Chapter XI: Appendix: A Bishop Horsley on the double sense of Prophecy 257 (7)

"Inspiration is a fact which we infer from the study of Scripture,--not of one portion only, but of the whole." (p. 347.) (Now even _this_ is not a correct way of stating the case. Still, because the words _may_ bear an honourable sense, we pass on.)--"Obviously then, it embraces writings of very different kinds,--the book of Esther, for example, or the Song of Solomon, as well as the Gospel of St. John." (That _the volume_ of Inspiration is of this complex character, and that _it_ embraces writings so diverse, is beyond dispute.)--"It is reconcileable with the mixed good and evil of the characters of the Old Testament, which nevertheless does not exclude them from the favour of GOD." (_Why_ the Inspiration of a writer should not be 'reconcileable' with _any_ amount of wickedness in the persons about whom he writes,--I am quite at a loss to perceive. Neither do I see why "the mixed good and evil" of certain "characters of the Old Testament," (or of the New either,) should "exclude them from the favour of GOD." What else becomes of your hope, and mine, of Eternal Life?)--"Inspiration is also reconcileable," (he proceeds,)--"with the attribution to the Divine Being of _actions at variance with that higher revelation which He has given of Himself in the Gospel_." (Is this meant as an insult to "the Divine Being?" or simply as a slur on Revelation? Either way, we reject the charge with indignation[229].)--"It is not inconsistent with imperfect or opposite aspects of the Truth, as in the Book of Job or Ecclesiastes:" (Nothing which comes from GOD should be called "imperfect:" but why _different_ aspects of the Truth should not be brought out, by different writers, as by St. Paul and by James,--it is hard to see.)--"With variations of fact in the Gospels, or the Books of Kings and Chronicles:" (We do not admit that Inspiration is consistent with "variations of _fact;_" but with _different versions_ of the same incident, it is confessedly compatible.)--"With inaccuracies of language in the Epistles of St. Paul." (With _grammatical inelegancies_, no doubt; but not with _logical inaccuracies_.)--"For these are all found in Scripture:" (This statement, by the way, should have been substantiated by at least as many references as there are heads in the indictment,)--"neither is there any reason why they should not be; except a general impression that Scripture ought to have been written in a way different from what it has." (Just as if Mankind for 1800 years had been the victims of an _à priori_ conception as to _how_ Holy Scripture _ought to have been_ written!)--"A principle of progressive revelation admits them all; and this is already contained in the words of our SAVIOUR, 'Moses because of the hardness of your hearts;' or even in the Old Testament, 'Henceforth there shall be no more this proverb in the house of Israel?'" (O if Catholic writers were to expound Holy Scripture with the license of _these_ gentlemen!... That the scheme of Revelation has been progressive, is a Theological truism. What that has to do with the question in hand, I see not.)--"For what is progressive is necessarily imperfect in its earlier stages:" ("Imperfect" in what sense?)--"and _even erring_ to those who come after." (No, not in _that_ sense imperfect, certainly!) ... "There is no more reason why _imperfect narratives_ should be excluded from Scripture than imperfect grammar; no more ground for expecting that the New Testament would be logical or Aristotelian in form, than that it would be written in Attic Greek." (Now _why_ this cloudy shuffling about "imperfect narratives,"--instead of saying _what you mean_, like a man! Further,--Is Mr. Jowett so weak as not to perceive that there is _no force whatever_ in his supposed parallel? The Discourses of the Incarnate SON, for instance, are certainly anything but "Aristotelian in form." His dialect,--(Angels bowed to catch it, I nothing doubt!)--was that of the despised Galilee. But need _the teaching it conveyed_ have _therefore_ been "imperfect?" Why may not the least perfect _Greek_ be the vehicle for the more perfect _Doctrine_? What connexion is there between the casket and the jewel which it encloses?)

(=3=) The Reverend writer promises us help, from "another consideration which has been neglected by writers on this subject." (The announcement makes us attentive.)--"It is this,--that any true Doctrine of Inspiration must conform to all well-ascertained facts of History or of Science." (We scarcely see the drift of this ill-worded proposition; but are disposed to assent.)--"The same fact cannot be true and untrue," (Who ever supposed that it could?)--"any more than the same words can have two opposite meanings." (But why glide at once into a gross falsity? Are there not plenty of words and speeches, of the kind called 'equivocal' or 'ambiguous,' which are of this nature? I am content to refer this writer to _his own pages_, for the abundant refutation of his own assertion. No man in the world knows better than Mr. Jowett that "_the same words can have two opposite meanings_.") "The same fact cannot be true in Religion, when seen by the light of Faith; and untrue in Science, when looked at through the medium of evidence or experiment." (Why not? For example,--'He maketh His Sun to rise.' 'If GOD so clothe the grass of the field.' 'GOD said, Let there be light.' Who sees not that the view which Faith and which Physical Science respectively take of the same phenomenon, may essentially differ?)--"It is ridiculous to suppose that the Sun goes round the Earth in the same sense in which the Earth goes round the Sun;" (Very ridiculous.)--"or that the world appears to have existed, but has not existed, during the vast epochs of which Geology speaks to us." (Leave out the words, "appears to have," and this also is undeniable.)--"But if so, there is no need of elaborate reconcilements of Revelation and Science." (How does that follow? If what is thought to be Divinely revealed, and what is thought to be scientifically ascertained, seem to be conflicting truths,--why should not an effort be made to reconcile them?) "They reconcile themselves the moment any scientific truth is distinctly ascertained." (Yes: by the Human simply trying to thrust the Divine out of doors!)--"As the idea of Nature enlarges, the idea of Revelation also enlarges:" (I deny that there is any such intimate connexion as this author supposes between Physical Science and Divinity,)--"it was a temporary misunderstanding which severed them." (But _when_ were Nature and Revelation ever for an instant "severed?")--"And as the knowledge of Nature which is possessed by the few is communicated in its leading features at least, to the many, they will receive it with a higher conception of the ways of GOD to Man. It may hereafter appear as natural to the majority of Mankind to see the Providence of GOD in the order of the world, as it once was to appeal to interruptions of it." (p. 349.) (As if an increased _knowledge of Nature_ were the condition of Theological enlightenment!... I presume that the latter clause,--so hazy and the reverse of obvious in its meaning!--is intended to convey the sentiment which Mr. Baden Powell expresses as follows:--"The inevitable progress of research must, within a longer or shorter period, unravel _all that seems most marvellous_; and what is at present least understood will become as familiarly known to the Science of the future, as those points which a few centuries ago were involved in equal obscurity, but now are thoroughly understood[230].")

