ENGLAND CONTINUED: CRITICAL RATIONALISM--JOWETT, THE ESSAYS AND REVIEWS,
AND COLENSO.
The devout disciple of Christ regards the Scriptures with profound
reverence, for they contain the doctrines which show him his path to the
pure life of heaven. His theological opponents are not blind to this
attachment, nor are they ignorant of the service of the Bible in
supporting the entire Christian system. It could not therefore be
expected that, while literature and philosophy were affected by
Rationalism, the Scriptures should escape with impunity. There lies a
deep destructive purpose beneath the brief utterance of Dr. Temple: "The
immediate work of our day is the study of the Bible.[169]" The Critical
Rationalism of England which is now attracting the attention of the
civilized world is of recent growth, but the energy with which it has
been cultivated is unsurpassed in the annals of skepticism.
Professor Jowett's commentary on the _Epistles to Thessalonians,
Galatians, and Romans_, was published in 1855. Coming from a highly
respectable source, and assailing the doctrines of revelation boldly, it
was a clear indication of what might be expected from the Critical
Rationalists as a class.
The doctrine of the atonement, according to this writer, is involved in
perplexities whose growth is of more than a thousand years. Christ did
not die to appease the divine wrath, and "sacrifice" and "atonement"
were accommodated terms used by the apostles because they had been
reared among the Jewish offerings and were familiar with them. The great
advantage we derive from Christ is his life, in which we behold a
perfect harmony of nature, absolute self-renunciation, pure love, and
resignation. We know nothing of the objective act on God's part by which
he reconciled the world to himself, the very description of it being a
figure of speech. Conversion is not in accordance with the claims of
orthodoxy, for while there were conversions in the early Church, there
is no possibility of establishing a harmony between them and those which
are now said to occur. The conversions of the first Christians were
marked by ecstatic and unusual phenomena, whole multitudes were
simultaneously affected, and the changes wrought were permanent; but the
subjects were chiefly ignorant people, who no doubt did many things
which would have been distasteful to us as men of education.[170]
The most noteworthy work of the Critical Rationalists is the _Essays and
Reviews_ (1861), a volume which consists of broad generalizations
against the authority of the Bible as a standard of faith.
I. THE EDUCATION OF THE WORLD. By Frederic Temple, D. D. There is a
radical difference between man and inanimate nature. The latter is
passive, and subject to the workings of the vast physical machinery, but
man is at no time stationary, for he develops from age to age, and
concentrates in his history the results and achievements of all
previous history. There is no real difference between the capacity of
men now and that of the antediluvian world; the ground of disparity lies
in the time of development afforded the present generation. Thus a child
of twelve stands at present where once stood the full-grown man.
There are three stages in the world's development: Childhood, Youth,
Maturity. Childhood requires positive rules, and is made subject to
them; youth is governed by the force of example; and manhood, being free
from external restraints, must be its own instructor. We have first
rules, then examples, and last principles:--the Law, the Son of Man, and
the Gift of the Spirit. The world was once a child, under tutors and
governors until the time appointed by the Father. Afterwards, when the
fit season had arrived, the Example, to which all ages should turn, was
sent to teach men what they ought to be; and the human race was left to
itself to be guided by the instruction of the Spirit within.[171] The
world, before the time of Christ, was in its childhood, when commands
were given without explanation. The pre-Christian world, being in its
state of discipline and childhood, was divided into four classes: the
Roman, the Greek, the Asiatic, and the Hebrew, each of which contributed
something toward the world's improvement and its preparation for the age
of Example. The Hebrew did the most, though his work was of the same
class and aimed at the same result. The Roman gave an iron will; the
Greek, a cultivated reason and taste; the Asiatic, the idea of
immortality, and spiritual imagination; and the Hebrew, the trained
conscience.
