Interpretation and Inspiration

PREFACE. — FOOTNOTES:

CONTENTS.

PRELIMINARY REMARKS — FOOTNOTES:

My Friends,—I have determined to address to yourselves the present remarks; their subject, a volume which has recently obtained such a degree of notoriety that it is almost superfluous even to specify it by name.

With unfeigned reluctance do I mix myself up in this strife; but the course of events, when I first took up my pen, left me almost without an alternative. Far more reluctant should I be to seem to make yourselves the arbiters of Theological controversy. But in truth nothing is further from my present intention. As a plain matter of fact, you are called upon weekly, at St. Mary's, to listen to Sermons which indicate plainly enough the troubled state of the religious atmosphere; and which, of late, (too frequently alas!) have inevitably assumed a controversial aspect. The Sermons here published, (which form the constructive part of the present volume,) were preached expressly with an eye to your advantage, and were intended to warn you against (what I deemed) a very serious danger. It is only natural therefore that I should desire to address to yourselves the present remarks likewise. You are, naturally, objects of special solicitude to myself in this place,—you, with whom I live as among friends, and for not a few of whom I entertain a sincere affection. And in addressing you, I am not by any means inviting you to exercise your own theological judgment; for that would indeed be an absurd proceeding. I am simply seeking to instruct you, and to guide you with mine.

The case of "Essays and Reviews" is, in fact, altogether exceptional,—whether the respectability of its authors, the wickedness of its contents, or the reception which it has met with, is considered. That volume embodies the infidel spirit of the present day. Turn where you will, you encounter some criticism upon it. No advertizing column but contains repeated mention of its name. To ignore so flagrant a scandal to the Church, is quite impossible. I have thought it better, therefore, to encounter the danger in this straightforward way; and I proceed, without further preamble, to remark briefly on each of the Seven "Essays and Reviews," in order.

I. The feeblest essay in the volume is the first. It is not without grave concern that I transcribe the name of its amiable, and (in every relation of private life) truly excellent author,—"Frederick Temple, D.D., Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen; Head Master of Rugby School; Chaplain to the Earl of Denbigh." Under the imposing title of "The Education of the World," we are presented with a worthless allegory, which has all the faults of a schoolboy's theme, (incorrect grammar included;) and not one of the excellencies which ought to characterize the product of a ripened understanding,—the work of a Doctor of Divinity in the English Church[19].

Dr. Temple's opening speculations are at once unintelligible, irrelevant, and untrue. But they are immaterial; and serve only to lug in, (not to introduce,) the assumption that the "power, whereby the present ever gathers into itself the results of the past, transforms the human race into a colossal man whose life reaches from the Creation to the day of Judgment. The successive generations of men are days in this man's life. The discoveries and inventions which characterize the different epochs of the world's history are his works. The creeds and doctrines, the opinions and principles of the successive ages, are his thoughts." [Alas, that the Creeds and Doctrines of the Church should be spoken of by a Professor of Divinity as the "thoughts" of men!] "The state of society at different times are (sic) his manners. He grows in knowledge, in self-control, in visible size, just as we do. And his education is in the same way and for the same reason precisely similar to ours. All this is no figure, but only a compendious statement of a very comprehensive fact." (p. 3.) "We may then," (he repeats,) "rightly speak of a childhood, a youth, and a manhood of the world." (p. 4.) And the process of this development of the colossal man, "corresponds, stage by stage, with the process by which the infant is trained for youth, and the youth for manhood. This training has three stages. In childhood, we are subject to positive rules which we cannot understand, but are bound implicitly to obey. In youth we are subject to the influence of example, and soon break loose from all rules, unless illustrated and enforced by the higher teaching which example imparts. In manhood we are comparatively free from external restraints, and if we are to learn, must be our own instructors. First comes the Law, then the Son of Man, then the Gift of the Spirit. The world was once a child under tutors and governors until the time appointed by the Father. Then, when the fit season had arrived, the Example to which all ages should turn was sent to teach men what they ought to be. Then the human race was left to itself, to be guided by the teaching of the Spirit within." (p. 5.)—So very weak an analogy, (where everything is assumed, and nothing proved,) singular to relate, is drawn out into distressing tenuity through no less than 49 pages.

The Answer to all this is sufficiently obvious, as well as sufficiently damaging; and need not be delayed for a minute.

That the Human Race has made considerable progress in Knowledge, from first to last,—is a mere truism. That, in the civilized world, one generation is the heir of the generations which went before it, is what no one requires to be told. Thus the discovery of the compass, of printing, and of the steam-engine, have been epochs in human knowledge from which a start was made by all civilized nations, without retrogression. But such facts supply no warrant for transforming the whole Human Race into one Colossal Man; do not constitute any reason whatever why the 6000 years of recorded time should be divided into three periods corresponding with the Infancy, Boyhood, and Manhood of an Individual.

To this theory, however, Dr. Temple even ostentatiously commits himself. It is the purpose of his entire Essay, to establish the fanciful analogy already indicated,—which is proclaimed to be "no figure" but a "fact." (p. 3.) But an educated man of ordinary intelligence, on reaching p. 7, (where the writer first discloses his view,) summons the known facts of History to his recollection; and before he proceeds any further, reasons with himself somewhat as follows:—

The Human Race had inhabited the Earth's surface for upwards of sixteen hundred years, when it was destroyed by the waters of the Flood. After that, the descendants of Noah peopled the earth's surface; a transaction of which the sole authentic record is to be found in the xth chapter of the Book of Genesis. Egypt first emerged into importance,—as history and monuments conspire to prove; having had a peculiar language and literature, Arts and Sciences, anterior to the period of the Exodus, viz. b.c. 1491. Meanwhile, the chart of History directs our attention to four great Empires: the Assyrian Empire, which was swallowed up by the Persian; and the Persian, which was merged in the Grecian Empire. The Roman Empire came last. [How Law can be considered to be the characteristic of all or any part of this period, I am at a loss to discover. Neither do I see any indication of puling Infancy here.] These four great Empires of the world had run their course when our Saviour Christ was born. God sent His own Eternal Son into the world; and lo, a change passed over the whole fabric of the world's polity. The old forms of social life became, as it were, dissolved; or rather, a new spirit had been breathed into them all. A new era had commenced; and a new principle henceforth animated mankind. That peculiar system of Divine Laws which for 1500 years had separated the Hebrew race from all the nations of the earth,—the Mosaic Law which had hitherto been the inheritance of a single family, isolated in Canaan,—was explained and expanded by its Divine Author. The ancient promises to Abraham and his posterity were declared in their application to be co-extensive with the whole race of Mankind by faith embracing them. Henceforth, the kingdoms of the world were proclaimed the kingdoms of Christ, and Mankind became for the first time subject to a written Law. The Laws of Christ's Kingdom, the doctrines of Christ's Church, henceforth become supreme. Thus, when a Christian Sovereign is crowned, the Bible is solemnly placed in his hands; and it is required of him that he promise, on his oath, "to the utmost of his power, to maintain the Laws of God." "When you see this Orb set under this Cross," (says the Archbishop, on delivering those insignia of Royalty,) "remember that the whole World is subject to the power and empire of Christ our Redeemer ... so that no man can reign happily, who ... directs not all his actions according to His Laws." ... No further change in the order of things is anywhere intimated. The Faith hath been ἅπαξ,—once and for ever,—delivered to the Saints. Forsaken, it may be: by many, (alas!) it will be forsaken before the consummation of all things: but it will not itself cease. Heaven and Earth shall pass away; but Christ's Word, never. Not one jot nor one tittle of the Law shall fail.... Such, in brief outline, is the World's true history,—past, present, future. Does it correspond with Dr. Temple's account? That may be very soon seen. He calls the human race a Colossal Man; and says that it passes through three stages,—Infancy, Boyhood, Manhood: and that during those three stages, it is governed by three corresponding principles,—Law, Example, Conscience. How does Dr. Temple establish the first?

The Jews, (he says,) were subject to Law from the period of the Exode to the coming of Christ.—We listen to the statement of a familiar fact without surprise: but we are inclined to express some stronger feeling than surprise when we discover that this is the whole of the proof concerning the infancy of the Colossal Man! Does this writer then mean to tell us that the Jews were all Mankind? If they were not the Colossal Man,—if, instead of being the whole Human Race, they were one of the most inconsiderable and least known of the nations,—an isolated family, in fact, inhabiting Canaan,—what becomes of the analogy? We really pause for an answer.... Such a theory might have been expected, and would have been excusable if it had proceeded from a Sunday-school-boy of fifteen,—who had read the Bible indeed, but who was unacquainted with any book besides; and so, had jumped to the conclusion that the Jews were "the World." But Dr. Temple is a Schoolmaster, and therefore must surely know better. If he is fanciful enough to regard Mankind as a Colossal Man; and unphilosophical enough to consider that History is capable of being divided into three periods,—corresponding with Infancy, Boyhood, and Manhood; and forgetful enough of the facts of the case to assume that mankind was subject to Law until the coming of Christ, thenceforward to be emancipated therefrom:—yet Dr. Temple ought not to be so unreasonable as to pretend that Canaan was coextensive with the World,—the descendants of Abraham with the posterity of Noah! This amiable writer is inexcusable for excluding from the corporate entity of the Human Race the four great Empires of the world, (to say nothing of primæval Egypt and mysterious India;) and for the sake of elaborating a worthless allegory, identifying the least of all people with the Colossal Man, who, (according to his own account of the matter,) represents the aggregate of all the nations.

Once more. The Mosaic Law was not given till b.c. 1491. But the world was then upwards of 2500 years old. Far more than one-third, therefore, of recorded time had already elapsed. How does it happen that the theory under consideration gives no account of those 2500 years; or rather, does not begin to be applicable, until they have rolled away?

Other inconveniences await this silly speculation. Thus, the Colossal Man, (who was under Law from b.c. 1491 to the Christian æra,) proves to have been a marvellously precocious Infant. He wrote the Song of Moses in the year of his birth. Nay, he built pyramids,—had a Literature, Arts, and Sciences,—ages before he was born!... While yet an infant, he sang with Homer, and carved with Phidias, and philosophized with Aristotle,—as none have ever sung, or carved, or philosophized since. Times and fashions have altered, truly; but these three men are still our Masters in Philosophy, in Sculpture, and in Song. Awkward fact, that the colossal Infant should have lisped in a tongue which for copiousness of diction, and subtlety of expression, absolutely remains to this hour without a rival in the world!

Again. At this writer's dogmatic bidding, we force ourselves to think of Mankind as a Colossal Man, who has already gone through three ages,—Infancy, Boyhood, and Manhood. Old Age is therefore to come next. When, (if it is a fair question,) may it be expected that the sad period of senile decrepitude will set in? What proof, in the mean time, is there, (we venture to ask,) that this period of decay has not begun already? Or does Dr. Temple perhaps imagine that the world is moving in cycles, (to adopt the grotesque speculation of his own first pages); and that after having run through the curriculum of Infancy, Boyhood, and Manhood, the Colossal Man, (escaping, for some unexplained reason, the penalty of Old Age,) is to grow young again,—shake his rattle and cut his teeth afresh? There is a childish vivaciousness, a juvenile recklessness, a skittish impatience of restraint, in this amiable author's speculations, which powerfully corroborate such a view of the case.

"The Childhood of the World was over when our Lord appeared on earth," (p. 20.) says Dr. Temple. But when at last he is compelled to introduce to our notice his Colossal Child (p. 9, bottom.) now developed into a Colossal Youth, he is painfully sensible that the Law and the Prophets, (his schoolmasters,) (p. 8.) have not done their work quite so well as was to have been desired and expected. Some apology is necessary, (p. 13, bottom.) Two great results however he claims for their discipline:—"a settled national belief in the unity and spirituality of God, and an acknowledgement of the paramount importance of chastity as a point of morals." (p. 11.) Not however that the Law or the Prophets had taught them even this. (p. 10, top.) "It was in the Captivity, far from the temple and the sacrifices of the temple, that the Jewish people first learned that the spiritual part of worship could be separated from the ceremonial; and that of the two the spiritual was far the higher." (p. 10.) At Babylon also the Jews first distinctly learned the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. (p. 19.)—The Law, to be sure, had emphatically said,—"Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God[20]." The prophets, to be sure, had protested,—"Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice[21]." The Law and the Prophets, to be sure, are full of intimations that "mercy and not sacrifice[22]" is acceptable to the God of Heaven, and that God's Saints well understood the Doctrine[23]; as well as that a belief in the soul's immortality was a part of the instruction of the Jewish people. But what is all this to one who has an allegory to establish?...

The facts of the case, in the meantime, sorely perplex the truth-loving writer. "For it is undeniable that, in the time of our Lord, the Sadducees had lost all depth of spiritual feeling, whilst the Pharisees had succeeded in converting the Mosaic system into a mischievous idolatry of forms." (p. 10.) "In short, the Jewish nation had lost very much when John the Baptist came." (p. 11.) The hopelessly corrupt moral state of the youthful Colossus, described with such sickening force and power by the great Apostle in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, cannot have occurred to Dr. Temple's remembrance, for he says nothing about it. Certain withering denunciations of "a wicked and adulterous generation[24];"—of "adulterers and adulteresses[25];"—"serpents," a "generation of vipers," which should hardly "escape the damnation of Hell[26];"—ought to have reached him with a reproachful echo; but he is silent about them all. Still less would it have suited the amiable allegorizer to state that just midway in the educational process, his Colossal Youth, "as if" the sins of Samaria and of Sodom "were a very little thing," "was corrupted more than they in all his ways. As I live, saith the Lord God," (apostrophizing Dr. Temple's Colossal Youth, in allusion to his character and conduct in the middle of his infant career,) "Sodom thy sister hath not done as thou hast done: ... neither hath Samaria committed half thy sins; but thou hast multiplied thine abominations more than they.... Bear thine own shame for thy sins that thou hast committed more abominable than they. They are more righteous than thou[27]!" "Ah sinful nation, laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters!... From the sole of the foot even unto the head,"—[these words, remember, are addressed to the Colossal Infant just midway in his career; and Heaven and Earth are called upon to give ear, "for the Lord hath spoken!" ... From the sole to the crown,] "there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores.... Your hands are full of blood[28]!" ... About all this hideous retrospect of what was going on at school, Dr. Temple is silent.

In like manner, the great fact that our Redeemer came to republish His own two primæval ordinances,—the spiritual observance of the Sabbath and the sanctity of Marriage,—is quietly ignored. A youth utterly degraded by sensuality[29], and blinded by unbelief[30], is a terrible picture truly. Dr. Temple therefore boldly gives the lie direct to History, sacred and profane; and insists that "side by side with freedom from idolatry, there had grown up in the Jewish mind a chaster morality than was to be found elsewhere in the world:" (p. 12:) that "in chastity the Hebrews stood alone; and this virtue, which had grown up with them from their earliest days (!!!) was still in the vigour of fresh life when they were commissioned to give the Gospel to the nations." (p. 13.)

Behold the Colossal Child therefore, now grown into a Colossal "Youth too old for discipline." (p. 20, bottom.) "The tutors and governors have done their work;" (p. 20;) and he is now to go through a distinct process of training. Three tutors are now brought in to give the finishing touches to the youth's education, and to inaugurate his new career. Rome, Greece, and Asia,—which for some unexplained reason never become (according to Dr. Temple) any part of the Colossal Man at all,—now come in; "Rome to discipline the human will; Greece, the reason and taste; Asia, the spiritual imagination." (p. 19.) The Law and the Prophets had disciplined the Colossal Child's conscience,—with what success we have seen. At all events, Moses and Isaiah are for infants: we have passed the age for such helps as they could supply. In a word,—"The childhood of the world was over when our Lord appeared on earth." (p. 20.) It was "just the meeting-point of the Child and the Man; the brief interval which separates restraint from liberty." (p. 22.) "It was time that the second teacher of the Human Race should begin his labours. The second teacher is Example:" (p. 20:) and "the period of youth in the history of the world, when the human race was, as it were, put under the teaching of example, corresponds, of course, to the meeting point of the Law and the Gospel. The second stage therefore in the education of man was the presence of our Lord upon earth." (p. 24.)

Let not this stage of Dr. Temple's allegory suffer by being stated in any language besides his own. "The world" had been a Colossal Child for 1490 years. It was to be a Youth for almost 100. "The whole period from the closing of the Old Testament to the close of the New was the period of the world's youth,—the age of examples: and our Lord's presence was not the only influence of that kind which has acted upon the human race. Three companions were appointed by Providence to give their society to this creature whom God was educating, Greece, Rome, and the Early Church." (p. 26.) Behold then, our Blessed Redeemer with His "three companions." (I reproduce this blasphemous speculation with shame and sorrow.) What kind of Example He was, Dr. Temple omits to inform us. But Greece was "the brilliant social companion;"—Rome, "the bold and clever leader;"—the Early Church was "the earnest, heavenly-minded friend." (p. 26.) We are warned therefore against supposing that "our Lord's presence was the only influence of that kind," (i.e. example,) appointed by Providence for the creature whom God was educating. In a word: "The world was now grown old enough to be taught by seeing the lives of Saints, better than by hearing the words of Prophets." (pp. 28-9.)

We come now to the conclusion of the allegory; and Dr. Temple shall again speak for himself. "The age of reflection begins. From the storehouse of his youthful experience the Man begins to draw the principles of his life. The spirit or conscience 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 wider and deeper experience gives him clearer light. He is the third great teacher and the last." (p. 31.)

And now, it will reasonably be asked,—May not the head-master of Rugby write a weak and foolish Essay on a subject which he evidently does not understand, without incurring so much not only of public ridicule, but of public obloquy also? If his own sixth-form boys do not laugh at him, need the Church feel aggrieved at what he has written? Where is the special irreligion in all this?

I answer,—The offence is of the very gravest character; and in the course of what follows, it will appear with sufficient plainness wherein it consists. For the moment,—singly considered,—it is my painful duty to condemn Dr. Temple's Essay on the following grounds.

Whereas the Church inculcates the paramount necessity of an external authoritative Law to guide all her members;—Creeds to define the foundation of their Faith,—a Catechism to teach them the necessary elements of Christian Doctrine,—the several forms of Prayer contained in the Prayer Book to instruct them further in Religion, as well as to prescribe their exact mode of worshipping Almighty God: whereas too the Church requires of her ministers subscription to Articles "for the avoiding of Diversities of Opinions, and for the establishing of Consent concerning true Religion;"—above all, since all Christian men alike are taught to acknowledge the external guidance of the Divine Law itself contained in Holy Scripture,—and every Minister of the Church of England is further called upon to admit the authority of that Divine Law as it is by the Church systematized, explained, upheld, enforced:—notwithstanding all this, Dr. Temple, who has solemnly taken the vows of a minister of the Church of England, and writes after his name that he is Sacræ Theologiæ Professor, in his present Essay more than insinuates, he openly teaches that Man "draws the principles of his life," (not from Revelation, but) "from the storehouse of experience:" that we live in an age when "the spirit or conscience having come to full strength, assumes the throne intended for him in the soul." This "spirit or conscience" "legislates without appeal except to himself." "He is the third great teacher and the last." (p. 31.) The world, in the days of its youth, could not "walk by reason and conscience alone:" (p. 21:) but it is not so with us, in these, the days of the world's manhood. "The spiritual power within us ... must be the rightful monarch of our lives." (p. 14.) We, (he says,) "walk by reason and conscience alone." (p. 21.)

Now this is none other than a deliberate dethroning of God; and a setting up of Self in His place. "A revelation speaking from without and not from within, is an external Law, and not a spirit,"—(p. 36,) says Dr. Temple. But I answer,—A revelation speaking from within, and not from without, is no revelation at all. "The thought of building a tower high enough to escape God's wrath, could enter into no man's dreams," (p. 7,) says Dr. Temple in the beginning of his Essay, in derision of the Old World. But he has carried out into act the very self-same thought, himself; and his "dreams" occupy the foremost place in 'Essays and Reviews.' He teaches, openly, that henceforth Man must learn by "obedience to the rules of his own mind." (p. 34.) He is express in declaring that "an external law" is for the age which is past, (pp. 34-5.) Ours is "an internal law;" "which bids us yield,"—not to the revealed Will of God, "but,—to the majesty of truth and justice; a law which is not imposed upon us by another power, but by our own enlightened will." (p. 35.) In this, the last stage of the Colossal Man's progress, Dr. Temple gives him four avenues of learning: (1) Experience, (2) Reflection, (3) Mistakes, (4) Contradiction. By withholding from this enumeration the Revealed Will of God, and the known sanctions of the Divine Law, he thrusts out God from every part of his scheme; denies that He is even one of the present teachers of the Human Race,—explaining that the time has even gone by when Christ could teach by example[31],—"for the faculty of Faith has turned inwards, and cannot now accent any outer manifestations of the truth of God[32]." (p. 24.)—By this Essay, Dr. Temple comes forward as the open abettor of the most boundless scepticism. Whether or no his statements be such as Ecclesiastical Courts take cognizance of, is to me a matter of profound unimportance. In the estimation of the whole Church, it can be entitled to but one sentence. "We use the Bible," (he tells us,) "not to override, but to evoke the voice of conscience." (p. 44.) "The current is all one way,—it evidently points to the identification of the Bible with the voice of conscience. The Bible, in fact, is hindered by its form from exercising a despotism (!) over the human spirit; if it could do that, it would become an outer law at once." (p. 45.) Even if men "could appeal to a revelation from Heaven, they would still be under the Law (!!!); for a Revelation speaking from without, and not from within, is an external Law, and not a Spirit." (p. 36.) "The principle of private judgment puts conscience between us and the Bible; making conscience the supreme interpreter, whom it may be a duty to enlighten, but whom it can never be a duty to disobey." (Ibid.)—Even those who look upon the observance of Sunday "as enjoined by an absolutely binding decree," are reproached as "thus at once putting themselves under a law." (p. 44.) ... Dr. Temple has written an Essay which he calls "an argument," and for which he claims "a drift." (p. 31.) That argument is neither more nor less than a direct assault on the Faith of Christian men; and carried out to its lawful results, can lead to nothing but open Infidelity;—which makes it a very solemn consideration that the author, (whose private worth is known to all,) should be a teacher of the youth of Christian England. That drift I deplore and condemn; and no considerations of private friendship, no sincere regard for the writer's private worth, shall deter me from recording my deliberate conviction that it is wholly incompatible with his Ordination vows.

I forbear to dive into the depth of irreligion and unbelief implied in what is contained from p. 37 to p. 40, and other parts of the present Essay: but I cannot abstain from asking why does this author,—who, in all the intercourse of private life, is so manly a character,—fall into the unmanly trick of his brother-Essayists, of insinuating what they dare not openly avow? The great master of this cloudy shuffling art is Mr. Jowett. Even where he and his associates in "free handling," are express and definite in their statements, yet, as their rule is prudently to abstain from adducing a single example of their meaning, it is only by their disingenuous reticence that they escape punishment or exposure. Thus, Dr. Temple speaks of "many of the doctrinal statements of the early Church" being "plainly unfitted for permanent use;" (p. 41;) but he prudently abstains from explaining which of those "doctrinal statements" he means. He goes on to remark:—"In fact, the Church of the Fathers claimed to do what not even the Apostles had claimed,—namely, not only to teach the Truth, but to clothe it in logical statements ... for all succeeding time." He is evidently alluding to "the forms in which the first ages of the Church defined the Truth;" [i.e. to the Creeds;] of which he says, we "yet refuse to be bound by them." (p. 44.) He goes on,—"It belongs to a later epoch to see 'the law within the law' which absorbs such statements into something higher than themselves." (p. 41.) But the writer of that sentence ought to have had the manliness to explain what that "higher something" is.

Dr. Temple's estimate of the corruptions of the Papacy is of a piece with the rest of what I must be excused for calling a most unworthy performance. "Purgatory," &c. (he says) "was in fact, neither more nor less than the old schoolmaster come back to bring some new scholars to Christ." (p. 42.) (Is the Romish fable of Purgatory then to be put on the same footing as the Divine Revelation to Moses on Sinai?) It follows,—"When the work was done, men began to discover that the Law was no longer necessary." (Ibid.) (Is it thus that the head-master of Rugby accounts for, and explains the Reformation?) "The time was come when it was fit to trust to the conscience as the supreme guide." (Ibid.) "At the Reformation, it might have seemed at first as if the study of theology were about to return. But in reality an entirely new lesson commenced,—the lesson of toleration. Toleration is the very opposite of dogmatism." (p. 43.) "Its tendency is to modify the early dogmatism by substituting the spirit for the letter, and practical religion for precise definitions of truth." (Ibid.) "The mature mind of our race is beginning to modify and soften the hardness and severity of the principles which its early manhood had elevated into immutable statements of truth. Men are beginning to take a wider view than they did. Physical science, researches into history, a more thorough knowledge of the world they inhabit, have enlarged our philosophy beyond the limits which bounded that of the Church of the Fathers. And all these have an influence, whether we will or no, on our determinations of religious truth. There are found to be more things in heaven and earth than were dreamt of in patristic theology. God's creation is a new book to be read by the side of His revelation, and to be interpreted as coming from Him. We can acknowledge the great value of the forms in which the first ages of the Church defined the truth, and yet refuse to be bound by them." (p. 43-4.) ... Who so unacquainted with the method of a certain school as not to understand the fatal meaning of generalities, false and foul as these?

It may occur to some persons to inquire whether St. Paul, in a well-known place, does not affirm, (somewhat as it is affirmed in this Essay,) that "the heir, as long as he is a child, ... is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father?" And that, "Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: but when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son ... to redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of sons?" Does not St. Paul also go on to reproach men for "turning again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto they desired to be again in bondage?" saying, "ye observe[33] days, and months, and times, and years[34]." It is quite true that St. Paul says all this: and I would fain believe that a puerile misconception of the Apostle's meaning has betrayed the misguided author of the present Essay into a notion that he enjoys a species of Divine sanction for what he has written concerning "the Education of the World." I may add that St. Paul also declares, (in the same Epistle,) that "the Law was our pædagogus to bring us to Christ.... But after faith is come, we are no longer under a pædagogus[35]." He further adds an exhortation to the Galatians, (for it is still them whom he is addressing,)—"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage[36]."—St. John moreover, in many places, insists upon the spiritual powers and privileges of believers, in a very remarkable manner,—the same St. John, the same 'Apostle of Love,' who says of a certain Doctrine which 'Essayists and Reviewers' write as if they disbelieved,—"If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds[37]."

But it does not require much knowledge of Divinity to make a man aware that St. Paul's meaning and intention is as widely removed from Dr. Temple's, as Truth is removed from falsehood: or rather, that the Apostle is flatly against him. St. Paul is not bent on explaining what has been the Education of the World, but on pointing out in what relation the Gospel of Christ stands to the Law of Moses. He is reproving men who, having been converted to Christianity, were for lapsing into Judaism. Certain of the Circumcision had been striving, in St. Paul's absence, to bring his Galatian converts under the bondage of the Levitical Law; assuring them that the Gospel would avail them nothing unless they were circumcised and obedient to the Jewish ritual. Hence the Apostle's vehemence, and the peculiar form which his instruction assumes.