(=4=) We are next informed "that there are a class of scientific facts with which popular opinions on Theology often conflict.... Such especially are the facts relating to the formation of the Earth and the beginnings of the Human Race." (p. 349.) (And pray, what "_facts_" are these, relative to the "beginnings of the Human Race," which conflict with Scripture?) ... "Almost all intelligent persons are agreed that the earth has existed for myriads of ages:" (Which is perfectly true.)--"The best informed are of opinion that the history of nations extends back _some thousand years_ before the Mosaic Chronology." (Which is decidedly false.)--"Recent discoveries in Geology _may perhaps_ open a further vista of existence for the human species; while _it is possible, and may one day be known_, that Mankind spread not from one but from many centres over the globe; or, (as others say,) that the supply of links which are at present wanting in the chain of animal life _may lead_ to new conclusions respecting the origin of Man." (A cool way, this, of anticipating that something which '_may_'--(or _may not!_)--be discovered hereafter, will demonstrate that the beginning of the Bible is all a fable!)--"Now," (proceeds our author,) "let it be granted that" "_the proof_ of some of these facts, especially of those last-mentioned, _is wanting_; still it is a false policy to set up Inspiration or Revelation _in opposition to them_, a principle which can have _no influence on them_, and should be kept rather out of their way." (Considerate man!) "The Sciences of Geology and comparative Philology are steadily gaining ground. Many of the guesses of twenty years ago have been certainties; and the guesses of to-day may hereafter become so. Shall we peril Religion (!) on the possibility of their untruth? on such a cast to stake the life of Man, implies not only a recklessness of facts (!), but a misunderstanding of the nature of the Gospel. If it is fortunate for Science, it is perhaps more fortunate for Christian Truth, that the admission of Galileo's discovery has for ever settled the principle of the relations between them."--(pp. 349-50.) ...

Now, what a curious picture of a perverse and crooked mind does such a sentence exhibit! Divine Revelation can "_have no influence_" of course, on facts of _any_ kind, (including facts in Physical Science,) when once those facts have been well ascertained. But, _in the entire absence of such facts_, why should we refuse to listen to the _well ascertained Revelation of GOD_? Nothing is more emphatic, for example, than the Divine declaration that the whole Human family is derived from a single pair; and the origin of Man is plainly set down in Genesis. Why then oppose to this, the confessedly _undiscovered_ fact that "mankind spread from many centres;" and the purely speculative possibility that, hereafter, a certain theory "_may lead_ to new conclusions respecting the origin of Man?"--As for "Religion" being "perilled on the possibility" of the truth or untruth of the Sciences of Geology and comparative Philology;--we really would submit that _GOD may be safely left to take care of His own;_ and that "peril," there is,--there _can_ be,--_none!_

And then, the maudlin tenderness of an "Essayist and Reviewer" (of all persons in the world!) for "_the life of Man_,"--meaning thereby his Christian hope, and Faith in the REDEEMER!... As if, (first,) Man's "_Life_" were _in any sense_ endangered, by our upholding the honour and authority of the Bible! And (secondly,) as if the age had shewn itself in the least degree impatient of scientific investigation! And (thirdly,) as if Religion depended, or could be made to depend, on Physical phenomena, or on the progress of Natural Science, _at all!_ ... I scruple not to say that arguments like these impress me with the meanest opinion of Mr. Jowett's intellectual powers: while they prove to demonstration that he does not in the least understand the subject on which he yet writes with such feeble vehemence.

But I may not proceed any further, or my pages will equal in extent those of the gentleman already named. Indeed, to follow that most confused of thinkers, and crooked of disputants, through all his perverse pages; to expose his habitual paltry evasive dodging,--his shifting equivocations,--his misapplications of Scripture,--his unworthy insinuations,--his plaintive puerilities of thought and sentiment;--would require a thick volume.--If Mr. Jowett does not deny the Personality of the HOLY GHOST, he ought to be thoroughly ashamed of himself for penning sentences which can lead to no other inference. For he ought to know that when men talk of words "receiving _a more exact meaning than they will truly bear_;" and of what "is _spoken in a figure_ being construed with the severity of a logical statement, while _passages of an opposite tenour are overlooked or set aside_:"--(p. 360.) men mean to repudiate the doctrine which those words are thought to convey; not to imply their acceptance of it.--So again, if Mr. Jowett holds the doctrine of Original Sin, he ought to be heartily ashamed of himself for having insinuated that it depends "on _two figurative expressions of St. Paul to which there is no parallel in any other part of Scripture_." (p. 361.)--Nor, however moderate his attainments as a teacher of Divinity, ought he to be capable of putting forth such a notorious misstatement as that the doctrine of Infant Baptism _rests upon a verse in the Acts_ (xvi. 33,)--which verse has really _nothing whatever to do with the question_[231]. (p. 360.)