The whole period from the close of the old Testament to the termination
of the New was the time of the world's youth, the age of examples.[172]
Christ came just at the right time; if he had waited until the present
age his incarnation would have been misplaced, and we could not
recognize his divinity; for the faculty of faith has turned inwards, and
cannot now accept any outward manifestations of the truth of God.[173]
The present age is that of independent reflection and the supremacy of
conscience--the world's manhood. Laws and examples are absolute, and
should be forgotten, just as we look lightly upon the things of our
childhood. The world has arrived at its present exalted state through a
severe ordeal, but the grandeur of its position is sufficient to make it
forget its trials. "The spirit or conscience [which are terms for
reason] comes to full strength and assumes the throne intended for him
in the soul. As an accredited judge, invested with full powers, he sits
in the tribunal of our inner kingdom, decides upon the past, and
legislates upon the future, without appeal except to himself. He decides
not by what is beautiful or noble, or soul-inspiring, but by what is
right. Gradually he frames his code of laws, revising, adding,
abrogating, as a wiser and deeper experience gives him clearer light. He
is the third great teacher and the last."[174]
In some aspects this essay is the least objectionable in the volume. Yet
it contains radical errors which many a reader would accept without
suspicion. The agency of the Holy Spirit in revelation is ignored, and
the development through which the world has passed is confounded with
civilization. This development is alleged to have occurred in a purely
natural way, the Hebrew type being no more a divine appointment than
that of the Grecian or Roman. The doctrines of Christianity were not
clearly stated in the early Church, and the flight of eighteen centuries
has been required to lift the curtain from them.[175] Conscience is
placed above the Bible, and if the statements of the Scriptures be in
conflict with it, allowance must be made for occasional inaccuracies,
interpolations, and forgeries.[176]
II. $1nd Williams, D. D. We here find
the same deference paid to conscience as in the preceding essay. If it
differ from revelation, man's own notions of right and wrong must
prevail over Scripture. Dr. Williams is contented with arraying Bunsen's
skeptical theories before the British public without formally indorsing
them himself; yet, as their reviewer, he is evidently in complete
harmony with the German author. For he carefully collects the
chevalier's extravagant speculations; brings them into juxtaposition;
admires the spirit, boldness, and learning which had given birth to
them; and in no case refutes, but looks with complacence upon nearly
every one. The impression of a candid reader of the essay must be, that
the writer indorses almost all of Bunsen's opinions without having the
courage to avow his assent. Of his hero he says, "Bunsen's enduring
glory is neither to have faltered with his conscience, nor shrunk from
the difficulties of the problem, but to have brought a vast erudition,
in the light of a Christian conscience, to unroll tangled records;
tracing frankly the Spirit of God elsewhere, but borrowing chiefly the
traditions of his Hebrew Sanctuary."[177]
The absence of that reverence to be expected in all whose vocation
enjoins the frequent reading of the sublime liturgy of the Church of
England, produces a depressing influence upon any one not in sympathy
with the doctrines of Rationalism. The Evangelical theologians are
termed "The despairing school, who forbid us to trust in God or in our
own conscience, unless we kill our souls with literalism."[178] The
inquiries and successes of the German Rationalists are worthy of hearty
admiration, for they are so great that the world has seldom, if ever,
seen their equal. Bishops Pearson and Butler, and Mr. Mansel are
seriously at fault in their notions of prophecy, and even Jerome is
guilty of gross puerilities. There is no reason why Bunsen may not be
right when he holds that the world must be twenty thousand years old;
there is no chronological element in revelation; the avenger who slew
the first-born, may have been the Bedouin host; in the passage of the
Red Sea, the description may be interpreted with the latitude of poetry;
it is right to reject the perversions which make the cursing Psalms
evangelically inspired; perhaps one passage in Zechariah and one in
Isaiah may be direct prophecies of the Messiah, and possibly a chapter
in Deuteronomy may foreshadow the final fall of Jerusalem; the Messianic
prophecies are mere contemporaneous history; and the fifty-third chapter
of Isaiah is only a description of the sufferings of Jeremiah.
Inspiration is too loftily conceived by "the well-meaning crowd," for
whom we should manifest "grave compassion."
What is the Bible, continues the essayist, but the written voice of the
congregation, and not the written voice of God? Why all this reverence
for the sacred writers, since they acknowledge themselves men of like
passions with us? Justification by faith is merely peace of mind from
trust in a righteous God, and not a fiction of merit by transfer.
Regeneration is a correspondent giving of insight or an awakening of the
forces of the soul; propitiation is the recovery of peace, and the
atonement is our sharing the Saviour's Spirit, but not his purchase of
us by his own blood. Throughout the Scriptures we should assume in
ourselves a verifying faculty,--conscience, reason, or whatever else we
choose to term it.
