« AnteriorContinuar »
The main room in the farmhouse is in the centre, and has a stove in the middle of the room for cooking, and there is a curious chimney in the roof above it. In each corner there is a four-post bed, with curtains. It is the house-place for conversation, and the fowls stroll about in it to be fed. So they cook, eat, converse, sleep, and sometimes dance in the same apartment. Against the middle of each wall there was a good wardrobe, well polished, and a very respectable piece of furniture. Each daughter owned one of these, and supplied it from time to time with the linen for her future housekeeping.
In the shippon for the cows, there was a foot deep of litter. Above, in the rafters, and the building was very low, there were pigeons nested in shallow pots, which might perhaps be profitable, but did not contribute to cleanliness, while in one corner there was a small wooden bedstead covered with straw, and a coarse rug for quilt, which, I was informed, was the sleeping accommodation for the cow-herd.
Altogether, it was evident they were satisfied with a much rougher kind of life than would suffice for our English farm population. They were, however, I was informed, in comfortable circumstances, and could produce if it were needful far more money than I should expect.
I was much interested in this phase of French life, was delighted with the assurance that their harvest had been very abundant and excellent in quality, and with the New Church conversation, and the charming weather, I spent with our brother at Bourg an extremely pleasant and edifying time. I quitted early in the morning of Saturday, Sept. 26th, for the magnificent route through the Savoyard mountains to Modane and Turin, not the less gratified that I bore from our French brother a contribution for the New Church mission in Italy.
J. B. (To be continued.)
PROFESSOR TYNDALL. SINCE he delivered his address on the Development theory at Bradford, Professor Tyndall has made a confession of his faith at Manchester. In concluding a lecture on the subject of " Crystalline and Molecular Forces,” he is reported to have said,—“We are surrounded by wonders and mysteries everywhere. I have sometimes—not sometimes, but often-in the springtide watched the advance of the sprouting leaves and of the grass and of the flowers, and observed the general joy of opening life in nature; and I have asked myself this question, Can it be that there is no being or thing in nature that knows more about these matters than I do ; that I in my ignorance represent the highest knowledge of these things existing in this universe ? Ladies and gentlemen, the man who puts that question to himself, if he be not a shallow man, if he be a man capable of being penetrated by a profound thought, will never answer that question by professing that
creed of Atheism which has been so lightly attributed to me. I will only detain you one moment more. Everywhere throughout our planet we notice this tendency of the ultimate particles of matter to run into symmetric forms. The very molecules appear inspired with a desire for union and growth, and the question of questions at the present day-it is one, I fear, which will not be solved in our day, but will continue to agitate and occupy thinking minds after we have departed—the question of questions is, How far does this wondrous display of molecular force extend? Does it give us the movement of the sap of trees? I reply with confidence, Assuredly it does. Does it give us the beating of our own hearts, the warmth of our own bodies, the circulation of our own blood, and all that thereon depends ? This is a point on which I offer no opinion to-night. I have brought you to the edge of a battle-field into which I don't intend to enter, and from which I have barely escaped somewhat bespattered and begrimed, but without much loss of heart or hope. It now only remains for me not to enter this battle-field, but to point out to you the position of the contending hosts. You can pass on by almost imperceptible gradations from this wonderful display of force that I have been able to make manifest to your eyes to-night to the lowest forms of vegetable life. You pass from them to other forms higher, and so up to the highest. I have spoken of contending hosts. Which are right and which are wrong is, I submit, a question for grave consideration, and not for abuse and hard names. I am afraid that many of the fears that are now entertained on these subjects really have their roots in a kind of scepticism. It is not always those who are charged with scepticism that are the real sceptics ; and I confess it is a matter of some grief to me to see able, useful, and courageous men running to and fro upon the earth wringing their hands over the threatened destruction of their ideals. I would speak if I dared to such men; I would exhort them to cast out this scepticism, for this fear has its root in ccepticism. In the human mind we have the substratum of all ideals, and assuredly as string responds to string when the proper note is sounded, so surely when words of truth and nobleness are uttered by a living human soul will those words have a resonant response in other souls ; and in this faith I abide, and in this way I leave the question."
