries where the probability is the first men lived
and died. And who shall say that human bones are as capable of preservation as animal remains ?
It is not altogether to the present purpose to allude to any other writer than Mr. Winning; but as that gentleman has quoted Mr. Fairholme's “Scriptural Geology,” in his notes to the “Twelfth Essay on the Antediluvian Age,” I take the liberty of observing, that although it is painful to say anything disrespectful of an anxious defender of revelation, Mr. Fairholme's testimony, as a geologist, does not rank very high: he has betrayed so much ignorance respecting the contemporaneousness of the coal measures, and other much more recent formations, and has blundered so materially, that his evidence is not worth much where geology is simply involved. The same might be said of Dr. Ure, whose errors have been pointed out by Professor Sedgwick before the Geological Society. It is certainly a great pity that the persons who have most strenuously contended for the match between theology and geology, have shewn occasionally most manifest misunderstanding of what geology teaches. If we would meet the Philistine philosophy of the day with David's success, we must not only go forth“ in the name of the Lord of Hosts,” but arm ourselves with weapons that we can manage. So long as men try to refute geological heresies, they ought, at least, to know what those heresies have of truth wrought into them; and to use the earth as a comment on the Bible without actually knowing what the earth exhibits, is about as absurd as it would be to attempt to determine the correct reading of an obscure passage in an antediluvian manuscript with no knowledge of the alphabet used at the period when the work was composed. This is pretty much what Messrs. Bugg, Fairholme, and some other “ Scriptural Geologists," have tried their hands at, to the infinite amusement of those who, receiving all that the natural eye traces out in the structure of the globe, close their mental vision against the records of revelation. Longfleet, Dorset, 9th Sept., 1835.
W. B. CLARKE.
MUSICAL FESTIVALS IN CATHEDRALS. SIR,—The propriety of using our cathedrals for the purpose of musical festivals has often occurred to my mind : and is especially brought before me, at this time, by the announcement of the approaching meeting at York. That a musical festival is a mere matter of amusement, few persons, I should fancy, would be bold enough to deny. Whatever it may be in theory, however dignified by the name of charity, or palliated by the paltry excuse that it tends to excite devotional feeling, few persons (if any), in fact, frequent it but for the mere purpose of immediate gratification. Many, I believe, are not aware that charity is at any time the professed object of the festival, and would rush, therefore, to the amusement, with the same eagerness, were that out of the question. When called on to defend their conduct, to justify their desecration of our venerable cathedrals, they call to mind, perhaps, the nominal purpose for which the festival has
been instituted. But I should much doubt, nay, should venture to deny, that any feeling of charity leads them to purchase their tickets, and to incur the great trouble and expense with which such amusements are always attended. That persons shall travel, frequently, a considerable distance, that they should hire lodgings at an exorbitant rate, and necessarily involve themselves in many incidental expenses, to add a comparatively trifling sum to the funds of a public charity, is worse than absurd. If the interests of the charity were really at heart, they could surely serve them much more effectually, and with less expense to themselves, by a liberal donation at once. So that, admitting the charitable intentions of such persons to be real, they certainly adopt a very clumsy method of carrying them into effect. But a very sınall portion, sometimes no part of the sum expended in tickets only, is made over to charitable uses.
