such principles as the present Essay advocates are incompatible with the
profession of Christianity in _any_ country, and in _any_ age. If the
spirit or conscience of Man is to legislate "_without appeal except to
himself_;" (p. 31;) if men are to "_refuse to be bound_" (p. 44.) by the
Creeds of the Church; if the very Bible is not to be looked upon as "_an
outer law_:" (p. 45:)--how is sentence _ever_ to be pronounced with
authority? how are men to know _what_ they have to believe? how are we
to enjoy the guidance of any "outer law" _at all_? I do not ask these
questions as a clergyman; neither am I addressing those exclusively who
have been admitted to the Christian priesthood. Common sense, ordinary
piety, natural reverence, seem to cry out, and ask,--If _the Church_
have no "authority in controversies of Faith[48];" if _the three Creeds_
ought not "thoroughly to be received and believed[49];" if _the Bible_
is not "an outer Law;"--_where_ is Authority in things Divine to be
sought for? _What_ can be worthy of credit? _Where_ are we to look for
external guidance on this side the grave?... Surely, surely, common
sense is outraged when she hears it insisted that the written Bible is a
Revelation speaking NOT "from without," but "from within!" (pp. 36 and
45.) Surely it must be admitted that it were mere atheism to pretend
that Man's "spirit or conscience, _without appeal except to himself_,"
shall henceforth be the governing principle of Mankind!
Let me in conclusion do this writer an act of justice, (for which he
will not perhaps altogether thank me,) even while with shame and sorrow
I now dismiss his Essay. Unpardonable as he is for having written thus;
and _wholly_ without excuse for having suffered _nine editions_ of his
blasphemous allegory to go forth to the world without apology,
explanation, or retractation of any kind,--although he labours under a
weight of competent censure without a parallel, I believe, in the annals
of the English Church[50]: notwithstanding all this, I am bound to say
that if the unbelievers of this generation think they have an ally in
_the man_, Frederick Temple,--they are very much mistaken. That so pure
a heart, and earnest a spirit, will never work itself free of its
present bondage,--I should be sorry indeed to think. (But O the mischief
which the head-master of Rugby School will have done in the meantime!)
His misfortune (or rather fault) it has been, that he has really never
studied Divinity; nor, in fact, _knows anything at all about it_,--as a
volume of his, lately published, sufficiently shews. Apart from his
opinions (!), he is a thoroughly amiable man; and--(with the same
proviso!)--an excellent schoolmaster; but when he ventures upon the
province of Theology, he shews himself something infinitely worse than
_a very bad Divine_.
* * * * *
II. On turning the first page of the review which follows, "by ROWLAND
WILLIAMS, D.D. Vice-Principal and Professor of Hebrew, St. David's
College, Lampeter; Vicar of Broad Chalke, Wilts,"--we are made sensible
that we are in company of a writer considerably in advance of Dr.
Temple, though altogether of the same school. In fact, if Dr. Williams
had not been Vice-Principal of a Theological College, and a Doctor of
Divinity, one would have supposed him to be a complete infidel,--who
found it convenient to vent his own unbelief in a highly laudatory
review of the principles of the late Baron Bunsen. Hear him:--"When
Bunsen asks 'How long shall we bear this fiction of an external
Revelation,'--that is, of one violating the heart and conscience,
instead of expressing itself through them;--or when he says, 'All this
is delusion for those who believe it; but what is it in the mouths of
those who teach it?'--Or when he exclaims, 'Oh the fools! who, if they
do see the imminent perils of this age, think to ward them off by
narrow-minded persecution'!--and when he repeats, 'Is it not time, in
truth, to withdraw the veil from our misery? to tear off the mask from
hypocrisy, and destroy that sham which is undermining all real ground
under our feet? to point out the dangers which surround, nay, threaten
already to engulf us?'--there will be some who think his language too
vehement for good taste. Others will think burning words needed by the
disease of our time. These will not quarrel on points of taste with a
man who in our darkest perplexity has reared again the banner of Truth,
and uttered thoughts which gave courage to the weak and sight to the
blind. If Protestant Europe is to escape those shadows of the twelfth
century which with ominous recurrence are closing around us, to Baron
Bunsen will belong a foremost place among the champions of light and
right." (pp. 92-3.)