The Christian dispensation, (the scheme of Man's Justification by Faith in Christ,) is the fulfilment, (St. Paul says,) of the covenant which God once solemnly made with Abraham. The Mosaic Law, (which was not given till 430 years after the time of Abraham,) is powerless to cancel that earlier covenant of Faith. What was the use of the Law, then? some one may ask. It was a supplementary, parenthetical, superadded thing, which came in, as it were, accidentally, for certain assignable purposes. But now that the original covenant of Faith has at length found fulfilment in the person of Christ, it were monstrous (argues the Apostle) to revert to Judaism: which was a species of prison-house where we suffered bondage until Messiah came to set us free. We were as prisoners, says the Apostle. We were also as children, (who, anciently, from the age of six to fourteen, used to be consigned by their father to the care of a slave called a 'pædagogus;' who was neither qualified nor allowed to teach them anything; but whose office it was to conduct them to school.) So brought to the School of Christ, where learning comes by Faith, (such is his argument,) let men beware how they revert to the carnal ordinances of the Jewish Law.

How different a view of our true state is thus discovered, from that which Dr. Temple describes! A glorious liberty is in reserve for us indeed[38]: a precious freedom is ours already. But it bears no resemblance whatever to that lawlessness (ἀνομία ) with which Dr. Temple seems to be enamoured. It is the correlation of slavery, not of obedience. It implies emancipation from the Levitical Law, not from the sanctions, however strict, of the Christian Church. The Doctrines of Christ's kingdom are the Christian's crown and joy. His "service is perfect freedom," and imparts to life all its sweetness.—Not only, therefore, (according to St. Paul's view of the matter,) were men not released from school at "the meeting point of the Law and the Gospel," (p. 24,) but they only began to go to School then[39]!

How different a view of the Education of the World does the Holy Spirit,—does our Lord Himself—furnish, from that which Dr. Temple here advocates!... Fallen, in the person of Adam, and made subject to the penalty of eternal death, behold Mankind from the very first taught to believe that they should be ultimately redeemed by One born of woman. Under the image of a son who remained in his father's house, the favoured descendants of Abraham are set before us: while the rest of the world is pourtrayed in the person of another son, who goes into a far country, and there wastes his substance with riotous living. Not when grown into a colossal "youth too old for discipline," (p. 20, bottom,) but in the day of his dire necessity, and when he begins to be sensible of his utter need, behold the heathen nations, (in the person of the poor prodigal,) arising, and going to their true Father, and in the fulness of their misery asking for a hired servant's place in the household. Behold too God's mercies in Christ set forth by "the first robe," (that robe of innocence which when Adam lost he knew that he was naked!) and the ring, and the shoes, and the fatted calf! Lastly, in the embrace which the Father, (while yet the offending but repentant son is a long way off,) runs to bestow,—behold how God loved the World!

But Dr. Temple may say,—My parable relates to one person: that which you have quoted pourtrays two, and thus all parallelism is lost. (In other words, our Lord's picture of "the Education of the World" is altogether unlike Dr. Temple's!)—Take, however, a parable which ought to suit exactly; for in it mankind are exhibited in the person of "a certain man."

This individual is represented as one who, as he travels, is by thieves stripped, wounded, and left half dead. Such then, by nature, is the state of the human race! Priest and Levite, who "look on him," but "pass by on the other side," set forth the Education of the World (!) until Christ came. A certain Samaritan, who has compassion on the naked and wounded wretch, goes to him, binds up his wounds, pours in oil and wine, sets him on his own beast, brings him to the inn, and takes care of him:—this one is Christ. The stranger's pence, and his promise to repay at his second coming what shall have been over-expended,—set forth, I suppose, that ministration of Christ's Word and Sacraments which Dr. Temple exercises.... Let me dismiss the subject by remarking that I find no countenance given by Holy Scripture to Dr. Temple's monstrous notions concerning the Infancy, the Youth, and the Manhood of the Colossal Man.

Our Saviour Christ is indeed set before us in Scripture as our great Exemplar[40]; and St. Paul calls upon us to be followers, or rather imitators, (μιμηταί), of himself; even as he was of Christ[41]. But this walking by example, did not supersede the walking by precept; neither was it to endure, (God forbid!) (as Dr. Temple emphatically says it was), (pp. 26: 28-9,) only for about a hundred years: still less was "Example," (the second Teacher of the Human Race,) straightway to find itself supplanted by "the Spirit or Conscience" of Man,—"the third great Teacher, and the last." What need to say that until His Second Coming to judge the world, we shall have no Teacher but Christ,—no other way proposed to us to walk in, but that which the Gospel discloses?

Neither is it true that the world has been old enough, for the last 1800 years, to be taught by "seeing the lives of Saints," (a sentiment worthy of the weakest of Romanists!) "better than by hearing the words of Prophets." (pp. 28-9.) The Church of Christ will for ever listen to the blessed accents of that "goodly fellowship," until she beholds Him by whose Spirit they spake[42], coming again to judgment. True that the object with which she will all along inform her children, will ever be that they may become conformed to the model of her Divine Lord. But "sound doctrine[43],"—embodied in a "form of sound words[44],"—constitutes that παρακαταθήκη, or "deposit," which is her proudest inheritance and her greatest treasure[45]: and impatience of it is a note of evil men, and of a season at which Prophecy points her awful finger[46].... "Lawlessness," (ἀνομία,) is discoursed of by the Spirit with a mysterious earnestness which it seems to me impossible to survey without mingled awe and terror lest one may become oneself involved in the threatened condemnation. I allude of course especially to what St. Paul says in his second Epistle to the Thessalonians; the language of which, to be understood, must be studied in the original[47].

Conscience has her office, doubtless; and a most important one it is. Conscience is the very candle of the Lord within us. But, (as I have elsewhere shewn,) it were base treason to speak of conscience as Essayists and Reviewers speak of it. With them, it is indeed impossible to argue. They must first withdraw from the cause which they have betrayed; cease to profess the teaching which they disbelieve; resign their commission in a Church to whose Doctrine and Discipline they openly proclaim themselves to be opposed. I will not argue with them, while they presume to write B.D. and D.D. after their names,—hold Chaplaincies,—preside over Schools and Colleges,—profess to lecture in Divinity,—officiate at the altars of the Church of England,—by virtue of their sacred office, and by virtue of that only, are instructors of youth. They cannot, (if they are in the full enjoyment of their faculties,) they cannot imagine, for a moment, that, as honest men, they can remain where they are! They must either recal their words or resign their stations!

But speaking to others, it will abundantly suffice to point out that 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 γέεννα "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.)

The nebulous is a striking peculiarity of the style of the Vicar of Broad Chalke[60]. He informs us that "in virtue of the identity of Thought with Being the primitive Trinity represented neither three originant principles nor three transient phases, but three eternal subsistences in one Divine Mind.... The Divine Consciousness or Wisdom, consubstantial with the Eternal Will, becoming personal in the Son of Man, is the express image of the Father; and Jesus actually, but also Mankind ideally, is the Son of God." (pp. 88-9.) Since this has "almost a Brahmanical sound" (p. 89.) even to the Vicar of Broad Chalke, we are content to pass it by in mute astonishment. He proceeds: "Both spiritual affection and metaphysical reasoning forbid us to confine Revelations like those of Christ to the first half century of our era; but shew at least affinities of our faith existing in men's minds, anterior to Christianity, and renewed with deep echo from living hearts in many a generation." (p. 82.) Was our Saviour then a fabulous personage,—a virtuous principle,—and not a Man?... "Again. We find the evidences of our canonical books and of the patristic authors nearest to them, are sufficient to prove illustration in outward act of principles perpetually true, but not adequate to guarantee narratives inherently incredible or precepts evidently wrong." (pp. 82-3.) Are then the sacred "narratives" "inherently incredible?" or the Divine "precepts" "evidently wrong?"—These are, we presume, among the "traditional fictions about our Canon" (p. 83.) at which the Theological Professor sneers. "Hence we are obliged to assume in ourselves a verifying faculty,"—(p. 83,) and so, Dr. Williams and Dr. Temple shake hands[61]. An instance of the exercise of this faculty is immediately subjoined. "The verse 'And no man hath ascended up to Heaven, but he that came down,' is intelligible as a free comment near the end of the first century; but has no meaning in our Lord's mouth at a time when the Ascension had not been heard of." (p. 84.)—"The Apocalypse" in like manner, to "cease to be a riddle," must be "taken as a series of poetical visions which represent the outpouring of the vials of wrath upon the City where our Lord was slain." (p. 84.) ... (Is it possible that a Minister of the Gospel of Christ can speak thus concerning the Divine record?) ... "The second of the Petrine Epistles, having alike external and internal evidence against its genuineness, is necessarily surrendered as a whole." (p. 84.) (Can a man solemnly sign the vith Article, and yet so write?)—"A philosophical view [of the doctrine of the Trinity] recommends itself as easiest to believe." (p. 87.) The "view" expressed in the Athanasian Creed is we presume that which is stigmatized as "one felt to be so irrational, that it calls in the aid of terror." (p. 87.) The Reverend writer does not name the Athanasian Creed, indeed. It is not the general fashion of Essayists and Reviewers,—from Dr. Temple to Professor Jowett,—to speak plainly. But common sense asks,—If Dr. Williams does not allude to the Creed in question, what does he allude to? And common honesty adds,—How is such an allusion to that formula consistent with subscription to Art. viii.?

The Sacrament of Baptism, (he says,) has "degenerated into a magical form," (p. 86,) since it has "become twisted into a false analogy with circumcision,"—(twisted, at all events, by St. Paul[62]!)—and it is merely an "Augustinian notion" that "a curse is inherited by Infants."—How, one humbly asks, does the Reverend writer reconcile it to his conscience not only to have signed the ixth Article, but to employ the Baptismal Service, and to teach the little ones of the flock their Catechism?

On reaching the last page of the present Essay, one is irresistibly led to remark that if a single word could convey an adequate notion of the author's manner, that word would be Insolence. When Dr. Williams would express difference of opinion, he has recourse to violence and bluster: when he would patronize, he is sure to make himself unspeakably offensive. But he seldom agrees with anybody, even with disciples of the same school with himself,—as Messrs. Bunsen and Arnold, Coleridge and Francis Newman. Professor Mansel is "a mere gladiator hitting in the dark," whose "blows fall heaviest on what it was his duty to defend." (p. 67.) Dr. Pusey receives a menacing intimation of what his Commentary must not be. Davison's reasoning labours under the inconvenient defect of an unproved minor premiss. (p. 66.) The majestic memory of Bp. Pearson is insulted by this vulgar man, and the fairness of his citations are impeached. (p. 72.)—Bp. Butler is declared to have turned aside from an unwelcome idea (!), literature not being his strong point (!) (p. 65.)—Justin, (p. 64,)—Augustine, (p. 65,)—Jerome, (pp. 65, 71,)—Anselm, (p. 67,)—all come in for a share of the Vice-Principal of Lampeter's contempt. Even the Apologist of Essays and Reviews is constrained to admit that "anything more" unbecoming "than some of Dr. Williams's remarks we have never read, in writings professing to be written seriously[63]."

But faults of mind and manner, however gross, do but disqualify a writer for being the associate of men of taste and good breeding; and blemishes of style are, at least, venial. Not so easily to be excused is the deplorable spectacle of a Minister of the Gospel, a Doctor of Divinity and Vice-Principal of a Theological College, lending all his critical powers, (which yet seem to be of the most indifferent description,) in order to undermine the authority of God's Word. He has been asked,—"Do you unfeignedly believe all the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament?" and he has answered,—"I do believe them." He has been asked, "Will you be ready, with all diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's Word?" and he has made reply,—"I will, the Lord being my helper." He has solemnly declared his trust that he was "inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon himself this office and ministration."—Yet this is the man who explains away Miracles, denies Prophecy, and idealizes Scripture; the man who disparages the formulæ he uses daily, mutilates the Canon, and evacuates the most solemn doctrines of the Church!

I have now said as much as I think necessary concerning Dr. Williams's Essay. The entire refutation of such a tissue of groundless assertions and unfounded statements, and unscholarlike criticisms, and unphilosophical views,—would fill many volumes. It is to be feared also that, to him, the result would not be convincing after all. To have stated in brief outline, as I have already done, the leading positions to which he commits himself, ought to suffice. The mere exhibition of such principles (?) ought to be their own abundant refutation.... God give the unhappy author repentance of his errors!—And will not men believe that in the pages of the present Essay is to be seen the lawful development, and inevitable result of the opinions advocated in every other part of the present volume? I perceive scarcely any essential difference between the views of any of these seven writers. All are moving along the same fatal road; and are simply at different stages of the journey. But they conduct themselves wondrous differently in their progress, certainly; Dr. Williams being immeasurably the most offensive of the seven,—the only one who, besides seeming blasphemous, can truly be called vulgar.

III. The third Essay in the present volume is by "the Rev. Baden Powell, M.A., F.R.S., Savilian Professor of Geometry in the University of Oxford,"—a gentleman with whose labours I shall deal briefly and gently for two reasons. His assertions admit of summary refutation; and he has already, (alas!) passed beyond the limit of earthly Criticism. I desire to add concerning him, that in the private relations of life he was a friendly and amiable person.

The solemn circumstance already adverted to, would have kept me silent altogether. When a writer is no longer able to defend himself, it is ungenerous to attack him: and at a time when he knows far more wonders than are dreamed of by any one on the Earth's surface, it seems unbecoming to stand reasoning over his grave about an "antecedent probability." But I am addressing not the dead, but the living,—to whom, in the pages of 'Essays and Reviews,' Professor Powell "being dead yet speaketh."

He entitles his contribution,—"On the Study of the Evidences of Christianity:" but, as often happens with performances of the like nature, the title of his Essay gives a wrong notion of its contents. It ought to have been called "The Validity of the Evidence from Miracles considered," or rather "denied."

There is nothing new in the present attack on the Miracles of Scripture. The author disposes of them by a single assertion. "What is alleged," (he says,) "is a case of the supernatural. But no testimony can reach to the supernatural." (p. 107.) The inference is obvious.—Again: "an event may be so incredible intrinsically as to set aside any degree of testimony." (p. 106.) Such an event he declares a Miracle to be; and explains that "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." (pp. 106-7.) This merely amounts to asserting that the antecedent improbability of Miracles is so great as to make them incredible. The writer does not attempt to establish this point. "The present discussion," (he says,) "is not intended to be of a controversial kind; it is purely contemplative and theoretical." (p. 100.) And yet, he cannot suppose that the Universal Church will surrender its convictions and reverse its deliberate judgment, at the merely "contemplative and theoretical" suggestions of an individual, however respectable he may happen to be. Against his mere assertion, we claim a right to set the result of Bp. Butler's careful investigation of the same subject:—"That there certainly is no such presumption against Miracles, as to render them in any wise incredible: that, on the contrary, our being able to discern reasons for them, gives a positive credibility to the history of them, in cases where those reasons hold: and that it is by no means certain that there is any peculiar presumption at all, from analogy, even in the lowest degree, against Miracles, as distinguished from other extraordinary phenomena[64]."

Professor Powell's objection against Miracles is, in fact, practically that of the infidel Hume; who asserted "that no testimony for any kind of Miracle can ever possibly amount to a probability, much less to a proof." He argued that Miracles, being contrary to general experience, are incapable of proof. He maintained also, (with Spinoza,) that Miracles, being contrary to the established laws of Nature, imply, in the very character of them, a palpable contradiction. This latter position seems to be identical with that adopted by Professor Powell.

In a certain place, this author finds fault with "the too frequent assumption ... of the part of the ... Advocate, when the character to be sustained should be rather that of the unbiassed Judge." (p. 95.) But what are we to think of the judicial fairness of one who is not only Advocate and Judge in his own cause; but who even turns the Witnesses out of Court; and will listen to no evidence,—on the plea that it cannot be trustworthy; or at least, that it shall be unavailing?—"I express myself with caution," (says Bp. Butler, with reference to arguments against the credibility of Revelation,) "lest I should be mistaken to vilify Reason; which is indeed the only faculty we have wherewith to judge concerning anything, even Revelation itself: or be misunderstood to assert that a supposed revelation cannot be proved false, from internal characters. For it may contain clear immoralities, or contradictions; and either of these would prove it false. Nor will I take upon me to affirm, that nothing else can possibly render any supposed revelation incredible. Yet still the observation is, I think, true beyond doubt; that objections against Christianity, as distinguished from objections against its evidence, are frivolous[65]."

That a certain occurrence or phenomenon "is due to supernatural causes," Professor Powell maintains is "entirely dependent on the previous belief and assumptions of the parties." (p. 107.) He forgets that he grounds his own denial of the possibility of a Miracle, on nothing stronger than "the nature of" his own "antecedent convictions." Thus, the question becomes merely a personal one between Mr. Baden Powell and the Apostles of Christ. The reasonableness of the "antecedent convictions" in the one case have to be set against the reasonableness of the "antecedent convictions" in the other. Either party, (according to this view,) has its own "previous belief and assumptions;" which, in the one case, are known to have produced conviction; in the other, they are unhappily found to have resulted in a rejection of Miracles. But then it happens, unfortunately, that in the case of the Apostles and others, conviction of the truth of our Lord's Miracles was based on knowledge, and experience of a matter of fact: in the case of Professor Powell, disbelief is founded on certain "antecedent convictions" only: namely, "the inconceivableness of imagined interruptions of natural Order, or supposed suspensions of the Laws of matter." (p. 110.) He is never tired of repeating that "in an age of physical research like the present, all highly cultivated minds and duly advanced intellects (!) have imbibed, more or less, the lessons of the Inductive Philosophy; and have, at least in some measure, learned to appreciate the grand foundation conception of universal Law:" (p. 133:) that "the entire range of the Inductive Philosophy is at once based upon, and in every instance tends to confirm, by immense accumulation of evidence, the grand truth of the universal Order and constancy of natural causes, as a primary law of belief; so strongly entertained and fixed in the mind of every truly inductive inquirer, that he cannot even conceive the possibility of its failure." (p. 109.)

I gladly avail myself of a page from the writings of a thoughtful writer of our own, who, half a century ago, reviewed the very errors which are being so industriously reproduced among ourselves at this day,—certainly not with more ability than of old:—"Let us examine a little farther into the weight of the argument derived from the supposed immutability of the Laws of Nature. It has constantly been the theme of modern Unbelievers, that the course of Nature is fixed, eternal, unalterable; and that nothing which is supposed to violate it can possibly take place. Now, we may readily allow, that the course of Nature is unalterable by human power; nay, even by the power of any created being whatsoever. But the question is,—Are these Laws unalterable by Him who made them? Proof of this is requisite, before the argument from the immutability of the Laws of Nature can have the least force. We may safely assert, however, that proof of this is absolutely impossible.—'Facts,' it may be said, 'daily passing before us, warrant us in supposing its laws to be unchangeable.' Perhaps so. But if a thousand or more facts have occurred, since the Creation of the World, in which those Laws appear to have been over-ruled, or suspended, is such a conclusion then warrantable? Even if there had never been a single instance of a Miracle recorded, since the Creation; yet the conclusion would not be just or logical, that no such thing is possible. But with such a multiplicity of instances to the contrary as are already on record, it is no better than a shameless assertion, in direct opposition to the evidence of men's senses and experience. Nay, more; the argument is atheistical. For, either God made and ordained these Laws of Nature; and may, consequently, at His pleasure, unmake or suspend them: or else, these laws are self-framed, and Nature is independent of the God of Nature; which is saying, in other words, that the material Universe is not governed by any Supreme Intelligence.

"This latter opinion appears, indeed, to be the tenet of all who resort to arguments of this kind, in opposition to the credibility of Miracles. Thus it is said, [by Hume,] that every effect must have a cause; and that, therefore, a Miracle must have a cause in Nature; otherwise, it cannot be effected.—But, is not the Will of God, without any other agency, or predisposing cause, sufficient for the purpose? When God created the World out of nothing, what pre-existing cause was there, except His own omnipotent Will to produce the effect? Why then is not the same Will sufficient to work Miracles?

"'But,' says another Sophist, [Spinoza,]—'God is the Author of the Laws of Nature; so that whatever opposes those Laws, is necessarily repugnant to the Divine nature: if, therefore, we believe that God may act in a manner contrary to those laws, we, in effect, believe that He may do what is contrary to His own nature; which is absurd and impossible.'

"The reasoning turns upon the supposition that God is actuated by an absolute necessity of His Nature, and not by his Will: or, rather, that He hath neither Will, nor Intellect. Otherwise, it were easy to perceive, that in suspending the operation of His own Laws, God cannot be charged with doing anything contradictory to His own nature; since He may justly be supposed to have as good reasons for departing from those Laws, as for framing them: and as we know not why He framed them in such a manner, and no otherwise; so He may have the best and wisest reasons for the suspension of them, which it is not for us to call in question. To speak of the Supreme Being as actuated by a kind of physical necessity, and not by His Will, is to confound the God of Nature with Nature itself; which is the very essence of Atheism, and never can be reconciled with any just notions of the Deity, as a Being of intellectual and moral perfections[66]."

It is by no means inconceivable, therefore, that the great Cause of Creation, and first Author of Law should interfere at any given time in the established Order of Nature. Moreover, it is irrational, on sufficient testimony, to disbelieve that He has sometimes so interposed. To deny that this is conceivable, is to make God inferior to His own decree; to pronounce it incredible that the Lawgiver should be superior to His own Laws. "The universal subordination of causation," (p. 134,) we as freely admit as the Professor himself: but then we contend that everything else must be subordinate to the First great Cause of all. Worse than unphilosophical is it to argue as the Professor presumes to do, concerning the Most High; but unphilosophical in the strictest sense it is. For it is to reason about Him, (the finite concerning the Infinite!) as if we understood Him; we, who can barely decipher a little part of His works! A few more remarks on this subject will be found in my viith Sermon.

We are anxious to know if the whole of the case is really before us. A few more extracts from Professor Powell's Essay seem necessary to do full justice to his view of the matter:—"All moral evidence must essentially have respect to the parties to be convinced. 'Signs' might be adapted peculiarly to the state of moral or intellectual progress of one age, or one class of persons, and not be suited to that of others.... And it is to the entire difference in the ideas, prepossessions, modes, and grounds of belief in those times, that we may trace the reason why Miracles, which would be incredible now, were not so in the age, and under the circumstances, in which they are stated to have occurred." (p. 117.) ... "An evidential appeal which in a long past age was convincing, as made to the state of knowledge in that age[67], might have not only no effect, but even an injurious tendency, if urged in the present, and referring to what is at variance with existing scientific conceptions; just as the arguments of the present age would have been unintelligible to a former."

"In a period of advanced physical knowledge, the reference to what was believed in past times, if at variance with principles now acknowledged, could afford little ground of appeal: in fact, would damage the argument rather than assist it." (p. 126.)

"It becomes imperatively necessary, that such views should be suggested as may be really suitable to better informed minds, and may meet the increasing demands of an age pretending at least to greater enlightenment." (p. 126.)

There is nothing in the additional suggestions thus thrown out which in reality affects the question at issue. Certain antecedent considerations were before insisted on, which (it was said) "must be paramount to all attestation." (p. 107.) These have been disposed of. The writer now tells us that he does not question "the honesty or veracity of the testimony, or the reality of the impressions on the minds of the witnesses." (p. 106.) It remains to inquire therefore to what natural causes, events which were once thought miraculous, may reasonably be referred; since the so-called Miracles of the imperfectly-informed age of our Lord and His Apostles will not endure the scrutiny of the present age of scientific enlightenment.

But this, unless it be a proposal to open the whole question afresh,—to examine the Miracles themselves,—to consider them one by one,—to inquire into their exact nature,—and to investigate their attendant circumstances,—is unmeaning. For we cannot, as reasonable men, dismiss a vast body of august events, differing so considerably one from another, with a vague inuendo that there was probably "some kind of mistake or deception somewhere, though we do not know where:" (p. 106:) a hint that natural events may have been regarded as supernatural by an unscientific age, (which I believe was Schleiermacher's view:) and so forth. The two miraculous Draughts of fishes,—the Stater found in the fish's mouth,—the stilling of the Storm,—might perhaps, by a little rhetorical sophistry, in unscrupulous hands, be so disposed of. But the Creative Power displayed on the two occasions of a miraculous feeding of thousands,—the giving of sight to a man born blind,—the calling of Lazarus out of the grave where he had been for four days buried;—these are transactions which resist every attempt of the enemy to explain away, as unscientific misconceptions. They may be powerless to produce conviction in some now, as they were powerless to produce conviction in some then: but they cannot be set aside by an insinuation. There could not have been any mistake when the Five Thousand were fed with five loaves, and twelve baskets full were gathered up; or when the Four Thousand were fed with seven loaves, and fragments enough to fill seven baskets remained over[68]. There was no room for deception in the case of the man born blind; for that case immediately underwent a judicial scrutiny[69]. Lazarus bound hand and foot with grave-clothes required that the bystanders should "loose him and let him go[70]:" but from that moment, neither supposed scientific necessity, nor antecedent considerations, nor the ordinary course of Nature, nor any other creature, will avail to bind him any more!

This may suffice on the subject of Professor Powell's Essay. On the great question itself, I have said something in my Seventh Sermon, to which the reader is requested to refer.—The performance now under consideration abounds in incorrect statements, while it revives not a few exploded objections; but I have considered the only points in it which are material.

Thus the author assumes "that, unlike the essential Doctrines of Christianity, 'the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever,' those external accessories, [Miracles, for example,] constitute a subject which of necessity is perpetually taking somewhat at least of a new form, with the successive phases of opinion and knowledge." (p. 94.) But, (waiving for the moment the impossibility of severing the Doctrines of the Gospel from the miraculous evidence that our Lord was a Teacher sent from Heaven[71]), it requires no ability to perceive that although "opinion" should alter daily, and "knowledge" increase ever so much, yet, events professing to be miraculous, being plain matters of fact, are to-day exactly what and where they were many centuries ago. Physical Science may pretend (with Paulus) to explain them on natural principles, truly; and while she does so, the world is sure to give her a patient, even an indulgent hearing. But then she must let it be known what she proposes to explain, and how she proposes to explain it. She must be so indulgent also, as to listen while we, in turn, shew her on what grounds we find it impossible to accept her Theory. "The inevitable progress of research," (says this author,) "must, within a longer or shorter period, unravel all that seems most marvellous; and what is at present least understood will become as familiarly known to the Science of the future, as those points which a few centuries ago, were involved in equal obscurity, but are now thoroughly understood." (p. 109.) Such a vaticination as regards Miracles, is, to say the least, premature; and until it can appeal to incipient accomplishment, it must be regarded as nugatory also. I am not aware, that as yet one single Miracle has been struck off the list; yet Miracles have now been before the world a long time, and they have not wanted enemies either.

