case; unless he means to say that in the time of St. Paul the Gospel had
been literally preached to the whole World _as far as the World was then
known_. If not, it is clear that recourse must be had to some other
expedient. Instead then of the "candid acknowledgment" required of _us_
by the learned writer, may we be allowed to suggest to _him_ the more
prosaic expedient (1st) of making sure that he quotes Scripture
accurately; and (2nd) that he understands it?... It happens that St.
Paul does not use the words "_every nation under heaven_" as Mr. Wilson
inadvertently supposes. The Apostle's phrase, =pasê tê ktisei=, in
Colossians i. 23, (as in St. Mark xvi. 15), means 'to the whole
Creation,' or 'every creature;' (the article is doubtful;) in other
words, he announces the universality of the Gospel, as contrasted with
the Law; and he explains that it had been preached _to the Heathen_ as
well as to the Jews. Our increased knowledge therefore has nothing
whatever to do with the question; and the supposed difficulty
disappears. The two which remain, being (according to the same writer,)
merely incorrect inferences of Biblical critics, need not, it is
presumed, be regarded as insurmountable either.
Following Mr. Wilson through his successive vagaries of religious (?)
thought, we come upon a succession of strange statements; the object of
which seems to be to cast a slur on _Doctrine_ generally.--The doctrine
of Justification by faith "is not met with ... in the Apostolic
writings, _except those of St. Paul_." (p. 160.) [A minute exception
truly!].--"Then, on the other hand, it is maintained by a large body of
Theologians, as by the learned Jesuit Petavius and many others, that the
doctrine afterwards developed into the Nicene and Athanasian, is not to
be found explicitly in the earliest fathers, nor even in Scripture,
although provable by it." (p. 160.) [Would it not have been fair,
however, to state what appears to have been the design of Petavius
therein[85]? and should it not have been added that our own Bishop Bull
in his immortal "Defensio Fidei Nicænæ" established the very reverse
"out of the writings of the Catholic Doctors who flourished within the
first three centuries of the Christian Church[86]?"] "The nearer we come
to the original sources of the History, the less definite do we find the
statements of Doctrines, and even of the facts from which the Doctrines
were afterwards inferred." (p. 160.) "In the patristic writings,
theoretics assume continually an increasingly disproportionate value.
Even within the compass of our New Testament, there is to be found
already a wonderful contrast between the words of our LORD and such a
discourse as the Epistle to the Hebrews." (pp. 160-1.) [What a curious
discovery, by the way, that an argumentative Epistle should differ in
style from an historical Gospel!] "Our LORD'S Discourses," (continues
this writer,) "have almost all of them a direct _Moral_ bearing."
(p. 161.) [The case of St. John's Gospel immediately recurs to our
memory. And it seems to have occurred to Mr. Wilson's also. He says:--]
"This character of His words is certainly more obvious in the first
three Gospels than in the fourth; and the remarkable unison of those
Gospels, when they recite the LORD'S words, notwithstanding their
discrepancies in some matters of fact, compels us to think, that _they
embody more exact traditions of what He actually said than the fourth
does_." (p. 161.) [In other words, the authenticity of St. John's
Gospel[87] is to be suspected rather than the worthlessness of the
speculations of the Vicar of Great Staughton!]
The object of three pages which follow (pp. 162-5.) seems to be to shew
that in the Apostolic Age, Immorality of life was more severely dealt
with, even than erroneousness of Doctrine. Except because the writer is
eager to depreciate the value of orthodoxy of belief, and to cast a slur
on doctrinal standards generally,--it is hard to see why he should write
thus. Let him be reminded however that our SAVIOUR makes Faith itself a
_moral_, not an _intellectual_ habit[88]; and, (if it be not an uncivil
remark,) what but an _immoral_ spectacle does a Clergyman present who
openly inculcates distrust of these very Doctrines which he has in the
most solemn manner pledged himself to uphold and maintain?