But even the Prussian infidel is not advanced enough for the Vicar of
Broad Chalke. Bunsen, it seems, was weak enough to believe that the
prophet Jonah was a real personage. This evokes the following singular
burst of critical indignation from the Reverend author of the present
Essay:--"It provokes a smile on serious topics,"--(a kind of impropriety
which the Vice-Principal of Lampeter will not commit except under
protest and with an apology!)--"to observe the zeal with which our
critic vindicates the personality of Jonah, and the originality of his
hymn, (the latter being generally thought doubtful), while he proceeds
to explain that the narrative of our book in which the hymn is imbedded,
contains a late legend founded on misconception. One can imagine the
cheers which the opening of such an essay might evoke in some of our
circles, changing into indignation (!) as the distinguished foreigner
developed his views. After this he might speak more gently of mythical
theories." (p. 77.)
For the most part, however, the Vicar of Broad Chalke is able to cite
the opinions of Bunsen with admiration and approval. They are both
agreed that the Deluge "was but a prolonged play of the forces of fire
and water rendering the primæval regions of North Asia uninhabitable,
and urging the nations to new abodes." (Of what nature this "_prolonged
play_" was, is however left unexplained: while "_the forces of fire and
water_ rendering _primæval regions_ uninhabitable," and "_urging_
nations to new abodes," has altogether a Herodotean sound.) "We learn
approximately its antiquity, and infer limitation in its range from
finding it recorded in the traditions of Iran and Palestine, (or of
Japheth and Shem), but unknown to the Egyptians and Mongolians."
(p. 56.) (A delightful method truly of attaining historical precision
in a matter of this nature!) ... "In the _half ideal, half traditional_
notices of the beginnings of our race compiled in Genesis, we are bid
notice the combination of documents and the recurrence of barely
consistent Genealogies." (_Ibid._) Praise is at hand for "the firmness
with which Bunsen relegates the long lives of the first patriarchs to
the domain of legend, or of symbolical cycle." (p. 57.) "The historical
portion begins with Abraham." (_Ibid._)--After this admission, it is
instructive to observe how the learned writer deals with the narrative.
The Exode was "a struggle conducted by human means." (p. 59.) "Thus, as
the pestilence of the Book of Kings becomes in Chronicles the more
visible angel, so the avenger who slew the firstborn may have been the
Bedouin host, (!) akin nearly to Jethro, and more remotely to Israel."
(_Ibid._) (It is really hardly worth stopping to point out that by
'Kings' the Reverend writer means 'the second Book of Samuel:' and to
remind the reader that _the Angel is mentioned as expressly in Samuel
as in Chronicles[51]_. Also, to ask what 'the Bedouin host' could have
been doing _in Egypt_ previous to the Exode?) "The passage of the Red
Sea may be interpreted with the latitude of poetry." (_Ibid._) "Moses
would gladly have founded a free religious society, ... but the rudeness
or hardness of his people's heart compelled him to a sacerdotal system
and formal tablets of stone." (p. 62.) Nay, Abraham's intended sacrifice
of Isaac was an act of obedience to "the fierce ritual of Syria, with
the awe of a Divine voice:" (p. 61:) while the Divine command, in
conformity with which Abraham spared to slay his son, is resolved into
an allegory. "He trusted that the FATHER, whose voice from Heaven he
heard at heart, was better pleased with mercy than with sacrifice, and
this trust was his righteousness." (p. 61.) Dr. Williams straightway
shews us how _we_ may tread in the steps of faithful Abraham. The
perpetual response of our hearts, (he says,) to principles of Reason and
Right of our own tracing, is a truer sign of faith than deference to a
supposed external authority. (p. 61.) ... According to this writer,
therefore, Genesis and Exodus are pure fable!
