« PreviousContinue »
potism "over the human spirit; if it could do that, it would become an outer law at once," but " it imposes on us no yoke of subjection."—P. 45.
And Mr. Newman, long ago, had protested against " the Protestant principle of accepting the Bible us the absolute law," and against "representing it as of all things most desirable to be able to benumb conscience by disuse, under the guidance of a mind from without."—P. 207.
9. Lastly, the whole theme and argument of Dr. Temple's essay, that " Providence had been educating the world" by means of Egyptian, Greek, and Asian idolatries, and thence upwards through Christianity, was all given in this same Phase* of Faith, in the year 1850. Mr. Newman had there argued that,—
"The law of God's moral universe, as known to us, is that of progress. We trace it from old barbarism to the methodized Egyptian idolatry; to the more flexible polytheism of Syria and Greece; the poetical pantheism of philosophers,and the moral monotheism of a few sages. So iu Palestine, and in the Bible itself, wo see, first of all, the image-worship of Jacob's family, then the incipient elevation of Jehovah above all other Gods by Moses, the practical establishment of the worship of Jehovah alone by Samnel, the rise of spiritual sentiment under David and the Psalmists, tho more magnificent views of Uezekiah's prophets; finally, in the Babylonish captivity, the new tenderness assumed by the second Isaiah and tho later Psalmists ; "— P. 223.
with much more of the same kind—all of which Dr. Temnle has very plausibly expanded into an essay of forty-nine pages.
Enough, then, has been given to show, that in all the characteristic features of their system, Theodore Parker, in 1847 and in 1859, Francis William Newman in 1850, and the seven essayists in 1860, are all in harmony. In language, indeed,—in freeness of tone and expression, there is just the difference which might be expected between men •who, like Parker and Newman, have thrown off all conventional bondage, and those who, like the seven essayists, are professors in Oxford, or vice-principals, or head-masters of colleges or schools, or incumbents of parishes in the established Church. But while there is this difference in the tone and freedom of expression, there is none in actual creed. All arc agreed, the seven as well as the two, in rejecting "supernaturalism," in placing conscience above the Bible, and in throwing altogether out of sight the grand topics of God's word—the introduction of sin, and the gift of a Saviour—man's ruin, and man's redemption. Our conviction is, that none of them have any real faith in
either the one or the other of these great truths.
Yet we can believe, without much strain upon the imagination, that some of these writers, especially Dr. Temple and Mr. Jowett, do not realty mean to abandon Christianity j—do not justly appreciate their own position j—but imagine that they can retain the spirit of Christianity, while throwing off all allegiance to the letter. We feel that we ought to accept the declarations of such men; and look upon them rather as self-deceived, than as deliberate deceivers. Now Mr. Jowett's own words are these:—
"It is n mere chimera that the different sections of Christendom may meet on tlio common ground of the New Testament 1 Or that the individual may be urged by the vacancy and unprofitableness of old traditions, to make the gospel his own,—a life of Christ in the soul, instead of a theory of Christ which is in a book or written down: Or that in missions to the heathen, Scripture may become the expression of universal truths, rather than of the tenets of particular men or churches 1"—P. 423.
"The Bible will no longer be appealed to as the witness of the opinions of particular sects, or of our own ago; it will cease to be the battle-field of controversies." "The book which links together the beginning and the end of the human race, will not have a less inestimable value because the spirit has taken the place of the letter."—P. 425.
"It is not the fcoot of Scripture which we should seek to give them, to bo reverenced like the Vedas or the Koran, but the truth of the book, the mind of Christ and his apostles, in which all lesser details and differences should bo lost aud absorbed."—P. 427.
We repeat, that we are bound to believe, and do believe, that Mr. Jowett means exactly what he says. But then he is self-deluded. Indeed, to fancy that he can retain the building, after having cut away the foundation, is as strange and as lamentable a delusion as ever possessed any man's mind. Long ago was this perilous error detected and exposed in Dr. Robert Vaughan's admirable discourse on the Letter and the Spirit. A single passage from that powerful argument must suffice:—
"' The words that I speak unto yon,' said the Lord Jesus, 'they nro spirit, and they are life.' If this statement has meaning, it must mean, that the spirit and life of Christianity art not, where the words, the doctrines of Christianity, nro not. Reception of the words is necessary to an experience of the life.
