have pre-eminently benefited the diocese. But suppose future emergencies to arise. Is a bishop residing at a distance, having already upon his hands the care of a large diocese, likely to enter upon these points with zeal and alacrity? Indeed, will it be scarcely practicable for him to do so? And, if the bishop cannot, will not that very thing prevent others from being forward in such undertakings, and thus, in many instances, retard improvement and perpetuate existing privations or inconveniences? Or, if the instances were such as individuals could take in hand without impropriety, and they were willing to do so, could they concentrate the force of the clergy? Could their influence with them be as that of a bishop? or, would their representations, when sent forth to the world, have the weight and authority which they would have when sent forth with the sanction of a separate and local bishop? It may be said, that much of this may be effected by the archdeacon: but again, it may be answered, Could an archdeacon assume the tone, or exercise the influence, of a bishop towards his brother clergy? Besides, in so speaking, do we not forget that this archdeaconry would not be in a position similar to those of other archdeaconries. With them the affairs of the whole diocese, and often of several dioceses, are one common subject. Here, local, legal, customary peculiarities-nay, the very vernacular language-widely separate the inhabitants from their fellow-subjects. Thus situated, the archdeaconry of Man must often want the sympathy of its kindred archdeaconries, and the weight of union arising from combination with them. In such circumstances, deprived of its bishop, is not the danger great lest the church in the island sink into feebleness and depression? These considerations might be carried much farther; but I fear I have already occupied too much space. Let me merely glance at the suggestion, of how great benefit to the island is the residence of a gentleman of the income and acquirements which accompany episcopal rank. Let me farther remark, the question is not-Shall a bishoprick be founded-shall a see be endowed for the inhabitants of this separate and peculiar island? but, these existing, shall they, in concurrence with the wish and prayer of the inhabitants, be perpetuated? Repeating my wish neither to say nor to imply anything disrespectful to our superiors in church and state, I beg to remain, Mr. Editor, Your obedient humble servant, W. S. D. The following petition has been signed by several clergymen of the neighbourhood of Bridgnorth: "The petition of the clergy and others of the town of Bridgnorth, and its neighbourhood, to his Majesty's Commissioners appointed to consider the state of the Established Church, with reference to ecclesiastical duties and revenues, "Sheweth "That your petitioners have learned, with much regret, the recommendation made by his Majesty's Commissioners for the suppression of the bishoprick of Sodor and Man. "That your petitioners are strongly persuaded that the bishops of that see have many times been instrumental in obtaining for the island important benefits, which could not have been obtained for it by the agency of the archdeacon and clergy only. “That the island, remote in situation, distinct in language, peculiar in many legal enactments and local customs, if reduced to an archdeaconry merely, would stand in a position to which those of no other archdeaconries would be analogous, and in which it could experience but little of their sympathies and co-operation; and thus, deprived of the weight and influence which attach to the office of a separate and resident bishop, the church in that island would be placed in a situation of peculiar weakness and depression. "On these accounts, and many others which they forbear to particularize, your petitioners humbly beg the reconsideration of the 24th clause of your Fourth Report, and join with the inhabitants of the island in praying the continuance of a bishopric which, for above thirteen centuries, has existed with so much benefit to the Isle of Man, and, as your petitioners truly believe, with signal advantage to the church at large. "And your petitioners, &c." INCREASE OF BISHOPS. SIR,―The letter of your correspondent, "Decanus Ruralis,” will, I suppose, engage the attention of Mr. Newman, whom he names, or of others who may be alive to the importance of our having an increased number of bishops in the church of England. I do not suppose the question whether they should be chorepiscopi (or suffragan bishops) to be of the first importance; and if the historical charge, which your correspondent raises against that peculiar institution, should bear sifting, and prove as complete as his letter represents it, still the subdivision of dioceses among a larger number of bishops will continue a matter of important consideration, and one, as it seems to me, most earnestly to be desired. Your correspondent cannot say that early precedent is condemnatory of such a course. There is no doubt that our dioceses are far larger than was any way accustomed in the primitive church; and as he grounds