III. ON THE STUDY OF THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. By Baden Powell, M.
A. The author of this essay having recently died, he has therefore
incurred less censure than he would otherwise have received. The views
here expressed, taken in connection with his more elaborate treatise on
the _Order of Nature_, do not place him on the same theoretical ground
with Hume and Spinoza; but the moral effect of the present attack upon
miracles as an evidence of Christianity is not less antagonistic than
the theories of either of those authors. Spinoza held that miracles are
impossible, because it would be derogatory to God to depart from the
established laws of the universe, and one of Hume's objections to them
was their incapability of being proved from testimony.[179]
Professor Powell objects to them because they bear no analogy to the
harmony of God's dealings in the material world; and insists that they
are not to be credited, since they are a violation of the laws of matter
or an interruption of the course of physical causes. The orthodox
portion of the Church are laboring under the egregious error of making
them an essential doctrine, when they are really a mere external
accessory. Reason, and not "our desires" must come to our aid in all
examination of them. The key-note to Professor Powell's opposition is
contained in the following statement: "From the nature of our antecedent
convictions, the probability of _some_ kind of mistake or deception
somewhere, though we know not _where_, is greater than the probability
of the event really happening in _the way_ and from the _causes_
assigned."[180] The inductive philosophy, for which great respect must
be paid, is enlisted against miracles. If we once know all about those
alleged and held as such, we would find them resolved into natural
phenomena, just as "the angel at Milan was the aerial reflection of an
image on a church; the balls of fire at Plausac were electrical; the
sea-serpent was a basking shark on a stem of sea-weed. A committee of
the French Academy of Sciences, with Lavoisier at its head, after a
grave investigation, pronounced the alleged fall of aërolites to be a
superstitious fable."[181]
The two theories against the reality of miracles in their received
sense, are: _first_, that they are attributable to natural causes; and,
_second_, that they may involve more or less of the parabolic or mythic
character. These assumptions do away with any real admission of miracles
even on religious grounds. The animus of the whole essay may be
determined by the following treatment of testimony and reason:
"Testimony, after all, is but a second-hand assurance; it is but a blind
guide; testimony can avail nothing against reason. The essential
question of miracles stands quite apart from any consideration of
_testimony_; the question would remain the same, if we had the evidence
of our own senses to an alleged miracle; that is, to an extraordinary
or inexplicable fact. It is not the _mere fact_, but the _cause_ or
_explanation_ of it, which is the point at issue."[182] This means far
more than Spinoza, Hume, or any other opponent of miracles, except the
radical Rationalists of Germany, has claimed,--that we must not believe
a miracle though actually witnessed.
IV. SEANCES HISTORIQUES DE GENEVE--THE NATIONAL CHURCH. By Henry Bristow
Wilson, B. D. The Multitudinist principle, or Broad Christianity, is
advocated by the essayist with earnestness and an array of learning. The
difficulty concerning the non-attendance of a large portion of the
British population upon the ordinances of the Church is met by the
proposition to abrogate subscription to all creeds and articles of
faith, and thus convert the whole nation into a Broad Church. The youth
of the land are educated into a false and idolatrous view of the Bible.
But on the Census-Sunday of 1861, five millions and a quarter of
persons, or forty-two per cent. of the whole population, were not
present at service. Many of these people do not believe some of the
doctrines preached; they have thought seriously, but cannot sympathize
with what they are compelled to hear. If we break down all subscription
and include them in the great National Church, we will approach the
Scriptural ideal. Unless this be done they will fall into Dissenting
hands, and die outside the Church of Christ. There are several proofs of
the Scriptural indorsement of Nationalism; Christ's lament over
Jerusalem declares that he had offered Multitudinism to the inhabitants
nationally, while the three thousand souls converted on the day of
Pentecost cannot be supposed to have been individual converts, but
merely a mass of persons brought in as a body. Some of the converts of
the apostolic age did not believe in the resurrection, which fact
implies that the early Churches took collective names from the
localities where they were situated, and that doubt of the resurrection
should now be no bar to communion in the National Church. Even
heathenism in its best form proceeded on the Multitudinist principle,
for all were included as believers in the faith of the times. The
approval of reason and conscience, and not verbal adherence to human
interpretation of Scripture, should be the great test of membership.
Advice is administered by the essayist to the Church of which he is a
clergyman, in this language: "A national church may also find itself in
this position; which, perhaps, is our own. Its ministers may become
isolated between two other parties,--between those, on the one hand, who
draw fanatical inferences from formularies and principles which they
themselves are not able or are unwilling to repudiate; and on the other,
those who have been tempted, in impatience of old fetters, to follow
free thought heedlessly wherever it may lead them. If our own churchmen
expect to discourage and repress a fanatical Christianity without a
frank appeal to reason, and a frank criticism of Scripture, they will
find themselves without any effectual arms for that combat; or if they
attempt to check inquiry by the repetition of old forms and
denunciations, they will be equally powerless, and run the especial risk
of turning into bitterness the sincerity of those who should be their
best allies, as friends of truth. They should avail themselves of the
aid of all reasonable persons for enlightening the fanatical
religionist, making no reserve of any seemingly harmless or apparently
serviceable superstitions of their own. They should also endeavor to
supply to the negative theologian some positive elements in
Christianity, on grounds more sure to him than the assumption of an
objective "faith once delivered to the saints," which he cannot identify
with the creed of any church as yet known to him."[183]