To begin Divinity with a discussion of the "Evidences," we do indeed hold to be a beginning at the wrong end. At the same time, all of Professor Powell's opening remarks, in which he insinuates that the Church would bar, or would stifle discussion concerning the evidences of Religion, are obviously untrue. No scrutiny of Christian Miracles, however rigid, is stopped by the admonition that such narratives "ought to be held sacred, and exempt from the unhallowed criticism of human Reason." (p. 110.) We do not, by any means, "treat all objections as profane, and discard exceptions unanswered as shocking and immoral." (p. 100.) Neither does the Church think herself "omniscient and infallible;" (p. 96;) though she holds Omniscience to be an attribute of God; and Infallibility, of the Bible. But she deprecates in the strongest manner vague insinuations and unsupported doubts of the reality of her Lord's Miracles, sown broad-cast over the land; and she is at a loss to understand how the "difficulties" of any, can be in this manner "removed;" (p. 96;) except by a process analogous to that which would cure a malady by taking away the life of the patient. We are not in fact at all disposed to admit that "Miracles, which in the estimation of a former age were among the chief supports of Christianity, are at present among the main difficulties, and hindrances to its acceptance," (p. 140,)—although Professor Powell and Dr. Temple say so.

This Essay in fact is full of incorrect, or objectionable statements. Thus Professor Powell asserts that since "evidential arguments are avowedly addressed to the intellect, it is especially preposterous to shift the ground, and charge the rejection of them on moral motives." (p. 100.) And yet it is worthy of notice that our Lord Himself assures us that the reception of Truth depends on our moral, rather than on our intellectual condition. "How can ye believe," (He said to the Jews,) "which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only[72]?"

This writer reasons also with singular laxity and inaccuracy. After quoting the dictum that "on a certain amount of testimony we might believe any statement, however improbable," (pp. 140-1,) he scornfully adds;—"So that if a number of respectable witnesses were to concur in asseverating that on a certain occasion they had seen two and two make five, we should be bound to believe them!" (p. 141.) Does he fail to perceive, (1) that mathematical truths do not come within the province of probable reasoning, and (2) are not dependent on testimony?... Again, "The case of the antecedent argument of Miracles is very clear, however little some are inclined to perceive it. In Nature and from Nature, by Science and by Reason, we neither have nor can possibly have any evidence of a Deity working by Miracles;—for that, we must go out of Nature, and beyond Science." (pp. 141-2.) Very true. We must go to Scripture. We must have recourse to testimony. This is precisely what we are maintaining.... But,—"Testimony, after all, is but a second-hand assurance; it is but a blind guide; testimony can avail nothing against Reason." (p. 141.) True. But this, if it is intended as an argument against the reasonableness of admitting the truth of Miracles, is a mere petitio principii.... Again. "It is not the mere fact but the cause or explanation of it, which is the point at issue." (p. 141.) Admitting then, as the learned author here does, that when Christ said "Lazarus, come forth," "he that was dead," (though he had been buried four days,) "came forth, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes[73];"—admitting these "facts," I say,—what other "cause," or "explanation" does the reverend gentleman propose to assign but the supernatural power of the Divine Speaker?

Far graver exception, however, must be taken against certain parts of Professor Powell's labours, which betray an animus fatally indicative of the tendency of such Essays and Reviews as these. Witness his assertion that "it is now acknowledged that 'Creation' is only another name for our ignorance of the mode of production;" (p. 139;) and that a recent work on the Origin of Species "substantiates on undeniable grounds the very principle so long denounced by the first naturalists,—the origination of new species by natural causes;" (p. 139;) and that the said work "must soon bring about an entire revolution of opinion in favour of the grand principle of the self-evolving powers of Nature." (p. 139.)

One object of the present Essay is to insist that since Miracles belong to the world of matter, "we must recognize the due claims of Science to decide" upon them. We are reminded that "beyond the domain of physical causation and the possible conceptions of intellect or knowledge, there lies open the boundless region of spiritual things, which is the sole dominion of Faith:" (p. 127:) and that "Advancing knowledge, while it asserts the dominion of Science in physical things, confirms that of Faith in spiritual." (p. 127.) It is proposed that "we thus neither impugn the generalizations of Philosophy, nor allow them to invade the dominion of Faith; and admit that what is not a subject for a problem, may hold its place in a Creed." (p. 127.)

But the fatal consequences of this plausible fallacy become apparent the instant we turn the leaf, and read that "the more knowledge advances, the more it has been, and will be acknowledged, that Christianity, as a real religion, must be viewed apart from connexion with physical things." (p. 128.) That "the first dissociation of the spiritual from the physical was rendered necessary by the palpable contradictions disclosed by astronomical discovery with the letter of Scripture. Another still wider and more material step has been effected by the discoveries of Geology. More recently, the antiquity of the Human Race, and the development of Species, and the rejection of the idea of 'Creation' (!) have caused new advances in the same direction." (p. 129.) ... From this it is evident, not only that the object of Science in thus taking the Miracles of Scripture into her own keeping, is (like an unnatural step-dame) to slay them; but that downright Atheism is to be the attitude in which men are expected to survey that "boundless region of spiritual things" which is yet proclaimed to be "the sole dominion of Faith!"

Faith, on the other hand, does not object to the constant visits of Science to any part of her treasure. She does but insist that all discussion shall be conducted according to the rules of right Reason. Vague insinuations about "a progressing Age," (p. 131,)—"new modes of speculation," (p. 130,)—"the advance of Opinion," (p. 131,)—and so forth, are as little to the purpose, apart from specific objections, as sneers at "the one-sided dogmas of an obsolete school, coupled with awful denunciations of heterodoxy on all who refuse to listen to them," (p. 131,) are unsuited to the gravity of the occasion. Faith insists moreover that a divorce between the miraculous parts of Scripture, and the context wherein they stand, is simply impossible. The unbeliever who boldly says, "I disbelieve the Bible,"—however much we may deplore his blindness and pity his misery,—is yet intelligible in his unbelief. But the man who proposes to believe the narrative of the Exode of Israel from Egypt, (for instance,) apart from the supernatural character of the events which are related to have attended it; who believes the history of the Gospels, (holding the Evangelists to have been veracious writers,) yet rejects the Divine nature of the Miracles which the Gospels relate; and proposes, after eliminating from the historical narrative everything which claims to be miraculous, to make what remains of that historical narrative, the strength and stay of his soul in life and in death:—that man we boldly affirm to be one who cannot have studied the Bible with that ordinary attention which would entitle him to dogmatize concerning its contents: or else, whose logical faculty must be so hopelessly defective that discussions of this class are evidently not his proper province.

Finally, we are presented in this Essay with the same offensive assumption of intellectual superiority on the part of the writer, which disfigures the entire volume. "It becomes imperatively necessary that views should be suggested really suitable to better informed minds." (p. 126.) "Points which may be seen to involve the greatest difficulty to more profound inquirers, are often such as do not occasion the least perplexity to ordinary minds, but are allowed to pass without hesitation." (p. 125.) (And this, from one of those "profound inquirers," one of "those who have reflected most deeply," (p. 126,) who yet cannot get beyond a resuscitation of Hume and Spinoza's exploded objections to the truth of Miracles!)—Butler's unanswerable arguments, (for the allusion is evidently to him,) are spoken of as "a few trite and commonplace generalities as to the moral government of the World and the belief in the Divine Omnipotence; or as to the validity of human testimony; or the limits of human experience." (p. 133.) And yet the author is for ever informing us that his hostility to Miracles "is essentially built upon those grander conceptions of the order of Nature, those comprehensive primary elements of all physical knowledge, those ultimate ideas of universal causation, which can only be familiar to those thoroughly versed in cosmical philosophy in its widest sense." (p. 133.) "All highly cultivated minds, and duly advanced intellects," are supposed to find their exponent in Professor Baden Powell. All other thinkers have "minds of a less comprehensive capacity," "accustomed to reason on more contracted views." (p. 133. See also p. 131, top.) Is this the modesty of real Science? the language of a true Philosopher and Divine?

Finally, after all that has gone before we are not much astonished, but we are considerably shocked, to read as follows:—"The Divine Omnipotence is entirely an inference from the language of the Bible, adopted on the assumption of a belief in Revelation. That 'with God nothing is impossible' is the very declaration of Scripture; yet on this, the whole belief in Miracles is built[74]." Now, it happens that 'the whole belief in Miracles' is built on nothing of the kind: but the point is immaterial. By no means immaterial, however, is the intimation that the Divine attribute of Omnipotence is a mere inference from the language of Revelation,—the very belief in which is also a mere "assumption." If belief in Holy Scripture is to be treated as an assumption,—without at all complaining of the unreasonableness of one who so speaks,—we yet desire that he would say it very plainly; and let us know at least with whom we have to do, and what we are expected to prove. We do not complain, if any one calls upon us to shew that a belief in the Bible cannot be called an assumption; but it makes us very sad: and when the challenge comes from a Minister of the Church, we are unable to forbear the remark that there is something altogether immoral[75] in the entire proceeding. On the other hand, to find ourselves involved in an argument on questions of Divinity with one who believes nothing, is in a manner absurd; and provokes a feeling of resentment as well as of pity.... What need to add that life is not long enough for such processes of proof? "He that cometh unto God must believe that He is!" We cannot be for ever laying the foundation. The building must begin, at last, to grow. And when it has grown up, and is compact as well as beautiful, it cannot be necessary to pull it all down again once or twice in every century in order to ascertain whether the strong foundations be still there!

IV. The next performance is mainly directed against faith in the Church, as a society of Divine origin. "The Rev. Henry Bristow Wilson, B.D., Vicar of Great Staughton, Hunts," claims that a National Church shall be regarded as a purely secular Institution,—the spontaneous development of the State. "If all priests and ministers of religion could at one moment be swept from the face of the Earth, they would soon be reproduced[76]." The Church is concerned with Ethics, not with Divinity. It should therefore be "free from dogmatic tests, and similar intellectual bondage:" (p. 168:) hampered by no traditional Doctrines; pledged to no Creeds: but, on the contrary, should be subject to periodical doctrinal re-adjustments. "Doctrinal limitations" (i.e. the Creeds) "are not essential to" the Church. "Upon larger knowledge of Christian history, upon a more thorough acquaintance with the mental constitution of man, upon an understanding of the obstacles they present to a true Catholicity (!), they may be cast off." (p. 167.) "In order to the possibility of recruiting any national Ministry from the whole of the nation, ... no needless intellectual or speculative obstacles should be interposed." (p. 196. So at p. 198.)

To all this, the answer is very obvious. Viewed as an historical fact, the Church is not of human origin. The Church is a Divine Institution. That a Priest of the Church, charged with a cure of souls, should desire her annihilation,—the reversal of the facts of her past History,—her reconstruction on an unheard-of basis, without even Creeds as terms of communion with her,—and so forth; all this may suggest some very painful doubts as to the objector's honesty in continuing to employ the formularies of that Church, and in professing to teach her doctrines;—but it can hardly be supposed to have any effect whatever on the question at issue.

Foreseeing this, Mr. Wilson begins by asserting,—(for to insinuate is not for so advanced a disciple of "the negative Theology,") (p. 151,)—"the fact of a very wide-spread alienation, both of educated and uneducated persons, from the Christianity which is ordinarily presented in our Churches and Chapels." (p. 150.) "A self-satisfied Sacerdotalism, confident in a supernaturally transmitted illumination," may amuse itself in trying to "keep peace within the walls of emptied Churches:" (p. 150:) but the day for "traditional Christianity" (p. 149.) has gone by. We may no longer ignore "a great extent of dissatisfaction on the part of the Clergy at some portion, at least, of formularies of the Church of England,"—especially at the use of "one unhappy creed." (p. 150.) There has been "a spontaneous recoil" from some of the old doctrines: a distrust of the old arguments: and a misgiving concerning Scripture itself. "In the presence of difficulties of this kind, ... it is vain to seek to check open discussion." (p. 151.)

Why then does not this man proceed openly to discuss? is the obvious rejoinder. Instead of vaguely hinting that either the Reason or the Moral sense is shocked by what people hear "in our Churches and Chapels,"—why has not this writer, first, the honesty to withdraw from the Ministry of the Church of England; and next, the courage to indicate the particular doctrines which offend? To say that "the ordinances of public worship and religious instruction provided for the people of England" are not "really adapted to the wants of their nature as it is," (p. 150,) is a very vague and unworthy style of urging an objection. Why does not the reverend writer explain wherein the Doctrine and Discipline of the English Church are not really adapted to the actual wants of Man's nature?

Let every unbeliever however be allowed to state his difficulties in his own way. Mr. Wilson's difficulties certainly take a very peculiar shape. The increased Geographical knowledge of the present generation has evidently disturbed his faith. "In our own boyhood, the World as known to the ancients was nearly all which was known to ourselves (!). We have recently become acquainted,—intimate,—with the teeming regions of the far East, and with empires, pagan or even atheistic, of which the origin runs far back beyond the historic records of Judæa or of the West, and which were more populous than all Christendom now is, for many ages before the Christian era." (p. 162.) Such a statement is soon made; but it ought to have been substantiated. I take the liberty of doubting its accuracy.

But granting even that the heathen world "for many ages before the Christian era" was more populous than all Christendom now is:—what then? This fact "suggests questions to those who on Sundays hear the reading and exposition of the Scriptures as they were expounded to our forefathers, and on Monday peruse the news of a World of which our forefathers little dreamed." (pp. 152-3.)—And pray, (we calmly inquire,) Why are the Scriptures to be read or expounded after a novel fashion, even though our geographical knowledge has made a considerable advance? To this, we are favoured with no answer. The "questions" suggested are, we presume, the same which are contained in the following sentence. "In what relation does the Gospel stand to these millions[77]? Is there any trace on the face of its records that it even contemplated their existence[78]? We are told, that to know and believe in Jesus Christ is in some sense necessary to Salvation. It has not been given to these. Are they,—will they be, hereafter,—the worse off for their ignorance?" (p. 153.) ... "As to the necessity of faith in a Saviour to these peoples when they could never have had it, no one, upon reflection, can believe in any such thing. Doubtless they will be equitably dealt with." (p. 153.)

These last seven words, (which scarcely seem of a piece with the rest of the sentence,) we confess have always seemed a sufficient answer to the badly-expressed speculative difficulty which immediately precedes; a difficulty, be it observed, which does not depend at all on the popular advancement of Geographical knowledge; for it was urged with the self-same force anciently, as now; and was met by Bp. Butler, almost in the self-same words[79], upwards of a hundred years ago. But Mr. Wilson to our surprise and sorrow proceeds:—"We cannot be content to wrap this question up and leave it for a mystery, as to what shall become of those myriads upon myriads of non-Christian races. First, if our traditions tell us, that they are involved in the curse and perdition of Adam, and may justly be punished hereafter individually for his transgression, not having been extricated from it by saving faith,—we are disposed to think that our traditions cannot herein fairly declare to us the words and inferences from Scripture; but if on examination it should turn out that they have,—we must say, that the authors of the Scriptural books have, in those matters, represented to us their own inadequate conceptions, and not the mind of the Spirit of God." (pp. 153-4.)

I forbear to dwell upon the grievous spectacle with which we are thus presented. Here is a Clergyman of the Church of England deliberately proposing the following dilemma:—Either the Prayer Book is incorrect in its most important doctrinal inferences from Holy Scripture; or else, the Authors of Holy Scripture itself are incorrect in their statements. The morality of one who declares that he finds himself placed between the horns of this dilemma, and yet retains his office as a public teacher in the Church of England,—it is painful to contemplate. But this is only ad hominem. The Reverend writer's difficulty remains.

And it seems sufficient to reply:—It is not we who "wrap up the question," but God. As a mystery we find it; and as a mystery, we not only "can," but must be content to "leave it." Further, it is not "our traditions," but Holy Scripture itself which tells us that "by one man Sin entered into the World, and Death by Sin; and so Death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned[80]:"—that "in Adam all died[81]:"—that "we were by nature the children of wrath, even as others[82]:" and the like. Scripture, on the other hand, as unequivocally assures us that God is good, or rather that He is very Goodness. We are convinced, (in Mr. Wilson's words,) "that all shall be equitably dealt with according to their opportunities." (p. 154.) Moreover, he would be a rash Divine who should venture to adopt the opinion so strenuously disclaimed by Bp. Butler, "that none can have the benefit of the general Redemption, but such as have the advantage of being made acquainted with it in the present life[83]." ... How, in the meantime, speculative difficulties concerning the hereafter of the unevangelized Heathen are affected by the fact that our population now "peruse the news of a World of which our forefathers little dreamed," (pp. 152-3,)—it is hard to see. Equally unable am I also to understand how the discovery that a larger number of persons are the subjects of this speculative difficulty than used once to be supposed, can constitute any reason why Scripture should not still be read and expounded on Sunday "as it used to be expounded to our forefathers."

We have been so particular, because whenever any of these writers condescend to be argumentative, we are eager to bear them company. No wish at all have we, in the abstract, to stifle inquiry; no objection whatever have we to the principle of free discussion. And yet, as a clergyman, I cannot discuss such questions as these with a Minister of the Church of England, except under protest. I deny that these are in any sense open questions. To dispute concerning them,—εἰ μὴ θέσιν διαφυλάττων,—one of the disputants must first, at least, resign his commission. It is simply dishonest in a man to hold a commission in the Church of England, under solemn vows, and yet to deny her doctrines. An Officer in the Army who should pursue a similar line of action, would be dismissed the Service,—or worse.—Under protest, then, we follow the Rev. H. B. Wilson, B.D.

Next come three other specimens "of the modern questionings of traditional Christianity," "whereby observers are rendered dissatisfied with old modes of speaking:" (p. 156:) viz. (1) St. Paul "speaks of the Gospel 'which was preached to every nation (sic) under heaven,' when it has never yet been preached to the half[84]." (2) "Then, again, it has often been appealed to as an evidence of the supernatural origin of Christianity, and as an instance of supernatural assistance vouchsafed to it in the first centuries, that it so soon overspread the world:" (p. 155:) whereas "it requires no learning to be aware that neither then nor subsequently have the Christians amounted to a fourth part of the people of the Earth." (Ibid.) (3) So again, "it has been customary to argue that, à priori, a supernatural Revelation was to be expected at the time when Jesus Christ was manifested upon the Earth, by reason of the exhaustion of all natural or unassisted human efforts for the amelioration of mankind;" (pp. 155-6;) whereas "our recently enlarged Ethnographical information shews such an argument to be altogether inapplicable to the case." "It would be more like the realities of things, as we can now behold them, to say that the Christian Revelation was given to the Western World, because it deserved it better and was more prepared for it than the East." (p. 156.)—The remedy for the first of these difficulties (says Mr. Wilson,) is, "candidly to acknowledge that the words of the New Testament which speak of the preaching of the Gospel to the whole world, were limited to the understanding of the times when they were spoken." The suggestions of our own moral instincts are rather to be followed, "than the express declarations of Scripture writers, who had no such knowledge as is given to ourselves of the amplitude of the World." (p. 157.)

For my own part, I see not how Mr. Wilson's proposed remedy meets the 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, πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει, 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.

I cannot help thinking that if any person of ordinary intelligence, unacquainted with the Bible, were to be left to obtain his notion of its contents from "Essays and Reviews," infidel publications generally, and (absit invidia verbo!) from not a few of the Sermons which have been preached and printed in either University of late years,—the notion so obtained would be singularly at variance with the known facts of the case. Would not a man infallibly carry away an impression that the Bible is a book abounding in statements concerning matters of Physical Science which are flatly contradicted by the ascertained phenomena of Nature? Would he not be led to expect that it contained every here and there a theoretical Excursus on certain Astronomical or Physiological subjects? and to anticipate, above all, an occasional chapter on Geology? Great would be his astonishment, surely, at finding that one single chapter comprises nearly the whole of the statements which modern philosophy finds so very hateful; and that chapter, the first chapter in the Bible[101].

But the surprise would grow considerably when the conditions of the problem came to be a little more fully stated. Has then the actual history of the World's Creation been ascertained from some other independent and infallible source? No! Are Geologists as yet so much as agreed even about a theory of the Creation? No! Can it be proved that any part of the Mosaic account is false? Certainly not! Then why all this hostile dogmatism?—To witness the violence of the partisans of Geological discovery, and the arrogance of their pretensions, one would suppose that some Divine Creed of theirs had been impugned: that a revelation had been made to them from Heaven, which the profane and unbelieving world was reluctant to accept. Whereas, these are Christian men, impatient, as it seems, to tear the first leaf out of their Bible: or rather, to throw discredit on the entire volume, by establishing the untrustworthiness of the earliest page!

One single additional consideration completes the strangeness of the picture. If our account of the Six Days of Creation were a sybilline leaf of unknown origin, it would not be unreasonable to treat its revelations as little worth. But since the author of it is confessedly Moses,—the great Hebrew prophet, who lived from b.c. 1571 to 1451, who enjoyed the vision of the Most High; nay, who conversed with God face to face, was with Him in the Mount for thrice forty days, and received from Him the whole details of the Sacred Law;—since this first chapter of Genesis is known to have formed a part of the Church's unbroken heritage from that time onward, and therefore must be acknowledged to be an integral part of the volume of Scripture which, (as our Lord says,) οὐ δύναται λυθῆναι,—"cannot be broken, diluted, loosened, explained away;"—since, further, this account of Creation is observed to occur in the most conspicuous place of the most conspicuous of those books which are designated by an Apostle by the epithet θέοπνευστος, or, "given by inspiration," "filled with the breath," or "Spirit of God;" and when it is considered that our Saviour and His Apostles refer to the primæval history contained in the first two chapters about thirty times[102]:—when, (I say,) all this is duly weighed, surely too strong a primâ facie case has been made out on behalf of the first chapter of Genesis, that its authority should be imperilled by the random statements of every fresh individual who sees fit to master the elements of Geology; and on the strength of that qualification presumes to sit in judgment on the Hebrew Scriptures,—of which, confessedly, he does not understand so much as the alphabet!

It is even amusing to see how vain a little mind can become of a little knowledge. Mr. Goodwin remarks,—"The school-books of the present day, while they teach the child that the Earth moves, yet assure him that it is a little less than six thousand years old, and that it was made in six days." (p. 210.) (I am puzzled to reconcile this statement with the author's declaration that "no well-instructed person now doubts the great antiquity of the Earth any more than its motion." (Ibid.) Would it not have been fairer to have named at least one of the school-books which perpetuate so wicked a heresy?) "On the other hand, Geologists of all religious creeds are agreed that the Earth has existed for an immense series of years,—to be counted by millions rather than by thousands; and that indubitably more than six days elapsed from its first Creation to the appearance of Man upon its surface. By this broad discrepancy between old and new doctrine is the modern mind startled, as were the men of the sixteenth century when told that the earth moved." (p. 210.)

But begging pardon of our philosopher, if all he means is that more than six days elapsed between the Creation of "Heaven and Earth," (noticed in ver. 1,) and the Creation of Man, (spoke of from ver. 26 to 28,)—he means to say mighty little; and need not fear to encounter contradiction from any "well-instructed person." True, that an ignorant man could not have suspected anything of the kind from reading the first chapter of Genesis: but this is surely nobody's fault but his own. An ignorant man might in like manner be of opinion that the Sun and Moon are the two largest objects in creation; and there is not a word in this same chapter calculated to undeceive him. Again, he might think that the Sun rises and sets; and the common language of the Observatory would confirm him hopelessly in his mistake. All this however is no one's fault but his own. The ancient Fathers of the Church, behind-hand as they were in Physical Science, yet knew enough to anticipate "the hypothesis of the Geologist; and two of the Christian Fathers, Augustine and Theodoret, are referred to as having actually held that a wide interval elapsed between the first act of Creation, mentioned in the Mosaic account, and the commencement of the Six Days' work." (p. 231.) Mr. Goodwin therefore has got no further, so far, than Augustine and Theodoret got, 1400 years since, without the aid of Geology.

But we must hasten on. The business of the Essayist, as we have said, is to undermine our confidence in the Bible, by exposing the ignorance of the author of the first chapter. "Modern theologians," (he remarks, with unaffected displeasure,) "have directed their attention to the possibility of reconciling the Mosaic narrative with those geological facts which are admitted to be beyond dispute." (p. 210.)—And pray, (we modestly ask,) is not such a proceeding obvious? A "frank recognition of the erroneous views of Nature which the Bible contains," (p. 211,) we shall be prepared to yield when those "erroneous views" have been demonstrated to exist,—but not till then. Mr. Goodwin must really remember that although, in his opinion, the "Mosaic Cosmogony," (for so he phrases it,) is "not an authentic utterance of Divine knowledge, but a human utterance," (p. 253,) the World thinks differently. The learned and wise and good of all ages, including the present, are happily agreed that the first chapter of Genesis is part of the Word of God.

After what is evidently intended to be a showy sketch of the past history of our planet,—"we pass" (says Mr. Goodwin) "to the account of the Creation contained in the Hebrew record. And it must be observed that in reality two distinct accounts are given us in the book of Genesis; one, being comprised in the first chapter and the first three verses of the second; the other, commencing at the fourth verse of the second chapter and continuing till the end. This is so philologically certain that it were useless to ignore it." (p. 217.) Really we read such statements with a kind of astonishment which almost swallows up sorrow. Do they arise, (to quote Mr. Goodwin's own language,) "from our modern habits of thought, and from the modesty of assertion which the spirit of true science has taught us?" (p. 252.) Convinced that my unsupported denial would have no more weight than Mr. Goodwin's ought to have, I have referred the dictum just quoted to the highest Hebrew authority available, and have been assured that it is utterly without foundation.

After such experience of Mr. Goodwin's philological "certainties," what amount of attention does he expect his dicta to command in a Science which, starting from "a region of uncertainty, where Philosophy is reduced to mere guesses and possibilities, and pronounces nothing definite," (p. 213,) has to travel through "a prolonged period, beginning and ending we know not when;" (p. 214;) reaches another period, "the duration of which no one presumes to define;" (Ibid.;) and again another, during which "nothing can be asserted positively:" (p. 215:) after which comes "a kind of artificial break?" (Ibid.)

For my own part, I freely confess that Mr. Goodwin's final admission that "the advent of Man may be considered as inaugurating a new and distinct epoch, that in which we now are, and during the whole of which the physical conditions of existence cannot have been very materially different from what they are now;" (p. 216;) and that "thus much is clear, that Man's existence on Earth is brief, compared with the ages during which unreasoning creatures were the sole possessors of the globe:" (p. 217:)—these statements, I say, contain as much as one desires to see admitted. For really, since the fossil Flora, and the various races of animated creatures which Geologists have classified with so much industry and skill, confessedly belong to a period of immemorial antiquity; and, with very rare exceptions indeed, represent extinct species,—I, as an interpreter of Scripture, am not at all concerned with them. Moses asserts nothing at all about them, one way or the other. What Revelation says, is, that nearly 6000 years ago, after a mighty catastrophe,—unexplained alike in its cause, its nature, and its duration,—the Creator of the Universe instituted upon the surface of this Earth of ours that order of things which has continued ever since; and which is observed at this instant to prevail: that He was pleased to parcel out His transcendent operations, and to spread them over Six Days; and that He ceased from the work of Creation on the Seventh Day. All extant species, whether of the vegetable or the animal Kingdom, including Man himself, belong to the week in question. And this statement, as it has never yet been found untrue, so am I unable to anticipate by what possible evidence it can ever be set aside as false.

In my IInd Sermon, I have ventured to review the Mosaic record sufficiently in detail, to render it superfluous that I should retrace any portion of it here. The reader is requested to read at least so much of what has been offered as is contained from p. 28 to p. 32. My business at present is with Mr. Goodwin.