his argument on history, he cannot but wish, in the abstract, for their subdivision. I must leave the historical question of the merits of the chorepiscopal office to persons who, from different causes, may be better able than myself at once to enter into it; what I object to in your correspondent's view, is his estimate of the office of a bishop, and of the influences and benefits attached to it. Surely, it is not well to reduce the merits of a bishop to a hard enumeration of his functions; and then say that, except ordination, confirmation, &c., all the rest can be done by some one else, and therefore what we want is, more delegates, and not more bishops. The office of a bishop is so holy, that as few of his acts as possible ought to be robbed of being his, by passing to a delegate. I must leave it to persons better learned to bear me out in representing that the ancient system was, for the officials about the bishop to be rather counsellors, and è secretis, he undertaking all function and act; not he the mere adviser and regulator, passing to them Bishop Wilson assigns this date (see his account of the Isle of Man); Bingham gives the date, anno 840, ( Antiquities, Book ix. chap. vi. sect. 19.) all he could of the duties pertaining to him, as in God's stead, among us. A bishop is like to no other man, except such others as God likewise trusts to be bishops. What one should look for from him is, the blessing of his personal intercourse, the peculiar grace attached to functions administered by his hand, as he is God's special instrument; more particularly also as he is the image of unity, the head to which all look up, the chief pastor, representing the Bishop Invisible. If we could have a bishop in each neighbourhood, mixing occasionally, and almost by chance, in our congregations, joining in the prayers, and more particularly in the holy communion, himself the conveyer of benediction from the Holy Trinity to the people-a person seen by all, known by all, I may add, felt by all-we should have that which God permits not to man by any other medium. One must fear that the reason the church is not allowed these and many other spiritual fruits of a more immediate episcopal intercourse, is, that her interest and need is not an availing argument in her behalf. As your correspondent may like to see something of fact and evidence in behalf of the episcopal system thus brought into effect,-I confess, its being the apostolic form of episcopacy might satisfy,-I will offer him some information of a very recent date. It is well known that the bishopric of Man is the only diocese in this church corresponding in size to the ancient ones. A traveller (Lord Teignmouth) visiting that island in 1829, and some of whose information appears to be as recent as 1836, gives some statements concerning the moral and religious character of the Manks people which seem very much illustrated by the fact of their living under the direct influence of the episcopal office. He speaks of " their tenacious adherence to ancient rites and customs; their reverence for authority, and for public rites; the sensation excited among them when a seller of infidel tracts lately arrived in the island; their loyalty and patriotism;" (see Newman's pamphlet, p. 43, &c. ;)" the entire absence of profane swearing,"-the immediate result of contiguity to a person they reverence;-"300 persons partaking of the holy communion, out of a congregation of 700; and some other peculiar circumstances concerning them, partly, no doubt, arising from their Celtic origin, but more obviously from their realizing the episcopal system. Lord Teignmouth takes occasion to remark on Bishop Wilson, "as inflexible in the maintenance of his official authority and the discipline of his church;" and tells us, that "his monument in the churchyard of Kirk Michael is religiously preserved." "The constitution of the episcopal office brings it into contact* with every portion of the diocese, a throne being assigned to the bishop in every parish church. The respect to the bishop is remarkable; the people when they meet him bow to the ground, though Compare Mr. Newman's remark-" Let it not be objected that the novelty is the cause of this. Sunday comes once a week, yet does not by its frequency lose its force, as a memorial of the next world."-" Restoration of Suffragan Bishops recommended," p. 19. 4 c VOL. X.