Professor Jowett shuts up his Essay with a passage which, for a certain amount of tender pathos in the sentiment, has been often quoted, and sometimes admired, He says:--

"The suspicion or difficulty which attends critical inquiries is no reason for doubting their value. The Scripture nowhere leads us to suppose that the circumstance of all men speaking well of us is any ground for supposing that we are acceptable in the sight of God. And there is no reason why the condemnation of others should be witnessed to by our own conscience. Perhaps it may be true that, owing to the jealousy or fear of some, the reticence of others, the terrorism of a few, we may not always find it easy to regard these subjects with calmness and judgment. But, on the other hand, these accidental circumstances have nothing to do with the question at issue; they cannot have the slightest influence on the meaning of words, or on the truth of facts....

"Lastly, there is some nobler idea of truth than is supplied by the opinion of mankind in general, or the voice of parties in a Church. Every one, whether a student of Theology or not, has need to make war against his prejudices no less than against his passions; and, in the religious teacher, the first is even more necessary than the last.... He who takes the prevailing opinions of Christians and decks them out in their gayest colours,--who reflects the better mind of the world to itself--is likely to be its favourite teacher. In that ministry of the Gospel, even when assuming forms repulsive to persons of education (!), no doubt the good is far greater than the error or harm. But there is also a deeper work which is not dependent on the opinions of men, in which many elements combine, some alien to Religion, or accidentally at variance with it. That work can hardly expect to win much popular favour, so far as it runs counter to the feelings of religious parties. But he who bears a part in it may feel a confidence, which no popular caresses or religious sympathy could inspire, that he has by a Divine help been enabled to plant his foot somewhere beyond the waves of Time. He may depart hence before the natural term, worn out with intellectual toil; regarded with suspicion by many of his contemporaries; yet not without a sure hope that the love of Truth, which men of saintly lives often seem to slight, is, nevertheless, accepted before GOD."--(pp. 432-3.)

My respect for a fellow-man induces me to offer a few remarks on all this.

Let me be permitted then to declare that I am as incapable as any one who ever breathed the air of this lower world, of making light of the sentiments of true genius. I can respond with my whole heart to the passion-stricken cry of one who, when "regarded with suspicion by many of his contemporaries," is observed to hail his fellows with confidence, across the gulph of Time; and as it were implore them, after many days, to do him right. Nay, were I to behold a man of splendid, but misguided powers, elaborating from GOD'S Word a plausible system of his own, whereby to bring back the Golden Age to suffering Humanity; and insisting that he beheld in the common revelations of the SPIRIT, the unsuspected outlines of such a form of polity as Man never dreamed of,--(nor, it may be, Angels either;)--I should experience a kind of generous sympathy with this bright-eyed enthusiast; even while I proceeded to test his wild dream by what I believed to be the standard of right Reason. Then, as the specious fabric was seen suddenly to collapse and melt away, should I not, with affectionate sorrow, secretly mourn that such brilliant parts had not been enlisted on the side of Truth? and feel as if I could have been content to go about for life maimed in body, or hopelessly impoverished in estate, if so great a disaster could but have been prevented as the loss of one who ought to have been a standard-bearer in Israel?

Once more. Although the cold shade of unbelief has never for an instant, (thank GOD!) darkened my spirit; so that one may not be very apt to sympathize with men who walk about hampered with a doubt; yet, were one to know, (as one has often known,--_too_ often, alas!) that the arrow was rankling in a friend's heart,--who by consequence shunned the society of his fellows, and walked in moody abstraction,--looking as if life had lost its charm, and as if nothing on the earth's surface were any longer to him a joy;--would one not be the first to go after such a sufferer; and seek whether a firm hand and steady eye might not avail to extract the poisoned shaft? If that might not be, at least by daily acts of unaltered kindness, and the ways which brotherly sympathy suggests, _who_ would not strive to recover such an one? If all other arts proved unavailing, it would remain for a man with the ordinary instincts of humanity, in silence and sorrow at least, to look on, while the solitary doubter was paying the bitter penalty,--doubtless, of his sin.

But how widely different,--rather, how utterly dissimilar,--is the phenomenon before us! Here is a singularly confused and shallow thinker oppressed with the vastness of his discovery, that the Bible--_has nothing in it!_ Here is a Clergyman of the Church of England, and a Lecturer in Divinity, whose difficulty is how he shall convince the world that the Bible is--_like any other book!_ Here is the sceptical fellow of a College, conspiring with six others, to produce a volume of which Germany itself, (having changed its mind,) would already be ashamed!... Mr. Jowett is enthusiastic for _a negation!_ Without belief himself, he cannot rest because Christendom has, on the whole, a good deal of belief remaining! If he may but _unsettle somebody's mind_,--his Essay will have achieved its purpose, and its author will not have lived in vain!... Sublime privilege for "the only man in the University of Oxford who" is said to "exercise a moral and spiritual influence at all corresponding to that which was once wielded by John Henry Newman[232]!"

I shall be thought a very profane person, I dare say, by the friends and apologists of Mr. Jowett, if I avow that the passage with which he concludes his Essay, instead of sounding in my ears like the plaintive death-song of departing Genius, sounds to me like nothing so much as the piteous whine of a schoolboy who knows that he _deserves_ chastisement, and perceives that he is about to experience his deserts. System, or Theory, the Reverend Gentleman has none to propose. Views, except negative ones, Mr. Jowett is altogether guiltless of. Can anybody in his senses suppose that a man "has, by a Divine help (!), been enabled to plant his foot _somewhere beyond the waves of Time_," (p. 433,) who doubts everything, and believes nothing? Can any one of sane mind dream that posterity will come to the rescue of a man who, when he is asked for his story, rejoins, (with a well-known needy mechanic,) that he has "none to tell, Sir?" _What_ then is posterity to vindicate? _What_ has the Regius Professor of Greek written so many weak pages to prove? Just nothing! If Mr. Jowett's Essay could enforce the message it carries, the result would simply be that the world would become _dis_believers in the Inspiration of the Bible: they would _dis_believe that Scripture has any sense but that which lies on the surface: they would therefore _dis_believe the Prophets and Evangelists and Apostles of CHRIST: they would _dis_believe the words of our LORD JESUS CHRIST Himself!... Has Mr. Jowett, then, grown grey under the laborious process of arriving at this series of negations? When he anticipates "departing hence before the natural term," does he mean that he is "_worn out with the intellectual toil_" of propounding _nothing!_ and that he expects the sympathy and gratitude of posterity for what he has propounded?