And in limine I have to remind him that he has really no right first to give, in his own words, his own notion of the history of Creation; and then to insist on making the Revelation of the same transaction ridiculous by giving it also in words of his own, which become in effect a weak parody of the original. What is there in Genesis about "the air or wind fluttering over the waters of the deep?" (p. 219.) Is this meant for the august announcement that "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters?"—"On the third day, ... we wish to call attention to the fact that trees and plants destined for food are those which are particularly singled out as the earliest productions of the earth." (p. 220.) The reverse is the fact; as a glance at Gen. i. 11. will shew.—"The formation of the stars" on the fourth day, "is mentioned in the most cursory manner." (p. 221.) But who is not aware that "the formation of the stars" is nowhere mentioned in this chapter at all?

"Light and the measurement of time," (proceeds Mr. Goodwin,) "are represented as existing before the manifestation of the Sun." (p. 219.) Half of this statement is true; the other half is false. The former idea, he adds, is "repugnant to our modern knowledge." (p. 219.) Is then Mr. Goodwin really so weak as to imagine that our Sun is the sole source of Light in Creation? Whence then the light of the so-called fixed Stars? But I shall be told that Mr. Goodwin speaks of our system only, and of our Earth in particular. Then pray, whence that glory[103] which on a certain night on a mountain in Galilee, caused the face of our Redeemer to shine as the Sun[104] and His raiment to emit a dazzling lustre[105]? "We may boldly affirm," (he says,) "that those for whom [Gen. i. 3-5] was penned could have taken it in no other sense than that light existed before and independently of the sun." (p. 219.) We may indeed. And I as boldly affirm that I take the passage in that sense myself: moreover that I hold the statement which Mr. Goodwin treats so scornfully, to be the very truth which, in the deep counsels of God, this passage was designed to convey to mankind; even that "the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, who only hath immortality, dwelleth in the Light which no man can approach unto[106]."

"The work of the second day of Creation is to erect the vault of Heaven (Heb. Rakia; Gr. στερέωμα; Lat. Firmamentum,) which is represented as supporting an ocean of water above it. The waters are said to be divided, so that some are below, and some above the vault.... No quibbling about the derivation of the word Rakia, which is literally 'something beaten out,' can affect the explicit description of the Mosaic writer contained in the words 'the waters that are above the firmament,' or avail to shew that he was aware that the sky is but transparent space." (pp. 219, 220.) "The allotted receptacle [of Sun and Moon] was not made until the Second Day, nor were they set in it until the fourth." (p. 221.) Surely I cannot be the only reader to whom the impertinence of this is as offensive, as its shallowness is ridiculous! In spite of Mr. Goodwin's uplifted finger, and menacing cry,—"No quibbling!" I proceed with my inquiry.

For first; Why does Mr. Goodwin parody the words of Inspiration? The account as given by Moses is,—"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters[108]." But surely, to make the "open firmament of Heaven" in which every winged fowl may fly[109], is not "to erect the vault of Heaven,"—"a permanent solid vault,"—"supporting an ocean of water!"

The Hebrew word here used to denote "firmament," on which Mr. Goodwin's indictment turns, ("rakia,") is derived from a verb which means to "beat." Now, what is beaten, or hammered out, while (if it be a metal) it acquires extension, acquires also solidity. The Septuagint translators seem to have fastened upon the latter notion, and accordingly represented it by στερέωμα; for which, the earliest Latin translators of the Old Testament coined an equivalent,—firmamentum. But that Moses by the word "rakia" intended rather to denote the expanse overhead, than to predicate solidity for the sky, I suspect will be readily admitted by all. True that in the poetical book of Job, we read that the sky is "strong, as a molten looking-glass[110]:" but then we meet more frequently with passages of a different tendency. God is said to "stretch out the heavens like a curtain[111]," "and spread them out as a tent to dwell in[112]:" to "bind up the waters in His thick clouds[113]," and "in a garment[114]," &c., &c.[115] It is only needful to look out the word in the dictionary of Gesenius to see that spreading out, (as of thin plates of metal by a hammer,) is the only notion which properly belongs to the word. Accordingly, the earliest modern Latin translation from the Hebrew, (that of Pagninus,) renders the word expansio. And so the word has stood for centuries in the margin of our English Bible.

The actual fact of the case,—the truth concerning the physical phenomenon alluded to,—comes in, and surely may be allowed to have some little weight. Since expansion is a real attribute of the atmosphere which divides the waters above from the waters below,—and solidity is not,—it seems to me only fair, seeing that the force of the expression is thought doubtful, to assign to it the meaning which is open to fewest objections.

But "the Hebrews," (says Mr. Goodwin,) "understood the sky, firmament, or heaven to be a permanent solid vault, as it appears to the ordinary observer." This, he adds, is "evident enough from various expressions made use of concerning it. It is said to have pillars[116], foundations[117], doors[118], and windows[119],"—(p. 220.) Now, I really do not think Mr. Goodwin's inference by any means so "evident" as he asserts. If Heaven has "pillars" in the poetical book of Job, so has the Earth[120]. The "foundations" spoken of in 2 Sam. xxii. 8, seem rather to belong to Earth than to Heaven,—as a reference to the parallel place in Ps. xviii. 7 will shew[121]. Is Mr. Goodwin so little of a poet, as to be staggered by the phrase "windows of Heaven," when it occurs in the figurative language of an ancient people, and in a poetical book[122]?

For the foregoing reasons, I distrust Mr. Goodwin's inference that "the Hebrews understood the sky to be a solid vault, furnished with pillars, foundations, doors, and windows." But whether they did, or did not, it is to be hoped that he is enough of a logician to perceive that the popular notions of God's ancient people on this subject, are not the thing in question. The only fact we have to do with is clearly this,—that Moses has in this place employed the word "rakia:" and the only question which can be moved about it, is (as evidently) the following,—whether he was, or was not, to blame in employing that word; for as to the meaning which he, individually, attached to the phenomenon of which "rakia" is the name, it cannot be pretended that any one living knows anything at all about the matter. A Greek, Latin, or French astronomer who should speak of Heaven, would not therefore be assumed to mean that it is hollow; although κοῖλον, 'c[oe]lum,' 'ciel,' etymologically imply no less.

Now I contend that Moses employed the word "rakia" with exactly the same propriety, neither more nor less, as when a Divine now-a-days employs the English word "firmament." It does not follow that the man who speaks of "the spacious firmament on high," is under so considerable a delusion as to suspect that the firmament is a firm thing; nor does it follow that Moses thought that "rakia" was a solid substance either,—even if solidity was the prevailing etymological notion in the word, and even if the Hebrews were no better philosophers than Mr. Goodwin would have us believe. The Essayist's objection is therefore worthless. God was content that Moses should employ the ordinary language of his day,—accommodate himself to the forms of speech then prevalent,—coin no new words. What is there unreasonable in the circumstance? What possible ground does it furnish for a supposition that the etymological force of the word,—or even that the popular physical theory of which that word may, or may not, have once been the connotation,—denoted the sense in which Moses employed it? Is it to be supposed that when a physician speaks of a "jovial temperament," he insinuates his approval of an exploded system of medicine? Do astronomers maintain that the Sun has a disk, or the Earth an axis? that the former leaves its place in the heavens when it suffers 'eclipse[123]?' or that the latter has a superior latitude, from East to West? To give the most familiar instance of all,—Do scientific men believe that the sun rises, and sets?—And yet all say that it does, until this hour!... Why is Moses to be judged by a less favourable standard than anybody else,—than Shakspeare, than Hooker, even than Mr. Goodwin? The first, in an exquisite passage, bids Jessica,—

Did Shakspeare expect his beautiful language would be tortured into a shape which would convict him of talking nonsense?—But this is poetry. Then take Hooker's prose:—

Did Hooker suppose that heaven is "an arch," which could be "loosened and dissolved?" or that "the way" of the moon is "beaten?"—But this is a highly poetical passage, written three centuries ago.—Let an unexceptionable witness then be called; and so, let the question be brought to definite issue. I, for my part, am quite content that it shall be the philosopher in person. The present Essayist shall be heard discoursing about Creation, and shall be convicted out of his own mouth. Mr. Goodwin begins his paper by a kind of cosmogony of his own, which he prefaces with the following apology:—"It will be necessary for our purpose to go over the oft-trodden ground, which must be done with rapid steps. Nor let the reader object to be reminded of some of the most elementary facts of his knowledge. The human race has been ages in arriving at conclusions now familiar to every child." (p. 212.) After this preamble, he begins his "elementary facts," as follows:—

"This Earth, apparently so still and stedfast, lying in majestic repose beneath the ætherial vault,"—(p. 212.)

But we remonstrate immediately. "The ætherial vault!" Do you then understand the sky, firmament, or heaven to be "a permanent solid vault, as it appears to the ordinary observer?" (p. 220.)

"The Sun which seems to leap up each morning from the east, and traversing the skyey bridge,"—(p. 212.)

"The skyey bridge!" And pray in what part of the universe do you discover a "skyey bridge?" Is not this calculated "to convey to ordinary apprehensions an impression at variance with facts?" (p. 231.)

"The Moon which occupies a position in the visible heavens only second to the Sun, and far beyond that of every other celestial body in conspicuousness,"—(p. 212.)

Nay, but really Mr. Philosopher, while you remind us "of some of the most elementary facts of our knowledge," (p. 212,) you write (except in the matter of the "leaping Sun" and the "skyey bridge,")—exactly as Moses does in the first chapter of Genesis! What else does that great Prophet say but that "the Moon occupies a position in the visible heavens only second to the Sun, and far beyond that of every other celestial body in conspicuousness?" (p. 212.)

Enough, it is presumed, has been offered in reply to Mr. Goodwin, and his notions of "Mosaic Cosmogony." He writes with the flippancy of a youth in his teens, who having just mastered the elements of natural science, is impatient to acquaint the world with his achievement. His powers of dogmatism are unbounded; but he betrays his ignorance at every step. The Divine decree, "Let us make Man in Our image, after Our likeness[125]," he explains by remarking that "the Pentateuch abounds in passages shewing that the Hebrews contemplated the Divine being in the visible form of a man." (!!!) (p. 221.) A foot-note contains the following oracular dictum,—"See particularly the narrative in Genesis xviii." What can be said to such an ignoramus as this? Hear him dogmatizing in another subject-matter:—"The common arrangement of the Bible in chapters is of comparatively modern origin, and is admitted on all hands to have no authority or philological worth whatever. In many cases the division is most preposterous." (p. 222.) That the division of chapters is occasionally infelicitous, is true: but is Mr. Goodwin weak enough to think that he could divide them better? The division into chapters and verses again is not so modern as Mr. Goodwin fancies. Dr. M'Caul, (in a pamphlet on the Translation of the Bible,) shews reason for suspecting that some of the divisions of the Old Testament Scriptures are as old as the time of Ezra.

To return, and for the last time, to Mr. Goodwin's Essay.—His object is, (with how much of success I have already sufficiently shewn,) (1) To fasten the charge of absurdity and ignorance on the ancient Prophet who is confessedly the author of the Book of Genesis: (2) To prove that a literal interpretation of Gen. i., "will not bear a moment's serious discussion." (p. 230.) I look through his pages in vain for the wished-for proof. He has many strong assertions. He puts them forth with not a little insolence. But he proves nothing! At p. 226, however, I read as follows:—"Dr. Buckland appears to assume that when it is said that the Heaven and the Earth were created in the beginning, it is to be understood that they were created in their present form and state of completeness, the heaven raised above the earth as we see it, or seem to see it now." (pp. 226-7.)

But Dr. Buckland "appears to assume" nothing of the kind. His words are,—"The first verse of Genesis seems explicitly to assert the creation of the Universe: the Heaven, including the sidereal systems,—and the Earth, ... the subsequent scene of the operations of the six days about to be described." (pp. 224-5.)

"This," continues Mr. Goodwin, "is the fallacy of his argument." (p. 227.)

But if this is "the fallacy of his argument," we have already seen that it is a fallacy which rests not with Dr. Buckland, but with Mr. Goodwin. He proceeds:—

"The circumstantial description of the framing of the Heaven out of the waters proves that the words 'Heaven and Earth,' in the first verse, must be taken proleptically."—(p. 227.)

But we may as well stop the torrent of long words, by simply pointing out that "the heavens," (hashamaim,) spoken of in Gen. i. 1, are quite distinct from "the firmament," (rakia,) spoken of in ver. 6. The word is altogether different, and the sense is evidently altogether different also; although Mr. Goodwin seeks to identify the two[126]. And further, we take leave to remind our modern philosopher that no "circumstantial description of the framing of the heaven out of the waters," is to be found either in ver. 6, or elsewhere. And this must suffice.

The entire subject shall be dismissed with a very few remarks.—Mr. Goodwin delights in pointing out the incorrectness of "the sense in which the Mosaic narrative was taken by those who first heard it:" (p. 223:) and in asserting "that this meaning is primâ facie one wholly adverse to the present astronomical and geological views of the Universe." (p. 223.) But we take leave to remind this would-be philosopher that "the idea which entered into the minds of those to whom the account was first given," (p. 230,) is not the question with which we have to do when we are invited to a "frank recognition of the erroneous views of Nature which the Bible contains." (p. 211.) "It is manifest,"—(in this I cordially agree with Mr. Goodwin,)—"that the whole account is given from a different point of view from that which we now unavoidably take:" (p. 223:) and, (I beg leave to add,) that point of view is somewhere in Heaven,—not here on Earth! The "Mosaic Cosmogony," as Mr. Goodwin phrases it, (fond, like all other smatterers in Science, of long words,) is a Revelation: and the same Holy Ghost who gave it, speaking by the mouth of St. John, not obscurely intimates that it is mystical, like the rest of Holy Scripture,—that is, that it was fashioned not without a reference to the Gospel[127]. But we are touching on a high subject now, of which Mr. Goodwin does not understand so much as the Grammar. He is thinking of the structure of the globe: we are thinking of the structure of the Bible. But to return to Earth, we inform the Essayist that it is simply unphilosophical, even absurd, for him to insist on what shall be implied by certain words employed by Moses,—(of which he judges by their etymology;) and further to assume what erroneous physical theories those words must have been connected with, by his countrymen, and so forth; and straightway to hold up the greatest of the ancient prophets to ridicule, as if those notions and those theories were all his!

"After all," (as Dr. Buckland remarked, long since,) "it should be recollected that the question is not respecting the correctness of the Mosaic narrative, but of our interpretation of it:" (p. 231:)—"a proposition," (proceeds Mr. Goodwin,) "which can hardly be sufficiently reprobated." But I make no question which of these two writers is most entitled to reprobation. For the view which will be found advocated in Sermon II., (which is substantially Dr. Buckland's,) (p. 24 to p. 32,) it shall but be said that it recommends itself to our acceptance by the strong fact that it takes no liberty with the sacred narrative, whatever; and receives the Revelation of God in all its strangeness, (which it cannot be a great mistake to do;) without trying to reconcile it with supposed discoveries, (wherein we may fail altogether.) I defy anybody to shew that it is impossible that God may have disposed of the actual order of the Universe, as in the first chapter of Genesis He is related to have done; and probability can clearly have no place in such a speculation. I would only just remind the thoughtful student of Scripture, and indeed of Nature also, that the singular analogy which Geologists think they discover between successive periods of Creation, and the Mosaic record of the first Six Days, is no difficulty to those who hesitate to identify those Days with the irregular Periods of indefinite extent. Rather was it to have been expected, I think, that such an analogy would be found to subsist between His past and His present working, when, 6,000 years ago, God arranged the actual system of things in Six Days.—Neither need we feel perplexed if Hugh Miller was right in the conclusion at which, he says, he had been "compelled to arrive;" viz. that "not a few" of the extant species of animals "enjoyed life in their present haunts" "for many long ages ere Man was ushered into being;" "and that for thousands of years anterior to even their appearance many of the existing molluscs lived in our seas." (p. 229.) I find it nowhere asserted by Moses that the severance was so complete, and decisively marked, between previous cycles of Creation and that cycle which culminated in the creation of Man, that no single species of the præ-Adamic period was reproduced by the Omnipotent, to serve as a connecting link, as it were, between the Old world and the New,—an identifying note of the Intelligence which was equally at work on this last, as on all those former occasions. On the other hand, I do find it asserted by Geologists that between the successive præ-Adamic cycles such connecting links are discoverable; and this fact makes me behold in the circumstance supposed fatal to the view here advocated, the strongest possible confirmation of its accuracy. At the same time, it is admitted that in every department of animated and vegetable life, the severance between the last (or Mosaic) cycle of Creation, and all those cycles which preceded it, is very broadly marked[128].

Mr. Goodwin's method contrasts sadly with that of the several writers he adduces,—whether Naturalists or Divines. Those men, believing in the truth of God's Word, have piously endeavoured, (with whatever success,) to shew that the discoveries of Geology are not inconsistent with the revelations of Genesis. But he, with singular bad taste, (to use no stronger language,) makes no secret of the animosity with which he regards the inspired record; and even finds "the spectacle of able, and we doubt not conscientious writers engaging in attempting the impossible,—painful and humiliating." He says, "they evidently do not breathe freely over their work; but shuffle and stumble over their difficulties in a piteous manner." (p. 250.) He asserts dogmatically that "the interpretation proposed by Buckland to be given to the Mosaic description, will not bear a moment's serious discussion:" (p. 230:) while Hugh Miller "proposes to give an entirely mythical or enigmatical sense to the Mosaic narrative." (p. 236.) He is clamorous that we should admit the teaching of Scripture to be "to some extent erroneous." (p. 251.) He "recognizes in it, not an authentic utterance of Divine Knowledge, but a human utterance." (p. 253.) "Why should we hesitate," (he asks,) "to recognize the fallibility of the Hebrew writers?" (p. 251.)

With one general reflexion, I pass on to the next Essay.—The Works of God, the more severely they have been questioned, have hitherto been considered to bear a more and more decisive testimony to the Wisdom and the Goodness of their Author. The animal and the vegetable kingdoms have been made Man's instructors for ages past; and ever since the microscope has revealed so many unsuspected wonders, the argument from contrivance and design, Creative Power and infinite Wisdom, has been pressed with increasing cogency. The Heavens, from the beginning, have been felt to "declare the glory of God." One department only of Nature, alone, has all along remained unexplored. Singular to relate, the Records of Creation, (as the phenomena of Geology may I suppose be properly called,)—though the most obvious phenomena of all,—have been throughout neglected. It was not till the other day that they were invited to give up their weighty secrets; and lo, they have confessed them, willingly and at once. The study of Geology does but date from yesterday; and already it aspires to the rank of a glorious Science. Evidence has been at once furnished that our Earth has been the scene of successive cycles of Creation; and the crust of the globe we inhabit is found to contain evidence of a degree of antiquity which altogether defies conjecture. The truth is, that Man, standing on a globe where his deepest excavations bear the same relation to the diameter which the scratch of a pin invisible to the naked eye, bears to an ordinary globe;—learns that his powers of interrogating Nature break down marvellous soon: yet Nature is observed to keep from him no secrets which he has the ability to ask her to give up.

In the meantime, the attitude assumed by certain pretenders to Physical Science at these discoveries, cannot fail to strike any thoughtful person as extraordinary. Those witnesses of God's work in Creation, which have been dumb for ages only because no man ever thought of interrogating them, are now regarded in the light of depositaries of a mighty secret; which, because God knew that it would be fatal to the credit of His written Word, He had bribed them to keep back, as long as, by shuffling and equivocation, they found concealment practicable. It seems to be fancied, however, that that fatal secret the determination of Man has wrung from their unwilling lips, at last; and lo, on confronting God with these witnesses, He is convicted even by His own creatures of having spoken falsely in His Word[129].—Such, I say, is the tone assumed of late by a certain school of pretenders to Physical Science.

What need to declare that to the well-informed eye of Faith,—(and surely Faith is here the perfection of Reason! for Faith, remember, is the correlative not of Reason, but of Sight;)—the phenomenon presented is of a widely different character. Faith, or rather Reason, looks upon God's Works as a kind of complement of His Word. He who gave the one, gave the other also. Moreover, He knew that He had given it. So far from ministering to unbelief, or even furnishing grounds for perplexity, the record of His Works was intended, according to His gracious design, to supply what was lacking to our knowledge in the record of His Word.... "Behold My footprints, (He seems to say,) across the long tract of the ages! I could not give you this evidence in My written Word. The record would have been out of place, and out of time. It would have been unintelligible also. But what I knew would be inexpedient in the page of Revelation, I have given you abundantly in the page of Nature. I have spared your globe from combustion, which would have effaced those footprints,—in order that the characters might be plainly decipherable to the end of Time.... O fools and blind, to have occupied a world so brimful of wonders for wellnigh 6000 years, and only now to have begun to open your eyes to the structure of the earth whereon ye live, and move, and have your being! Yea, and the thousandth part of the natural wonders by which ye are surrounded has not been so much as dreamed of, by any of you, yet!... O learn to be the humbler, the more ye know; and when ye gaze along the mighty vista of departed ages, and scan the traces of what I was doing before I created Man,—multiply that problem by the stars which are scattered in number numberless over all the vault of Heaven; and learn to confess that it behoves the creature of an hour to bow his head at the discovery of his own littleness and blindness; and that his words concerning the Ancient of Days had need to be at once very wary, and very few!"

VI. By far the ablest of these seven Essays is from the pen of the "Rev. Mark Pattison, B.D., Rector of Lincoln College, Oxford." It purports to be an Essay on the "Tendencies of Religious Thought in England, 1688-1750;" but it can hardly be said to correspond with that description. In the concluding paragraph, the learned writer gives to his work a different name. It is declared to be "The past History of the Theory of Belief in the Church of England[130]." But neither the title at the head, nor the title at the tail of the Essay, gives any adequate notion of the Author's purpose.

Had we met with this production, isolated, in the pages of a Review, we should have probably passed it by as the work of a clever man, who, after amusing himself to some extent with the Theological literature of the last century, had desired to preserve some record of his reading; and had here thrown his random jottings into connected form. There is a racy freshness in a few of Mr. Pattison's sketches, (as in his account of Bentley's controversy with Collins[131],) which forcibly suggests the image of an artist whose pencil cannot rest amid scenery which stimulates his imagination. To be candid, we are inclined to suspect that, in the first instance, something of this sort was in reality all that the learned author had in view. But we are reluctantly precluded from putting so friendly a construction on these seventy-six pages. Not only does Mr. Pattison's Essay stand between Mr. Goodwin's open endeavour to destroy confidence in the writings of Moses, and Professor Jowett's laborious insinuations that the Bible is only an ordinary book; but it claims a common purpose and intention with both those writers. Mr. Pattison's avowed object is "to illustrate the advantage derivable to the cause of religious and moral truth, from a free handling, in a becoming spirit, of subjects peculiarly liable to suffer by the repetition of conventional language, and from traditional methods of treatment[132]." We proceed therefore to examine his labours by the aid of the clue which he has himself supplied. For when nine editions of a book appear in quick succession, prefaced by a description of the spirit in which "it is hoped that the volume will he received,"—it seems a pity that the author should not be judged by the standard of his own choosing.

We are surprised then to find how slightly Mr. Pattison's Essay fulfils its avowed purpose. The learned author does not, in fact, directly "handle" the class of subjects referred to, at all: or if he does, it is achieved in a couple of pages. And yet it is not difficult to point out the part which his Essay performs in the general scheme of this guilty volume. With whatever absence of "concert or comparison" the authors may have severally written, the fatal effect of their combined endeavours is not more apparent than the part sustained by each Essay singly in promoting it.

While Mr. Goodwin demolishes the Law, and Dr. Williams disbelieves the Prophets; while Professor Powell denies the truth of Miracles, and Professor Jowett evacuates the authority of Holy Scripture altogether—while Dr. Temple substitutes the inner light of Conscience for an external Revelation; and Mr. Wilson teaches men how they may turn the substance of Holy Scripture into a shadow, evade the plain force of language, and play fast and loose with those safeguards which it has been ever thought that words supply;—Mr. Pattison, reviewing the last century and a half of our own Theological history, labours hard to produce an impression that, here also "all is vanity and vexation of spirit." He calls off our attention from the Bible, and bids us contemplate the unlovely aspect of the English "religious world" from the Revolution of 1688 down to the publication of the 'Tracts for the Times,' in 1833[133]. "Be content for a while, (he seems to say,) to disregard the prize; and observe the combatants instead. Listen to the historian of moral and religious progress," while he depicts "decay of religion, licentiousness of morals, public corruption, profaneness of language, a day of rebuke and blasphemy." Come attend to me; and I will draw the likeness of "an age destitute of depth or earnestness; an age whose poetry was without romance, whose philosophy was without insight, and whose public men were without character; an age of 'light without love,' whose 'very merits were of the earth, earthy.'" (p. 254.) "If we would understand our own position in the Church, and that of the Church in the age; if we would hold any clue through the maze of religious pretension which surrounds us; we cannot neglect those immediate agencies in the production of the present, which had their origin towards the beginning of the eighteenth century." (p. 256.) Let us then "trace the descent of religious thought, and the practical working of the religious ideas," (p. 255,) through some of the phases they have more recently assumed. You shall see the Apostles tried on a charge "of giving false witness in the case of the Resurrection of Jesus;" (p. 303;) and pronounced "not guilty," by one whose "name once commanded universal homage among us;" but who now, (!) with South (!!) and Barrow, (!!!) "excites perhaps only a smile of pity." (p. 265.) You shall be shewn Bentley in his attack on Collins the freethinker, enjoying "rare sport,"—"rat-hunting in an old rick;" and "laying about him in high glee, braining an authority at every blow." (p. 308.) "Coarse, arrogant, and abusive, with all Bentley's worst faults of style and temper, this masterly critique is decisive." (p. 307.) And yet, you are not to rejoice! "The 'Discourse of Freethinking' was a small tract published in 1713 by Anthony Collins, a gentleman whose high personal character and general respectability seemed to give a weight to his words, which assuredly they do not carry of themselves." (p. 307.) [Why, the man ought to have been an Essayist and Reviewer!] ... "By 'freethinking'" he does but "mean liberty of thought,—the right of bringing all received opinions whatsoever to the touchstone of reason:" (p. 307:) [a liberty which has evidently disappeared from English Literature: a right which no man dares any longer exercise under pain of excommunication!] "Collins was not a sharper, and would have disdained practices to which Bentley stooped for the sake of a professorship." (p. 310.) [O high-minded Collins!] "The dirt endeavoured to be thrown on Collins will cleave to the hand that throws it." (p. 309.) [O dirty Bentley!] And though "Collins's mistakes, mistranslations, misconceptions, and distortions are so monstrous, that it is difficult for us now, forgetful how low classical learning had sunk, to believe that they are mistakes, and not wilful errors," (p. 308,)—yet "Addison, the pride of Oxford, had done no better. In his 'Essay on the Evidences of Christianity,' Addison 'assigns as grounds for his religious belief, stories as absurd as that of the Cock-lane ghost, and forgeries as rank as Ireland's 'Vortigern;' puts faith in the lie about the thundering legion; is convinced that Tiberius moved the Senate to admit Jesus among the gods; and pronounces the letter of Agbarus, King of Edessa, to be a record of great authority.'" (p. 307, quoting Macaulay's Essays.) All this and much more you shall see. Remember that it is the history of your immediate forefathers which you will be contemplating,—the morality of the professors of religion during the last century,—"the past history of the theory of Belief in the Church of England!" (p. 329.)