"The religion of the letter, taken nlonc, is not only barren, but corrupting. It is not only deroiil of the fruits proper to true religion,—it is productive of fruits proper only to fulso religion. But the religion of the spirit, as existing among our philosophical spiritualists, is itself an error m an opposite direction. The religion of the letter alone, if carried fairly out, ends in a fanatical superstition. The religion of tlio spirit alone, if carried fairly oat, ends in tho most scientific form of mcro deism. By tbo one, the Biblo is denuded of its proper result; for souls are not regenerated. By tho other, the Bible is denuded of its proper authority; for the authority of the interpreter becomes greater than the authority of the text. In cither case, tho loss is tho loss" of Chrisfinnity. In either case, there may bo n kind of religiousness; but it will not be tho religion of Christ. If the icords—the doctrines of Christ, nro to bo without historical certainty and authority, then nothing higher is left to mankind than such systems of religion as may bo generated by their own experiences, in accordance with their own sense of need. l_fux have not a Christianity sustained by authentic documents, tee have none. All pretence to any thing certainly Christian, on tho part of men who repudiate the historical proofs of Christianity, must be simply absurd. When such men tell us, that they have tried the historical argument, and found it fail them, and still claim to be regarded as in possession of all that was most valuable in primitive Christianity, we are constrained to ask them, How do you "know that t Certainly, the man who can persuade himself that he "has a right to claim a place among Christians, while giving up the historical evidence of Christianity, must be in a state of mind to persuade himself of any thing."
The doctrine which offended poor Theodore Parker, and after him, Francis AVilliam Newman, and now the seven essayists, is Svpernaturalism. Against this, with one consent, they all make war. Parker covered it with the most vehement reproaches, in his Discourse on Religion. Newman equally abhorred it. The seven essayists have a like feeling; but a natural caution prescribes the use of more moderate language. Dr. Temple begins by hinting that "physical science and researches into history, etc., have enlarged our philosophy beyond the limits •which bounded that of the Church of the Fathers." We perhaps must not "interpret the first chapters of Genesis literally,"— "the narratives of the inspired writers had occasional inaccuracies," and so on. Dr. Rowland Williams suggests that" Questions of miraculous interference do not turn merely upon our conception of physical law, as unbroken, or of the Divine will, as all-pervading ;—they include inquiries into evidence, and must abide by verdicts on the age of records." "Those cases in which we accept the miracle for the sake of the moral lesson prove the ethical element to be the more fundamental."
Mr. Baden Powell is more explicit, and asserts, in plain language, the doctrine of Strauss, that" the chain of endless causation can never be broken, and hence a miracle
is an impossibility." Mr. Wilson particularizes, and names, as facts which we are not bound to believe, "the story of a serpent-tempter, of an ass speaking with man's voice, or an arresting cf the earth's motion, of a reversal of its motion, of waters standing in a solid heap, of witches, and a variety of apparitions." (P. 177.) In short, all that is supernatural, may be " accepted as parable, or poetry, or legend;''—but rejected as fact. Mr. Goodwin, in like manner, rejects the narrative of the Creation, and tells us, that "the human race has forgotten its own birth, and the void of its early years has been filled up by imagination, and not from genuine recollection." And Mr. Jowett, on the authority of his friends and coadjutors, adopts the same view, tolling us, that " the best-informed are of opinion that the history of nations extends back some thousand years before the Mosaic chronology; recent discoveries in geology may, perhaps, open a further vista of existence of 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,—the supply of links which are at presscnt wanting in the chain of animal life, may lead to new conclusions respecting the origin of man." (P. 349.) Thus the whole tenor of this new philosophy goes to banish the idea of God, and to enthrone what Mr. Powell calls "the universal self-sustaining and self-evolving powers which pervade ail nature:" "the grand principle of the selfevolving powers of nature." (Pp. 134, 139.) • Thus, with one voice, supernaturalism, or the existence of any Lord or Ruler of nature, is denied.