V. ON THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY. By C. W. Goodwin, M. A. The assumption is
made that the Mosaic account of creation is irreconcilable with the real
creation of the earth. We do wrong in elevating that narrative above its
proper position, and orthodox geologists have grossly erred in attaching
much importance to the language of the first chapter of Genesis. There
is nothing poetical or figurative in the whole account; it contains no
mystical or symbolical meaning, and is a plain statement of just so much
as suited the Jewish mind. All attempts, however, to find any
consistency between it and the present state of science are simply
absurd. The theory of Chalmers and Buckland, and afterward that of Hugh
Miller, are not tenable, for Moses was ignorant of what we now know, and
his alleged description is contradicted by scientific inquiry. If then
it is plain that God has not thought it needful to communicate to the
writer of the Scriptural Cosmogony the knowledge revealed by modern
researches, why do we not confess it? We would do so if it did not
conflict with a human theory which presumes to point out how God ought
to have instructed man.[184] The writer had no authority for what he
asserts so solemnly and unhesitatingly, for he was an early speculator
who stated as facts what he only conjectured as probabilities. Yet he
seized one great truth, in which he anticipated the highest revelation
of modern inquiry; namely, the unity of the design of the world, and
its subordination to one sole Maker and Law-giver.[185] But no one
contends that the Mosaic view can be used as a basis of astronomical or
geological teaching; and we must therefore consider the Scriptural
cosmogony not as "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."[186]
VI. TENDENCIES OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND, 1688-1750. By Mark
Pattison, B. D. We are surrounded with a Babel of religious creeds and
theories, and it is all-important that we should know how we have
inherited them. If we would understand our times, we must know the
productive influences of the past; if we would thread the present mazes
of religious pretension, we should not neglect those immediate agencies
in their production that had their origin near the beginning of the
eighteenth century. These agencies are three in number: 1. The formation
and growth of that compromise between church and state which is called
Toleration; 2. Methodism without the Church and the evangelical movement
within it; 3. The growth and gradual diffusion, through all religious
thinking, of the supremacy of reason. The theology of the Deistic age is
identical with Rationalism. That Rationalistic period of England is
divided into two parts: from 1688 to 1750, and from 1750 to 1830. The
second age may be called that of evidences, when the clergy continued to
manufacture evidence as an ingenious exercise,--a literature which was
avowedly professional, a study which might seem theology without being
it, and which could awaken none of the dormant skepticism beneath the
surface of society.[187] The defense of the Deists was perhaps as good
as the orthodox attack, but they were inquirers after truth, and being
guided by reason, they deserve all commendation. Yet they only
foreshadowed the glory of the present supremacy of reason. Deism strove
eagerly for light; it saw the dawn; the present is the noonday. The
human understanding wished to be satisfied, and did not care to believe
that of which it could not see the substantial ground. The mind was
coming slowly to see that it had duties which it could not devolve upon
others, and that a man must think for himself, protect his own rights,
and administer his own affairs.
Reason was never less extravagant than in this first essay of its
strength; for its demands were modest, and it was easily satisfied,--far
too easily, we must think, when we look at some of the reasonings which
passed as valid.[188]
English Deism, a system which paralyzed the religious life and thought
of the nation, has never had a more enthusiastic eulogist than the
author of this historical plea for Rationalism. If the demands of the
Deists were "modest," who shall be able to find a term sufficiently
descriptive of the claims of their present successors?
VII. ON THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. By Benjamin Jowett, M. A.
Professor Jowett, as commentator on St. Paul's epistles, had already so
defined his position on the science of Scriptural exegesis, that we
needed no new information to be convinced of his antagonism to
evangelical interpretation. The present essay, which is the most
formidable and destructive in the volume, commences with a lamentation
over the prevailing differences in the exposition of the Bible. The
Germans have been far more successful in this respect than the English
people, the former having arrived at a tolerable degree of concurrence.
The word "inspiration" is a _crux theologorum_, the most of its
explanations being widely divergent, and at variance with the original
signification of the term. We make it embrace far too much, for there is
no foundation for any high or supernatural views of inspiration in
either the Gospels or Epistles. There is no appearance in those writings
that their authors had any extraordinary gift, or that they were free
from error or infirmity; St. Paul hesitated in difficult cases, and more
than once corrected himself; one of the gospel historians does not
profess to have been an eye-witness of the events described by him; the
evangelists do not agree as to the dwelling-place of Christ's parents,
nor concerning the circumstances of the crucifixion; they differ about
the woman who anointed our Lord's feet; and the fulfillment of the Old
Testament prophecy is not discernible in the New Testament history. To
the question, What is inspiration? there are two answers: _first_, That
idea of Scripture which we gather from the knowledge of it; and,
_second_, that any true doctrine of inspiration must conform to all the
ascertained facts of history or of science. The meaning of Scripture has
nothing to do with the question of inspiration, for if the word
"inspiration" were to become obsolete nothing vital would be lost, since
it is but a term of yesterday. The solution of the various difficulties
in the gospels is, that the tradition on which the first three are based
was preserved orally, and, having been slowly put together, was written
in three forms. The writers of the first three gospels were, therefore,
not independent witnesses of the history itself. To interpret the Bible
properly it must be treated as any other book, "in the same careful and
impartial way that we ascertain the meaning of Sophocles or Plato....
