the very first clause in the Prayer-book is sometimes read as if broken into fragments; "When the wicked man-turneth away-from his wickedness-that he hath committed;" instead of the whole being delivered in a suspensive manner, without abruption, and in one breath. Such artificial habits are painful to the ear, the mind, and the heart. That is the best punctuation, and the best reading, which follows the sense and spirit of a passage, without much heeding the verbal construction. The dame-school rule of "Mind your stops," would be a very good one, if the stops were always adjusted by a committee of well-judging philologists and elocutionists; but it is a very bad one when they are regulated by the average taste of ordinary authors, transcribers, and typographers.

NO CRITIC.

NO "MORE LAST WORDS" ON GEOLOGY.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

I WILL not add "more last words" on geology, as you have expressed your opinion that it is time to suspend the discussion; which I did not foresee would have extended to so great a length when I penned the remarks in your January Number. But though I will neither prolong, nor sum up, the argument, I may, perhaps, be allowed to state a plain fact, which has turned out as I presaged: I mean, that the opponents of geology have not grappled with the actual phenomena, and shewn how they can reconcile them with their interpretations of Scripture; but have adopted the easier plan of reiterating their opinions, accusing their Christian brethren who are constrained to differ from them, of neology, vain philosophy, dangerous doctrine, and opposing the statements of Scripture; whereas the very question under consideration is what is the real purport of those statements; the devout geologist asserting that it cannot be what is popularly supposed, since that interpretation contradicts facts.

In illustration of the above remark, I will refer only to two papers in your last Number, which, as the writers speak of themselves as authors of publications on the subject, I looked to for some attempt at argument. But what do I find in its place?-assertion, and—not to say it offensively-declamation. "The Author of a Portrait of Geology" attacks Dr. Buckland's sermon on Death: I have neither seen the "Sermon," nor the "Portrait; " but even taking for granted that the Oxford Professor's statements are highly exceptionable, (though I presume they are only to the same effect as those quoted by your correspondents from Bishop Bird Sumner, Dr. Chalmers, the Rev. H. Melvill, and other Christian geologists,) yet sure I am that the critic has not advanced one syllable of argument to refute them, much less shewn how he can reconcile facts and Scripture according to his own interpretation. Instead of this, he forcibly vituperates; the burden of his every paragraph being some unsupported charge of "romantic visions,' "wild and eccentric speculations," "unwarrantable assumptions assailing the bulwarks of the Christian faith," "tampering with the records of heavenly truth," "rapid advances to infidel conclusions," and the like; which charges would be very effective if they were based on proof, but being put in the place of it, they are but gratuitous assertions. "I remain," he says,

“a firm and conscientious dissentient from the romantic doctrine of an age of reptiles, &c. &c.," which no doubt he does; but nobody asks what an anonymous writer "remains," or how "firm and conscientious" he is, but what his argument or declamation is worth. He adds, "How such an assumption can be reconciled with the principles of a sound theism, (even) independent altogether of revelation, I have to learn." Doubtless he has; but what he has to learn, or whether he will ever learn it, is quite beside the question. The geologist adduces undeniable facts, and points out inevitable deductions from them; these are replied to with hard words and denunciations; as if affirming that an opinion is false, romantic, or infidel, makes it so. I on my part "have to learn" how this writer solves geological facts; but I do not believe that he really knows much about them; or is aware of the mischief he is doing to revelation by denying the conclusions which, let him say what he may, those who have the ability, opportunity, and will, fully to investigate the subject, must draw from them. It is not fifty years since the modern discoveries of chemistry were thought as “romantic" as your correspondent considers those of geology to be; and there "remained" many "firm and conscientious dissentients" from its "wild and eccentric speculations ;" and a good declaimer might have said, "I have yet to learn how the notion that water is not an element, but is composed of oxygen and hydrogen, is to be reconciled with the declaration of Scripture that in the beginning God created it; nothing being said of the creation of its constituent parts." The objection would be absurd; yet not more so than the corresponding objection against geology.

Your next correspondent, who signs himself "The Author of Biblicus Delvinus," follows in the same track. He indeed opened his paper well, by saying:

"It becomes the geologist who is disposed to place implicit trust in the assertions of Holy Writ, to shew the consistency and harmony which exist between the discoveries of modern geology, and what the Almighty hath been pleased to reveal in the Mosaic accounts of the creation and deluge."