Well, gentlemen, we are not going, at this moment, to enter into any argument with you on this vast question; but we do want to come to an understanding. It is very desirable, and in fact necessary, that things should be called by their right names. We ask, then, in plain English, Do you believe in the Bible1}
Do you believe the first chapter of Genesis, which sets forth, how God created or formed the present earth;—producing, step by step, land and sea, plants and fishes, beasts, and finally man; resting, after six days' work, on the seventh day, and hallowing that day for evermore? We have not the slightest doubt that all these seven essayists would answer, We believe nothing of the kind.
Do you believe, then, the second chapter, which places man in a garden, and miraculously provides him with a consort and helpmate? Or the third, which describes the temptation, '.lie fall, and man's punishment and expulsion? With one voice, we feel assured, the seven essayists would reject all this, classing it with "parable, or poetry, or legend."—P. 177.
We pass on, then, to the fourth chapter, describing Cain's sin and punishment;—to the sixth and seventh, detailing the history; of the deluge; to the eleventh, relating the confusion of tongues; to the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twenty-first, narrating the miraculous overthrow of Sodom, and the miraculous birth of Isaac: asking, Do these essayists give credit to any of these state- j ments? The answer must be, No.
Well then, let us quit the Old Testament, j and opeii the New; and try if we shall fare better there. St. Matthew's first chapter narrates the visit of an angel to Mary, and the miraculous conception. Are these facts received by the seven essayists? Several; of them have answered, and we believe that all must answer, if asked, No.
The second chapter tells us of the star, and of the slaughter of the children of Bethlehem; and of two angelic visits to Joseph. The third shows us the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove, and tells us of an audible voice from "the excellent glory." The fourth describes the appearance of Satan, I the fasting of Jesus for forty days and nights; and the casting out of devils. Do the essayists give credit to these things? They plainly tell us, No.
In fact, the Bible ia rejected. Supernaturalism is its character, from the beginning to the end. Not in one place, or two, or in ten, or in fifty, but throughout, it constantly introduces God as Creator, or Redeemer, or Sanctificr, overruling nature at his pleasure, •with the same absolute will and power with •which any human artificer disposes of his materials or his tools. "O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord." "No," replies Mr. Baden Powell, with a profaneness which it is fearful to contemplate, " No, vpu cannot!"
But what is all this but a distinct rejection of the Bible, and of Christianity? If the Bible is plainly declared to have a great falsehood intertwined with its every page, how is it possible to build any thing upon it? Take away the word of God, the Divine revelation, and Christianity is gone also. "Conscience," as it is called, reigns "supremely," indeed, as Dr. Temple would have it, but alone. For such men to seek to retain the name of Christian, is at least something approaching to a great abuse of words.
But if not Christians, may rejecters of the bible be still called Churchmen? Such a question may seem a strange one, but it is necessary to put it. The seven essayists might allege that they have never subscribed to the
truth of the Bible ; * hut surely, if they style themselves Churchmen, they can hardly reject the creeds of the Church, — the faith into which they were baptized, — the faith which, at confirmation, they each personally professed, — the faith which, in subscribing the eighth article, they have declared "ought thoroughly to be received and believed." What say they, then, to the creeds, which, in common with all Christendom, the Church of England sets forth as her first, most positive, and most indispensable standard?
The first creed declares God the Father to have been the Maker of heaven and earth. It declares his Son to have been conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of a virgin. It declares him to have risen from the dead, and to have ascended into heaven. And it avows a belief that his followers also shall rise from the dead to life everlasting. All this is "supernaturalism."
The second creed adds, that God the Son, "for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven." This also is supernaturalism.
We need not proceed through the third of these documents. It is enough to say, that if these seven essayists are consistent and sincere in rejecting supernaturalism in the Bible, they must reject it when they find it in the creeds also. But what have we then? AVhy, we have a chaplain to the queen, a head-master of Rugby school, a vice-principal of St. David's college, a vicar of Broad Chalke, a vicar of Great Stoughton, and two Oxford professors, not believing the creeds of the church, — those very creeds upon the profession of which they were admitted into communion with the chnrch, and into the possession of all these honors and preferments!
Can this be permitted? Is its continuance compatible with the Church's existence? If we find a state in which the highest crimes are tolerated, — in which theft and murder are committed with impunity, — do we not say that it seems on the verge of dissolution, and, in fact, to be scarcely a state at all?