Scripture, like other books, has one meaning, which is to be gathered
from itself, without reference to the adaptations of fathers or divines,
and without regard to _à priori_ notions about its nature and origin. It
is to be interpreted also with attention to the character of its
authors, and the prevailing state of civilization and knowledge, with
allowance for peculiarities of style and language, and modes of thought
and figures of speech; yet not without a sense, that, as we read, there
grows upon us the witness of God in the word, anticipating in a rude and
primitive age the truth that was to be, shining more and more unto the
perfect day in the life of Christ, which again is reflected from
different points of view in the teachings of his apostles."[189]
The old methods of interpretation, Jowett concludes, must give place to
this new and perfect system, for the growing state of science, the
pressing wants of man, and his elevated reason demand it. If this
liberal scheme be inaugurated we shall have a higher idea of truth than
is supplied by the opinion of mankind in general, or by the voice of
parties in a Church.
It is interesting to notice the opinions of the evangelical theologians
of Germany, who have long been accustomed to attacks upon Christianity,
concerning these English critics. "The authors of the essays," says
Hengstenberg, "have been trained in a German school. It is only the echo
of German infidelity which we hear from the midst of the English church.
They appear to us as parrots, with only this distinction, common among
parrots, that they imitate more or less perfectly. The treatise of
Temple is in its scientific value about equal to an essay written by the
pupils of the middle classes of our colleges.... The essay of Goodwin on
the Mosaic cosmogony displays the naïve assurance of one who receives
the modern critical science from the second or tenth hand. The editor
[Hengstenberg] asked the now deceased Andreas Wagner, a distinguished
professor of natural sciences at the University of Munich, to subject
this treatise to an examination from the stand-point of natural science.
The offer was accepted, and the book given to him. But after some time
it was returned with the remark, that he must take back his promise, as
the book was beneath all criticism.... All these essays tend toward
Atheism. Their subordinate value is seen in the inability of their
authors to recognize their goal clearly, and in their want of courage to
declare this knowledge. Only Baden Powell forms in this respect an
exception. He uses several expressions, in which the grinning spectre
makes his appearance almost undisguisedly. He speaks not only sneeringly
of the idea of a positive external revelation, which has hitherto formed
the basis of all systems of the Christian faith; he even raises himself
against the 'Architect of the world,' whom the old English Free Thinkers
and Free Masons had not dared to attack."[190]
The _Essays and Reviews_ were not long in print before the periodicals
called attention to their extraordinary character. Had they not been the
_Oxford Essays_, and written by well-known and influential men, they
would probably have created but little interest, and passed away with
the first or second edition. But their origin and associations gave
them weight at the outset. The press soon began to teem with replies
written from every possible stand-point. Volumes of all sizes, from
small pamphlets to bulky octavos, were spread abroad as an antidote to
the poison. From trustworthy statements we are assured that there have
been called forth by the _Essays and Reviews_ in England alone nearly
four hundred publications. Hardly a newspaper, religious or secular,
metropolitan or provincial, has stood aloof from the contest. Every seat
of learning has been agitated, the social classes have been aroused, the
entire nation has taken part in the strife. Meanwhile, the High Church
and Low Church have united in the cordial condemnation of the work. Even
some of the First Broad Churchmen have written heartily against its
theology and influence.
A remarkable feature of the whole controversy is the judicial
prosecution of the essayists. Petitions numerously signed were presented
to the bishops, praying that some action might be taken against them.
One protest contained the signatures of nine thousand clergymen of the
Established church; and the bishops, without a single exception, took
ground against the theological bearing of the _Essays and Reviews_. The
Convocations of Canterbury and York, which possessed the full exercise
of their legislative functions for the first time in one hundred and
fifty years, declared against it, and pledged their influence to protect
the church from the "pernicious doctrines and heretical tendencies of
the book." After much deliberation and counsel, Dr. Williams and Mr.