Now I hoped he was going to shew this; which could only be by proving either that the geologists are wrong in their conclusions, or that Scripture fairly admits, as I am sure it does, of an interpretation which coincides with them. But instead of "shewing" that the geologist's conclusion is unfounded, he proceeds to ask, "Is it safe to allow such an anti-scriptural opinion as this to prevail?" This is not shewing, but declaiming. It certainly is not safe" to allow antiscriptural opinions; but neither is it safe to lead men to believe that Scripture contradicts facts; the safe way is to "shew" that the words and the works of God agree, as undeniably they must; that which is true, be it what it may, is safe; an appeal to consequences in deciding upon a matter of fact, is an evasion of the question; and we need not fear for the Bible when we elicit sound deductions from the phenomena of the visible works of its Divine Author. Your other correspondent, above quoted, in like manner had said, "Modern geologists, in their wild and eccentric speculations, seem entirely regardless of consequences." If the speculations were "wild," the right way would be to prove them to be so; for the "consequences" will fall with the "speculations;" but the speculations will not fall with the alleged consequences, since they may have been falsely alleged. As for the charge of "eccentricity," truths the most demonstrable

may appear "eccentric" to those who do not understand them. I remember many years ago hearing that Professor Farish entertained a "wild and eccentric" notion of travelling by the power of steam. But "The Author of the Portrait" continues: "I have even been told that we have nothing to do with the tendency of such aberrations." Now in this he was told very wrong; for if alleged geological discoveries seem, primâ facie, to be morally unsafe, or to produce evil consequences, the question arises, Are the facts proved? and if they are, Do the foreboded consequences really follow? But what probably he was told, was what I have above asserted, that truth cannot be unsafe; that it is infinitely safer than error; and that where what seems to be truth appears to be unsafe, either it is not truth, or we are mistaken as to its effects. I will mention what happened to myself. When I first heard of the conclusions of geology, I thought them very unsafe, for they opposed my conscientious interpretation of the Scripture narrative; and I concluded-as was right and just, for I knew Scripture to be infallible, and I had never considered any other interpretation-that geological science was an "aberration." But upon further scrutiny I found its main conclusions impregnable; I then considered whether my interpretation was of necessity the right one, and I found, as many scriptural geologists have shewn, that the sacred text might, without any violence, be differently interpreted, and that thus the supposed difficulties vanished. I was not reckless of consequences; very far from it: but I saw that there might be bad consequences in two opposite ways; and I fear that some wellmeaning and truly pious writers are exposing Scripture to one of them.

I have kept to my word in not re- arguing the geological question, or the scriptural interpretation. I have said nothing of strata or fossils, or Hebrew construction or biblical criticism: I have only shewn that your anti-geological correspondents have not argued but asserted. When, for instance, Biblicus Delvinus says, that "There is no doubt" that the "blocks of stone, beds of gravel, and marine remains which cover many parts of the Asiatic continent," were carried there at the Deluge; the only reply is, that there is a great deal of doubt, and that the facts are altogether inconsistent with the assertion. We do not prove the truth of the Deluge by attributing to it what does not belong to it. When, however, he gives as one reason why the remains of man are not found with beasts, that "he was latest made," he does, I admit, use an argument, but a very bad one; for they were created on the self-same day, and perhaps within a few hours or moments of each other; so that the beasts could not have wandered over the earth and replenished it before Adam was formed. I must not, however, enter into the question, or I might add that the remains of existing animals are found with those of man; it is only extinct genera and species that are not discovered in juxta position: and it is with these that the geologist is led to conclude that the world was replenished before the Adamic state of things commenced. As to giving moral reasons for physical facts, except where revelation has disclosed them, it is worse than gratuitous assertion. What right has Delvinus to argue that after the diluvian destruction the remains of man were ⚫ concealed, and those of the irrational and the vegetable creation left prominent, because "Undue familiarity with the vestiges of death would only harden the mind, making it more callous and insensible CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 20.

3 P

of the reality?" A fanciful reason is given to account for a fanciful fact; for it is mere fancy that the remains of man are not found among the Diluvian deposits; the geologist says that they are; and that it is only in formations much anterior that they are wanting. Delvinus argues as though Lord Bacon had never lived, and we lived in the age of "occult causes." When the pious, and in every way illustrious, Boyle asserted the pressure of the air as the reason why liquids rose in the Torricellian tube, he had to contend against the received opinion, that it was "because Nature abhors a vacuum ; ' nor were the patrons of occult causes at all careful to ask why Nature tolerated a vacuum, when quicksilver was used, at a pressure varying from twenty-eight to thirty-one inches; but abhorred it, when water was used, at as many feet. But be all this as it may, the geologist remains unrefuted; unless the unproved assertion that he contradicts Scripture (an assertion which every Christian geologist denies) be a refutation.

A SCRIPTURAL GEOLOGIST.