The whole of Scripture, in the hands of this Doctor of Divinity,
undergoes corresponding treatment. They who "twist Prophecy into harmony
with the details of Gospel history, fall into inextricable
contradictions." (pp. 64-5.) "The Book of Isaiah, as composed of
elements of different eras," can only be accepted with a "modified
theory of authorship and of prediction." (p. 68.) In the prophecy of
Zechariah are "three distinct styles and aspects of affairs." (_Ibid._)
"The cursing Psalms," (!!!) he informs us, were not "evangelically
inspired;" (p. 63;) and yet we are constrained to remember that the
cixth Psalm (specially alluded to) is evangelically interpreted by St.
Peter[52]. The true translation of Psalm xxii. 17, (learnedly discussed,
long since, by Bishop Pearson,) is not "they pierced My hands and My
feet,"--but "like a lion;" (notwithstanding that Pearson has shewn that
the substitution of _vau_ for _yod_ in this place is one of the eighteen
instances where the Scribes have tampered with the text[53]; and
notwithstanding that this modern corruption of the Hebrew, as every one
must see, makes the place almost nonsense[54].)--Is. vii. 14 does not
refer to the miraculous birth of CHRIST, (p. 69,) (although St. Matthew
is express in his assertion that it _does_.) There is, it seems, an
elder and a later Isaiah, (p. 71.) The famous liiird chapter does not
refer to CHRIST; but either to Jeremiah or to "the collective
Israel,"--(p. 73,) (although it is at least seven times quoted, and
expressly applied to our SAVIOUR, in the New Testament[55].) Daniel, we
are assured, belongs to different ages; and it is "certain, beyond fair
doubt ... that those portions of the book, supposed to be specially
predictive, are ... a history of past occurrences." (p. 69.) That "the
book contains no predictions, except by analogy and type, can hardly be
gainsaid." (pp. 76-7.) ... (If any of _us_ had dogmatized as to Truth as
these men do as to error, (remarks Dr. Pusey,) what scorn we should be
held up to!) ... The Reverend author insolently adds,--"It is time for
divines to recognize these things, since with their opportunities of
study, the current error is as discreditable to them, as for the
well-meaning crowd, who are taught to identify it with their creed, it
is a matter of grave compassion." (p. 77.) "When so vast an induction on
the destructive side has been gone through, it avails little that some
passages may be doubtful; one perhaps in Zechariah, and one in Isaiah,
capable of being made directly Messianic; and a chapter possibly in
Deuteronomy foreshadowing the final fall of Jerusalem. Even these few
cases, the remnant of so much confident rhetoric, tend to melt, if they
are not already melted, in the crucible of searching enquiry." (pp.
69-70.) ... Our Doctor of Divinity, having reduced the prophecies
_"capable of being made"_ Messianic, to _two_,--breaks out into a strain
of refined banter which is altogether his own, and which we presume is
intended to stand in the place of argument. "If our German, [viz.
Bunsen,] had ignored all that the masters of philology have proved on
these subjects, his countrymen would have raised a storm of ridicule, at
which he must have drowned himself in the Neckar." (p. 70.) A
catastrophe so fatal to the cause of true Religion and sound learning
may well point a paragraph!... But we must write gravely.
The absolute worthlessness of unsupported dicta such as these, ought to
be apparent to all. It is useless to reason with a madman. We desiderate
nothing so much as "searching enquiry," (p. 69,) but we are presented
instead with something worse than random assertion. If the writer would
state a single case, with its evidence,--we should know how to deal with
him. We should examine his arguments seriatim; and either refute them,
or admit their validity. From such "free handling," the cause of sacred
Truth can never suffer. But when, in place of argument and evidence, we
have merely bluster,--what is to be said? Pity and disregard are the
only reply we can bestow; or our answers must be as brief as the calumny
which provokes them. "How," (asks the Regius Professor of Hebrew,) "can
such an undigested heap of errors receive a systematic answer in brief
space, or in any one treatise or volume?"