Wilson were summoned before the court of Arches, the chief
ecclesiastical tribunal of England. Finally, June 21, 1864, decision was
pronounced that they had departed from the teachings of the Thirty-Nine
Articles on the inspiration of Holy Scripture, on the atonement, and on
justification. They were therefore suspended for one year, with the
further penalty of costs and deprivation of their salary. At the urgent
solicitation of friends, in addition to their own strong desire to push
their defense as far as possible, their case was brought before the
Privy Council, a court of which the Queen is a member, and from which
there can be no appeal. Contrary to the general expectation, the
decision of the Court of Arches was reversed, and the essayists in
question were restored to their functions. The reversal of the decision
of the Court of Arches is couched in the following significant language:
"On the general tendency of the book called 'Essays and Reviews,' and on
the effort or aim of the whole essay of Dr. Williams, or the whole essay
of Mr. Wilson, we neither can, nor do, pronounce any opinion. On the
short extracts before us, our Judgment is that the charges are not
proved. Their Lordships, therefore, will humbly recommend to Her Majesty
that the sentences be reversed, and the reformed articles be rejected in
like manner as the rest of the original articles; but inasmuch as the
Appellants have been obliged to come to this Court, their Lordships
think it right that they should have the costs of this Appeal."[191]
This action was regarded by every skeptical sympathizer as a great
triumph, and we may therefore expect the Rationalistic school to engage
in still more important enterprises than any to which they have
addressed themselves.
The most outspoken and violent attacks of critical Rationalism in
England are contained in the exegetical publications of Dr. John William
Colenso, who, in 1853, was consecrated Bishop of Natal, South Eastern
Africa. He had previously issued a series of mathematical works which
obtained a wide circulation; but his first book of scriptural criticism
was the _Epistle to the Romans, newly translated and explained from a
Missionary Point of View_. Having completed the New Testament and
several parts of the Old, he was laboring assiduously on a translation
of the Bible into the Zulu tongue, when his former doubts concerning the
unhistorical character of the Pentateuch revived with increased force.
The intelligent native who was assisting him in his literary work asked,
respecting the account of the flood, "Is all that true?" This, with
other inquiries propounded to him by the Zulus, led him to a careful
reëxamination of the Mosaic record.
The fruit of this additional study is the _Pentateuch and Book of Joshua
critically examined, in Three Parts_. Appearing just at the time when
the contest concerning the _Essays and Reviews_ was at fever-heat, the
Bishop's work added excitement to all the combatants.
Those who are intimately acquainted with the treatment of the Pentateuch
and Book of Joshua by the most unsparing of the German Rationalists will
at once see the resemblance between their views and those of Colenso.
His aim is to overthrow the historical character of the early Scriptural
history by exposing the contradictions and impossibilities contained
therein; and also to fix the real origin, age and authorship of the
so-called narratives of Moses and Joshua. "I have arrived at the
conviction," says he, "that the Pentateuch, as a whole, cannot possibly
have been written by Moses, or by any one acquainted personally with the
facts which it professes to describe, and, further, that the so-called
Mosaic narrative, by whomsoever written, and though imparting to us, as
I fully believe it does, revelations of the Divine will and character,
cannot be regarded as _historically true_.... My reason for no longer
receiving the Pentateuch as historically true, is not that I find
insuperable difficulties with regard to the _miracles_ or supernatural
_revelations_ of Almighty God recorded in it, but solely that I cannot,
as a true man, consent any longer to shut my eyes to the absolute,
palpable self-contradictions of the narrative. The notion of miraculous
or supernatural interferences does not present to my own mind the
difficulties which it seems to present to some. I could believe and
receive the miracles of Scripture heartily, if only they were
authenticated by a veracious history; though, if that is not the case
with the Pentateuch, any miracles, which rest on such an unstable
support, must necessarily fall to the ground with it."[192]
In proof of this assumption the author selects a large number of
inexplicable portions from the narratives in question, and uses all the
resources of his talents and learning to prove them to be the fruit of
"error, infirmity, passion, and ignorance." Hezron and Hanuel, he avers,
were certainly born in the land of Canaan; the whole assembly of Israel
could not have gathered about the door of the tabernacle; all Israel
could not have been heard by Moses, for they numbered about two millions
of people, according to the assumption of the Biblical narrative. The
Israelites could not have dwelt in tents; they were not armed; the
institution of the Passover, as described in the book of Exodus, was an
impossibility, the Israelites could not take cattle through the barren
country over which they passed; there is an incompatibility between the
supposed number of Israel and the predominance of wild beasts in
Palestine; the number of the first-born is irreconcilable with the
number of male adults; and the number of the priests at the exodus
cannot be harmonized with their duties, and with the provision made for
them.[193] These, with other difficulties chiefly of a numerical nature,
constitute the basis on which the Bishop builds his objections to the
historical character of Exodus as an integral part of the Pentateuch.