And thus we come back to the theme originally proposed. "A national
Church," we are informed, "need not, historically speaking, be
Christian (!); nor, if it be Christian, need it be tied down to
particular forms which have been prevalent at certain times in
Christendom (!). That which is essential to a National Church is, that
it should undertake to assist the spiritual progress of the nation and
of the individuals of which it is composed, in their several states and
stages. Not even a Christian Church should expect all those who are
brought under its influence to be, as a matter of fact, of one and the
same standard; but should endeavour to raise each according to his
capacities, and should give no occasion for a reaction against itself,
nor provoke the individualist element into separation." (p. 173.) Of
what sort the Ministers of such a "chartered libertine" are to prove,
may be anticipated. "Thought and speech, which are free among all other
classes," must be free also "among those who hold the office of leaders
and teachers of the rest in the highest things." The Ministers of the
Church ought not "to be bound to cover up, but to open; and having, it
is presumed, possession of the key of knowledge, ought not to stand at
the door with it, permitting no one to enter unless by force. A National
Church may also find itself in this position, which, perhaps, is our
own." (p. 174.)--What a charming picture of the duties and the method of
that class to which the Vicar of Great Staughton himself belongs!... The
writer proceeds to set an example of that freedom of inquiry which he
vindicates as the privilege of his Order; and without which he is
apprehensive of being left isolated between "the fanatical religionist,"
(p. 174,) (i.e. the man who believes the truths he teaches,) and "the
negative theologian," (i.e. those who, "impatient of old fetters, follow
free thought heedlessly wherever it may lead them.") (_Ibid._) "The
freedom of opinion[89]," (he says,) "which belongs to the English
citizen should be conceded to the English Churchman; and the freedom
which is already practically enjoyed by the members of the congregation,
cannot without injustice be denied to its ministers." (p. 180.) Let us
see how the Reverend Gentleman exercises the license which he claims:--
The phrase "Word of GOD," (he says,) is unauthorized and begs the
question. The epithet "Canonical" "may mean either books ruled and
determined by the Church, or regulation books; and the employment of it
in the Article hesitates between these two significations." (p. 176.)
The declaration of the sixth Article simply implies "the Word of GOD is
contained in Scripture; whence it does not follow that it is
co-extensive with it." (p. 170.) "Under the terms of the Sixth Article
one may accept literally, or allegorically, or as parable, or poetry, or
legend, the story of a serpent-tempter, of an ass speaking with man's
voice, of an arresting the earth's motion, of a reversal of its
motion[90], of waters standing in a solid heap, of witches, and a
variety of apparitions. So under the terms of the Sixth Article, every
one is free in judgment as to the primeval institution of the Sabbath,
the universality of the Deluge, the confusion of tongues, the corporeal
taking up of Elijah into Heaven, the nature of Angels, the reality of
demoniacal possession, the personality of Satan, and the miraculous
particulars of many events." (p. 177.) "Good men," we are assured; (the
Inspired Writers being the good men intended;) "may err in facts, be
weak in memory, mingle imaginations with memory, be feeble in
inferences, confound illustration with argument, be varying in judgment
and opinion." (p. 179.) [A "free handling" this, of the work of the HOLY
GHOST, truly!... It would, I suppose, be deemed very unreasonable to
wish that a catalogue of facts misstated,--of slips of memory,--of
imaginary details,--of feeble inferences,--of instances of logical
confusion,--and so forth, had been subjoined by the Reverend writer. I
will only observe concerning his method that such "frank criticism of
Scripture" (p. 174.) as this, is dogmatism of the most disreputable
kind: insinuating what it does not state; assuming what it ought to
prove; asserting in the general what it may be defied to substantiate in
particular.] It follows,--"But the spirit of absolute Truth cannot err
or contradict Himself; if He speak immediately, even in small things,
accessories, or accidents." (p. 179.) To this we entirely agree. Where
then are the "errors?" and where the "contradictions?"
We cannot "suppose Him to suggest contradictory accounts:" [not
_contradictory_, of course; because contradictories cannot both be
true:] "or accounts only to be reconciled in the way of hypothesis and
conjecture."--(_Ibid._) _Why_ not[91]?
"To suppose a supernatural influence to cause the record of that which
can only issue in a puzzle, is to lower indefinitely our conception of
the Divine dealings in respect of a special Revelation."
(_Ibid._)--_Why_ more of a lowering puzzle in GOD'S Word than in GOD'S
Works[92]?