The curtain falls; and now, pray how do you like it? I invite you, in conclusion, to "take the religious literature of the present day, as a whole; and endeavour to make out clearly on what basis Revelation is supposed by it to rest; whether on Authority, on the Inward Light, on Reason, on self-evidencing Scripture, or on the combination of the four, or some of them, and in what proportions." (p. 329.) ... After this, you are at liberty to proceed to read 'Jowett on Inspiration,'—with what appetite you may!

Such is the impression which Mr. Pattison's Essay is calculated to leave behind. That he had no wicked intention in writing it, no one who knows him could for an instant suppose: but the effect of what he has done is certainly to set his reader adrift on a dreary sea of doubt. Discomfort and dissatisfaction, confusion and dismay, are the prevailing sentiments with which a religious mind, unfortified with learning, will rise from the perusal of the present Essay: while the irreligious man will study it with a sneer of ill-concealed satisfaction. The marks of Mr. Pattison's own better knowledge, (sufficiently evident to the quick eye of one who is aware of the writer's high theological attainments;)—the indications of a truer individual judgment, (discoverable throughout by one who knows the author's private worth, and is himself happily in possession of the clue by which to escape from this tangled labyrinth:)—these escape the common reader. To him, all is dreary doubt.

I must perforce deal with Mr. Pattison's labours in a very summary manner. The chief complaint I have to make against him is that he has altogether omitted what, to you and to me, is the most important feature of the century which he professes to describe,—namely, the vast amount of lofty Churchmanship, the unbroken Catholic tradition, which, with no small amount of general short-coming, is to be traced throughout the eighteenth century. To insinuate that the return to Catholic principles began with the publication of the 'Tracts for the Times,' (p. 259,) in 1833, is simply to insinuate what is not true. But Mr. Pattison does more than 'insinuate.' He states it openly. "In constructing Catenæ Patrum," (he says,) "the Anglican closes his list with Waterland or Brett, and leaps at once to 1833." (p. 255.)—Now, since Waterland died in 1740 and Brett in 1743, it is clear that, (according to Mr. Pattison,) a hundred years and upwards have to be cleared per saltum: during which the lamp of Religion in these kingdoms had gone fairly out. But how stands the truth? At least four "Catenæ Patrum" are given in the "Tracts for the Times[134];" not one of which is closed with Waterland or Brett. On the contrary, in the two former Catenæ (beginning with Jewel and Hooker) the names of these supposed 'ultimi Romanorum' occur little more than half way!... "Les faits," therefore, (as usual with 'Essayists and Reviewers,')—"les faits sont contraires."—It would be enough to cite Bethell's 'General View of the Doctrine of Regeneration in Baptism,' which appeared in 1822; and Hugh James Rose's 'Discourses on the Commission and Duties of the Clergy,' which were preached in 1826. But the case against Mr. Pattison, as I shall presently shew, is abundantly stronger.

In short, to exclude from sight, as this author so laboriously endeavours to do, the Catholic element of the last century and the early part of the present, is extremely unfair. There had never failed in the Church of England a succession of illustrious men, who transmitted the Divine fire unimpaired, down to yesterday. Quenched in some places, the flame burned up brightly and beautifully in others. As for the 'Tracts for the Times,' they speedily assumed a party character: and by the time that ninety-seven of them had appeared, the series was discontinued by the desire of the Diocesan,—who was yet the friend of its authors. The Tracts do not all, by any means, represent Anglican (i.e. Catholic) Theology. They were written by a very few men; while the greatest of those who had materially promoted the Catholic movement out of which they sprang, (not which they occasioned,) were dissatisfied with them; would not write in them; kept aloof; and foresaw and foretold what would be the issue of such teaching[135]. And yet, 'Tracts for the Times' did more good than evil, I suppose, on the whole.

The truth is, that in every age, (and the last century forms no exception to the rule,) the history of the Church on Earth has been a warfare. Mr. Pattison says contemptuously,—"The current phrases of 'the bulwarks of our faith,' 'dangerous to Christianity,' are but instances of the habitual position in which we assume ourselves to stand. Even more philosophic minds cannot get rid of the idea that Theology is polemical." (p. 301.) And pray, whom have we to thank, but such writers as Mr. Pattison, that it is so? I am one of the many who at this hour are (unwillingly) neglecting constructive tasks in order to be destructive with Mr. Pattison and his colleagues! So long as Infidelity abounds, our service must be a warfare. 'The Prince of Peace' foretold as much, when He prophesied to His Disciples that it would be found that He had "brought on earth, a sword." As much was typically adumbrated, I suspect, (begging Mr. Jowett's pardon,) when, at the rebuilding of the walls of the Holy City, "they which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon. For the builders, every one had his sword girded by his side, and so builded[136]." May I not add that the unique position which the Church of England has occupied, ever since her great Reformation in respect both of Doctrine and of Discipline three centuries ago,—is of a nature which must inevitably subject her to constant storms? An object of envy to 'Protestant Europe,'—and of hatred to Rome;—exposed to the hostility of the State, (which would trample her under foot, if it dared,)—and viewed with ill-concealed animosity by Dissenters of every class;—admitting into her Ministry men of very diverse views,—and restraining them by scarcely any discipline;—allowing perfect freedom, aye, licentiousness of discussion,—and tolerating the expression of almost any opinions,—except those of Essayists and Reviewers:—how shall the Church of England fail to adopt 'the bulwarks of the faith' for one of her current phrases? how not, many a time, deem 'dangerous to Christianity' the speculations of her sons?... Nay, polemics must prevail; if only because, in a certain place, the Divine Speaker already quoted foretells the partial, (if not the entire,) obscuration even of true Doctrine, in that pathetic exclamation of His,—"When the Son of Man cometh, shall He find the faith upon the Earth[137]?" ... In the face of all this, it is to confuse and mystify the ordinary reader to draw such a picture of the last century as Mr. Pattison has drawn here. As dismal a view might be easily taken of the first, of the second, of the third, of the fourth, of the fifth century. What Mr. Newman once designated as "ancient, holy, and happy times," might very easily indeed be so exhibited as to seem times of confusion and discord, blasphemy and rebuke. A discouraging picture might be drawn, (I suppose,) of every age of the Church's history. But in, and by itself, it would never be quite a true picture. For to the eye of Faith there is ever to be descried, amid the hurly-burly of the storm, the Ark of Christ's Church floating peacefully over the troubled waters, and making steadily for that Heavenly haven "where it would be." ... Yes, there is ever some blessed trace discoverable, that this Life of ours is watched over by One whose Name is Love; whether we con the chequered page of History, Ecclesiastical or Civil; or summon to our aid the story of our own narrow experience. From the fierce and fiery opposition, Good is ever found to have resulted; and that Good was abiding. Out of the weary conflict ever has issued Peace; and that Peace was of the kind which 'passeth all understanding;' a Peace which the world cannot give,—no, nor take away. There are abundant traces that in all that has happened to the Church of Christ, from first to last, there has been a purpose and a plan!... No one knows this better than Mr. Pattison. No man in Oxford could have drawn out what I have been saying into a convincing reality, better than he, had he yielded to the instincts of a good heart, and directed his fine abilities to their lawful scope.

The character of the last dismal century, Mr. Pattison has drawn with sufficient vividness: but that century armed the Church, (as we shall be presently reminded,) on the side of the "Evidences of Religion;" and if it taught her the insufficiency of such a method, the eighteenth century did its work. Above all, it produced Bishop Butler.—The previous century, (the seventeenth,) witnessed the supremacy of fanaticism. It saw the monarchy laid prostrate, and the Church trampled under foot, and the use of the Liturgy prohibited by Act of Parliament. The "Sufferings of the Clergy" fill a folio volume. But this was the century which produced our great Caroline Divines! From Bp. Andrewes to Bp. Pearson,—what a galaxy of names! Moreover, on the side of the Romish controversy, the seventeenth century supplied the Church's armoury for ever,—Stillingfleet, who died in the year 1699, in a manner closing the strife.—The sixteenth century witnessed the Reformation of Religion, with all its inevitably attendant evils; an unsettled faith,—gross public and private injustice,—an illiterate parochial clergy:—yet how goodly a body of sound Divinity did the controversies of that age call forth! The same century witnessed the rise of Puritanism; but then, it produced Richard Hooker!—What was the character of the century which immediately preceded the Reformation,—the fifteenth?... A tangled web of good and evil has been the Church's history from the very first. The counterpart of what we read of in Eusebius and Socrates is to be witnessed among ourselves at the present day, and will doubtless be witnessed to the end! But then, in days of deepest discouragement, faithful men have never been found wanting to the English Church, (no, nor God helping her, ever will!) who, like the late Hugh James Rose, "when hearts were failing, bade us stir up the gift that was in us, and betake ourselves to our true Mother." Mean wilee, such names as George Herbert and Nicholas Farrar, Ken and Nelson, Leighton and Bishop Wilson, shine through the gloom like a constellation of quiet stars; to which the pilgrim lifts his weary eye, and feels that he is looking up to Heaven!

When the spirit of the Age comes into collision with the spirit of the Gospel, the result is sometimes (as in the earliest centuries,) portentous;—sometimes, (as in the last,) simply deplorable and grievous. The battle which seems to be at present waging is of a different nature. Physical Science has undertaken the perilous task of hardening herself against the God of Nature. We shall probably see this unnatural strife prolonged for many years to come;—to be succeeded by some fresh form of irreligion. Somewhat thus, I apprehend, will it be to the end: and the men of every age will in those conflicts find their best probation; and it will still be the office of the Creator, in this way to separate the Light from the Darkness,—until the dawn of the everlasting Morning!

It is not proposed to enter into the Rationalism of the last century, therefore; or to inquire into the causes of the barren lifeless shape into which Theology then, for the most part, threw itself. I have never made that department of Ecclesiastical History my study: and who does not turn away from what is joyless and dreary, to greener meadows, and more fertile fields? It shall only be remarked that when the Credibility of Religion is the thing generally denied, Evidences will of necessity be the form which much of the Theological writing of the Day will assume. Let it not be imagined for an instant that one is the apologist of what Mr. Pattison has characterized as "an age of Light without Love." (p. 254.) But I insist that the theological picture of the last century is incomplete, until attention has been called to the many redeeming features which it presents, and which are all of a re-assuring kind.

Thus, in the department of sacred scholarship, who can forgot that our learned John Mill, in 1707, gave to the world that famous edition of the New Testament which bears his name, after thirty years of patient toil? Who can forget our obligations in Hebrew, to Kennicott? (1718-1783.) Humphrey Hody's great work on the Text, and older Versions of Holy Scripture, was published in 1705.—Bingham's immortal 'Origines' began to appear in 1708; and William Cave lived till 1714.

In the same connexion should be mentioned Bp. Gibson, who died in 1748, and Humphrey Prideaux, whose 'Connexion' is dated 1715. Pococke died on the eve of the commencement of the last century (1691); but so great a name casts a bright beam through the darkness which Mr. Pattison describes so forcibly. Archbishop Wake died in 1737. Warton, the author of 'Anglia Sacra,' died at the age of 35 in 1695.

Survey next the field of Divinity, properly so called; and in the face of Mr. Pattison's rash statement that "we have no classical Theology since 1660," (p. 265,) take notice that Bp. Bull, one of the greatest Divines which the Church of Christ ever bred, did not begin to write until 1669, and lived to the year 1709. This was the man, remember, who received the thanks of the whole Gallican Church for his 'Judicium Ecclesiæ Catholicæ,' (i.e. his learned assertion of our Saviour's Godhead[138];)—the man whose writings would have won him the reverence and affection of Athanasius and Augustine and Basil, had he lived in their day; for he had a mind like theirs. Bp. Pearson did not die till 1686. Bp. Beveridge wrote till his death in 1707. Fell, the learned editor of Cyprian, died in 1686: Stillingfleet lived till 1699. Wall's History of Infant Baptism appeared in 1705. Wheatly, who led the way in liturgical inquiry, was alive till 1742; and Bp. Patrick was a prolific writer till his death in 1707. May we not also claim the excellent and learned Grabe as altogether one of ourselves?

Such names do not require special comment. They are their own best eulogium, and present a high title to their country's gratitude. The name of Prebendary Lowth, (the author of an excellent commentary on the prophets,) reminds us that there was living till 1732 one who fully appreciated the calling of an Interpreter of God's Word[139]. Bishop Lowth his son, in his great work, (1753,) recovered the forgotten principle of Hebrew poetry. To convince ourselves what a spirit existed in some quarters, (notwithstanding the general spread of the very opinions which 'Essayists and Reviewers' have been so industriously reproducing in our own day,) it is only necessary to transcribe the title-page of S. Parker's excellent 'Bibliotheca Biblica,' a Commentary on the Pentateuch, 1720-1735; 'gathered out of the genuine writings of Fathers, Ecclesiastical Historians, and Acts of Councils down to the year of our Lord 451, being that of the fourth General Council; and lower, as occasion may require.'—That learned man designed to achieve a Commentary on the whole Bible on the same laborious plan; but his labours and his life, (at the age of 50,) were brought to an end in 1730.—Dr. Waterland, born in 1683, and Dr. Jackson, born in 1686,—two great names!—died respectively in 1740 and 1763.—In 1778, appeared Dr. Townson's admirable 'Discourses on the Gospels.' The author lived till 1792. Pious Bp. Horne (1730-1792) has left the best evidence of his ability as a Divine in the Introduction to his Commentary on the Psalms. Jones of Nayland is found to have lived till 1800. Bp. Horsley, a great champion of orthodoxy of belief, as well as an excellent commentator, critic, and Sermon writer, lived till 1806. Not seven years have elapsed since there was to be seen among ourselves a venerable Divine, who was declared in 1838, by the chief promoter of the 'Tracts for the Times,' to have "been reserved to report to a forgetful generation what was the Theology of their Fathers[140]." Martin Joseph Routh, died in 1854, after completing a century of years. In 1832 appeared his 'Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Opuscula.' His 'Reliquæ Sacræ' had appeared in 1814. The work was undertaken so far back as 1788. The last volume appeared in 1848, and concluded with a Catena of authorities on the great question which was denied by the unbelievers of the last century, and is denied by the 'Essayists and Reviewers' of this[141]. Here then was one who had borne steady witness in the Church of England to what is her genuine Catholic teaching from a period dating long before the birth of any one who was concerned with the 'Tracts for the Times.'

More ancient names present themselves as furnishing exceptions to Mr. Pattison's dreary sentence. From Abp. Potter and Leslie, down to Abp. Laurence and Van Mildert,—how many might yet be specified! We have not hitherto mentioned Abp. Leighton, who died in 1684: Hickes, Johnson, and Brett, who survived respectively till 1715, 1725, and 1743: the truly apostolic Wilson, Bishop of Sodor and Man (1663-1755,)—a name, by the way, which deserves far more distinct and emphatic notice than can here be bestowed upon it; and Nelson, the pious author of 'Fasts and Festivals,' who died in 1715. We had good Iz. Walton, till 1683, and holy Ken till 1711. Richard Hele, author of 'Select Offices,' (which appeared in 1717,) is a name not forgotten in Heaven certainly, though little known on Earth; while Kettlewell and Scandret begin a Catena of which good Bishop Jolly would be only one of the later links. Meanwhile, the reader is requested to take notice that there were many other excellent Divines of the period under consideration, (as Long and Horbery;) men who made no great figure indeed, but who were evidently persons of great piety and sound judgment; while their learning puts that of 'Essayists and Reviewers' altogether to the blush.

But I have reserved for the last, a truly noble name,—which Mr. Pattison, (with singular bad taste, to say no worse,) mentions only to disparage. I allude to Dr. Joseph Butler, Bishop of Durham; whose 'Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed, to the Constitution and Course of Nature,'—remains, at the end of a century, unanswerable as an Apology,—unrivalled as a text-book,—unexhausted as a mine of suggestive thought. It may be convenient for an 'Essayist and Reviewer' to declare that "the merit of the Analogy lies in its want of originality." (p. 286.) There was not much originality perhaps in the remark that an apple falls to the ground. Whatever the faults of the Analogy, that work, under God, saved the Church. However "depressing to the soul" (p. 293.) of Mr. Pattison, it is nevertheless a book which will invigorate Faith, and brighten Hope, and comfort Charity herself,—long after the spot where he and I shall sleep has been forgotten: long after our very names will be hard to find.

Let me turn from this illustrious individual, to one whose very name is perhaps unknown. One loves to think that there are at all times plenty of good men, who are doing God's work in the world, in quiet corners; but whose names do not perhaps rise to the surface and emerge into notice, throughout the whole of a long life. Conversely, how many must there be, the blessing of whose example and influence has extended down from the surface, (where perhaps it was acknowledged and appreciated by all,) until it made itself felt by the humblest units of a lowly country parish!... The obscure village of Finmere, (in Oxfordshire,) was so happy as to enjoy for its Rector, from 1734 to 1771, the Rev. Thomas Long, M.A.,—"a man," (says the Register,) "of the most exemplary piety and charity." He presented to the church twelve acres of land, "charging it with a yearly payment of fifteen shillings to the Clerk, as a recompense to him for attending on the Fasts and Festivals; and ordering sixpence to be deducted from the payment, for each time the Clerk failed to attend on those days,—unless let by sickness." About ten years ago, there was found in the hands of a labouring man at Finmere, a solitary copy of a printed "Lecture," by this individual, "addressed to the young persons" of the village, (1762,) which begins as follows:—"I have usually, once every three years, gone through a course of Lectures upon the Catechism; but considering my age and great infirmities, it is not very probable I should continue this practice any longer. I am willing therefore, as a small monument of my care and affection for you, to print the last of these Lectures," &c.... What heart so dull as not to admit that men like this, (and there were many of them!) are quite good enough to redeem an age from indiscriminate opprobrium and unmitigated contempt?

Shall we omit, after this enumeration, to notice the singular fact that Discipline still lingered on,—even the discipline of public penance,—until within the memory of aged persons yet living? Merchants in the city of London wore mourning during Lent, within the present century. It is only within the last thirty years that formulæ expressive of reliance on the Divine blessing have been expunged from bills-of-lading, and similar printed documents. In the beginning of the period discoursed of by Mr. Pattison, (viz. in the year 1714,) the excellent Robert Nelson, in "An Address to Persons of Quality and Estate," proposed as objects for the generosity of the affluent, such institutions as the following:—"the creating of Charity Schools,"—of "Parochial Libraries in the meanly endowed Cures throughout England,"—of "a superior School for training up Schoolmasters and Schoolmistresses,"—and of "Colleges or Seminaries for the Candidates of Holy Orders." He suggested that there should be "Houses of Hospitality for entertaining Strangers;" "Suffragan Bishops, both at home and in the Western Plantations;" "Colleges for receiving Converts from Popery." Some of Nelson's suggestions read like vaticinations. He points out the need of Ladies' Colleges,—of a Hospital for Incurables,—of Ragged Schools, (for what else is a school "for the distressed children called the Black-guard?"),—and of Houses of Mercy for the reception of penitent fallen women.—Is it right to speak of a century which could freely contemplate such works as these and carry into execution many of them[142], without some allusion to the leaven which was at work beneath the dry crust of Society? the living Catholic energy which neither the average dulness of the pulpit could quench, nor the lifeless morality which had been popularly substituted for Divinity could destroy?

We are abundantly prepared therefore for Mr. Pattison's admission that "public opinion was throughout on the side of the defenders of Christianity:" (p. 313:)—that, "however a loose kind of Deism might be the tone of fashionable circles, it is clear that distinct disbelief of Christianity was by no means the general state of the public mind. The leaders of the Low-Church and Whig party were quite aware of this. Notwithstanding the universal complaints of the High-Church party of the prevalence of infidelity, it is obvious that this mode of thinking was confined to a very small section of society." (p. 313.)

And surely it should not escape us that the peculiar form which unbelief assumed during the period under discussion, resulted in a benefit to the Church. "The eighteenth century," (says our author,) "enforced the truths of Natural Morality with a solidity of argument and variety of proof which they have not received since the Stoical epoch, if then." (p. 296.) "The career of the Evidential School, its success and its failure, has enriched the history of Doctrine," not indeed "with a complete refutation of that method as an instrument of theological investigation," (p. 297,) (witness the immortal 'Analogy' of Bishop Butler!)—but, certainly with very precious experience. That age has bequeathed to the Church a vast body of controversial writing which she could ill afford to part with at the present day.

So far, we have little to complain of in Mr. Pattison's Essay, except on the side of omission. But for the fatal circumstance of the company in which the learned writer comes abroad, and the avowed purpose with which he is found there, a charitable construction might have been put upon most of the present performance. The following sentences, on the other hand, are not excusable.

"In the present day when a godless orthodoxy threatens, as in the fifteenth century, to extinguish religious thought (!) altogether, and nothing is allowed in the Church of England but the formulæ of past thinkings, which have long lost all sense of any kind, (!) it may seem out of season to be bringing forward a misapplication of common-sense in a bygone age," (p. 297.)

The "orthodoxy" of the fifteenth century is something new to us. So is the prospect "in the present day," of an "extinction of religious thought,"—the result of "godless orthodoxy." The fault, or the misfortune of the Church of England then, is, that she retains "the formulæ of past thinkings, which have long lost all sense of any kind." (p. 297.) If this does not mean the English Book of Common Prayer, what does it mean? And if it means the English Prayer-Book, how can Mr. Pattison retain his commission in the Church of England, and exclusively employ a Book which he presumes so to characterize?

But this is ad hominem. The learned writer proceeds:—"There are times and circumstances when religious ideas will be greatly benefited by being submitted to the rough and ready tests by which busy men try what comes in their way; by being made to stand their trial, and be fully canvassed, coram populo. As Poetry is not for the critics, so Religion is not for the Theologians." (p. 297.)

No doubt. But does Mr. Pattison then really mean to tell us that the proper tribunal before which the Creeds, (for example,) of the Catholic Church,—our Communion and Baptismal offices,—the structure of our Calendar, and so forth,—should "stand their trial, and be freely canvassed," is, "coram populo?" A "rough and ready test," this, of Truth, I grant; aye, a very "rough" one. But was it ever,—can it ever be,—a fair test? Let us hear Mr. Pattison out, on the subject of Religion:—

"When it is stiffened into phrases, and these phrases are declared to be objects of reverence but not of intelligence, it is on the way to become a useless encumbrance; the rubbish of the past; blocking the road. Theology then retires into the position it occupies in the Church of Rome at present, an unmeaning frostwork of dogma, out of all relation to the actual history of Man." (pp. 297-8.)

It cannot be necessary to discuss such sentiments. With Mr. Pattison personally, I will not condescend to discuss them,—until he has divested himself of that "useless encumbrance," and ceased to employ daily "that rubbish of the past," which yet the two letters he subjoins to his name indicate, in the most solemn manner, his reverence for; and which alone make him Reverendus.

But speaking to others,—speaking to you, my friends,—let me point out that "the tendencies of irreligious thought in England, 1860-1861," are indeed in a direction where the Prayer-Book is found to be effectually "blocking up the road." (pp. 297-8.) Mr. Pattison is simply dreaming,—haunted by the phantoms of his own brain, and talking the language of the den,—when he complains that "the Philosophy, now petrified into tradition, may once have been a vital Faith; but now that" it is "withdrawn from public life," has ceased to be a "social influence." (p. 298.) And when he would exalt the last century at the expence of the present, (pp. 298-9,) he shews nothing so much as the morbid state of his own imagination,—the disordered condition of his own mind. He has blinded himself; and he will not or he cannot see in the healthier tone of our popular Divinity,—in the increased attention to the study of Holy Scripture,—in the impulse which Liturgical inquiries have received since Wheatly's useful volume appeared;—or again, in the immense number of Schools and Churches which have been recently built,—in the marvellous change for the better which has come over the Clergy of the Church of England within the present century,—in the vast development of our Colonial Episcopate within the last few years,—in the rapid increase of Institutions connected more or less directly with the Church,—and I will add, in the conspicuous loyalty of the nation;—a practical refutation of his own injurious insinuations; a blessed earnest that God has not forsaken us; and that we shall yet be a blessing to the World! The people of England, I am persuaded, are in the main very sincerely attached to their Prayer-Book. To them, it is not "a useless encumbrance, the rubbish of the past, blocking the road." Nay, there is a "rough and ready test" of what is the current temper of the age in things religious, to which I appeal with infinite satisfaction. I mean, the general burst of execration with which "Essays and Reviews" have been received, from one end of the kingdom to the other. The censure of all the Bishops, and of both Houses of Convocation; re-echoed, as it has been, through all ranks of the community, is a great fact;—a fact which I cordially recommend to Mr. Pattison's attention, when he would philosophize on the religious tendencies of his countrymen.

The age we live in, (Heaven knows!) has many drawbacks. What age of the Church has not had them? The fatal disposition which prevails to relax all the ancient safeguards,—the desire to tamper yet further with the Law of Marriage, and to desecrate the Christian Sabbath,—these are grievous features of the times; which may well occasion alarm and create perplexity. But nothing of the kind should ever make us despond; much less despair. There is One above "who is over all, God blessed for ever." Shall we not rather seek to employ these advantages which we have, with a single heart, a single eye to God's glory; and leave the issue, with a generous confidence, to Him?... It was thus that the great philosophic Divine of the last century comforted himself, amid darker days than we shall ever experience.

"As different ages have been distinguished by different sorts of particular errors and vices, the deplorable distinction of ours," (he said,) "is an avowed scorn of Religion in some, and a growing disregard to it in the generality." "It is impossible for me, my brethren,"—(Butler is still addressing the clergy of his Diocese, 1761,)—"to forbear lamenting with you the general decay of Religion in this nation; which is now observed by every one, and has been for some time the complaint of all serious persons. The influence of it is more and more wearing out of the minds of men;" while "the number of those who profess themselves unbelievers, increases, and with their number their zeal. Zeal, it is natural to ask,—for what? Why truly for nothing, but against everything that is sacred and good among us[143]." And yet, in days dark as those, Piety could suggest that "no Christian should possibly despair;" and Faith could assign as the reason of this blessed confidence,—"For He who hath all power in Heaven and Earth, hath promised that He will be with us to the end of the world."

It is time to dismiss Mr. Pattison's Essay. In doing so, I will not waste my time and yours by carping at the many errors of detail into which he has (not inexcusably) fallen. These are the accidents,—not the essence of his paper. The root of bitterness with the Author is, clearly enough, the Theory of Religious Belief in the Church of England. His concluding words shew this plainly. The sting of the Essay is in the tail:—

"In the Catholic theory the feebleness of Reason is met half-way, and made good by the authority of the Church. When the Protestants threw off this authority, they did not assign to Reason what they took from the Church, but to Scripture. Calvin did not shrink from saying that Scripture 'shone sufficiently by its own light.' As long as this could be kept to, the Protestant theory of belief was whole and sound. At least it was as sound as the Catholic. In both, Reason, aided by spiritual illumination, performs the subordinate function of recognising the supreme authority of the Church, and of the Bible, respectively. Time, learned controversy, and abatement of zeal, drove the Protestants generally from the hardy but irrational assertion of Calvin. Every foot of ground that Scripture lost was gained by one or other of the three substitutes: Church-authority, the Spirit, or Reason. Church-authority was essayed by the Laudian divines, but was soon found untenable, for on that footing it was found impossible to justify the Reformation and the breach with Rome." [O shame!] "The Spirit then came into favour along with Independency. But it was still more quickly discovered that on such a basis only discord and disunion could be reared. There remained to be tried Common Reason, carefully distinguished from recondite learning, and not based on metaphysical assumptions. To apply this instrument to the contents of Revelation was the occupation of the early half of the eighteenth century; with what success has been seen. In the latter part of the century the same Common Reason was applied to the external evidences. But here the method fails in a first requisite,—universality; for even the shallowest array of historical proof requires some book-learning to apprehend."—(pp. 328-9.)