In order to determine the true quality of the Book of Genesis, he brings
out the old theory that the work had two writers, the _Elohist_ and the
_Jehovist_,--so called because of their separate use of a term for
Deity. The Elohist was the older, and his narrative was the ground-work
which the Jehovist used and upon which he constructed his own
additions.[194] This Elohist account is defined to be "a series of
parables, based, as we have said, on legendary facts, though not
historically true."[195] The Pentateuch existed originally not as five
books, but as one; and it is possible that its quintuple division was
made in the time of Ezra. The writer of Chronicles was the same who
wrote the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, probably a Levite living after the
time of Nehemiah; the Chronicles were therefore written only four
hundred years before Christ; but the Chronicler must not be relied on
unless there is other evidence in support of his narrative. Exodus
could not have been written by Moses or any one of his contemporaries.
It is very probable that the Pentateuch generally was composed in a
later age than that of Moses or Joshua.[196] Samuel was most likely the
author of the Elohistic legends, which he left at his death in an
unfinished state, and which naturally fell into the hands of some one of
his disciples of the School of the Prophets, such, for instance, as
Nathan or Gad.[197]
Yet the writer of the Pentateuch must not be reproached for his errors
as much as those who would attribute to him infallible accuracy. He had
no idea that he was writing truth. "But," says the Bishop, "there is not
the slightest reason to suppose that the first writer of the story in
the Pentateuch ever professed to be recording _infallible truth_, or
even _actual, historical truth_. He wrote certainly a narrative. But
what indications are there that he published it at large, even to the
people of his own time, as a record of _matter-of-fact, veracious
history_? Why may not Samuel, like any other Head of an Institution,
have composed this narrative for the instruction and improvement of his
pupils, from which it would gradually find its way, no doubt, more or
less freely, among the people at large, without ever pretending that it
was any other than an historical _experiment_,--an attempt to give them
some account of the early annals of their tribes? In _later_ days, it is
true, this ancient work of Samuel's came to be regarded as infallibly
Divine. But was it so regarded in the writer's days, or in the ages
immediately following? On the contrary, we find no sign of the Mosaic
Law being venerated, obeyed, or even known, in many of its most
remarkable features, till a much later time in history."[198]
The excitement occasioned by the publication of these views of Colenso
was second only to that produced by the _Essays and Reviews_. There was
a decided disposition on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities to
deal summarily with him, since he had been intrusted with the Episcopal
office, and sent as a missionary to the heathen. Several of the Bishops
early took ground against his destructive criticism, and refused to
allow him to officiate within their dioceses. The Convocations of York
and Canterbury united in condemnation of his work. There was a
difference of opinion as to the best method of depriving him of his
episcopal authority. In the dilemma it was resolved to appeal to him
without any appearance of legal pressure; whereupon the Bishops of
England and Ireland, with but three exceptions, Drs. Thirlwall,
Fitzgerald, and Griffin, addressed him a letter, in which he was
requested to resign his office, since he must see, as well as they, the
inconsistency of holding his position as Bishop and believing and
publishing such views as were contained in his exegetical works. His
reply was a positive refusal, coupled with the statement that he would
soon return to his See in Africa, there to continue the discharge of his
duties. The Episcopal Bench of England failing to eject him, he was
tried and condemned before an Episcopal Synod, which assembled in Cape
Town, Southern Africa, on November 27th, 1863.
The charges against Colenso were:--his denial of the atonement; belief
in man's justification without any knowledge of Christ; belief in natal
regeneration; disbelief in the endlessness of future punishment; denial
of the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, and of the truthfulness of
what they profess to describe as facts; denial of the divinity of our
blessed Lord; and depraving, impugning, and bringing into disrepute the
Book of Common Prayer. Having been adjudged guilty, he was deposed from
his office as Bishop of Natal, and thenceforth prohibited from the
exercise of all ministerial functions within any part of the
metropolitical province of Cape Town. Being absent in England at the
time of the trial, Colenso was represented by Dr. Bleek, who protested
against the legality of the proceedings and the validity of the
judgment, at the same time giving notice of his intention to appeal. But
the Metropolitan of Cape Town refused to recognize any appeal, except to
the Archbishop of Canterbury, which must be made within fifteen days
from sentence. Immediately after the deposition, the Dean of Natal, the
Archdeacon, the parochial clergy, and the church-wardens of the diocese,
signed a declaration, by which they pledged themselves not to recognize
Colenso any longer as their Bishop.
Before Colenso was served with a copy of the decree against him, he
issued a letter to his diocese, in which he denied the power claimed by
the Metropolitan and the other bishops of Cape Town to depose him. He
maintained that, of the nine charges brought against him, four had
already been disposed of by the late judgment of the Privy Council in
the case of the _Essays and Reviews_. In the meanwhile, his friends at
home collected a fund of more than two thousand pounds to enable him to
plead his cause before the English courts. The first proceeding in Great
Britain commenced in 1863, before the judicial committee of the Privy
Council. The case has finally been decided in Colenso's favor, the Lord
Chancellor declaring the sentence pronounced by the Bishop of Cape Town
illegal, in the following words: "As the question can be decided only by
the sovereign or head of the Established Church and depositary of
appellate jurisdiction, their Lordships will humbly report to Her
Majesty their judgment and opinion that the proceedings taken by the
Bishop of Cape Town, and the judgment or sentence pronounced by him
against the Bishop of Natal, are null and void."