Mr. Wilson proceeds:--"It may be attributed to the defect of our
understandings, that we should be _unable altogether to reconcile the
aspects_ of the SAVIOUR as presented to us in the first three Gospels,
and in the writings of St. Paul and St. John. At any rate, there were
current in the primitive Church very distinct Christologies."--(_Ibid._)
Queer language this for a plain man! _I_, for my own part, have never
yet discovered the difficulty which is here hinted at; but which has
been prudently left unexplained.
It follows:--"But neither to any defect in our capacities, nor to any
reasonable presumption of a hidden wise design, nor to any partial
spiritual endowments in the narrators, can we attribute the difficulty,
if not impossibility, of reconciling the genealogies of St. Matthew and
St. Luke; or the chronology of the Holy Week; or the accounts of the
Resurrection: nor to any mystery in the subject-matter can be referred
the uncertainty in which the New Testament writings leave us, as to the
descent of JESUS CHRIST according to the flesh, whether by His mother He
were of the tribe of Judah or of the tribe of Levi."--(pp. 179-180.) I,
for my part, can declare that I have found the reconcilement in the
three subjects first alluded to, as complete as could be either expected
or desired. The last part of the sentence discovers nothing so much as
the writer's ignorance of the subject on which he presumes to dogmatize.
Presently, we read,--"It may be worth while to consider how far a
liberty of opinion is conceded by our existing Laws, Civil and
Ecclesiastical."--(p. 180.) "As far as _opinion privately entertained is
concerned_, the liberty of the English Clergyman appears already to be
complete. For no Ecclesiastical person can be obliged to answer
interrogations as to his opinions; nor be troubled for that which he has
not actually expressed; nor be made responsible for inferences which
other people may draw from his expressions." (_Ibid._)--Surely such
language needs only to be cited to awaken indignation in every honest
bosom! "With most men educated, not in the schools of Jesuitism, but in
the sound and honest moral training of an English Education, the mere
entering on the record such a plea as this, must destroy the whole case.
If the position of the religious instructor is to be maintained only by
his holding one thing as true, and teaching another thing as to be
received,--in the name of the GOD of Truth, either let all teaching
cease, or let the fraudulent instructor abdicate willingly his office,
before the moral indignation of an as yet uncorrupted people thrust him
ignominiously from his abused seat[93]!"
The remarks just quoted serve to introduce a series of views on
subscription to the Articles, which, if they were presented to me
without any intimation of the quarter from which they proceed, I should
not have hesitated to denounce as simply dishonest[94].... The Statute
13 Eliz. c. 12, is next discussed with the same unhappy licentiousness;
and the declaration that "the meshes are too open for modern
refinements." (p. 185.) ... I desire not to speak with undue severity of
a fellow-creature: but I protest that I cannot read the Review under
consideration without a profound conviction that, (speaking for myself,)
I have to do with one whom in the common concerns of life I would not
trust. The aptitude here displayed[95] for playing tricks with plain
language, is calculated to sap the foundations of human intercourse, and
to destroy confidence. If plain words may mean anything, or may mean
nothing,--then, farewell to all good faith in the intercourse of daily
life. If Articles "for the avoiding of Diversities of Opinions, and for
the establishing of Consent touching true Religion[96],"--such Articles
especially as the IInd., "Of the WORD or SON of GOD, which was made very
Man;" and the Vth., "Of the HOLY GHOST," (which the Rev. Mr. Wilson
calls "humanifying of the Divine Word," and "the Divine Personalities,")
(p. 186,)--may be signed by one who, even in signing, resolves to "_pass
by the side of them_," (p. 186, line 6,)--then is it better at once to
admit that no Logic can be supposed to be available with such a writer;
that he places himself outside the reach of fair argumentation; and must
not be astonished if he shall find himself regarded by his peers simply
in the light of an untrustworthy and impracticable person.
The last stage of all in this deplorable paper is an application to
Holy Scripture itself of the tricks which the Vicar of Great Staughton
has already played, so much to his own satisfaction, with the Articles.
"We may say that the value of the historical parts of the Bible may
consist, rather in their significance, in the ideas which they awaken,
than in the scenes themselves which they depict." (p. 199.) To a plain
English understanding, (unperplexed with the dreams of Strauss, and
other unbelievers of the same stamp,) such a statement conveys scarcely
an intelligible notion. But we are not left long in doubt.