This avowal of the presence in nature of a higher intelligence thản his own has been the subject of as much animadversion and almost of as much censure as his previous statement. True, it includes no acknowledgment of Revelation, nor, consequently, of Christianity ; but it is a vast stride in advance of the idea of blind chance, on which the development theory was generally supposed to rest. Is it not possible that the views of the Church at present on the teaching of the Bible respecting Creation, and even respecting Christianity, may have something to do with the scepticism of some scientific and inquiring minds? The idea entertained in the Christian world of the work of creation having been effected in six days-taken, it is true, from the literal sense of the Book of Genesis-connected with the notion—not derived from Scripture-of its baving been created out of nothing, is so completely opposed to the established facts of modern science, that it is not surprising there should be a tendency in the scientific mind to doubt the Divine authorship of the Bible. So long as science was based upon the appearances of nature, the apparent truths of Scripture were not opposed to science. This condition of things no longer exists. Science has risen above the appearances of the heavens, and penetrated far below the surface of the earth, and seems, therefore, to have falsified the teaching of the Scriptures. Those who adhere to the literal sense of the Word cannot avoid coming into conflict with men of science, even when they do not subscribe to the Darwinian theory. And if theology opposes itself to
science, why should not science oppose itself to theology? To remove this cause of conflict the genuine truths of Scripture have been revealed. Few know and fewer believe in this revelation. This revelation has been made for the use of the New Church, that is to say, for the use of mankind under that Dispensation of grace in which the truths of nature and the truths of revelation are to be completely reconciled, and which they must be, since the natural are the bases of the spiritual. The genuine truths of nature are the bases of the genuine truths of revelation ; thus scientific truth is the basis of theological truth, the earthly is the basis of the heavenly. “Heaven is God's throne, the earth is His footstool.” The same Divinity is present in them, and actuates them, and governs them, and thus rests upon them, as the created images and receptacles of His love and wisdom. Professor Tyndall avows his belief in the wisdom of a power that knows and conducts all the mysterious operations of nature. Let him take one step onward, and he will see that the newest and truest views of that nature of which he is so earnest a student and so distinguished an interpreter, lead surely to views of revelation in perfect harmony with them, but far transcending them in beauty and utility.
To the Editor of the Intellectual Repository. Sir,-I am aware that the Authorized Version of the Scriptures has errors of translation in it. I know that a number of learned men are, from time to time, holding session for the purpose of amending the errors that exist and giving us as correct a transcript of the Book as is possible. I know also that, in the New Church especially, some are so desirous of the alteration that they cannot patiently await the change that may result from the prolonged labours of the Committee of Revision, but must make their own enendations now, and what is more, thrust them upon us at times when we are least likely to enjoy them or perceive their aptness. I can forgive a man from telling us in his sermon that there are errors in the text, especially if he support his view by learned authority and sound reason. But when in the services of the Church the reading of the Word is made the opportunity for introducing the alterations, I confess to a sense of pain and repugnance that is very real and trying. In hearing the Word read, and following the reading with your eyes, there is naturally a sense of calm reverence induced in which celestial influences are doubtless acting for good. At such a time the shock is rude to find the reader introduce a word that the eye does not see, and whose difference from the text at once sets up a feeling of dispute or doubt as to its accuracy, and a vague questioning of the reason for the change. The flow of spiritual peace is harshly checked in the mind of the hearer and not easily recovered.
For instance, in the parable of the vineyard, when the question of the Lord of the vineyard is read as “Did I not agree with thee for a denarius?” we ask, Why not “ penny," as in the Authorized Version ? and can see no reason for the change. Not long since I heard a young minister in reading from Revelation iii., in the 7th and 8th verses change the word man” into “one” each time of its occurrence, and in the 16th verse for “I will spue thee out of my mouth," read “ I will cast thee forth out of my mouth.” These alterations may be correct and proper, though I doubt it; nevertheless I maintain the time and place improperly chosen for the introduction of a point of dispute ; and I should be glad to have your weighty and valuable opinion on the point. To those who view the Bible as holy in its literal sense, any change, though for the better, should be made with orderly caution and due authority before they can appreciate it,-I am, sir, yours faithfully,
J. B. K. As Conference claims and exercises no authority in this matter, every minister is left in freedom to act according to his own judgment. The reader referred to probably introduced denarius for penny to supply the hearers with the proper continent of the spiritual sense, the denarius being a silver coin, while our penny is a copper or bronze one. Yet England had once a silver penny, which was also much nearer the value of the Roman denarius than the penny is now. When Offa the Saxon King of Mercia engaged to pay the Sovereign Pontiff a yearly donation for the support of an English College at Rome, and in order to pay the sum imposed the tax of a penny on each house possessed of thirty pence a year, the penny must have been of considerable value. When this imposition was afterwards levied on all England, and that which was originally conferred as a gift came to be claimed as a tribute to the Pope, it was commonly called « Peter's Pence," and was Latinized as Denarius St. Petri. The letter d, the initial of denarius, is still the representative of the English penny. So that the “ penny" of our version has a well-established claim to stand for the denarius of the New Testament.. As the spiritual sense is intellectually received not in the form but in the meaning of words, unless a congregation know the difference between our penny and the Roman denarius, they will derive no advantage from the change, but may, on the contrary, have an unintelligible for an intelligible term. There is a departure from our version of another kind. We remember listening to a reader who left out all the words in the sacred text which are printed in italics ; on the ground, no doubt, that all such words have none answering to them in the original, although, generally, they are required to express the sense of the original in idiomatic English. Yet there are exceptional instances where both the true literal sense and the dogmatic idea require this to be done, but which not all public New Church readers observe. Thus, in reading Psa. ii, 2, the word saying should be omitted, since it puts the words of the third verse into the mouth of the king's enemies instead of his friends. In Daniel iü. 25 the Son of God should be read a son of God; for our translators, without any just ground, have made Nebuchadnezzar express his own idea of the angel or messenger, sent to deliver the three men cast into the fiery furnace, in the language of the New Testament. In reading John vii. 39 the word given should be omitted, because it makes the Evangelist say that the Holy Ghost was not yet given, whereas he states that it did not yet exist. Especially should Matt. xx. 23 be read without the words it shall be given to them, since they make the Lord say absolutely that to sit on His right hand and on His left is not His to give, whereas He only says that it is not His to give but to those for whom it is prepared. We think with the writer that, with such necessary corrections as these, it is better, in the public reading of the Scriptures, to follow the common version, and even to adhere to the verbal form of the Liturgy, where it is used, as, judging from our own experience, any striking deviation from the letter awakens the critical faculty, and in the case of the Liturgy, disturbs the devotional feeling. In this we, of course, only express our own individual opinion.
LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF THE REV. JOHN CLOWES.
Second Notice. In a Life of Mr. Clowes it was to be expected that the course he adopted and advocated, of remaining in connection with the Old Church after having received the doctrines of the New, should be duly chronicled and receive its fair share of attention. In the biography the subject is on the whole fairly represented, although the author or the editor, who avows his adherence to
Mr. Clowes's view, shows a pardonable leaning to his own side of the question, and perhaps some little deficiency of justice and charity in judging of those who took and of those who take the other side. To judge from the conclusions at which different persons or parties have arrived from the perusal of his writings on this subject, it does not appear that all are agreed as to the exact position Mr. Clowes assumed on the question of separation and non-separation. Did he adopt and advocate non-separation as a principle or as an expediency ? did he condemn separation as wrong altogether and always, or only wrong or undesirable as to the time and circumstances which his contemporaries had chosen for it? It appears to us there are grounds in his writings on the subject for both opinions; but as one is incompatible with the other, we are convinced that he only maintained one as best calculated to promote, and condemned the other as likely to retard, the reception of the truth and the progress of the principles of the New Jerusalem,
In his Dialogues he says, “ The New Church I conceive to be a state of the most exalted love, charity, and consequent operative virtues and graces from heaven, that was ever yet manifested here on earth; consisting in an entire eradication of all the inordinate, false, and evil principles of selflove and the love of the world, with all the proud, envious, wrathful, and covetous affections therein originating, and at the same time a renewal or regeneration, wrought by the purest principles of heavenly goodness and truth, through obedience, in all the sensual forms and degrees of human life, whether social, civil, moral, intellectual, or spiritual. Thus, and in no other way, as it appears to me, can the tabernacle of God be with men, and He will dwell with them, and they become His people.” Truly might the author of this beautiful description of what the New Church is, in itself or in its very nature, put into the mouth of the inquiring student, Sophron, the responsive answer, “Well, sir, my mind is much satisfied and delighted with this idea of a New Church, as tending to renew, bless, and perfect all the principles of corrupt human nature throughout the earth, by restoring them to conjunction with God and heaven.”
Every one who knows the subject, be he separatist or non-separatist, will acknowledge this state to be the very New Church itself, the very nature and essence of the New Jerusalem, and that all things else, whether they be knowledge or worship, are but means to this as an end; and that separation or non-separation is only a question of means to this end, and that one can have no claim to preference further than it can be shown that it is more in harmony with and better adapted than the others to work out this all-essential object of every Divine Dispensation and of Revelation itself. Mr. Clowes entertained the opinion that non-separation was most in harmony with and best adapted to promote the end which he had so deeply at heart. Perhaps the strongest expression of his views is contained in his reply to Mr. Jones, whose pamphlet, entitled “A Friendly Address to the receivers of the Doctrines of the New Jerusalem, on the propriety of adopting suitable forms of external worship, and which the author of the Life allows to have been charitable in spirit, temperate in style, and ingenious in argument; and that whatever opinion we may form of his position, we cannot but be charmed with his Christian and gentlemanly mode of expressing himself. In his reply Mr. Clowes says, “ When I take a retrospective view of what is past, and reflect on the needless offence given, and on all the bitter prejudice exerted against the New Doctrines by the conduct of those who could not be content with their accustomed forms of external worship; when I observe how the predicted glorious New Church, intended as a universal blessing to the whole race of mankind, has been thus degraded to a common sect, whilst limits have been