"If any sincere Christian now asks, is not then our SAVIOUR spoken of in
Isaiah; let him open his New Testament, and ask therewith John the
Baptist, whether he was Elias? If he finds the Baptist answering _I am
not_, yet our LORD testifies that in spirit and power this was Elias; a
little reflexion will shew how the historical representation in Isaiah
liii. is of some suffering prophet or remnant, yet the truth and
patience, the grief and triumph, have their highest fulfilment in Him
who said, 'FATHER, not My will but Thine.'" (p. 74.) I have transcribed
this passage to illustrate the miserable sophistry of the author. It is
foretold by Malachi that before the great and terrible day of the LORD,
Elijah is to come back to Earth[56]. John Baptist came in his "spirit
and power[57]," but was not Elijah himself. How does it follow from this
that Isaiah may have prophesied merely of _qualities_ and not of a
person? The only logical inference from his words would surely be, that
Elijah is yet to come[58]!--Dr. Williams adds,--"We must not distort the
prophets to prove the Divine WORD incarnate, and then from the
Incarnation reason back to the sense of prophecy." (p. 74.) _Was_ not
then the Divine WORD incarnate?
The theory of one who writes like an open unbeliever concerning Divine
things is really not worth developing: and yet, as I am examining an
Essay which seems to be entirely built upon such a theory, it may be
desirable, in this instance, that the deformity of the writer should be
uncovered: especially since Dr. Williams writes such very dark English,
that, until some of his sentences are translated, they are barely
intelligible.
Anticipating that his doctrines may "alarm those who think that, apart
from _Omniscience belonging to the Jews_, (!) the proper conclusion of
reason is Atheism;"--(in other words, that the rejection of a belief in
_the inspiration of Prophecy_ will eventually conduct a man to the
rejection of GOD Himself;) the Reverend writer declares that "it is not
inconsistent with the idea that ALMIGHTY GOD has been pleased to educate
men and nations, employing imagination no less than conscience, and
suffering His lessons to play freely within the limits of humanity and
its shortcomings." (p. 77.) (In other words, that what Scripture
emphatically declares, and what men have for thousands of years
believed to be inspired predictions of future events, are none other
than the effusions of a lively imagination, or the suggestions of a
well-informed conscience.) "The prophetical disquisitions," (p. 77,)
therefore, are subject to error of every imaginable description; and
possess no higher attributes than belong to any ordinary human work by
"a master's hand." (p. 77.) "The Sacred Writers acknowledge themselves
men of like passions with ourselves, and we are promised illumination
from the Spirit which dwelt in them." (p. 78.) We may not think of the
Sacred Writers as "passionless machines, and call Luther and Milton
'uninspired.'" (_Ibid._) "The great result is to vindicate the work of
the Eternal Spirit; that abiding influence which underlies all others,
and in which converge all images of old time and means of grace now:
temple, Scripture, finger, and Hand of GOD; and again, preaching,
sacraments, waters which comfort, and flame which burns." (p. 78.) It
follows,--"If such a Spirit did not dwell in the Church, the Bible would
not be inspired, for _the Bible is_, before all things, _the written
voice of the congregation_." (p. 78.) Offended Reason, (for Piety has no
place here,) has not time to reclaim against so preposterous a
statement; for it follows immediately,--"Bold as such a theory of
Inspiration (!) may sound, it was the earliest creed of the Church, and
it is the only one to which the facts of Scripture answer." (p. 78.) ...
What reply _can_ be offered to such an outrageous statement, but flat
contradiction? What more effectual refutation of such a 'theory' (?)
concerning Scripture, than simply to state it?