"The application of Ideology to the interpretation of Scripture, to the
doctrines of Christianity, to the formularies of the Church, may
undoubtedly be carried to an excess; may be pushed so far as to leave in
the sacred records no historical residue whatever.... An example of the
critical Ideology carried to excess, is that of Strauss; which resolves
into an ideal _the whole of the historical and doctrinal person of
JESUS_.... But it by no means follows, because Strauss has substituted a
mere shadow for the JESUS of the Evangelists, that there are not traits
in the scriptural person of Jesus, which are better explained by
referring them to an ideal than an historical origin: and without
falling into fanciful exegetics, there are parts of Scripture more
usefully interpreted ideologically than in any other manner,--as for
instance, _the history of the Temptation of JESUS by Satan, and accounts
of demoniacal possessions_." (pp. 200-201.) "Some may consider the
descent of all Mankind from Adam and Eve as an undoubted historical
fact; others may rather perceive in that relation a form of narrative
into which in early ages tradition would easily throw itself
spontaneously.... _Among a particular people, this historical
representation became the concrete expression of a great moral
truth_,--of the brotherhood of all human beings.... The force, grandeur,
and reality of these ideas are not a whit impaired in the abstract, nor
indeed the truth of the concrete history (!) as their representation,
even though mankind should have been placed upon the earth _in many
pairs at once, or in distinct centres of creation_. For the brotherhood
of men really depends," &c., &c. (p. 201.) "Let us suppose one to be
uncertain whether our LORD were born of the house and lineage of David,
_or of the tribe of Levi_; and even to be driven to conclude that the
genealogies of Him have _little historic value_; nevertheless, in idea,
JESUS is both Son of David and Son of Aaron, both Prince of Peace, and
High Priest of our profession; as He is, under another idea, though not
literally, 'without father and without mother.' And He is none the less
Son of David, Priest Aaronical, or Royal Priest Melchizedecan, in idea
and spiritually, even if it be unproved whether He were any of them _in
historic fact_.--In like manner it need not trouble us, if in
consistency, we should have to suppose both an ideal origin, and to
apply an ideal meaning, to the birth in the city of David, (!) and to
other circumstances of the Infancy. (!) So again, the Incarnification of
the divine Immanuel remains, although the angelic appearances which
herald it in the narratives of the Evangelists may be of ideal origin,
according to the conceptions of former days." (pp. 202-3.) "And,"
lastly,--"_liberty must be left to all as to the extent in which they
apply this principle_!" (p. 201.)
To such dreamy nonsense, what "Answer" _can_ we return[97]? Such
speculations would be a fair subject for ridicule and merriment, if the
subject were not so unspeakably solemn,--the issues so vast, and
terribly momentous. We find ourselves introduced into a new world,--of
which the denizens talk like madmen, and in a jargon of their own. And
yet, that jargon is no sooner understood, than the true character of our
new companions becomes painfully evident[98].... He who believes the
plain words of Holy Writ, finds himself called "the literalist." He who
resolves Scripture into a dream, and the LORD who redeemed him into "a
mere shadow," (p. 200) is dignified with the title of "an idealist."
"Neither" (we are assured) "should condemn the other. They are fed with
the same truths; the literalist unconsciously, the idealist with
reflection. Neither can justly say of the other that he undervalues the
Sacred Writings, or that he holds them as inspired less properly than
himself." (p. 200.) "The ideologian," (who is the same person as the
"idealist;" for the gentleman, at this place, changes his name;) "is
evidently in possession of a principle which will enable him to stand in
charitable relation to persons of very different opinions from his own."
(p. 202.) "Relations which may repose on doubtful grounds as matter of
history, and, as history, be incapable of being ascertained or verified,
may yet be equally suggestive of true ideas with facts absolutely
certain. The spiritual significance is the same of the Transfiguration,
of opening blind eyes, of causing the tongue of the stammerer to speak
plainly, of feeding multitudes with bread in the wilderness, of
cleansing leprosy; whatever links may be deficient in the traditional
records of particular events." (_Ibid._) ... I will but modestly
inquire,--What would be said of _us_, if _we_ were so to expound Holy
Scripture _in defence_ of Christianity?