Now all this is discreditable to Mr. Pattison as a Philosopher and as a Divine. When did Protestant England "throw off the authority" of the Church?—What are Calvin's opinions to her?—How does 'Independency,' 'Rationalism,' or any other unsound principle, affect us? Look at our Prayer-Book. Is it not the same which it was from the beginning? The Sarum Use, reformed and revised, has been our unbroken heritage as Christian men, from the first. Essentially remodelled in the days of Edward VI., the recension of our "Laudian Divines" is, (by God's great mercy!) still ours. What other teaching but that of the Book of Common Prayer, is, to this hour, the authoritative teaching of the Church of England? Why insinuate there has been vicissitude of Theory, where notoriously there has been none? Why imply that the storms which periodically sweep over the citadel of our Zion are effectual to remove the old foundations and to substitute new? What but a hollow heartless Scepticism can be the result of such an abominable passage as the foregoing?

"Whoever will take the religious literature of the present day as a whole, and endeavour to make out clearly on what basis Revelation is supposed by it to rest, whether on Authority, on the Inward Light, on Reason, on self-evidencing Scripture, or on the combination of the four, or some of them, and in what proportions; would probably find that he had undertaken a perplexing but not altogether profitless inquiry."—(p. 329.) And so the Essay ends.

With a short comment on the proposed problem, I also shall conclude.

No one but a fool would set about the task which Mr. Pattison here proposes. The current "religious literature of the day" cannot be supposed, for an instant, to be an adequate exponent of the mind of the Church of England,—or of any other Church. Revelation rests, at this hour, on exactly the same basis on which it has always rested, and on which it will rest, to the end of time; let the age be faithful, or faithless,—learned or unlearned,—rationalizing or scientific,—sceptical or superstitious,—or whatever else you will. And if I am asked to explain myself, I would humbly say,—(always submitting my own statements in such a matter to the judgment of the Bishops and Doctors of the Church of England,)—that we receive the Bible on the authority of the Church. The Church teaches us by the concurrent voices of many Fathers, Doctors, Saints, how to interpret the Bible; and convinces us that the three Creeds which she delivers to us as her own independent tradition, may be proved thereby; being in entire conformity with Holy Scripture, though not originally deduced from it. "Self-evidencing" is hardly a correct epithet to bestow upon Scripture. And yet, from the evidence which the New Testament supplies to the Old, and from the interpretation which it puts upon its teaching, we should not despair of proving the Truth of Revelation, to one who had neither darkened the inward Light, nor perverted his Reason.

In truth, however, it is idle thus to speculate. We have been born into the world during the nineteenth Century, whether we wish it or not. We have been nourished, (God be thanked!) in the bosom of the Christian Church, whether we would or no. The glory of the Gospel has informed our natural reason, and we cannot undo the blessed process, strive we as much as we will. The "inward Light," (as we call it,) is the lingering twilight of the Day of Creation, in the case of the heathen,—the reflected ray of the noontide of the Gospel, even in the case of the modern unbeliever. We cannot escape from these conditions of our being, although we may affect to ignore them, or pretend to turn our eyes the other way. No help however is to be rejected. No faculty of the soul need be denied the privilege of assisting to convince the doubting heart. The inward Light may not be disparagingly spoken of: for what if it should prove to be a ray sent down from the Father of Lights, to illumine the dark places of the soul? The aid of Reason is not to be excluded; for what is Faith but the highest dictate of the Reason? Faith, (let us ever remember,) being opposed not to Reason, but to Sight!... And who for a moment supposes that we disparage the office of Reason, because we speak of the authority of the Church, in controversies of Faith? We simply proclaim the Church to be the appointed witness and keeper of Holy Writ; and when we are invited "to make out clearly on what basis Revelation is supposed to rest," (p. 329,) we point,—where else should we point?—unhesitatingly to her unwavering witness from the beginning.

VII. The Essay which brings up the rear in this very guilty volume is from the pen of the "Rev. Benjamin Jowett, M.A., [Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College, and] Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Oxford,"—"a gentleman whose high personal character and general respectability seem to give a weight to his words, which assuredly they do not carry of themselves[144]." His performance is entitled "On the Interpretation of Scripture:" being, in reality, nothing else but a laborious denial of its Inspiration.

Mr. Jowett's quarrel is with the whole body of Commentators on the Bible,—ancient and modern; with the whole Church Catholic. He cannot endure the claim of that Book, (like its Divine object and Author,) to "a Name which is above every other Name." That Plato and Sophocles should be capable of but one method of Interpretation, and that the literal,—while the Bible lays claim to a yet profounder meaning,—so distresses the Regius Professor of Greek, that he has appropriated to himself almost a quarter of the present volume, in order that he may cast laborious and systematic ridicule on the very supposition. Some parts of his method I propose presently to submit to exactly the same "free handling" which he has himself applied to the Word of God. In the meantime, since it is my intention not only to demonstrate the worthlessness of the structure which Mr. Jowett has with so much perverse industry here built up, by an examination of some parts of it in detail, but also to pull down as much of the fabric as I am able within a small compass,—(the construction of something which it is hoped will prove more durable, being to be found in my IIIrd and IVth, Vth and VIth Sermons,)—I proceed at once to inspect the foundation-stone of his edifice; and briefly to demonstrate its absolute insecurity.

1. Mr. Jowett's fundamental principle is expressed in the following brief precept: "Interpret the Scripture like any other book." (p. 377.) To this favourite tune, (although he plays many intricate variations on it,) he invariably reverts in the end[145]. On this preliminary postulate therefore, which, at first sight, to a candid mind, seems fair enough, I proceed to remark as follows:—

Mr. Jowett's formula may be cheerfully and entirely accepted,—apart from the sinister glosses which he immediately proceeds to put upon it. By all means "Interpret the Scripture like any other book." Let us see to what result this principle will conduct us. As for the formula itself, I take the liberty to assume that it ought to mean somewhat as follows:—"Approach the volume of Holy Scripture with the same candour, and in the same unprejudiced spirit with which you would approach any other famous book of high antiquity. Study it with at least the same attention. Give at least equal heed to all its statements. Acquaint yourself at least as industriously with its method, and with its principle; employing and applying either, with at least equal fidelity, in its interpretation. Above all, beware of playing tricks with its plain language. Beware of suppressing any part of the evidence which it supplies as to its own meaning. Be truthful, and unprejudiced, and honest, and consistent, and logical, and exact throughout, in your work of Interpretation. 'Interpret Scripture like any other book.'"

Now, (not to be tedious,) if this were Mr. Jowett's principle, all further discussion would be at an end. The general question of the right method of interpreting the Bible would be easily settled; but it would be hopelessly settled—against the Regius Professor of Greek. As I have briefly shewn, (from p. 144 to p. 160 of the present volume,) our Lord and His Apostles openly and repeatedly claim for Scripture that very depth of meaning, that very extent of signification, which Mr. Jowett so strenuously maintains that it does not possess.—This great fact, he prudently takes no notice of. He simply ignores it. Either he has overlooked it, through inadvertency: or he has omitted it, as not perceiving its force and bearing on the question: or he has disingenuously kept it back. He must choose between these three suppositions. If he has overlooked the fact on which I lay so much stress,—he is a careless and incompetent reader. If he has failed to see its force and bearing on the question,—he is a weak and illogical thinker. If he has deliberately suppressed it, knowing its fatal power,—he is simply a dishonest man. To prevent offence, I may as well state freely that my entire conviction is that he is simply a weak and illogical person. My warrant for this opinion is especially the very sad performance of his now under consideration.

It is clear however that the paraphrase above hazarded does not express Mr. Jowett's principle. "Interpret the Bible like any other book," means with him something else. And what it does mean, the Reverend author does not suffer us to doubt. He shews that his meaning is, Interpret the Bible like any other book, for it is like any other book. I proceed to shew that this is Mr. Jowett's meaning.

It becomes necessary however at once to introduce to the reader's notice the main inference which, (as already hinted,) flows from Mr. Jowett's favourite position. "Interpret Scripture like any other book,"—he says. His business is with the Interpretation of "the Jewish and Christian Scriptures;" and he begins by eagerly assuring us,—and is strenuous in all that follows to make us believe,—(but simply on à priori grounds!)—that "the true glory and note of Divinity in these, is not that they have hidden, mysterious, or double meanings; but a simple and universal one, which is beyond them and will survive them." (p. 332.) "Is it admitted," (he asks, at the end of many pages,) "that the Scripture has one and only one true meaning?" (p. 368.)

Let us hear what reasons the Reverend author of this seventh Essay is able to produce in support of his favourite opinion. He approaches the subject from a respectful distance:—

(i) "It is a strange, though familiar fact,"—(such are the opening words of his Essay,)—"that great differences of opinion exist respecting the Interpretation of Scripture." (p. 330.)—'Familiar,' the fact is, certainly; but why 'strange?' A Book of many ages,—of immense antiquity,—of most varied character,—treating of the unseen world,—purporting to be a mysterious composition,—and by all Christian men believed to have God for its true Author: a book which has come into collision with every form of human error, and has triumphed gloriously over every form of human opposition:—how can it be thought 'strange' that the interpretation of such a book should have provoked "great differences of opinion?" ... Surely none but the weakest of thinkers, unless committed to the assumption that the Bible is like any other book, could ever have penned such a silly remark.

(ii) "We do not at once see the absurdity of the same words having many senses, or free our minds from the illusion that the Apostle or Evangelist must have written with a reference to the creeds or controversies or circumstances of other times. Let it be considered, then, that this extreme variety of interpretation is found to exist in the case of no other book, but of the Scriptures only." (p. 334.)

But the "phenomenon" which Mr. Jowett represents as "so extraordinary that it requires an effort of thought to appreciate it," (Ibid.,) does not seem at all extraordinary to any one who does not begin by assuming that the Bible is "like any other book."—If the Bible be inspired,—then all is plain!

(iii) "Who would write a bulky treatise about the method to be pursued in interpreting Plato or Sophocles?"—asks Mr. Jowett. (p. 378.)—No one but a fool!—is the obvious reply. Plato and Sophocles are ordinary books; and therefore are to be interpreted like any other book. The Bible not so, as we shall see by and by. Again,—

(iv) "Each writer, each successive age, has characteristics of its own, as strongly marked, or more strongly, than those which are found in the authors or periods of classical Literature. These differences are not to be lost in the idea of a Spirit from whom they proceed, or by which they were overruled. And therefore, illustration of one part of Scripture by another should be confined to writings of the same age and the same authors, except where the writings of different ages or persons offer obvious similarities. It may be said, further, that illustration should be chiefly derived, not only from the same author, but from the same writing, or from one of the same period of his life. For example, the comparison of St. John and the 'synoptic' Gospels, or of the Gospel of St. John with the Revelation of St. John, will tend rather to confuse than to elucidate the meaning of either." (pp. 382-3.)—But really, in reply, it ought to suffice to point out that the result of the Church's experience for 1800 years has been the very opposite of the Professor's. "The idea of a Spirit from whom they proceeded," is, to the thoughtful part of mankind, the only intelligible clue to the several books of Holy Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation! Hence "the marginal references to the English Bible," (to which Mr. Jowett devotes a depreciatory half page,) so far from being the dangerous or useless apparatus which he represents, we hold to be an instrument of paramount importance for eliciting the true meaning of Holy Writ.—In a word, he is reasoning about the Bible on the assumption that the Bible is like any other book.

(v) "To attribute to St. Paul or the Twelve the abstract notion of Christian Truth which afterwards sprang up in the Catholic Church ... is the same error as to attribute to Homer the ideas of Thales or Heraclitus, or to Thales the more developed principles of Aristotle and Plato." (p. 354.)—Not if St. Paul and the Twelve were inspired.

(vi) He bids us remark, with tedious emphasis, that although the same philological and historical difficulties which occur in Holy Scripture are found in profane writings, yet "the meaning of classical authors is known with comparative certainty; and the interpretation of them seems to rest on a scientific basis.... Even the Vedas and the Zendavesta, though beset by obscurities of language probably greater than are found in any portion of the Bible, are interpreted, at least by European scholars, according to fixed rules, and beginning to be clearly understood." (p. 335.)

But at the end of several weak sentences, through which the preceding fallacy is elongated into distressing tenuity, who does not exclaim,—The supposed "scientific" basis on which the interpretation of books in general rests, is simply this; (α) that being merely human, and (β) not professing to have any other than their obvious literal meaning,—they are all interpreted in the obvious ordinary way!

For (α),—If any book were even suspected to be Divine, the manner of interpreting it would of course be different. Not that the "basis" of such Interpretation would therefore cease to be "scientific!" Take the only known instance of such a Book. The Bible has been suspected (!) for 1800 years to be inspired. How has it fared with the Bible?

The Science of Biblical Interpretation is one of the noblest and best understood in the world. It has been professed and practised in every country of Christendom. The great Masters of this Science have been such men as Hilary of Poictiers, Basil and the two Gregories in Asia Minor, Epiphanius in Cyprus, Ambrose at Milan, John Chrysostom at Antioch, Jerome in Palestine, Augustine in Africa, Athanasius and Cyril at Alexandria. The names descend in an unbroken stream from the first four centuries of our æra down to the age of Andrewes, and Bull, and Pearson, and Mill. These men all interpret Scripture in one and the same way. Their principles are the same throughout. They were all Professors of the same Sacred Science.

But (β),—If a book even professes to have a hidden meaning, it is interpreted by a special set of canons. Thus Dante's great poem[146] may not be read as Hume's History of England is read.—To proceed, however.

(vii) Sophocles is perhaps the most subtle of the ancient Greek poets. "Several schools of critics have commented on his works. To the Englishman he has presented one meaning, to the Frenchman another, to the German a third; the interpretations have also differed with the philosophical systems which the interpreters espoused. To one the same words have appeared to bear a moral, to another a symbolical meaning; a third is determined wholly by the authority of old commentators; while there is a disposition to condemn the scholar who seeks to interpret Sophocles from himself only and with reference to the ideas and beliefs of the age in which he lived. And the error of such an one is attributed not only to some intellectual but even to a moral obliquity (!) which prevents his seeing the true meaning." (p. 336.)

It has fared with Sophocles therefore, (according to Mr. Jowett,) in all respects as it has fared with the Bible. "It would be tedious," (he justly remarks,) "to follow the absurdity which has been supposed into details. By such methods," Sophocles or Plato might "be made to mean anything." (p. 336.)

But who does not perceive that the obvious way to escape from the supposed difficulty, is to remember that neither Sophocles nor Plato was inspired!... Mr. Jowett's difficulty is occasioned by his assumption that the Bible stands on the same level as Plato and Sophocles.

(viii) Again,—"If it is not held to be a thing impossible that there should be agreement in the meaning of Plato and Sophocles, neither is it to be regarded as absurd, that there should be a like agreement in the interpretation of Scripture?" (p. 426.)—The whole force of this argument clearly consisting in the strictly equal claims of these books to Inspiration.—Elsewhere, Mr. Jowett expresses the same thing more unequivocally:—The old "explanations of Scripture," (he says,) "are no longer tenable. They belong to a way of thinking and speaking which was once diffused over the world, but has now passed away." Having quietly assumed all this, the Reverend writer proceeds:—"And what we give up as a general principle, we shall find it impossible to maintain partially; e.g. in the types of the Mosaic Law, and the double meanings of Prophecy, at least in any sense in which it is not equally applicable to all deep and suggestive writings." (p. 419.)

(ix) "Still one other supposition has to be introduced, which will appear, perhaps, more extravagant than any which have preceded. Conceive then that these modes of interpreting Sophocles (!) had existed for ages; that great institutions and interests had become interwoven with them; and in some degree even the honour of Nations and Churches;—is it too much to say that, in such a case, they would be changed with difficulty, and that they would continue to be maintained long after critics and philosophers had seen that they were indefensible?" (pp. 336-7.)

I suppose we may at once allow Mr. Jowett most of what he asks. We may freely grant that if the Tragedies of Sophocles had exercised the same wondrous dominion over the world which the Books of the Bible have exercised:—if [OE]dipus and Jocasta and Creon; if Theseus and Dejanira and Hercules; if Ajax, Ulysses and Minerva;—had done for the world what Enoch and Noah;—what Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;—what Joseph, and Joshua, and Hannah, and Samuel, and David;—what Elijah and Elisha; what Isaiah and Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, and the rest;—what St. Peter, and St. John, and St. Paul;—what the Blessed Virgin and her name-sakes, have done:—In a word: had Homer's gods and heroes altogether changed the face of society, and revolutionized the world; so that "great institutions and interests had become interwoven with them, and in some degree even the honour of Nations and Churches;" (p. 336;)—if, I repeat, all this had really and actually taken place;—great "difficulty" would, no doubt, (as Mr. Jowett profoundly suggests,) be experienced, at the end of 2000 years, in getting rid of them.

But since it unfortunately happens that they have done nothing of the kind, we do not seem to be called upon to follow the Regius Professor of Greek into the supposed consequences of what he admits to be an "extravagant supposition;" and which we humbly think is an excessively foolish one also.

When, however, the Reverend Author of this speculation establishes it as a parallel with what has taken place with regard to the Word of God, we tell him plainly that his insinuation that "critics and philosophers are maintaining the present mode of interpreting Scripture long after they have seen that it is indefensible"—is a piece of impertinence which seems to require a public apology. A man may retain Orders in the Church of England, if he pleases, while yet he repudiates her doctrines: may declare that he subscribes her Articles ex animo, and yet seem openly to deny them. But he has no right whatever to impute corresponding baseness to others. The charge should be either plainly made out, or openly retracted[147].

By such considerations then does Professor Jowett attempt to shew that we ought to "interpret Scripture like any other book." The gist of his observations, in every case, is one and the same,—namely, from à priori considerations to insinuate that the Bible is not essentially unlike any other book.

Now, quite apart from its Inspiration,—which is, obviously, the one essential respect wherein the Bible is wholly unlike every other book in the world; (inasmuch as, if it is inspired, it differs from every other book in kind; stands among Books as the Incarnate Word stood among Men,—quite alone; notwithstanding that He spoke their language, shared their wants, and accommodated Himself to their manners;)—apart, I say, from the fact of its Inspiration, it is not difficult to point out several particulars in which the Bible is utterly unlike any other Book which is known to exist; and therefore to suggest an à priori reason why neither should it be interpreted like any other book.

1. The Bible then contains in all (66-9=) 57 distinct writings,—the work of perhaps upwards of forty different Authors[148]. Yet, for upwards of fifteen centuries those many writings have been all collected into one volume: and, for a large portion of that interval, on the writings so collected the Church Universal has agreed in bestowing the name of the Book,—κατ' ἐξοχήν,—the Bible.

2. The Bible is divided into two parts, which are severed by an interval of upwards of four centuries. On these two great divisions of the Bible, respectively, has been bestowed the title of the Old and the New Covenant. And, what is remarkable,—The same phenomena which are observable in respect of the whole Bible, are observable in respect of either of its parts. Thus,

(α) The several writings of which the Old Testament is composed,—(39-3=) 36 in all[149], are by many different hands: those of the New Testament, in like manner,—(27-6=) 21 in all, are by eight different authors.

(β) Those many writings of the Old Testament are found to have been collected into a single volume about four hundred years before the Christian æra; when they were denominated by a common name, ἡ γραφή,—"The Scripture[150];" and the supreme authority of the writings so collected together, was axiomatic[151]. One arguing with His Hebrew countrymen was able to appeal to a place in the Psalms, and to remind them parenthetically that "the Scripture cannot be broken[152],"—that is, might not be gainsaid, doubted, explained away, or set aside.—Precisely similar phenomena are observable in respect of the writings of the New Testament.

(γ) Although the books of the Old Covenant are scattered at intervals over the long period of upwards of a thousand years, the writers of the later books are observed to quote the earlier ones, as if by a peculiar secret sympathy: now, incorporating long passages,—now, simply adapting one or two sentences,—now, blending allusive references. For some proof of this assertion, (as far as I am able to produce it at a moment's notice,) the reader is referred to the foot of the page[153].

The self-same phenomenon is observable with regard to the New Testament Scriptures. Although all the books were written within so short a space as about fifty years, the later writers quote the earlier ones to a surprising extent. In the Gospels, the Gospels are quoted times without number. In the Epistles, the Gospels are cited, or referred to, upwards of sixty times. The Epistles contain many references to the Epistles.—The phenomenon thus alluded to will also be found insisted upon in a later part of the present volume[154].

"The fact, I believe, on close examination, will be found to stand thus:—The Holy Bible abounds in quotations, even more perhaps than most other books; but they are introduced in a way which is peculiar to Revelation, and its own. When a Prophet or Apostle mentions one of his own holy brethren, as when Ezekiel names Daniel, or Daniel Jeremiah; when St. Peter speaks of St. Paul, or St. Paul of St. Peter, or of St. Luke the Physician; when they mention them, they do not quote them; and when they quote them, they do not mention them[155]."

(δ) The later writer in the Old Testament who quotes some earlier portion of narrative is often observed to supply independent information,—entering into minute details and particulars which are not to be found in the earlier record.—Now, "with the same Almighty Spirit for their guide, what was it to be expected that the historians of our Blessed Lord would do? What, but the very thing which they have done? that they would walk in the path, which the holy Prophets of old had marked out? that they would often tread full in each other's steps; often relate the same miracle, or discourse, or parts of it, in the words of the same prior writer; sometimes compress, sometimes expand; always shew to the diligent inquirer, that they did not derive their information, even of facts which they relate in another's words, from him whom they copy, but wrote with antecedent plenitude of knowledge and truth in themselves; without staying to inform us whether what they deliver is told for the first time, or has its place already in authentic history[156]."

(ε) It may be worth remarking that though the Inspiration of no part of either Testament has ever been doubted in the Church, there do exist doubts as to the Authorship of more than one of the Books of the Old Testament; and one Book in the New, (the Epistle to the Hebrews,) has been suspected by some orthodox writers not to have been from the pen of St. Paul, but to have been the work of some other inspired and Apostolic writer.

(ζ) History, Didactic matter, and Prophecy,—is found to be the subject of either Testament.

(η) In the New Testament, as in the Old, we are presented with the singular phenomenon of more than one Book being in a manner copied from another,—yet with the addition of much independent original matter. It is superfluous to name Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, on one side,—and the Gospels on the other. To the Gospels may be added the Second Epistle of St. Peter and the Epistle of St. Jude.

(θ) Lastly, the same modest use of the Supernatural is to be found in either Testament.—In both, the writers are observed to pass without effort, and as it were unconsciously, from revelations of the most stupendous character, to statements of the simplest and most ordinary kind[157].—In both, there is the same prominence given to individual characters[158]; the same occasional minuteness of detail where it might have been least expected[159].

3. But by far the most remarkable phenomenon remains to be noticed; namely, the immense number of quotations, (so far more numerous than is commonly suspected,)—extending in length from a single word to nearly a hundred and fifty[160],—together with allusive references, literally without number, which are found in the New Testament Scriptures; the writings of the elder Covenant being in every instance, exclusively[161], the source of those quotations,—the object of those allusions.

4. When the nature of these quotations, references, and allusions is examined with care, several extraordinary phenomena present themselves, which it seems impossible to consider without the deepest interest, surprise, and admiration. Thus,—(i.) The New Testament writers, on repeated occasions, display independent knowledge of the Old Testament History to which they make reference[162]. The following instances occur to my memory:—All the later links in our Lord's Genealogy[163]; the second Cainan[164]: Salmon's marriage with Rahab[165]: the burial-place of the twelve Patriarchs[166]: the age of Moses in Exod. ii. 11[167]: that in the days of Elijah the heaven was shut up for three years and six months[168]: that it was the Devil who tempted Eve[169]: the contest for the dead body of Moses[170]: the names of Pharaoh's magicians[171]: how Abraham reasoned with himself when he prepared to offer up his son Isaac[172]: the golden censer, mentioned in Heb. ix. 4: Abraham's purchase of Sychem[173]; and a few other things[174].

(ii.) The same New Testament writers are observed to handle the Old Testament Scriptures with an air of singular authority, and to exercise an extraordinary license of quotation; inverting clauses,—paraphrasing statements,—abridging or expanding;—and always without apology or explanation;—as if they were conscious that they were dealing with their own.

(iii.) Most astonishing of all, obviously, as well as most important, is the purpose for which the Evangelists and Apostles of our Lord make their appeal to the Old Testament Scriptures; invariably in order to establish some part of the Christian Revelation. "Every thoughtful student of the Holy Scriptures has been struck with the circumstance which I now allude to: the freedom, namely, with which the inspired Writers of the New Testament appeal back to the Old; and see in it, as its one proper theme, the Christian subject. They find themselves in that place, at length, to which former intimations had pointed, and recognize the connexion which they themselves have with their ancient forerunners[175]." ... It is as if for four hundred years and upwards, a mighty mystery,—described in many a dark place of Prophecy, exhibited by many a perplexing type, foreshadowed by many a Divine narrative,—had waited for solution. The world is big with expectation. The long-expected time at last arrives. Up springs the Sun of Righteousness in the Heavens; and lo, the cryptic characters of the Law flash at once into glory, and the dark Oracles of ancient days yield up their wondrous meanings! "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets,"—in these last days speaks "unto us by His Son:" and lo, a chorus of Apostolic voices is heard bearing witness to the Advent of "the Desire of all nations!" ... Such is the relation which the New Testament bears to the Old: such the true nature of the many quotations from the earlier Scriptures, which are found in the later half of the One inspired Volume.

5. And thus we are led naturally to notice the extraordinary connexion which subsists between the two Testaments. "For what is the Law," (asks Justin, a.d. 140,) "but the Gospel foretold? or what is the Gospel, but the Law fulfilled[176]?" "The contents of the Old and New Testament are the same," remarks Augustine: "there foreshadowed, here revealed: there prefigured, here made plain." "In the Old Testament there is a concealing of the New: in the New Testament there is a revealing of the Old[177]."—Mr. Jowett's inquiry,—"If we assume the New Testament as a tradition running parallel with the Old, may not the Roman Catholic assume with equal reason a tradition parallel with the New?" (p. 381.)—shews a truly childish misapprehension of the entire question. The New Testament is not a "parallel tradition" at all; but a subsequent Revelation from Heaven.

6. Now I might pursue these remarks much further: for it would be well worth while to exhibit what an extraordinary sameness of imagery, similarity of allusion, and unity of purpose, runs through the writings of either Covenant;—phenomena which can only be accounted for in one way. This subject will be found dwelt upon elsewhere; and to what has been already delivered, I must be content here to refer the reader[178].

