243 
word, but rather gives distinct intimation that consciousness of existence 
consists only with union of body and spirit. I said also that these evi- 
dences of the prevalence of an unsound spiritual condition are on the one hand 
a refutation and a rebuke of the modern scepticism relative to miracles, 
false miracles being sent to those who reject the true, and, on the other 
hand, they are answers to fools according to their foolishness for believing 
beyond what is written, this being only another form of unbelief. I ventured, 
moreover, to predict at that time, that “ the evil would grow ” if the source 
of it were not recognized and acknowledged ; which has come to pass. 
I refrain from saying more now on this important subject, except to 
avow my concurrence in the opinion expressed by Prebendary Row, that 
this is a matter which deserves to be investigated by an institution like 
the Victoria Institute. I beg to refer the members who may desire to 
know more of my views upon it to the letter above mentioned. 
I admit that Prebendary Row and Mr. McCaul have not without reason 
taken exception to the statements made in art. 38 respecting the Septuagint. 
and Hebrew texts, which, as having been incautiously expressed, require to be 
farther explained. I had in mind the known facts that all extant MSS. of the 
Hebrew text are comparatively recent, and that translations from strictly 
Hebrew originals are all later by many centuries than the rendering by the 
Seventy Interpreters of the Hebrew original of their time. Then, considering 
that every translation is in degree an interpretation, and that the difficulty of 
interpreting increases with lapse of time from the date of the primary docu- 
ment, I spoke of the improbability (not impossibility) that any translation 
should as nearly express the primary sense of the Hebrew text as “that 
ancient interpretation,” assuming always the . purity of the text. On the 
principle here laid down it may, for example, be asserted that difficulties are 
now met with in interpreting St. Paul’s Epistles, which could not have been 
felt by those to whom they were addressed, simply because they were his 
contemporaries. My meaning will, perhaps, be made clearer by the following 
instance. The transition from the first to the second verse of Gen. i. is made 
by the particle ck iu the Septuagint, and by autem (probably the translation by 
Jerome of the Greek particle) iu the Vulgate. Supposing verse 1 to signify 
the original creation of the primordial elements of the inorganic world, the 
usage of Greek or Latin would allow of taking the connecting particle as 
indicating an immediate transition to the statement in verse 2 of the com- 
position, and primary order of arrangement of the components, of the world so 
created. Then would naturally follow accounts of steps in the unfolding of 
the inorganic creation by the physical forces, and of successive creations of 
organized bodies. All this agrees well with the view I have been led to take 
of the facts of creation by reasoning on scientific principles. But some 
modern Hebraists say that the transition particle (the same, I presume, as 
that rendered by the Septuagint) may be taken to imply that a long course of 
S 
VOL. XI. 