But this is not all. Instead of coming abroad, (if come abroad he must,) in that garb of humility which befits doubt,--that self-distrust which becomes one whose fault, or whose misfortune it is, that he simply cannot believe,--Mr. Jowett assumes throughout, the insolent air of intellectual superiority; the tone of one at whose bidding Theology must absolutely 'keep moving.' A truncheon and a number on his collar, alone seem wanting. The menacing voice, and authoritative air, are certainly not away,--as I proceed to shew.

"It may be observed that a change in some of the prevailing modes of Interpretation, is not so much a matter of expediency as _of necessity_. The original meaning of Scripture _is beginning to be understood_." (p. 418.)

"Criticism has _far more power_ than it formerly had. It has spread itself over ancient, and even modern history.... _Whether Scripture can be made an exception to other ancient writings_, now that the nature of both is more understood; whether ... _the views of the last century will hold out_,--these are questions respecting which" (p. 420.) it is hard to judge.

"It has to be considered whether the intellectual forms under which Christianity has been described, may not also be _in a state of transition_." (p. 420.)

"Now, as _the Interpretation of Scripture is receiving another character_, it seems that distinctions of Theology which were in great measure based on old Interpretations, are _beginning to fade away_." ... "There are other signs that times are changing, and we are changing too." (p. 421.)

"These reflections bring us back to the question with which we began,--_What effect will the critical Interpretation of Scripture have on Theology?_" (p. 422.)

Again:--"As the time has come when it is no longer possible to ignore the results of criticism, it is of importance that Christianity should be seen to be in harmony with them." (p. 374.) (The sentences which immediately follow shall be exhibited in distinct paragraphs, in order that they may separately enjoy admiration. Each is a gem or a curiosity in its way.)

"That objections to some received views _should be valid_, and yet that they should be always held up as _the objections of Infidels_,--is a mischief to the Christian cause."

"It is a mischief that critical observations which any intelligent man can make for himself (!), should be ascribed to Atheism or Unbelief."

"It would be a strange and almost incredible thing that the Gospel, which at first made war only on the vices of mankind, should now be _opposed_ to one of the highest and rarest of human virtues,--_the love of Truth_."

"And that in the present day the great object of Christianity should be, not to change the lives of men, but to prevent them from changing their opinions; _that_ would be a singular inversion of the purposes for which CHRIST came into the world."

We are really constrained to pause for a moment, and to inquire what this last sentence means. Are not "the lives of men" mainly _dependent_ on "their opinions?" Why then contrast the two? And _which_ of our "opinions" does Mr. Jowett desire to see changed? Would he have us resign our belief in the Atonement? reject the Divinity of CHRIST? deny the Personality of the HOLY GHOST? put the Bible on a level with Sophocles and Plato? ridicule the idea of Inspiration?... How would it be a "singular inversion of the purposes of CHRIST'S Coming," that Christianity should "prevent" mankind from "changing" such "opinions" as _these?_

"The Christian religion is in a false position when _all the tendencies of knowledge are opposed to it_." (_All the tendencies of knowledge, then, are opposed to the Christian Religion!_)

"Such a position cannot be long maintained, or can only end in the withdrawal of the educated classes from the influences of Religion." (So we are to look for "_the withdrawal of the educated classes from the influences of Religion_[233]!") After anticipating "religious dissolution," because of "the progress of ideas, (!) with which Christian teachers seem to be ill at ease," (!) Mr. Jowett, (who we presume is speaking of himself,) says, "Time was when the Gospel was before the Age:" (The Gospel is therefore now _behind_ the age!)--"when the difficulties of Christianity were difficulties of the heart only:" (When was that?)--"and _the highest minds_ found in its truths not only the rule of their lives, but a well-spring of intellectual delight." (All this then has _ceased to be the case!_ "The highest minds" being of course represented by--Mr. Jowett!)

"Is it to be held a thing impossible that the Christian Religion, instead of shrinking into itself, (!) may again _embrace the thoughts of men upon the earth?_" (that is to say, "embrace the thoughts" of--Mr. Jowett!)--"Or is it true that _since the Reformation 'all intellect has gone the other way_?'"

"But for the faith that the Gospel might win again the minds of _intellectual men_," (such men as Mr. Jowett?)--"it would be better to leave Religion to itself, instead of attempting to draw them together." (p. 376.)

Now this kind of language, in daily life, would be called sheer impertinence; and the person who could talk so before educated gentlemen would probably receive an intimation that he was making himself offensive. He would certainly be looked upon as a weak and conceited person. I really am unable to see why things should be _written and printed_ which no one would presume _to say_! ... Encircled by a little atmosphere of fog of his own creating, Mr. Jowett is evidently under the delusion that his own confused vision and misty language are the result of the giddy eminence to which, (leaving his fellow-mortals far behind him,) he has contrived, all alone, to soar. He anticipates the complaint of some unhappy disciple, that he "experiences a sort of shrinking or dizziness at the prospect which is opening before him:" whereupon Mr. Jowett invites the "highly educated young man," (p. 373,) to consider "that he may possibly not be the person who is called upon to pursue such inquiries." Who are they _for_, then? "No man should busy himself with them who has not clearness of mind enough to see things as they are." (p. 430.) The clearness of mind, for example, which belongs to Mr. Jowett!