(Mr. Jowett himself has been struck by the phenomenon thus alluded to: but after hinting at "some natural association" as having suggested the language of the Prophets, he proceeds: "We are not therefore justified in supposing any hidden connexion in the prophecies where [the prophetic symbols] occur. Neither is there any other ground for assuming design of any other kind in Scripture; any more than in Plato or Homer." (p. 381.) ... And thus our philosopher, assuming at the outset that the Bible is an uninspired book, is for ever coming back to the lie with which he set out. But to proceed.)

7. Still better worthy of notice, in this connexion, is the singular fact (which will also be found adverted to in another place[179],) that the Old and New Testaments alike profess to be a History of Earthly events from a Heavenly point of view. The writers of either Covenant claim to know what God did[180]; how characters and events appeared in His sight[181]: they profess to find themselves in a familiar, and altogether extraordinary relation with the unseen world[182]. Thus, Moses begins the Bible with an august account of the great Six Days,—when God was alone in Creation; the unwitnessed Agent, and Author of all things:—while St. John the Divine, concluding the inspired Canon, relates that he was "in the Spirit on the Lord's Day;" and heard behind him "a great Voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last[183]." ... "The general design of Scripture," (says Bishop Butler,) "may be said to be, to give us an account of the World, in this one single view,—as God's World: by which it appears essentially distinguished from all other books, as far as I have found, except such as are copied from it[184]."

8. And yet the grand external characteristic feature of the Bible remains unnoticed! The one distinctive feature of the Bible, is this,—that the four-fold Gospel, as a matter of fact, exhibits to us, the Word "made flesh:" and, (O marvel of marvels!) suffers us to hear His voice, and look upon His form, and observe His actions. It does more. The New Testament professes to be, and is, the complement of the Old. The promise of Christ, solemnly, and repeatedly,—"at sundry times and divers manners,"—given in the one, is fulfilled in the other. Henceforth they are no more twain, for they have been by God Himself joined together; and the subject of both is none other than our Saviour, Jesus Christ.

Enough surely has been already adduced to warrant a reasonable man in refusing to accept Professor Jowett's repeated asseveration that the Bible is "to be interpreted like any other book." A Book which proves on examination to be so wholly unlike every other book,—so entirely sui generis,—may surely well create an à priori suspicion that it is not to be interpreted either, after any ordinary fashion. But the grand consideration of all is still behind! The one circumstance which effectually refutes the view of the Reverend Professor, remains yet to be specified; namely, that the Bible professes to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Ghost is again and again declared to speak therein, διά, "by the instrumentality," "by the mouth," of Man. In other words, God, not Man, professes to be the Author of the Bible!

That the Bible does set up for itself such a claim, will be found established at p. 53 to p. 57 of the present volume. Professor Jowett's assurance that "for any of the higher or supernatural views of Inspiration, there is no foundation in the Gospels or Epistles," (p. 345,)—must therefore be regarded as an extraordinary, or rather as an unpardonable oversight on his part. One would have thought that a single saying, like that in Acts iii. 18 and 21, would have occurred to his memory, and been sufficient to refute him. Other places will be found quoted at p. cxcvii.

Very much is it to be feared however that the same gentleman has overlooked a consideration of at least equal importance; namely, the inevitable inference from the discovery that the origin of the Bible is Divine. He informs us that,—"It will be a further assistance (!) in the consideration of this subject, to observe that the Interpretation of Scripture has nothing to do with any opinion respecting its origin." (p. 350.) "The meaning of Scripture," (he proceeds,) "is one thing: the Inspiration of Scripture is another."—True. But when we find the Reverend Author insisting, again and again, that "it may be laid down that Scripture has one meaning,—the meaning which it had to the mind of the Prophet or Evangelist who first uttered, or wrote it," (p. 378,)—we are constrained to remind him that, "To say that the Scriptures, and the things contained in them, can have no other or farther meaning than those persons thought or had, who first recited or wrote them; is evidently saying, that those persons were the original, proper, and sole authors of those books, i.e. that they are not inspired[185]." So that, in point of fact, the origin of Holy Scripture, so far from being a consideration of no importance, (as Mr. Jowett supposes,) proves to be a consideration of the most vital importance of all. And the Interpretation of Scripture, so far from having "nothing to do with any opinion respecting its origin," is affected by it most materially, or rather depends upon it altogether!

On a review of all that goes before, it will, I think, appear plain to any person of sound understanding, that Professor Jowett's à priori views respecting the Interpretation of Holy Scripture will not stand the test of exact reason. To suggest as he has done that the Bible is to be interpreted like any other book, on the plea that it is like any other book, is to build upon a false foundation. His syllogism is the following:—

But it has been shewn that the learned Professor's minor premiss is false. It has been proved that the Bible is not a book like any other book.

Nay, I claim to have done more. I claim to have established the contradictory minor premiss. The syllogism therefore will henceforth stand as follows:—

2. It remains however, now, to advance an important step.—Mr. Jowett, in a certain place, adopts a principle, the soundness of which I am able, happily, entirely to admit. "Interpret Scripture from itself,—like any other book about which we know almost nothing except what is derived from its pages." (p. 382.) "Non nisi ex Scripturâ Scripturam interpretari potes." (p. 384.)

Scarcely has he made this important admission however, and enunciated his golden Canon of interpretation, when he hastens to nullify it. His very next words are,—"The meaning of the Canon is only this,—'That we cannot understand Scripture without becoming familiar (!) with it.'"

But, (begging the learned writer's pardon,) so far from that being the whole of the meaning of the Canon, his gloss happens exactly to miss the only important point. The plain meaning of the words,—"Only out of the Scriptures can you explain the Scriptures,"—is obviously rather this:—'That in order to interpret the Bible, our aim must be to ascertain how the Bible interprets itself.' In other words,—'Scripture must be made its own Interpreter.' More simply yet, in the Professor's own words, (from which, more suo, he has imperceptibly glided away,)—"Interpret Scripture from itself." (p. 382.) ... How then does Scripture interpret Scripture? That is the only question! for the answer to this question must be held to be decisive as to the other great question which Mr. Jowett raises in the present Essay,—namely, How are we to interpret Scripture?

Now this whole Inquiry has been conducted elsewhere; and will be found to extend from p. 144 to p. 160 of the present volume. It has been there established, by a sufficiently large induction of examples, that the Bible is to be interpreted as no other book is, or can be interpreted; and for the plain reason, that the inspired Writers themselves, (our Lord Himself at their head!) interpret it after an altogether extraordinary fashion. Mr. Jowett's statement at p. 339 that "the mystical interpretation of Scripture originated in the Alexandrian age," is simply false.

And in the course of this proof, (necessarily involved in it, in fact,) it has been incidentally shewn that the sense of Scripture is not, by any means, invariably one; and that sense the most obvious to those who wrote, heard, or read it. It has been fully shewn that the office of the Interpreter is not, by any means, (as Mr. Jowett imagines,) "to recover the meaning of the words as they first struck on the ears, or flashed before the eyes of those who heard or read them." (p. 338.) The Reverend writer's repeated assertion that "we have no reason to attribute to the Prophet or Evangelist any second or hidden sense different from that which appears on the surface," (p. 380,) has been fully, and as it is hoped effectually refuted.

And here I might lay down my pen. For since, at the end of 74 pages, the Professor thus delivers himself, (in a kind of imitation of St. Paul's language[186],)—"Of what has been said, this is the sum,—That Scripture, like other books, has one meaning, which has to be gathered from itself ... without regard to à priori notions about its nature and origin:" that, "It is to be interpreted like other books, with attention to the prevailing state of civilization and knowledge," and so forth; (p. 404;)—it must suffice to say that, having established the very opposite conclusion, I claim to have effectually answered his Essay; because I have overthrown what he admits to be "the sum" of it. Let me be permitted however—before I proceed to review some other parts of his performance,—in the briefest manner, not so much to recapitulate, as to exhibit 'the sum' of what has been hitherto delivered on the other side; in somewhat different language, and as it were from a different point of view.

We are presented then, in the New Testament Scriptures, with the august spectacle of the Ancient of Days holding the entire volume of the Old Testament Scriptures in His Hands, and interpreting it of Himself. He, whose Life and Death are set forth in the Gospel;—whose Church's early fortunes are set forth historically in the Acts, while its future prospects are shadowed prophetically in the Apocalypse;—whose Doctrines, lastly, are explained in the twenty-one Epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter, St. James and St. John and St. Jude:—He, the Incarnate Word, who was "in the beginning;" who "was with God," and who "was God:"—that same Almighty One, I repeat, is exhibited to us in the Gospel, repeatedly, holding the Volume of the Old Testament Scriptures in His Hands, and explaining it of Himself. "To day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears[187],"—was the solemn introductory sentence with which, in the Synagogue of Nazareth, (after closing the Book and giving it again to the Minister,) He prefaced His Sermon from the lxist chapter of Isaiah.—"Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me: for he wrote of Me[188],"—"'O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken! Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory?' And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself[189]."—"These are the words which I spake unto you, that all things must be fulfilled which are written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me[190]."

"Christ was before Moses. The Gospel was not made for the Law; but the Law was made for the Gospel. The Gospel is not based on the Law, but the Law is a shadow of the Gospel. In order to believe the Bible, we must look upward; and fix our eyes on Jesus Christ, sitting in Heavenly Glory, holding both Testaments in His Hand; sealing both Testaments with His seal; and delivering both Testaments as Divine Oracles, to the World. We must receive the written Word from the Hands of the Incarnate Word[191]."

This august spectacle, let it be clearly stated,—(1) Establishes, beyond all power of contradiction, the intimate connexion which subsists between the Old and the New Testament; as well as the altogether unique relation which the one bears to the other:—(2) Invests either Testament with a degree of sacred importance and majestic grandeur which altogether makes the Bible unlike "any other book:"—(3) Proves that the Bible is to be interpreted as no other book ever was, or ever can be interpreted:—(4) Demonstrates that it has more than a single meaning:—and lastly, Convincingly shews that God, and not Man, is its true Author.

It will of course be asked,—Then does Mr. Jowett take no notice at all of this vast and complicated problem? How does he treat of the relation between the Old Testament and the New?... He despatches the entire subject in the following passage:—"The question," (he says,) "runs up into a more general one, 'the relation between the Old and New Testaments.' For the Old Testament will receive a different meaning accordingly as it is explained from itself, or from the New." (Very different certainly!) "In the first case,—a careful and conscientious study of each one for itself is all that is required." (That is to say, it will not be explained at all!) "In the second case,—the types and ceremonies of the Law, perhaps the very facts and persons of the history, WILL BE ASSUMED (!) to be predestined or made after a pattern corresponding to the things that were to be in the latter days." (p. 370.) (And why not "will be found to be replete with Christian meaning,—full of lofty spiritual significancy?"—the proved marvellousness of their texture, the revealed mysteriousness of their purpose, being an effectual refutation of all Mr. Jowett's à priori notions!)

"And this question," (he proceeds,) "stirs up another question respecting the Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New. Is such Interpretation to be regarded as the meaning of the original text, or an accommodation of it to the thoughts of other times?" (Nay, but Reverend and learned Sir: "nothing so plain," as you justly observe, "that it may not be explained away;" (p. 359;) yet we cannot consent to have the sense of plain words thus clouded over at your mere bidding. It is now our turn to declare that the Interpreter's "object is to read Scripture like any other book, with a real interest and not merely a conventional one." It is now we who "want to be able to open our eyes, and see things as they truly are." (p. 338.) We simply petition for leave to "interpret Scripture like any other book, by the same rules of evidence and the same canons of criticism." (p. 375.) And if this freedom be but conceded to us, there will be found to be no imaginable reason why the Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New,—(Christ Himself being the Majestic Speaker! our present edification and everlasting welfare being His gracious purpose!)—should not be strictly "regarded as the meaning of the original text." ... But let us hear the Professor out:—)

"Our object," (he says, and with this he dismisses the problem!)—"Our object is not to attempt here the determination of these questions; but to point out that they must be determined before any real progress can be made, or any agreement arrived at in the Interpretation of Scripture." (p. 370.) ... They must indeed. But can it be right in this slovenly, slippery style to shirk a discussion on the issue of which the whole question may be said to turn? especially on the part of one who scruples not to prejudge that issue, and straightway to apply it, (in a manner fatal to the Truth,) throughout all his hundred pages. Mr. Jowett's method is ever to assume what he ought to prove, and then either to be plaintive, or to sneer. "It is a heathenish or Rabbinical fancy:"—"Such complexity would place the Scriptures below human compositions in general; for it would deprive them of the ordinary intelligibleness of human language" (p. 382):—&c.

"Is the Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New to be regarded as the meaning of the original text; or an accommodation of it to the thoughts of other times?" (p. 370.) This is Mr. Jowett's question; the question which it is "not his object to attempt to determine;" but which I, on the contrary, have made it my object to discuss in my VIth Sermon,—p. 183 to p. 220. Without troubling the reader however now to wade through those many pages, let me at least explain to him in a few words what Mr. Jowett's question really amounts to: namely this,—Do the Apostles and Evangelists, does our Blessed Lord Himself, when He professes to explain the mysterious significancy of the Old Testament,—invariably,—in every instance,—misrepresent "the meaning of the original text?" And the answer to this question I am content to await from any candid person of plain unsophisticated understanding. Is it credible, concerning the Divine expositions found in St. Matth. xxii. 31, 32,—xxii. 43-5,—xii. 39, 40,—xi. 10,—St. John viii. 17,18,—i. 52,—vi. 31, &c.,—x. 34-5:—the Apostolic interpretations found in 1 Cor. ix. 9-11,—x. 1-6,—xv. 20,—Heb. ii. 5-9,—vii. 1-10,—Gal. iv. 21-31:—is it conceivable, I ask, that not one of all these places should exhibit the actual 'meaning of the original text?' And yet, (as Mr. Jowett himself is forced to admit,)—"If we attribute to the details of the Mosaical ritual a reference to the New Testament, or suppose the passage of the Red Sea to be regarded not merely as a figure of Baptism, but as a preordained type;—the principle is conceded!" (p. 369.) "A little more or a little less of the method does not make the difference." (Ibid.) In a word,—in such case, Mr. Jowett's Essay falls to the ground!... To proceed however.

3. The case of Interpretation has not yet been fully set before the reader. Hitherto, we have merely traced the problem back to the fountain-head, and dealt with it simply as a Scriptural question. We have shewn what light is thrown upon Interpretation by the volume of Inspiration. The subject has been treated in the same way in the Vth and VIth of my Sermons. But it will not be improper, in this place,—it is even indispensable,—to develope the problem a little more fully; and to explain that it is of much larger extent.

Now, there is a family resemblance in the method of all ancient expositions of Holy Scripture which vindicates for them, however remotely, a common origin. There is a resemblance in the general way of handling the Inspired Word which can only be satisfactorily explained by supposing that the remote type of all was the oral teaching of the Apostles themselves. In truth, is it credible that the early Christians would have been so forgetful of the discourses of the men who had seen the Lord, that no trace of it,—no tradition of so much as the manner of it,—should have lingered on for a hundred years after the death of the last of the Apostles; down to the time when Origen, for example, was a young man?... It cannot possibly be!

(i.) "The things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses," (writes the great Apostle to his son Timothy,) "the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also[192]." Provision is thus made by the aged Saint,—in the last of his Epistles,—for the transmission of his inspired teaching[193] to a second and a third generation. Now the words just quoted were written about the year 65, at which time Timothy was a young man. Unless we suppose that Almighty God curtailed the lives of the chief depositaries of His Word, Timothy will have lived on till a.d. 100; so that "faithful men" who died in the middle of the next century might have been trained and taught by him for many years. It follows, that the "faithful men" last spoken of will have been "able to teach others also," whose writings (if they wrote at all) would range from a.d. 190 to a.d. 210. Now, just such a writer is Hippolytus,—who is known to have been taught by that "faithful man" Irenæus[194],—to whom, as it happens, the deposit was "committed" by Polycarp,—who stood to St. John in the self-same relation as Timothy to St. Paul!

(ii.) Our Saviour is repeatedly declared to have interpreted the Old Testament to His Disciples. For instance, to the two going to Emmaus, "beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself[195]." Moreover, before He left the world, He solemnly promised His Apostles that the Holy Ghost, whom the Father should send in His Name, "should teach them all things, and bring to their remembrance all things which He had spoken to them[196]." Shall we believe that the Treasury of Divine Inspiration thus opened by Christ Himself was straightway closed up by its human guardians, and at once forgotten? Shall we not rather believe that Cleopas and his companion, (for instance,) forthwith repeated their Lord's words to every member of the Apostolic body, and to others also; that they were questioned again and again by adoring listeners, even to their extremest age; aye, and that they taxed their memories to the utmost in order to recal every little word, every particular of our Saviour's Divine utterance? It must be so! And the echo, the remote echo of that exposition, depend upon it! descended to a second, aye and to a third generation; yea, and has come down, faintly, and feebly it may be, but yet essentially and truly, even to ourselves!

(iii.) And yet,—(for we would not willingly incur the charge of being fanciful in so solemn and important a matter,)—the great fact to be borne in mind, (and it is the great fact which nothing can ever set aside or weaken,) is, that for the first century at least of our æra, there existed within the Christian Church the gift of Prophecy; that is, of Inspired Interpretation[197]. The minds of the Apostles, Christ Himself "opened, to understand the Scriptures[198]." Can it be any matter of surprise that men so enlightened, when they had been miraculously endowed with the gift of tongues[199], and scattered over the face of the ancient civilized World, should have disseminated the same principles of Catholic Interpretation, as well as the same elements of Saving Truth? When this miraculous gift ceased, its results did not also come to an end. The fountain dried up, but the streams which it had sent forth yet "made glad the City of God." And by what possible logic can the teaching of the early Church be severed from its source? It cannot be supposed for an instant that such a severance ever took place. The teaching of the Apostolic age was the immediate parent of the teaching of the earliest of the Fathers,—in whose Schools it is matter of history that those Patristic writers with whom we are most familiar, studied and became famous. Accordingly, we discover a method of Interpreting Holy Scripture strictly resembling that employed by our Saviour and His Apostles, in all the earliest Patristic writings. As documents increase, the evidence is multiplied; and at the end of two or three centuries after the death of St. John the Evangelist, voices are heard from Jerusalem and other parts of Palestine; from Antioch and from other parts of Syria; from the Eastern and the Western extremities of North Africa; from many regions of Asia Minor; from Constantinople and from Greece; from Rome, from Milan, and from other parts of Italy; from Cyprus and from Gaul;—all singing in unison; all singing the same heavenly song!... In what way but one is so extraordinary a phenomenon to be accounted for? Are we to believe that there was a general conspiracy of the East and the West, the North and the South, to interpret Holy Scripture in a certain way; and that way, the wrong way?

Enough has been said, it is thought, to shew that many of Mr. Jowett's remarks about the value of Patristic evidence are either futile or incorrect; or that they betray an entire misapprehension of the whole question, not to say a thorough want of appreciation of the claims of Antiquity. We do not yield to the 'Essayist and Reviewer' in veneration for the Inspired page; and trust that enough has been said to shew it. Our eye, when we read Scripture, (like his,) "is fixed on the form of One like the Son of Man; or of the Prophet who was girded with a garment of camel's hair; or of the Apostle who had a thorn in the flesh." (p. 338.) We are only unlike Mr. Jowett we fear in this,—that we believe ex animo that the first-named was the Eternal Son, "equal to the Father," and "of one substance with the Father[200]:" and further that St. Paul's fourteen Epistles are all inspired writings, in an entirely different sense from the Dialogues of Plato or the Tragedies of Sophocles. It follows, that however riveted our mental gaze may be on the awful forms which come before us in Holy Scripture,—as often as we con the inspired record of the actions and of the sayings of those men, we are constrained many a time to look upward, and to exclaim with the Psalmist, "Thy thoughts are very deep[201]!" And often if asked, "Understandest thou what thou readest?"—we must still answer with the Ethiopian, "How can I, except some man should guide me[202]?"

(iv.) To assume however that our defective knowledge "cannot be supplied by the conjectures of Fathers or Divines," (p. 338,) is in some sort to beg the question at issue. To say of the student of Scripture that "the history of Christendom, and all the afterthoughts of Theology, are nothing to him:" (p. 338:) that "he has to imagine himself a disciple of Christ or Paul, and to disengage himself from all that follows:" (Ibid.:) is not the language of modesty, but of inordinate conceit. In Mr. Jowett it is in fact something infinitely worse; for he shews that his object thereby is to "obtain an unembarrassed opportunity of applying all the resources of a so-called criticism to discredit and destroy the written record itself[203]."

"True indeed it is, that more than any other subject of human knowledge, Biblical criticism has hung (sic.) to the past;" (p. 340;) but the reason is also obvious. It is because, in the words of great Bishop Pearson, "Philosophia quotidie progressu, Theologia nisi regressu non crescit[204]." "O ye who are devoting yourselves to the Divine Science of Theology," (he exclaims,) "and whose cheeks grow pale over the study of Holy Scripture above all; ye who either fill the venerable office of the Priesthood or intend it, and are hereafter to undertake the awful cure of souls:—rid yourselves of that itch of the present age, the love of novelty. Make it your business to inquire for that which was from the beginning. Resort for counsel to the fountain-head. Have recourse to Antiquity. Return to the holy Fathers. Look back to the primitive Church. In the words of the Prophet,—'Ask for the old paths[205].'"

When therefore Mr. Jowett classes together "the early Fathers, the Roman Catholic mystical writers, the Swiss and German Reformers, and the Nonconformist Divines," (p. 377,)—he either shews a most lamentable want of intellectual perspective, or a most perverse understanding. So jumbled into one confused heap, it may not be altogether untrue to say of Commentators generally, that "the words of Scripture suggest to them their own thoughts or feelings." (p. 377.) But when it is straightway added, "There is nothing in such a view derogatory to the Saints and Doctors of former ages," (Ibid.,) we are constrained, (for the reasons already before the reader,) to remonstrate against so misleading and deceitful a way of putting the case. Mr. Jowett desires to be understood not to depreciate "the genius or learning of famous men of old," when he remarks "that Aquinas or Bernard did not shake themselves free from the mystical method of the Patristic times." (Ibid.) But with singular obtuseness, or with pitiful disingenuousness, he does his best by such words to shut out from view the real question at issue,—namely, the exegetical value of Patristic Antiquity. For the Church of England, when she appeals, (as she repeatedly does,) to "the Ancient Fathers," does not by any means intend such names as the Abbot of Clairvaux, who flourished in the middle of the twelfth century; or Thomas of Aquinum, who lived later into the thirteenth. It is the spirit of the ante-Nicene age which she defers to; the Fathers of the first four or five centuries to whose opinion she gives reverent attention; as her formularies abundantly shew. Whether therefore Aquinas and Bernard were or were not able to "shake themselves free from the mystical method of the Patristic times," matters very little. The point to be observed is that the Writers of the Patristic times, as a matter of fact, "did not shake themselves free from the mystical method of" Christ and His Apostles!

Very far am I from denying that "any one who, instead of burying himself in the pages of the commentators, would learn the Sacred Writings by heart, and paraphrase them in English, will probably make a nearer approach to their true meaning than he would gather from any Commentary." Quite certain is it that "the true use of Interpretation is to get rid of interpretation, and leave us alone in company with the author." (p. 384.) But this is quite a distinct and different matter, as every person of unsophisticated understanding must perceive at once. The same thing will be found stated by myself, in a subsequent part of the present volume, at considerable length[206]; the qualifying condition having been introduced at p. 16. The truth is, a man can no more divest himself of the conditions of thought habitual to one familiar with his Prayer-Book, than he can withdraw himself from the atmosphere of light in which he moves. Not the abuse of Commentators on Holy Scripture, but the principle on which Holy Scripture itself is to be interpreted,—is the real question at issue: the fundamental question which underlies this, being of course the vital one,—namely, Is the Bible an inspired book, or not?

Apart from what has been already urged concerning "the torrent of Patristic Interpretation[207]" which flows down not so much from the fountain-head of Scripture, (wherein so many specimens of Inspired Interpretation are preserved,) as from the fontal source of all Wisdom and Knowledge,—even the lips of the Incarnate Word Himself;—apart from this, a very important Historical circumstance calls for notice in this place.

How did Christianity originate? how did it first establish a footing in the world? "The answer is, By the preaching of living men, who said they were commissioned by God to proclaim it. That was the origin and first establishment of Christianity. There is indeed a vague and unreasoning notion prevalent that Christianity was taken from the New Testament. The notion is historically untrue. Christianity was widely extended through the civilized world before the New Testament was written; and its several books were successively addressed to various bodies of Christian believers; to bodies, that is, who already possessed the faith of Christ in its integrity. When, indeed, God ceased to inspire persons to write these books, and when they were all collected together into what we call the New Testament, the existing Faith of the Church, derived from oral teaching, was tested by comparison with this Inspired Record. And it henceforth became the standing law of the Church that nothing should be received as necessary to Salvation, which could not stand that test. But still, though thus tested, (every article being proved by the New Testament,) Christianity is not taken from it; for it existed before it.

"What, then, was the Christianity which was thus established? Have we any record of it as it existed before the New Testament became the sole authoritative standard? I answer, we have. The Creeds of the Christian Church are the record of it. That is precisely what they purport to be: not documents taken from the New Testament, but documents transmitting to us the Faith as it was held from the beginning; the Faith as it was preached by inspired men, before the inspired men put forth any writings; the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints. Accordingly you will find that our Church in her viiith Article does not ground her affirmation that the Creeds ought to be 'thoroughly received and believed,' on the fact that they were taken from the New Testament, (which they were not;) but on the fact that 'they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.'"

It follows therefore from what has been said, that even if bad men could succeed in destroying the authority of the Bible as the Word of God, all could not be up with Christianity. There would still remain to be dealt with the Faith as it exists in the world; the Faith held from the beginning; the Faith once delivered to the Saints. None of the assaults on Holy Scripture can touch that; for it traces itself to an independent origin. The evil work, therefore, would have to be begun all over again. The special doctrines which are impugned in 'Essays and Reviews' do not stand or fall with the Inspiration or Interpretation of Scripture; but are stereotyped in the Faith of Christendom. "The Fall of Man, Original Sin, the Atonement, the Divinity of Christ, the Trinity, all have their place in the Faith held from the beginning. They are imbedded in the Creeds, and in that general scheme of Doctrine which circles round the Creeds, and is involved in them. Nay, curiously enough,—or rather I should say providentially,—the very point against which the attacks of this book are principally directed, namely the Inspiration of the Old Testament, is in express terms asserted there:—the Holy Ghost 'spake by the Prophets[208].'"