The highest crimes in a Church are infidelity and idolatry. Have wo not got them both in this volume? God's word is rejected j God's operative providence is denied; and an idol styled "nature" is set up. If these things can pass with impunity, will there remain a real, living Church? Will there be anything more than "an organized hypocrisy "?
Let us imagine, in our civil government,
* Probably most of them hnvo forgotten the question put to them in their first ordination: "Do '
believe all the Canonical Scrljltnres of the Ola nnd New Testament?" — and their own answer: "1 do belitvt I/ii.m I"
the occurrence of such deeds as are occasionally heard of in countries under arbitrary rule: the commission of murder, confiscation, or ravishing hy men in high authority: and no inquiry, or trial, or punishment following: would not all men exclaim, "England is lost; for the laws are dead!" But will it be a less calamitous state of things, if a Church which is based upon the Bible, and whose mission it is to teach Christianity, shall allow the Bible to be discredited, and Christianity to be utterly denied, by men holding high office within her pale? Must not the conclusion appear inevitable to the multitude, that there is no real faith, no genuine, earnest belief, anywhere in the Church: for that, if there were, such offences could not pass unrcbuked!
Nothing can be clearer or more positive than the injunctions of Scripture in this matter. Without laying any stress on the commands of Moses, we have the plain and distinct directions of the great apostle of the Gentiles. (Titus i. 11; ii. 15; hi. 10.) And we cling to the belief that we have bishops in the Church of England in these days, who will not bring themselves under the prophet's rebuke. (Isa. Ivi. 10.)
Perhaps a doubt may be suggested by the singular device adopted by these seven writers. As archaic, the book is a deadly attack on Christianity and the Bible. But nobody has written the whole. Ask the head-master of Rugby, and he will tell you that he has only written a paper on the education of the world, and that he is " responsible for his own article only." Ask Mr. Goodwin, and he will reply, that he has merely contributed a paper on geology; and that it is not unusual for geological writers to question the strict accuracy of the first chapter of Genesis. And thus a most formidable engine for the propagation of infidelity is constructed, and yet no one admits that he is responsible for more than a single scientific essay! But, in secular matters, the combination of seven men, to do a certain illegal act, is always taken to involve every one of them in the whole guilt. The ringing of a bell, or the holding of a
horse, has involved many a man in the guilt of treason.
Though the device is new, the object of the union, and the intent of the singularly quiet and unobtrusive appearance of the volume, is, we think, quite transparent. If this volume, which raises so many perplexing questions, is left without censure, it is difficult to see what notice can hereafter be taken of the broadest and plainest declaration of infidelity on the part of any minister of the Church of England.
But, after all, we prefer to appeal to the common sense and common honesty of the essayists themselves. We cannot bring ourselves to regard such men as Dr. Temple and Mr. Jowett as deficient in either. We have shown that, substantially, the faith of these essayists is identical with that of Theodore Parker and F. W. Newman. Why, then, are they not equally straightforward in their conduct? When Parker and Newman gave up the faith in which they had been educated, they abandoned the outward profession of Christianity. They became infidels, and as infidels they were treated. America is the land of entire liberty and freedom from all restrant; but when Parker had made his faith, or rather his want of faith, known, a broad line was at once drawn between him and the Christian churches of the United States. The most popular minister in America, Mr. Henry Ward Beecher of Brooklyn, was obliged to preach and publish an apology for having been once seen on a platform on which Mr. Parker also appeared. As for Mr. Francis Newman, we all know his position in our own country. It never seems to have occurred to him that he might remain in a church after he had abandoned the faith of | that church. Yet strange to say, some of these essayists, after adopting and maintaining a principle which makes prayer a practical absurdity, actually pretend to oner up prayer in the great congregation; read Scripture to the people, believing it to contain falsehood; and stand up, in the open face of day, to repeat creeds, the chief articles of which they utterly reject and deny!
It is a curious fact that two Inkcs resembling those great sheets of water lately discovered by Captains Burton and Spike in Eastern Africa, are laid down on a map published in the French edition of Dapper's African (Amsterdam, 1G86).