True enough it is that had such airs been assumed by such an one as Richard Hooker, who achieved the first four books of his 'Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity' before he was 40; and dying in his 46th year, proved himself to be the greatest genius of his age:--had language like Mr. Jowett's been found on the lips of Joseph Butler, who when he was 44 produced his immortal 'Analagy,' and at the age of 26 delivered his famous Rolls 'Sermons:'--had Bishop Bull been betrayed into the language of self-complacency when, at the age of 35, he made himself famous by his 'Harmonia Apostolica:'--the proceeding would have been intelligible, however much one might have lamented such an exhibition of weakness.... But when the speaker proves to be one of the very shallowest of thinkers, and most confused of reasoners;--a man who, although grey-headed, has done nothing whatever for Literature, sacred or profane;--nor indeed is known out of Oxford except for having been thought to deny the Doctrine of the Atonement;--a man who dogmatizes in a Science of which he clearly does not know so much as the very alphabet; and presumes to dispute about a Bible which he has evidently not read with the attention which is due even to a first-rate uninspired book;--_then_, one's displeasure and impatience assume the form of indignation and disgust. The Divine who, purposing to prove that Holy Scripture is in kind like any other book, does so _by inveighing against those who treat it differently_; and indeed, on every occasion, _assumes as proved_ the thing he has _to prove_[234]:--is obviously the very man to vaunt the privileges of the intellect. The student of the Bible who mistakes the utterance of a lying prophet for the language of Amos, and then boldly charges the lie upon the inspired author of a book of Canonical Scripture;--is of course a proper person to discuss the Prophetic Canon. The gentleman who flatters himself that he has been _sweeping the house_ to find _the pearl of great price_, (p. 414,) is a very pretty person, truly, to lecture about the Gospel!... I forbear reproaching Mr. Jowett with his _invariable_ misapplications or misapprehensions of the meaning of Scripture: his false glosses, and truly preposterous specimens of exegesis[235]. I am content to take leave of him, while he is flattering himself that he has "_found the pearl of great price, after sweeping the house_:" (p. 414:) and under that melancholy delusion, I fear he must be left,--holding the broom in his hands.

* * * * *

On a review of these Seven Essays, few things strike one more forcibly than the utterly untenable ground occupied by their authors. They are "in a position in which it is impossible to remain. The theory of Mr. Jowett and his fellows is as false to philosophy as to the Church of England. More may be true, or less; but to attempt to halt where they would stop is a simple absurdity[236]."

To exactness of method or System, their work can hardly pretend; and yet they _have_ a system,--which has only not been rounded into symmetry, by the singular circumstance that these seven writers "have written in entire independence of one another, and without concert or comparison." They _avow a common purpose_, however; for they "hope" that their joint labours "will be received as an attempt to illustrate," (whatever _that_ may mean,) "the advantage derivable to the cause of Religion and Moral Truth" from what they have here attempted; and which they justly characterize as "_free handling_." Putting oneself in their position, it is easy to imagine the sorrow and concern,--the _horror_ rather,--with which a good man, when the first edition of 'Essays and Reviews' made its appearance, would have discovered the kind of complicity into which he had been inadvertently betrayed; and how eagerly he would have withdrawn from a literary partnership which had resulted so disastrously. At the end of nine large editions, however, the corporate responsibility of each individual author has become fully established; and besides the many proofs of sympathy between the several authors which these pages contain[237], it is no longer doubtful that the sentiments of the work are to be quoted without reference to the individual writers. It would be unfair to assume that not one of these seven men has had the manliness to avow that his own individual convictions are opposed to those of his fellows. We are compelled to regard their joint labours as _one_ production. It is the _corporate efficacy_ of the several contributions which constitutes the chief criminality of the volume. It is to the respectability and weight of the _conjoined_ names of its authors, and to their _combined_ efforts, that 'Essays and Reviews' are indebted for all their power.

What then is the system, or theory, or view, advocated by these seven Authors?--They are all agreed that we are "placed evidently at an epoch when Humanity finds itself under new conditions, to form some definite conception to ourselves of the way in which Christianity is henceforward to act upon the world which is our own." (p. 158.) To do this, we must emerge from our "narrow chamber of Doctrinal and Ecclesiastical prepossessions." (_Ibid._) Accordingly, we find insinuated "a very wide-spread alienation, both in educated and uneducated persons, from the Christianity which is ordinarily presented in our Churches and Chapels." (p. 150.) There has been "a spontaneous recoil." (p. 151.) We cannot "resist the tide of civilization on which we are borne." (p. 412.) "The time has come when it is no longer possible to ignore the results of criticism." It is therefore "of importance that Christianity should be seen to be in harmony with them." (p. 374.) "The arguments of our genuine critics, with the convictions of our most learned clergy" (p. 66) are all opposed to the actual teaching of the Church. Meantime, "the Christian Religion is in a false position when all the tendencies of knowledge are opposed to it." (p. 374.) "Time was when the Gospel was before the age: ... when the highest minds found in its truths not only the rule of their lives, but a well-spring of intellectual delight. Is it to be held a thing impossible that the Christian Religion may again embrace the thoughts of men upon the earth?" (pp. 374-5.)