But even supposing that it were all made available to the purpose intended, we may yet fairly ask whether the house of God is devoted to a right purpose. “ Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in ?” says the apostle; and may we not ask in similar phrase, “ Have we not houses in which to hear the voice of singing men, and singing women ?” The early church, whom we profess to follow, would assuredly tell us, “Yes." They who entered into the church, as Chrysostom says, as into the Palace of the Great King, with fear and trembling, who reverenced it as consecrated with solemn rites, set apart from ordinary and profane uses, and made holy unto the Lord, would not for a moment have tolerated the indecent and irreverent way in which our churches are now treated. I would ask any one, who feels within him one spark of the ancient catholic faith and spirit, whether by so acting we are not favouring both popery and puritanism, those two fatal innovations ? The papist laughs at what he must call, at best, a strange inconsistency in our conduct,--that while we professedly consecrate buildings for the service of our Maker, we use them for other purposes than those for which they were set apart. And the puritan is confirmed in his profane notion, that the consecration of inanimate things is a vain and empty form, savouring of Jewish formality, but inconsistent with gospel freedom. Yet such irreverent practices are indeed but too common with members of the church. In confirmation of my deliberate opinion of them, I will subjoin the words of an anonymous writer, whom I recognize by his style, and reverence for his piety:-“ To board over the altar of a church, place an orchestra there of playhouse singers, and take money at the doors, seems to me as great an outrage as to sprinkle the forehead with holy water, and to carry tapers in a procession."— Tracts for the Times, No. 41. Now, if this be the case, it cannot but be a matter of serious consideration how far we are acting rightly in suffering our cathedrals and churches to be used for concertrooms, for bringing together singing men, and singing women ;- not, indeed, to praise their Maker, but to make an ostentatious display for the amusement of their fellow men. It may, perhaps, be bold to speculate on the reasons of God's anger, so manifestly, as it seems, displayed against this country. But may not this be one of them : that we have desecrated the buildings which were once dedicated to Him,
And have invited the mixed and profane multitude within those walls which none should dare enter but with the wish and profession of serving Him? But it may be replied, we attend the meetings you object to for the express purpose of gaining and establishing a devotional feeling. Now, in answer to this, I would merely say, that a feeling of devotion is a very indefinite thing. It may easily be mistaken for mere bodily excitement, and is, in fact, so mistaken, by persons fanatically inclined. It is, in such cases, a mere delusion, a mere luxury of the imagination, and as much a dissipation as what is usually so called. It is quite independent of right conduct, which, after all, is the only true test of religious feeling. But I would confidently ask, has any person ever attended a musical festival for the purpose of improvement ? Has he succeeded in that purpose ? Has any consequent alteration ever occurred in his conduct? Has he carried his (so called) religious feeling thus excited into practice ? Or has he not rather indulged in it as a momentary luxury, and then suffered it to die away? I would then observe, that if it is really a religious fervour, he is but injuring himself by thus violently rousing it, and then allowing it to subside. Religious feeling should tend to religious practice: if not, it is pernicious. But if it is not religious feeling, but (as is most likely) mere bodily emotion, surely the house of God is least suited for producing what may well be called mere sensual indulgence. Other places more suited for this purpose could, I think, be generally found, or at all events, should be built, if necessary, as is the case at Birmingham; and, surely, there can be no donbt, meanwhile, in the mind of a serious man, whether he should forego amusement, or, by the mere act of indulging it, dishonour the temple of his Lord. To another point I will but allude; the necessary suspension of the church service, for some period, both prior and subsequent to, as well as during the celebration of the festival. This is a great evil, and must especially be thought so by those who wish to see the restoration of the daily service of the church. After all, I would not have it supposed that I am an enemy to Oratorios in the abstȚact. They are a source of the most rational and exalted amusement, But it is because they are but amusement that I would exclude them from the church. There we meet to worship the One great object of our faith, not to excite mere feelings, however pure
I am, Sir, yours, &c.,
PAROCHIAL PSALMODY. The first thing to be done towards putting up an organ is to raise a sufficient sum of money. Now, in a country village, this is no easy matter; many object, and often on the ground « that unless you collect a large sum, (of which there is no chance,) you can do nothing." “ Organs are so expensive,” is the remark. So they are; but a little money goes a great way here. Barrel organs are cheaper than finger organs, and do very well for a country church. Finger organs are the best, undoubtedly; but as they require an organist, and that
organist requires a salary, it is not very advisable to have them, unless
Benington, Greek-street, Soho.
Liverton, High Holborn.
Morning Hymn. Old Hundred. Sion.