But it is time to dismiss this tissue of worthless as well as most
mischievous writing;--even to exhibit which, in the words of its
misguided author, ought to be its own sufficient exposure. Do men really
expect us to "answer" such groundless assertions, and vague speculations
as those which go before? A Faith without Creeds: a Clergy without
authority or fixed opinions: a Bible without historical truth:--how can
such things, for a moment, be supposed to be[99]? What answer do we
render to the sick man who sees unsubstantial goblins on the solid
tapestried wall; and mistakes for shadowy apparitions of the night, the
forms of flesh and blood which are ministering to his life's
necessities? If the Temptation, and the Transfiguration, and the
Miracles of CHRIST be not true history, but ideological
allegories,--then why not His Nativity and His Crucifixion,--His Death
and His Burial,--His Resurrection and His Ascension into Heaven
likewise? "_Liberty_" (we have been expressly told,) "_must be left to
all, as to the extent in which they apply the principle_" (p.
201.)--_Where_ then is Ideology to begin,--or rather, where is ideology
to end? "Why then is Strauss to be blamed for using that universal
liberty, and '_resolving into an ideal the whole of the historical and
doctrinal person of JESUS_?' Why is Strauss' resolution 'an excess?' or
where and by what authority, short of his extreme view, would Mr. Wilson
himself stop? or at what point of the process? and by what right could
he, consistently with his own canon, call on any other speculator, to
stay the ideologizing process[100]?"
"Discrepancies in narratives, scientific difficulties, defects in
evidence, do not disturb the ideologist as they do the literalist."
(p. 203.) No, truly. _Nothing_ troubles him; simply because he _believes
nothing_! The very Sacraments of the Gospel are not secure from his
unhallowed touch. "The same principle" (?) is declared to be "capable of
application" to them also. "Within these concrete conceptions there lie
hid the truer ideas of the virtual presence of the LORD JESUS everywhere
that He is preached, remembered, and represented." (p. 204.) ... Do we
ever deal thus with any other book of History? And yet, on what possible
principle is the Bible to be thus trifled with, and Thucydides to be
spared?--I protest, if the historical personages of either Testament may
be resolved at will into abstract qualities, and the historical
transactions of either Testament may be supposed to represent ideas and
notions only,--then, I see not why the Vicar of Great Staughton himself
may not prove to be a mythical personage also. Why need Henry Bristow
Wilson, B.D.,--who, (as "literalists" say,) in 1841 was one of the 'Four
Tutors' who procured the condemnation of Tract No. 90, on the ground
that it 'evaded rather than explained the Thirty-nine Articles;' and
who, in 1861 writes that "Subscription to the Articles may be thought
_even inoperative upon the conscience_ by reason of its vagueness;"
(p. 181.)--why need this author be supposed to be a man _at all_? Why
should he not be interpreted "ideologically;" and resolved into the
principle of disgraceful Inconsistency of conduct, and "variation of
opinion at different periods of life?"
* * * * *
V. In the present crusade against the Bible and the Faith of Christian
men, the task of destroying confidence in the first chapter of Genesis
has been undertaken by MR. C. W. GOODWIN, M.A. He requires us to "regard
it as the speculation of some Hebrew Descartes or Newton, promulgated
in all good faith as the best and most probable account that could be
then given of GOD'S Universe." (p. 252.)
Mr. Goodwin remarks with scorn, that "we are asked to believe that a
vision of Creation was presented to him by Divine power, for the purpose
of enabling him to inform the world of what he had seen; which vision
inevitably led him to give a description which has misled the world for
centuries, and in which the truth can now only with difficulty be
recognized." (p. 247.) He puts "pen to paper," therefore, (he says,) in
order to induce the world to a "frank recognition of the erroneous views
of nature which the Bible contains." (p. 211.) The importance of the
inquiry, he vindicates in the following modest terms:--"Physical Science
goes on unconcernedly pursuing its own paths. Theology, (the Science
whose object is the dealing of GOD with Man as a moral being,)
_maintains but a shivering existence, shouldered and jostled by the
sturdy growths of modern thought_, and _bemoaning itself_ for the
hostility it encounters." (p. 211.)--A few remarks at once suggest
themselves.