restricted to two species, was the inhabitant of every country of the Old World, from its southern extremity to the frozen shores of the Northern Ocean; and when vast herds of a closely allied and equally colossal genus occupied its place in the New."

The question of animal degradation, versus natural development, is thus presented by our fascinating author. Some will probably conclude that both may be rejected. Great demands have assuredly been made upon our credulity. Laplace's Nebular hypothesis seemed the ne plus ultra of extravagant theory. But Professor Oken is the propounder of a new system, (at least new to us,) which may be thought to outstrip the fancy of the aërial cosmogonists. He holds "that the globe is a vast crystal, just a little flawed in the facets; and that the three granitic components-quartz, feldspar, and mica-are simply the hail-drops of heavy stone-showers that shot athwart the original ocean," (for he believes, like Lamarck and Maillet, in the universal ocean of Leibnitz,) " and accumulated into rock at the bottom, as snow and hail shoots athwart the upper atmosphere, and accumulates in the form of ice, on the summits of high hills, or in the arctic or antarctic regions." Well may it be said, that, if an infidel were required to hold such doctrines as these, or those of the "development" system, he "could with no propriety be regarded as an unbeliever;" and "it is well that the New Testament makes no such extraordinary demands on human credulity."

But geologists must be theorisers. They cannot be satisfied with discovery and classification, but must inform us how and in what time they think God made the world and moulded it into its present fashion. The writer who successfully combats the theory of the Lamarckians, is led to propound his own; of which an opponent may be tempted to say, that it is easier to prove others wrong than to show himself right. Dr. Chalmers was learned and wise enough to stand and adore the wonders of creation, and modest enough to feel that it was a subject altogether out of the reach of man's puny faculties. "We have no experience," he humbly said, " in the creation of worlds." It is quite true that he was willing to allow a hiatus between the first and second (or, also, if geologists please, between the second and third) verses of Genesis. But there is no contradiction of truth in this concession. The Bible historian does not inform us that God fashioned the world as soon as He had created its substance: nor does he say how long "the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep;" nor why "the Spirit of God moved" (or brooded) "upon the face of the waters." But Chalmers did not deny the six days' creation, nor a general deluge; but adhered to the plain and common-sense interpretation of Scripture.

There is only one grand feature of the question in regard to which sceptical cosmogonists agree; namely, that Moses was wrong, or that he wrote in characters so figurative or hieroglyphical, that we cannot find out the key of interpretation. Must we, then, give up Moses, before his willing censors can give us any other system which will bear one hour's logical reasoning? It appears very easy to bring forth geological facts to controvert an opponent; for a paleontologist has only to go, "hammer in hand," to a certain favourite field of organic remains, and he speedily produces irrefragable arguments against his predecessor in theory. But then he forgets to adduce others which militate against the children of his own brain.

We believe, on the testimony of Mr. Miller and a few others, that

portions of the asterolepis have been discovered at the foot of the Old Red Sandstone, in three or four parts of the world. We do not deny that the nail-bone of Stromness formed part of this wondrous animal, nor that the creature probably resembled the form which has been assigned to it from the analogy of nature. This one fact overthrows the visionary lucubrations of the Developists, and of a hundred other day-dreamers. Here we pause, for the present.

Mr. Miller's hypothesis of the degradation (not the extinction) of families, before a new creation of superior order took place, does indeed get rid of many difficulties which troubled believers in a succession of grand catastrophes; but it may be found to involve other difficulties, to be exposed by new theorists. The whole system is indeed already controverted and denied in toto. To prove this order of degradation, we should be furnished with specimens, in a regularly descending scale, through the epochs in which each family existed. This will hardly be attempted. Nor are we yet convinced (we may become so) that the flounder is a more degraded creature than a trout, or a turbot than a salmon. Animal magnitude is not a standard of superiority. Is a peacock more degraded than an ostrich? or a humming-bird than an eagle? A naturalist may deem the way in which one fish's tail is attached, and the mode in which it employs it, better than those of another; but is this more than fancy?

We may be allowed to pause when required to believe in a constant series of creations;-not only that there was a new order of creatures made at the commencement of each geological epoch, but that, during "the reign" of each, new families of the same order, but of a more degraded kind, were successively made. When the era for fish had arrived, (it is said,) the largest and best were originated; and afterwards others of inferior quality, or with some Cain-like mark of displeasure, were brought into being. But how many creations of fish have taken place? for there are new species, not found in the Old Red Sandstone. When were they brought into being ?-Next, reptiles are supposed to have come upon the stage of earth; yet not all at one time. A chosen few were first introduced, to show their lordship over the finny tribe; and, in process of many ages, new families were created, of a lower character, that the advent of birds and magnificent quadrupeds might be the more conspicuous. But the "kingdom" was not reserved for four-footed animals; so they showed signs of decay, by the repeated ushering in of smaller genera, until, after untold ages," man was introduced. Then the Creator rested from His work which He had been ceaselessly pursuing for "millions of ages," and rested on the Sabbath, which began when Adam arose, and will continue till the redeeming work be completed.