In the mean time, THE BIBLE is a stubborn fact in the way of the new Religion. Nay, the English _Book of Common Prayer_ is a great hindrance; for those "formulæ of past thinkings, have long lost all sense of any kind;" (p. 297;) so that the Prayer-book "is on the way to become a useless encumbrance, the rubbish of the past, blocking the road." (_Ibid._) But the Prayer-book confessedly stands on a different footing from the Bible. The Bible erects itself hopelessly in the way of "the negative religion." (p. 151.) O those many prophecies, which for 4000 long years sustained the faith of GOD'S chosen people, and at last found fulfilment in the person of CHRIST, or in the circumstances which attended the establishment of His Kingdom! O that glorious retinue of types and shadows which heralded MESSIAH'S approach!... And then,--O the miraculous evidence which attested to the reality of His Divinity[238]! O the confirmation, (to those who needed it,) when He walked the water, and stilled the storm, and cast out devils by His word, and by one strong cry broke the gates of Death, and caused Lazarus to "Come forth!" ... O the solemn _independent_ testimony borne by Creeds, from the very birthday of Christianity,--(whether planted in Syria or in Asia Minor, in Africa or in Italy, in Greece or in Gaul; "in Germany or in Spain, among the Celts or in the far East, in Egypt or in Libya, or in the middle regions of the globe[239].") Lastly,--O the adoring voice of the whole Church Catholic throughout the world, for many a succeeding century,--translating, expounding, defining, explaining, defending to the death!... How shall all this formidable mass of evidence possibly be set aside?

It is plain that Prophecy must be evacuated of its meaning; or rather, must be denied entirely: and to do this, falls to the share of the vulgar and violent Vice-Principal of Lampeter College. Disprove he cannot; so he sneers and rails and blusters instead. Prophecy, he calls "omniscience;" "a notion of foresight by vision of particulars;" (p.70;) "a kind of clairvoyance," (p. 70,) and "literal prognostication." (p. 65.) Mr. Jowett (as we have lately seen[240],) lends plaintive help: but indeed Dr. Williams does not lack supporters.

To deny the truth of Miracles falls to the lot of the Savilian Professor of Astronomy. His method has the merit of extreme simplicity: for it is based on the ground that, in the writer's opinion, Miracles are impossible,--which of course must be held to be decisive of the question.

The battle against the Inspiration of the Word of GOD is reserved for the Regius Professor of Greek; who requires for his purpose twice the space of any of his fellows. _His_ method is also of the simplest kind, when divested of its many encumbrances. He simply _assumes it as proved_ that the Bible is a book not essentially different from Sophocles and Plato. In other words he _assumes_ that the Bible is not inspired; and reproaches, pities, or sneers at every one who is not of his opinion.

In the meantime, What _is_ Prophecy? What _are_ Miracles? Of what sort is that Bible which has imposed upon mankind so grossly, and so long? They are _facts_, and must be explained. What are they? Prophecy, then, is "_only the power of seeing the ideal in the actual_, or of tracing the Divine Government in the movements of men." (p. 70.) As for Miracles, "their evidential force is wholly _relative_ to the apprehensions of the parties addressed ... Columbus' prediction of the Eclipse to the native islanders," (p. 115,) is advanced as an illustration of the nature of the argument from Miracles. By whatever method the Bible has attained its present footing in the world, it is a book which has been hitherto misunderstood; and it must plainly be dealt with after a new fashion. Our Lord's Incarnation, Temptation, Death and Burial, Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven,--all His Miracles, in short, will be best interpreted _Ideologically_; in other words, by a principle "which resolves into an ideal the whole of the historical and doctrinal person of JESUS." (p. 200.) So interpreted, "the Gospel may win again the minds of intellectual men;" (p. 376;) but it will find it no easy matter. There is in fact "a higher wisdom" than the Gospel, "which is known to those who are perfect,"--"_that_ reconcilement," namely, "of Faith and Knowledge which may be termed Christian Philosophy." (p. 413.)

The great object, in short, is to bring about "a reconciliation" (p. 375,) between "the minds of intellectual men" (p. 376,) and Christianity. Such a reconciliation is to be regarded as a "restoration of belief." (p. 375.) And it is to be effected by "taking away some of the external supports, because they are not needed and do harm: also because they interfere with the meaning." (p. 375.)--Those "external supports" are (1) a belief in the Inspiration of the Bible;--(2) the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church;--(3) Creeds and the decisions of Councils;--(4) the works of Anglican Divines;--(5) Learning; (p. 337;)--(6) a profound acquaintance with the Greek language; (p. 393;)--(7) a minute knowledge of Greek Grammar; (p. 391;)--(8) the Doctrine of the Greek Article;--(9) the free use of the parallel passages.... The Bible, when interpreted by any self-relying young man who knows a little Greek, and attends to the meaning _of words_,--will be seen in all the freshness of its early beauty, like an old picture which has been recently cleaned. "A new interest" will be excited by this new Bible, which will "make for itself a new kind of authority." By being thus literally interpreted, it will be transformed into "a spirit." Then, (but not before) the Bible will enjoy the sublime satisfaction of keeping pace with the Age. It may so, even yet, "embrace the thoughts of men upon the earth."

But what kind of thing will this Bible be? The beginning of Genesis, (pp. 207-253,) is to be rejected because it "is not an authentic utterance of Divine knowledge, but a human utterance, which it has pleased Providence to use in a special way for the education of mankind." (p. 253.) We are invited to "a frank recognition of the _erroneous views of Nature_ which the Bible contains." (p. 211.) Thus, _all_ miraculous transactions will have to be explained away. The volume of Prophecy will have to be regarded as a volume of History. The very History will have to be read with distrust. Like other records, it is subject to the conditions of "knowledge which existed in an early stage of the world." (p. 411.) It does not even begin to be authentic, until B.C. 1900; or rather, until B.C. 900[241]. What remains is to be looked upon as "the continuous witness in all ages of the higher things in the heart of man," (p. 375,)--(whatever that may happen to mean.) The Gospel is to be looked upon as "a life of CHRIST in the soul, instead of a theory of CHRIST which is in a book, or written down," (p. 423.) "The lessons of Scripture, when disengaged from theological formulas, have a nearer way to the hearts of the poor." (p. 424.) Even "in Missions to the heathen, Scripture is to be treated as the expression of universal truths, rather than of the tenets of particular men and Churches." (p.423.) It is anticipated that this "would remove many obstacles to the reception of Christianity." (_Ibid._) "It is not the Book of Scripture which we should seek to give the heathen;" "but the truth of the Book; the mind of CHRIST and His Apostles, in which all lesser details and differences should be lost and absorbed;" "the purer light or element of Religion, of which Christianity is the expression." (p. 427.) ... Such is the ghostly phantom, by the aid of which the Heathen are to become evangelized!