But while this judgment of the Privy Council annulled the proceedings
against Colenso, it also destroyed his Episcopal authority by
pronouncing that the letters patent of the Queen, by which he was made
Bishop, had neither been authorized by any Parliamentary statute nor
confirmed by the legislative council of Natal. His continuance in
authority, therefore, was made dependent on the voluntary recognition of
the clergy within the diocese of Natal. But the latest intelligence
reveals the important fact that the clergy unanimously refuse to
recognize his Episcopal authority, and have asked the Bishop of Cape
Town to administer the diocese until a new appointment can be made for
the See of Natal. The trustees of the Colonial Bishops' fund have also
declared that they will no longer pay the salary of Colenso. He has
already set sail for Southern Africa, but on his arrival will find
himself without a clergy or a people to recognize his jurisdiction. Dr.
Pusey has written an interesting letter, in which he hails the decision
of the Privy Council as an indication that the church of South Africa
will soon be as free and prosperous as the Scotch Episcopal church and
the church of the United States.
The remaining parts of the Bishop's _Commentary on the Pentateuch and
Book of Joshua_ have met with a tardy and cold reception. We accept
this as a hopeful sign that no great portion of the people are willing
to adopt his theological views. The first two parts, however, created an
excitement which was not confined to Christian lands. Even a Mussulman
addressed a letter from the Cape of Good Hope to a Turkish paper at
Constantinople, in which he gives an account of the Christians in that
colony, together with a description of their multiform dissensions.
"Their priests," he writes, "all advocate different creeds; and as to
their bishops, one Colenso actually writes books against his own
religion." It may be more a gratification of the vanity than flattering
to the piety of the late Missionary to the Zulus to be informed that
already the Buddhists of India are making free use of his works as an
invaluable aid in their controversies with the missionaries from
Christian lands. Thus the herald of the cross of Christ in heathen
nations must encounter not only the superstition and prejudices of
paganism, but the infidelity exported from his own home, where for
centuries the battles of the truth have been fought and won.
FOOTNOTES:
[169] _Essays and Reviews._ Edited, with an Introduction, by Rev. F. H.
Hedge, D. D. Boston, 1862.
[170] _Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles._--_Noyes' Essays_, pp.
222-276.
[171] _Essays and Reviews_, pp. 5-6.
[172] _Essays and Reviews_, p. 37.
[173] Ibid. p. 39.
[174] Ibid. pp. 35-36.
[175] For an able refutation of this point, _vid._ Houghton,
_Rationalism in the Church of England_, pp. 127-136.
[176] _Essays and Reviews_, p. 54.
[177] Ibid. p. 60.
[178] _Essays and Reviews_, p. 68.
[179] _Replies to Essays and Reviews_, p. 135.
[180] _Essays and Reviews_, p. 120.
[181] Ibid. p. 155.
[182] _Essays and Reviews_, p. 159.
[183] _Essays and Reviews_, pp. 195-196.
[184] Ibid. p. 277.
[185] _Essays and Reviews_, pp. 277-278.
[186] Ibid. p. 278.
[187] _Essays and Reviews_, p. 287.
[188] Ibid. pp. 328-329.
[189] _Essays and Reviews_, p. 446.
[190] _Evangelische Kirchenzeitung_, _Vorwort_, 1862.
[191] _Ecclesiastical Judgments of the Privy Council_, p. 289. Edited by
Hon. G. C. Brodrick, and the Rev. W. H. Freemantle. London, 1865. The
members of the Queen's Privy Council are as follows: Earls Granville and
Lonsdale; Duke of Buccleugh; Marquis of Salisbury; Lords Westbury,
Brougham, Cranworth, Wensleydale, St. Leonards, Chelmsford, and
Kindsdown; and Right Hons. Lushington, Bruce, Wigram, Ryan, Pollock,
Romilly, Turner, Cockburn, Coleridge, Erie, and Wylde.
[192] _Pentateuch and Book of Joshua_, Part I., pp. 49, 51-52. Am.
Edition.
[193] _Pentateuch and Book of Joshua_, Part I., pp. 60, 78, 81, 94, 105,
118, 138, 141, 185.
[194] _Pentateuch and Book of Joshua_, Part II., p. 60.
[195] Ibid. p. 296.
[196] _Pentateuch and Book of Joshua_, Part II., pp. 83, 84, 115.
[197] Ibid. p. 160.
[198] _Pentateuch and Book of Joshua_, Part II., p. 292.