66

All this needs proof, especially to the simple lover of his Bible. Why did Moses write in such hieroglyphics? Why did he not pass from the 1st verse of Genesis to the 26th, then omit the 31st, and pass on to the 21st verse of chapter ii.? The 14th and 18th verses of chapter iii. bring new difficulties. We fear, too, that chapters vi., vii., viii., and ix. must be read with the feeling that they are founded on some kind of facts, but are not to be received in their details.

Still there is no just cause for the plainest reader of his Bible to be dismayed. The advocates of "development" are fleeing from their assailants to the refuge of "time," and hoping that "fossil-charged formations may yet be detected beneath the oldest rocks of what is now regarded as the lowest fossiliferous system." Mr. Miller himself thinks we should wait

for twenty-five years longer; by which time, he hopes, all the strata of Great Britain, at least, will be pretty well anatomised. Ay! but what of central Asia, where it is believed man first lived, and which was undoubtedly peopled some thousands of years before Britain was known, and perhaps before it emerged from the "vasty deep?" Yet twenty-five years will do for us; and our children, who have not been haunted with these geologic spectres, may then laugh at these "visions of philosophers in the nineteenth century.”

We were asked to wait for ten years; but it was too long for the same geological theories to continue. In six short years the vessels of discovery separated, and the navigators themselves began to cry out for "time" to adjust their differences, for which at least a quarter of a century will be required. But, if this period be deemed sufficient for our little island, it may not be thought long enough by the philosophers of the Continent. We are, nevertheless, willing to wait, with our present faith in the books of inspired Moses. None can rightly accuse us of "pertinaciously " clinging to an error, till the truth be unfolded, by manifestation of which the error will be exposed. None may justly taunt us with being illiberal, because we do not believe in them who do not believe in one another. Shall any condemn us for not quitting the harbour, where we have been well sheltered and very comfortable, till they can tell us of some other haven, as to the existence of which they all agree? Or are we to go afloat, at the fiat of a few speculators, who are themselves driven about by winds and currents? We are not narrow-minded. Let us see a scheme which will bear looking into. Till then, we suspend our judgment and our unbelief: WE ARE

CONTENT TO WAIT.

The Doctrine of the Pastorate: or, the Divine Institution, religious Responsibilities, and scriptural Claims, of the Christian Ministry, considered with special Reference to Wesleyan Methodism. By George Smith, F.A.S., &c. Mason.

(Concluded from page 287.)

2. WE suppose the wildest democrat will not deny that some responsibility is entailed upon the Christian ministry by its Divine Author; though we have never yet seen a scheme by which the faithful discharge of that responsibility could be reconciled with the absence of ministerial power. In every view of this question, however, peculiar prominence ought to be given to its personal aspects, and especially to the requirement of individual piety. We are glad that Mr. Smith has placed this in the front of this portion of his work. The people have a direct interest in the holiness of their Pastors. We fearlessly assert that the scriptural rights of the laity, and the great objects of church union, cannot be maintained, under any form of government, without a converted and sanctified ministry. And, on the other hand, it is difficult to believe that, with a truly godly Pastorate, any serious administrative evil can long exist in the church. This consideration might be forcibly pleaded against our modern agitators. In many of their speeches, resolutions, and documents, the substantial and general piety of the Wesleyan ministry is explicitly acknowledged; and nothing can more completely prove, to a candid mind, the fictitious character of their grievances, than the fact, that, notwithstanding this repeated acknowledgment, they are in the habit of charging all the alleged adminis

trative evils of modern Methodism upon the selfishness, tyranny, bad faith, and wholesale corruption of this very ministry, to whose personal excellence they profess to do homage! Either their professions, on the one hand, are insincere; or their accusations, on the other, are untrue.

All parties will agree that a Christian Minister's first duty is to proclaim the truth "as it is in Jesus," with a view to the salvation of mankind, depending upon the promised aid of the Holy Spirit for the efficiency of his labours. Our author very clearly shows that a separated ministry is necessary for the full and adequate discharge of this great duty :

No lengthened argument is necessary to show how fully the doctrine of a separated ministry accords with this view of the Gospel proclamation, and its continued maintenance in the world. It is vain to argue, that, instead of a Minister, a merchant or a mechanic, with his soul converted to God, and his mind spiritually illuminated, can come forth on a Sabbath-day, and deliver a religious address to a Christian congregation replete with scriptural instruction and spiritual power. This is freely admitted. But the real question is, whether these occasional services of pious men answer all the purposes of Divine mercy with respect to a perishing world: or whether the spiritual danger of man is so great, the salvation of the Gospel so necessary,

its efficient proclamation of such vast moment to immortal interests, that the wisdom and mercy of God have demanded for this grand achievement the undivided, uninterrupted energies of men specially consecrated to this holy service. Princes occasionally employ persons engaged in commerce to attend to their interests in matters of minor importance; but when the case is of sufficient magnitude to require an ambassador, he is specially commissioned for the purpose, is taken away from all other engagements, and, that he may duly and diligently attend to the business confided to him by his sovereign, he is supported while thus engaged by royal command. It is just so with the Minister of Christ. (Pp. 61, 62.)