ATTACK OF THE (SO-CALLED) TRINITARIAN BIBLE SOCIETY UPON THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY. [THE following paper on the recent attacks of the (so-called) Trinitarian Bible Society upon the British and Foreign Bible having been sent to us by a lay gentleman of ability and piety, we insert it, though we see little use in embarking upon the controversy; for to those who understand the many difficult questions connected with versions of the Holy Scriptures, the discussion might be superfluous; and to those who do not, it would be only perplexing; as every clergyman painfully knows, who has been asked by some person of devout mind and tender conscience, but who understands nothing of the difficulties of biblical criticism, how it is that the psalms in our Prayer-book and Bible are very differently worded-nay in one place positively contradict each other; or how some passages are to be construed or reconciled with others, where, as may often happen, the solution depends upon various readings or translations. A good mischief-maker might make an effective-though groundless-speech at a popular meeting, to prove that the clergy, including Mr. Thelwall himself, are wilful falsifiers, and the Christian Knowledge Society many times more wicked than even the Bible Society, for circulating the Prayer-book translation, which says, Psalm CV. 28, "They were not obedient unto his word;" whereas the authorised translation says, "They rebelled not against his word;" and Mr. Thelwall and his colleagues would find it impossible to clear up their own conduct in this matter to such an objector, without stultifying their own anti-biblesociety speeches, reports, and pamphlets. Do we then feel satisfied with such diversities of rendering? or with any of the mistakes, discrepancies, or manifold blemishes even of the best translations? Far, very far, from it; they are most distressing and perplexing; but we know enough of the practical difficulties to see how much easier it is to find faults than to mend them; and that if we are to wait for immaculate translations before we print any, we shall seal up the fountain of life as long as man is fallible and judgments differ. The zealous and well-conducted labours of the Christian Knowledge Bible Translation committee, after several years of assiduous application, have not yet produced even a French version, which has been the object of the Society's justly solicitous exertion The (so-called) Trinitarian Bible Society has consumed seven years of time, and

not a little of its subscribers' money, (which ought to have been devoted to circulating Bibles,) in printing animadversions upon Bibles issued by its neighbours, without putting forth a single new version of its own to occupy their place; nor do we anticipate that the next seven years will be much more prolific-except it may be in vituperation; whereas, in the mean time, hundreds of millions of human beings are passing into eternity, to whom a Bible, even in a very imperfect version, would be an inestimable treasure. Alas! how much easier is it to spend our days in declaiming upon defects--for such will always exist where man is the agent in the wisest and holiest deeds of others; in the most devout books, and most religious societies, and the most charitable deeds, than in effecting the same amount of good ourselves, with less of earthly alloy.

We repeat that we do not feel satisfied with defects or mistakes (where we think we discern them) in any translation, not excluding our own incomparable version. There are passages in that version which we are not sure give the sense of the original correctly; nay, the great majority of biblical critics have determined, that in embodying the litigated verse 1 John v. 7, in the sacred text, it interpolates (by mistake, not intentionally) the inspired word with a spurious passage; and very distressing are such considerations to every devout mind; and a popular declaimer might easily excite the clamours of the ignorant, who suppose that every syllable of the true text can be indubitably ascertained and accurately rendered, without doubt or difficulty: but every Christian scholar knows the contrary; and will feel it his duty to circulate the word of God in all the languages of the earth, in the best practical form, although mixed with much human imperfection, provided the version is really honest, and, upon the whole, well and faithfully executed. It would be wicked to circulate a dishonest version, such as what is called the " Improved Version ;" and it would not be right to circulate one of general gross inaccuracy, even though honest; but the measure of imperfection which makes a Bible worse than none, is a question of degree, upon which a good objector may always raise specious arguments; yet we do not think that Tindale, or Coverdale, or the Bible Society's foreign translators, are to be condemned for giving the best in their power, though needing many, and gradually accumulated, corrections, to bring it to the excellence of our present vernacular version.

We do not know whether any of the members of Mr. Thelwall's society are members of the Christian Knowledge Society; but a large number of our readers are. Now that Society issues the apocryphal books with many of its Bibles; a proceeding to us very distressing, and which we strongly opposed in the Bible Society till it was relinquished. We deprecate this circulation, and we lament that our Right Reverend Fathers, and so many of our Reverend brethren, approve it ; our objection going not only to particular points of false doctrine, as that prayer for the dead is lawful, and that "alms make an atonement for sin ;" but to their usurped claim to inspiration, and to the countenance given to popery by circulating them; yet we do not therefore feel it a bounden duty, on this sole account, to break from the Christian Knowledge Society; much less to quit the Church of England, because though rejecting their divine authority, and therefore not applying them "to establish any doctrine," she considers they may be lawfully read as human writings, (as doubtless they may be,) " for example of life and instruction of manners." If no man will ever give away a Bible, till he finds one in which he cannot find a mistake-even a serious mistake; or subscribe to a society, which, however excellent upon the whole, does not tally with him in every opinion, or follow out all his views in practice, there is an end to the co-operation of Christians in any work of piety or mercy.