Dapper puts tho lakes some degrees loo for to tlie south, but their relative position is the some 03 that of Sangnnyika and Nyanza. None of the geographical journals have yet noticed this singular coincidence.—Tribune.
From The Saturday Eeview.
Mb. Fobsteb has probably studied more deeply than any other living historian the events of the troubled period which immediately preceded the Civil War. The continuous and traditional character of the English constitution is remarkably illustrated by the earnest sympathy of contemporary inquirers with the great political controversies of two centuries ago. Instead of affecting to look down from the height of an enlarged experience on the bygone differences of Royalists and Roundhead, Mr. Forster regards the great contest from the point of view which might have presented itself to Pym or Ilampden, if they could for a moment have stood apart from the actual struggle. His solicitude to ascertain the legal position of either party indicates a just appreciation of the instinctive regard for constitutional forms which has in all ages formed the chief security of English freedom. While continental demagogues have satisfied themselves with windy abstractions of philanthopy and justice, reformers, and even innovators, have always confined themselves in England to the assertion of some professedly historical and really tangible right. The laws of Edward the Confessor, the Great Charter, taxation by the House of Commons, and Habeas Carpus, after serving as definite objects of agitation or of conflict, have proved solid acquisitions when they have been attained. When a learned and able writer argues in an elaborate work that Charles I. hail no right to enter the House of Commons, he incidentally proves that the instinct of rational liberty is at this moment as fresh and living as when it embodied itself in the patriotic sophisms and fictions which, two hundred and twenty years ago, gave a temporary color of legality to the prudent usurpations of the malcontent House of Commons. Mr. Forster's well-directed industry has enabled him to collect from unpublished documents a narrative of the attempted arrest, and of its immediate consequences, which is almost as full and accurate as if the story had been told on each successive day by a modern reporter or newspaper correspondent. Future nistorians may spare themselves any further research into the details of the remarkable crisis which is justly regarded as the virtual commencement of the war. Perhaps it would not bo unreasonable to expect that Mr. Forster may also anticipate their labors
* Arrtst of lite Fire Memben by Charln I. A Chapter of English History rewritten. By John Forster. London: Murray. 1860.
by founding on his many special investigations a continuous narrative of the reign of Charles I., and, perhaps, of the Commonwealth. There is no danger that such a work, however valuable, will close a controversy which still retains its inexhaustible interest. Except among young ladies who write High Church novels, few uncompromising historical Royalists are to bo found at the present day j but, whatever may be said of Clarendon's veracity, his deliberate statements of the law are not to be altogether despised. The parliamentary leaders, though they covered themselves at every step by precedents and assertions of privilege, cannot claim the merit of having made a revolution with rose-water, nor did they overthow an ancient monarchy in strict adherence to the letter of the law. Their modern apologist is justified in his general approval of their policy, and he rightly apprehends their judicious anxiety to keep the semblance of law on their side; but the authoritative interpretation of the legal questions in dispute is supplied by the later practice of a constitution always modifying itself in each generation by fresh accessions of popular power. Queen Victoria retains prerogatives which Pym nnd his colleagues denied to Charles I.; and the privileges of her House of Commons, though amply sufficient for a sovereign assembly, are narrower than the claims which were expounded at Grocer's Hall by Sir Symonds d'Ewcs.
The ex-offitio impeachment of the five members and of Lord Kimbolton by the attorney-general, acting under the orders of the king, although not inconsistent with legal analog)-, was unsupported by precedent, and it has been condemned by all subsequent opinion nnd practice. The attempt to exceed the prerogative could only have been excused by the consciousness that the struggle had already passed beyond constitutional limits, and that the victory must rest with the stronger combatant. In the subsequent discussions, the not less extravagant pretensions of the Commons almost effaced the intrinsic irregularity of the impeachment. Amongst other extemporaneous dogmas, it was affirmed that the king could never be an accuser of a subject, because he would be entitled to his lands and goods on a capital conviction. The answer that, whether in misdemeanor or in treason, the crown is nlways a nominal party to a criminal proceeding, would probably have subjected any dissentient lawyer to committal to the Tower. Although Mr. Forster seems to consider the impeachment bad in substance, as referring to words spoken in Parliament, Pym himself, in the first debate, admitted that the ar