But this historical Bible is not to be regarded as the rule of a man's life, or indeed as an external Law at all. (pp. 36, 45.) "We walk now by Reason and Conscience _alone_." (p. 21.) The Bible is to be identified "with the voice of Conscience," (p. 45,)--which it has "to evoke, not to override." (p. 44.) "The principle of private judgment ... makes Conscience the supreme interpreter." (p. 45.) Ours is "a law which is _not imposed upon us by another power_, but _by our own enlightened will_:" (p. 35:) for the "Spirit, or Conscience" "legislates" henceforth "_without appeal except to himself_." (p. 31.)

Having thus disposed of "Traditional Christianity," (p. 156,) it is not obscurely hinted that something quite different is to be substituted in its place. And first, next to "a frank appeal to Reason, and a frank criticism of Scripture," (p. 174,) the nature and "office of the Church is to be properly understood." (p. 194.)

The Church then is a spontaneous development of the State, as "part of its own organization," (p. 195,)--a purely secular Institution. The State will "develop itself into a Church" by "throwing its elements, or the best of them, into another mould; and constituting out of them a Society, which is in it, though in some sense not of it (?),--which is another (?), yet the same." (p. 194.) The nation must provide, from time to time, that the teaching of one age does "not traditionally harden, so as to become an exclusive barrier in a subsequent one; and so the moral growth of those who are committed to the hands of the Church be checked." (_Ibid._) The Church is founded, therefore, not upon "the possession of a supernaturally communicated speculation (!) concerning GOD," but "upon _the manifestation of a Divine Life in Man_." "Speculative doctrines should be left to _philosophical schools_. A national Church must be concerned with the _ethical development_ of its members." (p. 195.) It should be "free from dogmatic tests, and similar intellectual bondage;" (p. 168;) hampered by no Doctrines, pledged to no Creeds. These may be retained indeed; but "_we refuse to be bound by them_." (p. 44.) The Subscription of the Clergy to the Articles should also be abolished: for "no promise can reach fluctuations of opinion, and personal conviction." (!!!) _Open_ heretical teaching may, to be sure, be dealt with by the Law; but the Law "should not require any act which appears to signify 'I think.'" (p. 189.) Witness "the reluctance of the stronger minds to enter an Order in which their intellects may not have _free play_." (p. 190.) ... Such then is the Negative Religion! Such is the new faith which Doctors Temple and Williams, Professors Powell and Jowett, Messieurs Wilson, Goodwin, and Pattison, have deliberately combined to offer to the acceptance of the World!

It is high time to conclude. I cannot lay down my pen however until I have re-echoed the sentiments of one with whom I heartily agree. I allude to Dr. Moberly; who professes that he is "struck almost more with what seems to him the hardheartedness, and exceeding unkindness of this book, than with its unsoundness. Have the writers," (he asks,) "considered how far the suggesting of innumerable doubts,--doubts unargued and unproved,--will check honest devotion, and embolden timid sin? _For whom_ do they intend this book? Is it written for the mass of general readers? Is it designed for students at the Universities? Do they suppose that this multitude of random suggestions will be carefully wrought out by these readers, and be rejected if unsound; so as to leave their faith and devotion untarnished?... Have they reflected how many souls for whom CHRIST died may be slain in their weakness by _their_ self-styled strength?"

"Suppose, for a moment, that the Holy Scriptures _are_ (p. 177,) the Word of the Spirit of GOD,--that the Miracles, (cf. p. 109,) including the Resurrection of CHRIST, are actual objective facts, which have really happened,--that the Doctrines of the Church are true, (p. 195,) and the Creeds (p. 355,) the authoritative expositions of them,--and that men are to reach Salvation through faith in CHRIST, Virgin-born, according to the Scriptures, and making atonement (cf. p. 87,) for their sins upon the Cross. ON THIS SUPPOSITION,--_Is not the publication of this book an act of real hostility to GOD'S Truth; and one which endangers the Faith and Salvation of Men?_ And is this hostility less real, or the danger diminished, because the writers are, all but one, Clergymen, some of them Tutors and Schoolmasters; because they wear the dress, and use the language of friends, and threaten us with bitter opposition if we do not regard them as such[242]?"

* * * * *

With this I lay down my pen. My last words shall be simple and affectionate, addressed solely to yourselves.

I trace these concluding lines,--(of a work which, but for _you_, would never have been undertaken,)--in a _quite_ empty College; and in the room where we have so often and so happily met on Sunday evenings. Can you wonder if, at the conclusion of what has proved rather a heavy task, (so _hateful_ to me is controversy,) my thoughts revert with affectionate solicitude to yourselves, already scattered in all directions; and to those evenings which more, I think, than any other thing, have gilded my College life?... In thus sending you a written farewell, and praying from my soul that GOD may bless and keep you all, I cannot suppress the earnest entreaty that you would remember the best words of counsel which may have at any time fallen from my lips: that you would persevere in the daily study of the pure Book of Life; and that you would read it, _not_ as feeling yourselves called upon to sit in judgment on its adorable contents; but rather, as men who are permitted to draw near; and invited _to listen_, and _to learn_, and _to live_. And so farewell!... "Watch ye, stand fast in the Faith,"--nay, take it in the original, which is far better:--=Grêgoreite, stêkete en tê pistei andrizesthe, krataiousthe. panta hymôn en agapê ginesthô. Hê charis tou Kyriou Iêsou Christou meth' hymôn. hê agapê mou meta pantôn hymôn.=

Your friend,
J. W. B.