Let this miserable but conceited man yet further map out the nature of
his own delusion respecting Prophecy. He applauds the wisdom of one who
"accepts freely the belief of scholars, and yet does not despair of
Hebrew Prophecy as a witness to the Kingdom of God:" (p. 70:) (that is,
of one who, like Bunsen, altogether disbelieves in prophecy _as
prophecy_, and yet is bent on finding something of an Evangelical
character in the prophetic writings.) "The way of doing so left open to
him, was to shew pervading the Prophets those deep truths which lie at
the heart of Christianity, and to trace the growth of such ideas, the
belief in a righteous GOD, and the nearness of Man to GOD, the power of
prayer, and the victory of self-sacrificing patience, ever expanding in
men's hearts, until the fulness of time came, and the ideal of the
Divine thought was fulfilled in the Son of Man." (p. 70.) In other
words, CHRIST was nothing more than the fullest development and
impersonation of the best thoughts and feelings of the (so-called)
prophets! He "fulfilled in His own person the highest aspiration of
Hebrew seers and of mankind, thereby lifting the ancient words, so to
speak, into a new and higher power; and therefore was recognized as
having eminently the unction of a prophet whose words die not,--of a
priest in a temple not made with hands,--and of a king in the realm of
thought, delivering his people from a bondage of moral evil, worse than
Egypt or Babylon." (pp. 74-5.) "A notion of _foresight by vision of
particulars_, or a kind of clairvoyance," (p. 70,)--(such is this Doctor
of Divinity's notion of the gift of prophecy!)--he deems inadmissible.
"_Literal prognostication_," (p. 65,) is his abhorrence. He would
eliminate the Messianic passages altogether. (pp. 65-6.) That Prophecy
was miraculous, was a dream of the Fathers, (p. 66.) Even the notion
that Prophecy is "a natural gift, consistent with fallibility," (p. 70,)
Dr. Williams rejects as an unwarrantable addition to the "moral and
metaphysical basis of Prophecy." (p. 70.) Bunsen was for admitting that
addition. "One would wish," (says the Vicar of Broad Chalke,) "_he might
have intended only the power of seeing the ideal in the actual_, or of
tracing the Divine Government in the movements of men. He seems to mean
_more than presentiment or sagacity_: and this element in his system
requires proof." (pp. 70-1.) ... This, from a Doctor of Divinity! a
Professor of Hebrew! the Vice-Principal of a Theological College! a
shepherd of souls!
We are left to infer that "the Fall of Adam represents ideally the
circumscription of our spirits in limits of flesh and time:" (p. 88:)
that CHRIST is "the moral Saviour of mankind;" (p. 80;) and that
Salvation from evil is to be attained by the conformity of our souls to
a "_religious idea_" which was "brought to perfection" in CHRIST.
(p. 80.) This "religious idea" "is the thought of the Eternal."
(_Ibid._) In other words, "Salvation from evil" is "through sharing the
SAVIOUR's Spirit." (p. 87.)--We are further left to infer that
"Justification by faith means the peace of mind, or sense of Divine
approval, which comes of trust in a righteous GOD:" (p. 80:) that
"Regeneration is a correspondent giving of insight, or an awakening of
forces of the soul: Resurrection, a spiritual quickening: Salvation, our
deliverance, not from the life-giving GOD, but from evil and darkness."
(p. 81.) ... And this from a Clergyman who has just subscribed,
"willingly and _ex animo_," the three Articles in the 36th Canon!...
After such specimens of Divinity, we are scarcely surprised to find that
the fires of Hell =geenna= "may serve as images of distracted remorse:"
(p. 81:) that "Heaven is not a place[59], so much as a fulfilment of the
love of GOD." (pp. 81-2.) The very Incarnation, (which he calls "the
embodiment of the Eternal Mind,") (p. 82.) is spoken of as if it were a
myth. "It becomes with our author _as purely spiritual_ as it was with
St. Paul. The Son of David by birth is the SON of GOD _by the spirit of
holiness_. What is flesh, is born of flesh; and what is spirit, is born
of Spirit." (p. 82.) Rom. i. 1-3 is quoted in support of this, which I
cannot but regard as blasphemy: for if it does not mean that our SAVIOUR
was not, in a true and literal sense, the SON of GOD at all, it is hard
to see _what_ it can mean.--As for the following account of the mystery
of the Blessed Trinity, it shall only be said that it sounds like a
denial of the Catholic doctrine altogether. "Being, becoming, and
animating; or substance, thinking, and conscious life, are expressions
of a Triad which may be also represented as will, wisdom, and love; as
light, radiance, and warmth; as fountain, stream, and united flow; as
mind, thought, and consciousness; as person, word, and life; as FATHER,
SON, and SPIRIT." (p. 88.)