-Nov. 1836. by no means addicted to such respect; for, unlike their neighbours, the Irish, in this, they seldom, if ever, salute a stranger." (Sketches of Scotland and the Isle of Man, by Lord Teignmouth, vol. ii., p. 255, &c.) All this, be it observed, has reference to the influence of episcopacy on the laity, and it is on their behalf one would especially advocate its being brought into a more practical operation; doubtless, it must benefit the clergy as well. I am, your obedient servant, A COUNTRY CLERGYMAN, DR. BUCKLAND'S BRIDGEWATER TREATISE. SIR, As the recent appearance of "Dr. Buckland's Bridgewater Treatise" cannot fail to draw public attention to the subject of geology, in connexion with Scripture, you will perhaps permit a recurrence to the subject. It is now publicly announced, from a weighty and responsible quarter, that "fossil remains are documents which contain the evidences of revolutions and catastrophes long antecedent to the creation of the human race. They open the book of nature, and swell the volumes of science with the records of many successive series of animal and vegetable generations, of which the creation and extinction would have been equally unknown to us, but for recent discoveries in the science of geology." (Treatise, vol. i. p. 128.) It is, therefore, desirable to see the bearing of these discoveries on the scripture narrative; but, in investigations of this kind, as Dr. B. has judiciously observed, (p. 33,) "It should be recollected that the question is, not respecting the correctness of the Mosaic narrative, but of our interpretation of it." This remark describes exactly my opinion of the case; and, under such an impression, I pointed out (British Magazine, vol. vii. p. 274,) a remarkable distinction between the beasts of the earth in the first chapter of Genesis, and the beasts of the field in the second chapter. In the second chapter, we read of beasts of the field, and plants of the field; in the first, we are told of beasts of the earth, of herbs and trees upon the earth; and the conclusion I came to concerning it was thisthat up to the time of Adam, towards the latter part of the sixth period of creation, 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 vegetation, expressly adapted to his wants. This new view drew forth from a few of your correspondents some opposing remarks, which, however, did not touch the main position. "A Plain Reader," indeed, rejected the distinction, but upon no sufficient grounds. He saysAssuming the first and second chapters of Genesis to contain the history of the creation, it will follow that the terms beast of the earth,' and 'beast of the field,' are equivalent expressions. The Bible is its own best interpreter, inasmuch as, although its distinct parts were inscribed by different pens, they were alike under the guidance of the one all-directing mind; and numerous passages might be referred to, to prove that the above terms are used indifferently; if this be admitted, &c." vol. viii. p. 46. I propose here to follow out his principle, in making the Bible its own interpreter; and must assume, as he has produced no examples, that he satisfied himself in referring to his English bible, where the terms are, indeed, sometimes used indifferently. In Psalm lxxx. 13, we find the words, "the wild beast of the field doth devour it ;" but in a recent and more critical translation, the passage is rendered "the beast of the field browseth upon it." This strongly contrasts with the second verse of the previous psalm: "the flesh of thy saints (have they given to be meat) unto the beasts of the earth." As it will be more in point, I shall add some examples from the books of Moses. In the ninth chapter of Exodus, "every herb of the field" is explained by flax, barley, wheat, and rye; also beasts in the field are, horses, camels, oxen, &c. "When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof, by forcing an axe against them, for thou mayest eat of them; and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man's [life]) to employ them in the siege; only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down." (Deut. xx. 19.)† "Thy carcase shall be meat unto the beasts of the earth." (Deut. xxviii. 26.) See also Ezek. ch. 31. From these examples we may surely infer, that a distinction is observed and intended between the terms "beasts of the earth” and "beasts of the field;" that the latter are such animals only as come under the care and control of man, for his immediate and personal use; and are contrasted with the beasts of the earth, which live quite independently of man, and have no personal relations with him. Having thus learned from scripture the meaning and complete difference of the terms "beast of the earth" and "beast of the field,” if we turn to the beginning of Genesis, we must, on mere critical grounds, admit, that the beasts of the earth, in the first chapter, were of a different kind, and of a previous creation, to the beasts of the field in the second chapter. But besides the difference of phraseology, attention is drawn to the distinction by a marked boundary line and resting place, from which the history again sets off on a new branch of the subject, in contrast with that just finished. The second chapter opens with an introduction to this effect:-Thus far concerning the plants and beasts of the earth, which were a previous creation, and had sole possession of the earth up to the time of Adam. The history is now to speak more particularly of man, and of the new animals and vegetation which were created for his use. Such appears to be the meaning of the remarkable, but obscure, passage, Gen. ii. 4-6, which I have thus translated: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth at their creation, By French and Skinner. + This passage is obscure in the original, but not in the point for which it is here quoted. |