ORIEL,
_June 22nd_, 1861.

FOOTNOTES:

[19] I abstain from enumerating Dr. Temple's mistakes,--for such things do not belong to the essence of a composition. And yet I must remark that it is hardly creditable in a Doctor of Divinity to write as he does. "In _all_ (!) the doctrinal disputes of the fourth and fifth centuries, the decisive voice came from Rome. Every controversy was finally settled by her opinion, because she alone possessed _the art of framing formulas_," &c. (p. 16.) Would the learned writer favour us with _a single warrant_ for this assertion?... At p. 9, Dr. Temple mistakes for Micah's, words spoken 700 years before by Balaam. At p. 10, he says that "Prayer, as a regular and necessary part of worship, first appears in the later books of the Old Testament."--His account of the papacy is contained in the following words:--"Law was the lesson which Rome was intended to teach the world. Hence (?) the Bishop of Rome soon became the Head of the Church. Rome was in fact the centre of the traditions which had once governed the world; and their spirit still remained; and the Roman Church developed into the papacy simply because a head was wanted (!), and no better one could be found."--p. 16. At p. 10 we have a truly puerile misconception of the meaning of 1 Cor. xv. 56, &c., &c.

[20] Deut. vi. 4.

[21] 1 Sam. xv. 22, where see the places in the margin.

[22] Hos. vi. 6, quoted by our LORD, St. Matth. ix. 13: xii. 7.

[23] Consider Ps. xxvi. 6: l. 13, 14: li. 16, 17: cxvi. 15: cxix. 108: cxli. 2, &c.

[24] St. Matth. xvi. 4: xii. 39. Compare St. Mark viii. 38.

[25] St. James iv. 4.

[26] St. Matth. xxiii. 33.

[27] Ezek. xvi. 47-52.

[28] Is. i. 4, 6, 15.

[29] St. John viii. 9. "I cannot but speak my mind," (says Josephus, after taking a survey of the extreme wickedness of his countrymen, in connexion with the horrors of the siege of Jerusalem,) "and it is this: I suppose that if the Romans had delayed to come against these sinners, either the earth would have swallowed them up; or the city would have been swept away by another Flood; or it would have been consumed, like a second Sodom, by fire from Heaven."

[30] S. John xii. 38-40. "_They have blinded_ their eyes," &c. (See the place in the LXX.:) sc. =ho laos houtos.=

[31] "Had the revelation of CHRIST been delayed till now, assuredly it would have been hard for us to recognize His Divinity.... We, of course, have in our turn counterbalancing advantages. (!) If we have lost that freshness of faith which would be the first (_sic_) to say to a poor carpenter,--Thou art the CHRIST, the SON of the living GOD,--yet we possess in the greater cultivation of our religious understanding, that which perhaps we ought not to be willing to give in exchange (!) ... They had not the same clearness of understanding as we; the same recognition that it is GOD and not the Devil who rules the World; the same power of discrimination between different kinds of truth.... Had our LORD come later, He would have come to mankind already beginning to stiffen into the fixedness of maturity.... The truth of His Divine Nature would not have been recognized." (pp. 24-5.)--Is this meant for bitter satire on the age we live in; or for disparagement of the Incarnate WORD?... But in the face of such anticipations, the keenest satire of all is contained in the author's claim to a "religious understanding, cultivated" to a degree unknown to the best ages of the Church; as well as to surpassing "clearness of understanding," and "powers of discrimination." Lamentable in _any_ quarter, how deplorable is such conceit in one who shews himself _unacquainted with the first principles of Theological Science_; and who puts forth an Essay on the Education of the World, which would have been discreditable to an advanced school-boy!

[32] Quite ineffectual, at the very close of this unhappy composition, as a set off to the compacted and often repeated asseverations of his earlier pages, is the amiable author's plaintive plea for "even the perverted use of the Bible;" adding,--"And meanwhile, how utterly impossible it would be in the manhood of the world to imagine any other instructor of mankind!" (p. 47.) It is one of the favourite devices of these seven writers, side by side with their most objectionable statements, to insert isolated passages of admitted truth,--and occasionally even of considerable beauty: which however are _utterly meaningless_ and out of place where they stand; and (like the sentence above written,) powerless to undo the circumstantial wickedness of what went before. I repeat, that the words above-written are meaningless _where they stand_: for if Dr. Temple really means that it is "_utterly impossible in the manhood of the world to IMAGINE any other instructor of mankind_" than THE BIBLE,--what becomes of his Essay?

[33] =paratêreisthe=: i.e. "ye _mis_observe," "keep _in a wrong way_."

[34] Gal. iv. 1-10.

[35] Gal. iii. 24, 25.

[36] Gal. v. 1.

[37] 2 St. John v. 10, 11.

[38] Rom. viii. 21.

[39] It is presumed that the article in the _Dict. of Antiquities_ will be held unexceptionable authority as to the office of the =paidagôgos=.--"Rex filio pædagogum constituit, et singulis diebus ad eum invisit, interrogans eum: Num comedit filius meus? _num in scholam abiit? num ex scholâ rediit_?"--Wetstein, in loc.--So Plato _Lysis_, p. 118.

[40] 1 St. Peter ii. 21. Comp. St. James v. 10.

[41] 1 Cor. xi. 1: iv. 16. Phil. iii. 17. 2 Thess. iii. 9. Heb. xiii. 7, &c.

[42] 1 St. Pet. i. 11.

[43] 1 Tim. i. 10: iv. 6. Tit. i. 9: ii. 1. Comp. 2 St. John v. 10.

[44] 2 Tim. i. 13.