A good deal has been said, at different times, for and against the prerogative of the Minister in the admission of church-members. It is clear to our own minds that no persons can be further from the truth than those who reduce the Minister simply to the position of chairman of a churchmeeting, with a casting vote. Independently of its opposition to Scripture, this must often in practice leave him in the possession of less influence than lay-officers and many private members. But what can be clearer than that the commission, which gives authority to preach the Gospel, requires those who act under it to take the initiative in the admission of church-members, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?" Mr. Smith has argued this point very satisfactorily, especially in an admirable critique upon 1 Cor. iii. 9-15. That portion of the argument which devolves the duty mainly and primarily on the Minister is thus effectively stated :

It is easy to perceive that in respect of this particular also, although the prosperity and progress of a church must always be greatly affected by the measure of piety, zeal, and diligence of private members and lay-officers, yet the Minister is held responsible, by the express terms of holy Scripture, to the great Head of the church, for the character of those who are added to a reli

gious society, and for the conservation of religious purity in the body by the maintenance of sterling godliness. He has to exercise a godly oversight over the case of every candidate; and if, through any negligence or defective judgment on his part, they do not abide the test of the great judgment, "he shall suffer loss." (P. 67.)

We are not disposed to contend for the sole action of the Minister in this matter. Prudence, and that fraternal and confidential co-operation which should always exist between a Pastor and his flock, dictate the propriety of his taking counsel, at least, of the elder and official members of the church;

and we should deem that an imperfect constitution which made no provision for so desirable a result. Such a provision exists in Wesleyan Methodism. But, while such passages as the above are on record, the ministry cannot be divested of the chief responsibility, and must therefore, in equity and in fidelity to Christ, retain the directing and controlling power.

But one great question of the times relates to the nature and extent of ministerial authority in the actual church. We are glad that Mr. Smith has classed this topic of discussion under the head of ministerial responsibilities. Our disturbers find it convenient to overlook this aspect of the case. But the whole question turns upon it. If Christ has made His Ministers responsible to Himself for the enforcement in the church of the great rules of morality and religion, He must have delegated to them the power necessary for such enforcement. Any other supposition is simply ridiculous. But the importance of the subject warrants more elaborate remark.

The views of true Wesleyans in regard to church-polity are, if we may so speak, eclectic. Possessing some of the elements recognised respectively by Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Independents, their polity, as to its definite form, does not profess to stand upon a Divine right. While the more rigid adherents of these various modes of government contend severally for the Divine right and obligation of their own theory, we deny that any precise model is exhibited in the New Testament. The "judicious" Hooker long ago settled this great question; and, after his unanswerable arguments, it is really wonderful that the puerilities, which were completely demolished by him, should have survived so long in fact, and should be repeated at this time, as if they were ecclesiastical axioms. But while no precise and authoritative mode of church-order is enjoined, certain fundamental principles are unquestionably enunciated. By a careful collation of passages in which these principles are stated, it is not difficult to ascertain what must be conserved in every scriptural church; and such a collation compels us to the conclusion, that, if there be one thing more unlike whatever of precedent or precept we meet with in the New Testament than another, that thing is Congregational Independency, with the democratic imitation of it which our agitators would force upon the Wesleyan Connexion. Nothing can, as we think, be clearer or more decisive than that the responsibility of ecclesiastical government attaches principally to the body of Christian Presbyters. The acts and injunctions of the Apostles, as recorded in the Scripture history, proceed upon this principle; and the various admonitions to Pastors and people, scattered throughout the Epistles, are exceedingly difficult of interpretation upon the contrary supposition. Mr. Smith refers at large to 1 Peter v. 1-4; 1 Tim. iii. 4, 5; v. 17; 2 Cor. x. 8; Titus iii. 10; 1 Thess. v. 12, 13;passages which either explicitly declare, or necessarily imply, the pastoral authority of the Presbyters of the church. We give his excellent comment on the first of these passages:—

We have here, then, the explicit injunction of the Apostle to Ministers of Christ: "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly." No language can more aptly show forth the duty of a Christian Pastor.

"Feed

the flock,-taking the oversight thereof." The meaning of this figurative language (taking the authorised version as giving the sense of the original) cannot be mistaken. The people of the church are, according to our Saviour's own metaphor, called "the sheep," "the