It remains to shew the bearing of these remarks on Mr. Jowett's Essay.—With infinite perseverance, he dwells upon "the nude Scripture, the merest letter of the Sacred Volume, as if in it and in it alone, resided the entire Revelation of Christ, and all possible means of judging what that Revelation consists of: whereas this is very far indeed from being the case. Every single Book of the New Testament was written, as we have seen, to persons already in possession of Christian Truth. It is quite erroneous therefore, historically and notoriously erroneous, to suppose either that the Divine Institution of the Church, or that its Doctrines, were literally founded upon the written words of Holy Scripture; or that they can impart no illustration nor help in the Interpretation of those written words.... The complete possession of the saving Truth belonged to the Christian Church not by degrees, nor in lapse of time, but from the first. Of that saving truth, thus taught and thus possessed, the Apostles' Creed, growing up as it did on every side of Christendom as the faithful record of the uniform oral teaching of the Apostles, is the true and precious historical monument[209]; and I venture to say that if any person claims to reject the Apostles' Creed as an auxiliary, a great and invaluable auxiliary, in interpreting the writings of the Apostles, he shews himself to be very wanting indeed in appreciation of the comparative value of Historical Evidence, and of the true principles of Historical Philosophy.—And not the Apostles' Creed only; but the whole history and tradition of the universal Church,—needing, no doubt, skill and discretion in its application,—supply, when applied with requisite skill and discretion, very valuable and real aid in interpreting Holy Scripture[210]."

When therefore Mr. Jowett speaks contemptuously of "the attempt to adapt the truths of Scripture to the doctrines of the Creeds," (p. 353,) the kindest thing which can be said is that he writes like an ignorant, or at least an unlearned man. "The Creeds" (he says) "are acknowledged to be a part of Christianity.... Yet it does not follow that they should be pressed into the service of the Interpreter." Why not? we ask. "The growth of ideas," (he replies,) "in the interval which separated the first century from the fourth or sixth makes it impossible to apply the language of the one to the explanation of the other. Between Scripture and the Nicene or Athanasian Creeds, a world of the understanding comes in; and mankind are no longer at the same point as when the whole of Christianity was contained in the words 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou mayest be saved;' when the Gospel centred in the attachment to a living and recently departed friend and Lord." (p. 353.)

But there is a fallacy or a falsity at every step of this argument. For when did the Gospel ever "centre in attachment?" or when was "the whole of Christianity contained" in one short sentence? Supposing too that "a world of the understanding" does come in between the first century and the sixth; how does it follow that it is "impossible" to apply the language of the Creeds to the interpretation of Holy Scripture? Explain to me how that "world of understanding" affects the Nicene Creed? Even in the case of that most precious Creed called the Athanasian,—why need we assume that "the growth of ideas" has been a spurious growth? What if it should prove, on the contrary, that the development has been that of the plant from the seed[211]? Above all, why talk of "the fourth or sixth century,"—as if the Creeds were not essentially much older; nay, co-eval with Christianity itself?... Such writing shews nothing so much as a confused mind,—a weak, ill-informed, and illogical thinker.

Indeed Mr. Jowett seems to be altogether in the dark on the subject of the Creeds: for he speaks of them as "the result of three or four centuries of reflection and controversy," (p. 353,)—which is by no means true of all of them; nor, except in a certain sense, of any. But when he inquires,—"If the occurrence of the phraseology of the Nicene age in a verse of the Epistles would detect the spuriousness of the verse in which it was found,—how can the Nicene or Athanasian Creed be a suitable instrument for the interpretation of Scripture?" (p. 354.)—he simply asks a fool's question. The cases are not only not parallel, but there is not even any analogy between them. Let us hear him a little further:—

"Absorbed as St. Paul was in the person of Christ, ... he does not speak of Him as 'equal to the Father,' or 'of one substance with the Father[212].' Much of the language of the Epistles, (passages for example such as Romans i. 2: Philippians ii. 6,) would lose their meaning if distributed in alternate clauses between our Lord's Humanity and Divinity[213]. Still greater difficulties would be introduced into the Gospels by the attempt to identify them with the Creeds[214]. We should have to suppose that He was and was not tempted[215]; that when He prayed to His Father He prayed also to Himself[216]; that He knew and did not know 'of that hour' of which He as well as the angels were ignorant[217]. How could He have said 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?' or 'Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from Me.' How could He have doubted whether 'when the Son of Man cometh He shall find faith upon the earth[218]?' These simple and touching words," (p. 355,)—pah!

Now if what precedes means anything at all,—(I am by no means certain however that it does!)—it means that the writer does not believe in the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Unless the sentence which is without a reference to the foot of the page be not a denial of the fundamental Doctrine of the Faith[219],—I do not understand it. But look at all which precedes; and then say if those are the remarks of a man entitled to dogmatize "On the Interpretation of Scripture." ... If Mr. Jowett really means that the Creeds cannot be reconciled with the Bible,—how can he himself subscribe to the VIIIth Article? If he means nothing of the kind,—why does he write in such a weak, cloudy, illogical way?

But the whole of the case has not even yet been stated. Down from the remote period of which we have been hitherto speaking,—the age of primitive Creeds, and [oe]cumenical Councils, and ancient Fathers,—in every country of the civilized world to which the Gospel has spread,—the loftiest Intellect, the profoundest Learning, the sincerest Piety, have invariably endorsed the ancient and original method of interpretation. I am not implying that such corroboration was in any sense required; but the circumstance that it has been obtained, at least deserves attention. Modes of thought are dependent on times and countries. There is a fashion in all things. Great advances in Science,—grand epochs in civilization,—vicissitudes of opinion,—difference of institutions, national traditions, and the like,—might be supposed to have wrought a permanent change even in this department of Sacred Science. But it is not so. The storm has raged from one quarter or other of the heavens, but has ever spent its violence in vain. Still has the Church Catholic retained her own unbroken tradition. To keep to the history of that Church to which we, by God's mercy, belong:—The constant appeal, at the time of our own great Reformation, was to the Fathers of the first four centuries. Ever since, the temper and spirit of our Commentators has been to revert to the same standard, to reproduce the same teaching. The most powerful minds and the most holy spirits,—English Divines of the deepest thought and largest reading,—let me add, of the soundest judgment and severest discrimination,—have, in every age, down to the present, gratefully accepted not only the method, but even the very details of primitive Patristic Interpretation. But "the acceptance of a hundred generations and the growing authority arising from it,"—like "the institutions based upon such ancient writings, and the history into which they have entwined themselves indissolubly for many centuries,"—all conspire to "constitute a perpetually increasing and strengthening[220]" body of evidence on the subject of Sacred Interpretation.

Now, to oppose to the learning, and piety, and wisdom, of every age of the English Church,—to the unbroken testimony of the Church Universal,—(3) to the torrent of Patristic Antiquity,—(4) the decision of early Councils, and (5) the 'still small voice' of primitive Creeds,—yet more, (6) to the constant practice of the Apostles,—and, above all, (7) to the indisputable method of our Divine Lord Himself;—to oppose to all this mighty accumulation of evidence, the simple à priori convictions of—Mr. Jowett! savours so strongly of the ridiculous, that it really seems superfluous to linger over the antithesis for a single moment.

4. Our task might now be looked upon as completed.—It only remains, in justice to the gentleman whose method we have been considering, to ascertain by what considerations he is induced to reject that method of Interpretation which, as we have seen, enjoys such overwhelming sanction.

(i) In opposition to what goes before, then, he throws out a suggestion, that "nothing would be more likely to restore a natural feeling on this subject than a History of the Interpretation of Scripture. It would take us back to the beginning; it would present in one view the causes which have darkened the meaning of words in the course of ages." (p. 338-9.) "Such a work would enable us to separate the elements of Doctrine and Tradition with which the meaning of Scripture is encumbered in our own day." (p. 339.)

Let us here be well understood with our author. The advantage of a good "History of Interpretation" would indeed be incalculably great. But Mr. Jowett, (like most other writers of his class,) assumes the point he has to prove, when he insinuates that the result of such a contribution to our Theological Literature would be to shew that all the world has been in error for 1700 years, and that he alone is right. That 'erring fancy' has often been at work in the fields of sacred criticism,—who ever doubted? That there have been epochs of Interpretation,—different Schools,—and varying tastes, in the long course of so many centuries of mingled light and darkness, learning and barbarism;—what need to declare? A faithful history of Interpretation would of course establish these facts on a sure foundation.

But the Reverend Author forgets his Logic when he goes on from these undoubted generalities to imply that all has been confusion and utter uncertainty until now. Above all, common regard for the facts of the case ought to have preserved him from putting forth so monstrous a falsehood as the following:—"Among German Commentators there is for the first time in the history of the world, an approach to agreement and certainty." (p. 340.)

Let us however,—passing by the many crooked remarks and unsound inferences with which the Reverend writer, (more suo,) delights to perplex a plain question[221],—invite him to abide by the test which he himself proposes. For 1700 years, (he says,) the Interpretation of Scripture has been obscured and encumbered by successive Schools of Interpretation. The Interpreter's concern (he says) is with the Bible itself. "The simple words of that book he tries to preserve absolutely pure from the refinements of later times.... The greater part of his learning is a knowledge of the text itself." [He is evidently the very man who sweeps the house to discover the pearl of great price. (p. 414.)] "He has no delight in the voluminous literature which has overgrown it. He has no theory of Interpretation. A few rules guarding against common errors are enough for him.... He wants to be able to open his eyes, and see or imagine things as they truly are." (p. 338.) [How crooked by the way is all this! "He has no theory of Interpretation[222]?" Why, no; for the best of all reasons. He denies Inspiration altogether! His "theory" is that the Bible is an uninspired Book! ... How peculiar too, and how plaintive is the "want" of the supposed Interpreter, "to he able to open his eyes;"—glued up, as they no doubt are, by the superstitious tendencies of the nineteenth century, and the tyranny of an intolerant age!]

But we may perhaps state the matter more intelligibly and simply, thus:—In order to ascertain the true principle of Scriptural Interpretation, let us,—divesting ourselves of the complicated and voluminous lore of 1700 years,—resort to the Bible itself. Let us go for our views to the fountain-head; and abide by what we shall discover there.

A fairer proposal (as I think) never was made. It exactly describes the method which I have humbly endeavoured myself to pursue in the ensuing Sermons. The inquiry will be found elaborated from p. 141 to p. 160 of the present volume; and the result is to be read on the last-named page, in the following words:—"that it may be regarded as a fundamental rule, that the Bible is not to be interpreted like a common book. This I gather infallibly from the plain fact, that the inspired writers themselves habitually interpret it as no other book either is, or can be interpreted.—Next, I assert without fear of contradiction that inspired Interpretation, whatever varieties of method it may exhibit, is yet uniform and unequivocal in this one result; namely, that it proves Holy Scripture to be of far deeper significancy than at first sight appears. By no imaginable artifice of Rhetoric or sophistry of evasion,—by no possible vehemence of denial or plausibility of counter assertion,—can it be rendered probable that Scripture has invariably one only meaning; and that meaning, the most obvious and easy."

Now, the reader is requested to observe that what precedes is the direct contradictory of the position which Mr. Jowett has written his Essay in order to establish. And thus we keep for ever coming back to his πρῶτον ψεῦδος,—the fundamental falsity which underlies the whole of what he has written.

(ii) But although we have eagerly resorted to Scripture itself in order to ascertain on what principle Scripture ought to be interpreted, we cannot for a moment allow some of the sophistries with which the Reverend Author has encumbered the question, to escape without castigation. He may not first court an appeal to the School of Apostolical Interpretation; and then, before the result of that appeal has been ascertained, go off in praise of the illumination of the present age; and claim to represent the Theological mind of Europe in his own person. "Educated persons," (he has the impertinence to assert,) "are beginning to ask (!), not what Scripture may be made to mean, but what it does. And it is no exaggeration to say that he who in the present state of knowledge will confine himself to the plain meaning of words, and the study of their context, may know more of the original spirit and intention of the authors of the New Testament than all the controversial writers of former ages put together." (pp. 340-1.) This might be tolerated perhaps, in the self-constituted oracle of a Mechanics' Institute; but as proceeding from a Divinity Lecturer in one of the first Colleges in Oxford, I hesitate not to declare that such an opinion is simply disgraceful.

Very much of a piece with this, in point of flippancy,—(though barely consistent with his frequent assertions that the entire subject is hemmed in by grave difficulties,)—are the Regius Professor of Greek's remarks on the value of learning as a help to the Interpretation of Holy Writ. "Learning obscures as well as illustrates." (p. 337.)—"There seem to be reasons for doubting whether any considerable light can be thrown on the New Testament from inquiry into the language." (p. 393.)—"Minute corrections of tenses or particles are no good." (p. 393.)—"Discussions respecting the chronology of St. Paul's life and his second imprisonment; or about the identity of James, the brother of the Lord; or, in another department, respecting the use of the Greek article,—have gone far beyond the line of utility." (p. 393.) "The minuteness of the study of Greek in our own day has also a tendency to introduce into the text associations which are not really found there." (p. 391.)—Lastly, he complains of "the error of interpreting every particle, as though it were a link in the argument; instead of being, as is often the case, an excrescence of style." (p. 391.)

So then, in brief, the Fathers are in a conspiracy to mislead: Creeds and Councils encumber the sense: Modern Commentators are not to be trusted: the comparison of Scripture with Scripture, except it be "of the same age and the same authors," "will tend rather to confuse than to elucidate:" (p. 383:) "Learning obscures," and an accurate appreciation of the meaning of the text is "no good!"—"When the meaning of Greek words is once known[223], the young student has almost all the real materials which are possessed by the greatest Biblical scholar, in the book itself." (p. 384.) In a word, (as Dr. Moberly has had the manliness to remark,)—"It simply comes to this: A little Greek, (not too much,) and a strong self-relying imagination, and you may interpret Holy Scripture as well as—Mr. Jowett!" (p. lxii.) ... Benighted himself, the unhappy author of this Essay is so apprehensive lest a ray of light from Heaven shall break in upon one of his disciples,—even sideways, as it were, from the margin of the Bible,—that he carefully prohibits "the indiscriminate use of parallel passages" as "useless and uncritical." ... Yet may one not with discrimination refer to the margin?—Better not! "No good!" (p. 393.) replies the Oracle. "Even the critical use of parallel passages is not without danger." (p. 383.) ... O shame! And all this from a College Tutor and Lecturer on Divinity! this from one entrusted with the care of educating young men! this from a Regius Professor of Greek[224]!

Mr. Jowett congratulates himself that "Biblical criticism has made two great steps onward,—at the time of the Reformation, and in our own day." But his notion is amply refuted by the known facts of the case: for when he adds,—"The diffusion of a critical spirit in History and Literature is affecting the criticism of the Bible in our own day in a manner not unlike the burst of intellectual life in the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries;" (p. 340;) he clearly requires to be reminded that the success of the Divinity of the Reformation was owing to the grand appeal then made to the Patristic writings.

So far then as any of ourselves are resorting to those sources of information, there may be a faint resemblance in kind between the spirit which animates us, and that which wrought so nobly in the Fathers of our spiritual freedom,—Cranmer and Ridley and the other learned and holy men who revised our Offices. But if "German Commentators" and their method be supposed to be the ideals to which the age is tending, then the Theology of the middle of the nineteenth century stands in marked contrast to what prevailed in the middle of the sixteenth; and our spirit is the very reverse of theirs.—But I hasten on.

(iii) "The uncertainty which prevails in the Interpretation of Scripture," Mr. Jowett proposes to get rid of,—(this is in fact the aim of his entire Essay,) by denying that there are in Scripture any deeper meanings to interpret. In the meantime, by every device in his power, he seeks from à priori considerations, (as we have seen,) to shew that no such meanings can exist. We allow ourselves to be biassed, to a singular extent, he says, "by certain previous suppositions with which we come to the perusal of Scripture." (p. 342.) But for this, "no one would interpret Scripture as many do." (Ibid.) Let us ascertain then what these erroneous "suppositions" are.

(α) "The failure of a prophecy is never admitted, in spite of Scripture and of history, (Jer. xxxvi. 30. Isaiah xxiii. Amos vii. 10-17.)" (p. 343.)

Now this can only mean two things: viz. first, that a Divine Prophecy is not an infallible utterance: and secondly, that the three places quoted from the Old Testament are proofs of the fallibility of Prophecy; proofs which ought to overcome prejudice, and persuade men to renounce their "previous supposition" that Prophecy is infallible.

Certainly the charge is a grave one. For if Prophecy is untrue, then what becomes of Inspiration?

And yet, how stands the case? The writer seems to have expected "that no one would refer to the passages that he has bracketed, or that all would be too ignorant to know the utter groundlessness of his assumption. If there are, in the whole Scripture, two past prophecies which were signally and remarkably fulfilled, they are the first two which he has selected as instances to be dropped down, without a remark, of the failure of Scripture prophecies! And as to the third passage, surely it implies an 'incuria' which might be deemed 'crassa' to have asserted that it contained an instance of the non-fulfilment of Prophecy: for it implies that Mr. Jowett has read the verses to which he refers with so little attention as not to have discovered that the prediction which failed of its fulfilment was no utterance of Amos, but was the message of Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, in which he falsely attributes to Amos words he had not spoken!... Surely such slips as these are as discreditable to a scholar as a Divine[225]!"

And this, from a gentleman who has the impertinence to remind us oracularly, that "he who would understand the nature of Prophecy in the Old Testament, should have the courage to examine how far its details were minutely fulfilled!" (p. 347.) Are we then to infer that Mr. Jowett's courage failed him when he came to Amos vii. 10-17?

(β) "The mention of a name later than the supposed age of the prophet is not allowed, as in other writings, to be taken in evidence of the date. (Isaiah xlv. 1.)" (p. 343.)

But what is the meaning of this complaint when applied to Isaiah's well known prophecy concerning Cyrus? In the words of the excellent critic last quoted,—"We know not that we could point to such an instance as this in the writings of any other author of credit. Of course, Mr. Jowett knows as well as we do the distinction between History and Prophecy; and that the mention in any document of the name of one who was unborn at the time fixed as the date of the writing, would be at once a complete disproof of its accuracy as a history of the past, and a proof of its accuracy as a prediction of the future. Of course he also remembers that the point he has to prove is that this passage is History and not Prediction; and his mode of proving is this; he assumes that it is a history of the past,—advancing as a charge against the believers of Revelation, that they do not, (as they would in any other History,) reject the genuineness of the passage because it embalms a future name in a past history!... This audacious, (for we cannot use a weaker word,) assumption of what he has to prove, pervades his Essay[226]."

And thus, into whatever department of speculation we follow this writer, the tortuous path is still found to conduct us back to the same underlying fallacious assumption,—viz. that the Bible is like any other Book; in other words, is not inspired.

(γ) Persons in Mr. Jowett's position, "find themselves met by a sort of presupposition that 'God speaks not as Man speaks.'"—(p. 343.)

"A sort of presupposition," indeed!... Does the Reverend gentleman really expect that we will stoop so low as argue this point also with him? It shall suffice to have branded him with his own words.

"The suspicion of Deism, or perhaps of Atheism, awaits inquiry. By such fears, a good man (!) refuses to be influenced: a philosophical mind (!) is apt to cast them aside with too much bitterness. It is better to close the book, than to read it under conditions of thought which are imposed from without." (p. 343.)

Well surely, the proximity to Balliol College of the scene of Cranmer and Ridley's martyrdom, must have turned the brain of the Regius Professor of Greek!—Let him be well assured however that not rational "Inquiry," but irrational assumption; not the modest cogitations of "a philosophical mind," but the arrogant dreams of a weak and confused intellect, are what have excited such general indignation of late, among "good men," from one end of the Kingdom to the other. Nor could anything probably of equal pretensions be readily appealed to, which is nevertheless more truly unphilosophical, fallacious, and foolish, than the Essay now under consideration.

(iv) Subsequently, (p. 344,) Mr. Jowett professes to grapple with the phenomenon of Inspiration. His method is instructive. He begins by inadvertently advancing a direct untruth: for he asserts that for none "of the higher or supernatural views of Inspiration is there any foundation in the Gospels or Epistles." (p. 345.)—Had he then forgotten St. Paul's statements in Gal. i. 1, 11-17: ii. 2, 7-9. 1 Cor. xv. 3. Ephes. iii. 3, &c., &c.? But I have established the contradictory of the Professor's position in the ensuing Sermons, p. 53 to p. 57, to which the reader must be referred.—This done, he proceeds to assert that,

(α) Inspiration does not preserve a writer from inaccuracy. And the charge is substantiated by the following ridiculous enumeration:—"One [Evangelist] supposes the original dwelling-place of our Lord's Parents to have been Bethlehem[227], another Nazareth[228]." (This from a Lecturer on Divinity! Does Mr. Jowett then suppose that his readers have never opened the Gospels, and do not know better? Why, both his statements are simply false!)—"They trace His genealogy in different ways." (Yes. In two. And why not in twenty? Is Mr. Jowett not aware that a genealogy may be differently traced through different ancestors?)—"One mentions the thieves blaspheming: another has preserved to after ages the record of the penitent thief:" (And why should he not?)—"They appear to differ about the day and hour of the Crucifixion." (Yes, they appear to differ: but they do not differ!)—"The narrative of the woman who anointed our Lord's feet with ointment is told in all four, each narrative having more or less considerable variations." (There is no conceivable reason why this should not have been as Mr. Jowett relates; but, as a matter of fact, we have here another of this Gentleman's private blunders,—shewing what an uncritical reader he must be, of that book concerning which he presumes to dogmatize so freely.)—"These are a few instances of the differences which arose in the traditions of the earliest ages respecting the history of our Lord." (Nay, but this is to beg the whole question!)—"He who wishes to investigate the character of the sacred writings should not be afraid to make a catalogue of them all, with the view of estimating their cumulative weight." (p. 346.) (Truly, it would be well for Mr. Jowett if he had as little to fear from such "investigations" as the Evangelists!)

"In the same way, he who would understand the nature of Prophecy in the Old Testament, should have the courage to examine how far its details were minutely fulfilled. The absence of such a fulfilment may further lead him to discover that he took the letter for the spirit in expecting it." (p. 347.) But really this is again simply to beg the whole question. Unbecoming in any writer, how absurd also is such a sentence from the pen of one who, (as we have lately seen,) no sooner descends to particulars than he makes himself ridiculous by betraying his own excessive ignorance.... "The letter for the spirit," also! which is one of the 'cant' expressions of Mr. Jowett and his accomplices in 'free handling,'—based evidently on a misconception of the meaning of 2 Cor. iii. 6. The contrast recurs at pp. 36, 357, 375, 425, &c., &c.

(β) Still bent on shewing that Inspiration does not secure Scripture from blots and blemishes, Mr. Jowett proceeds as follows. (I must present him to the reader, for a short space, in extenso; since by no other expedient can the complicated fallacies of his very intricate and perverse method be exposed.)

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

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

(δ) We are next informed "that there are a class of scientific facts with which popular opinions on Theology often conflict.... Such especially are the facts relating to the formation of the Earth and the beginnings of the Human Race." (p. 349.) (And pray, what "facts" are these, relative to the "beginnings of the Human Race," which conflict with Scripture?) ... "Almost all intelligent persons are agreed that the earth has existed for myriads of ages:" (Which is perfectly true.)—"The best informed are of opinion that the history of nations extends back some thousand years before the Mosaic Chronology." (Which is decidedly false.)—"Recent discoveries in Geology may perhaps open a further vista of existence for the human species; while it is possible, and may one day be known, that Mankind spread not from one but from many centres over the globe; or, (as others say,) that the supply of links which are at present wanting in the chain of animal life may lead to new conclusions respecting the origin of Man." (A cool way, this, of anticipating that something which 'may'—(or may not!)—be discovered hereafter, will demonstrate that the beginning of the Bible is all a fable!)—"Now," (proceeds our author,) "let it be granted that" "the proof of some of these facts, especially of those last-mentioned, is wanting; still it is a false policy to set up Inspiration or Revelation in opposition to them, a principle which can have no influence on them, and should be kept rather out of their way." (Considerate man!) "The Sciences of Geology and comparative Philology are steadily gaining ground. Many of the guesses of twenty years ago have been certainties; and the guesses of to-day may hereafter become so. Shall we peril Religion (!) on the possibility of their untruth? on such a cast to stake the life of Man, implies not only a recklessness of facts (!), but a misunderstanding of the nature of the Gospel. If it is fortunate for Science, it is perhaps more fortunate for Christian Truth, that the admission of Galileo's discovery has for ever settled the principle of the relations between them."—(pp. 349-50.) ...

Now, what a curious picture of a perverse and crooked mind does such a sentence exhibit! Divine Revelation can "have no influence" of course, on facts of any kind, (including facts in Physical Science,) when once those facts have been well ascertained. But, in the entire absence of such facts, why should we refuse to listen to the well ascertained Revelation of God? Nothing is more emphatic, for example, than the Divine declaration that the whole Human family is derived from a single pair; and the origin of Man is plainly set down in Genesis. Why then oppose to this, the confessedly undiscovered fact that "mankind spread from many centres;" and the purely speculative possibility that, hereafter, a certain theory "may lead to new conclusions respecting the origin of Man?"—As for "Religion" being "perilled on the possibility" of the truth or untruth of the Sciences of Geology and comparative Philology;—we really would submit that God may be safely left to take care of His own; and that "peril," there is,—there can be,—none!

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

But I may not proceed any further, or my pages will equal in extent those of the gentleman already named. Indeed, to follow that most confused of thinkers, and crooked of disputants, through all his perverse pages; to expose his habitual paltry evasive dodging,—his shifting equivocations,—his misapplications of Scripture,—his unworthy insinuations,—his plaintive puerilities of thought and sentiment;—would require a thick volume.—If Mr. Jowett does not deny the Personality of the Holy Ghost, he ought to be thoroughly ashamed of himself for penning sentences which can lead to no other inference. For he ought to know that when men talk of words "receiving a more exact meaning than they will truly bear;" and of what "is spoken in a figure being construed with the severity of a logical statement, while passages of an opposite tenour are overlooked or set aside:"—(p. 360.) men mean to repudiate the doctrine which those words are thought to convey; not to imply their acceptance of it.—So again, if Mr. Jowett holds the doctrine of Original Sin, he ought to be heartily ashamed of himself for having insinuated that it depends "on two figurative expressions of St. Paul to which there is no parallel in any other part of Scripture." (p. 361.)—Nor, however moderate his attainments as a teacher of Divinity, ought he to be capable of putting forth such a notorious misstatement as that the doctrine of Infant Baptism rests upon a verse in the Acts (xvi. 33,)—which verse has really nothing whatever to do with the question[231]. (p. 360.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That objections to some received views should be valid, and yet that they should be always held up as the objections of Infidels,—is a mischief to the Christian cause."

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

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

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

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

"The Christian religion is in a false position when all the tendencies of knowledge are opposed to it." (All the tendencies of knowledge, then, are opposed to the Christian Religion!)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But this historical Bible is not to be regarded as the rule of a man's life, or indeed as an external Law at all. (pp. 36, 45.) "We walk now by Reason and Conscience alone." (p. 21.) The Bible is to be identified "with the voice of Conscience," (p. 45,)—which it has "to evoke, not to override." (p. 44.) "The principle of private judgment ... makes Conscience the supreme interpreter." (p. 45.) Ours is "a law which is not imposed upon us by another power, but by our own enlightened will:" (p. 35:) for the "Spirit, or Conscience" "legislates" henceforth "without appeal except to himself." (p. 31.)

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

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

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

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

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

I trace these concluding lines,—(of a work which, but for you, would never have been undertaken,)—in a quite empty College; and in the room where we have so often and so happily met on Sunday evenings. Can you wonder if, at the conclusion of what has proved rather a heavy task, (so hateful to me is controversy,) my thoughts revert with affectionate solicitude to yourselves, already scattered in all directions; and to those evenings which more, I think, than any other thing, have gilded my College life?... In thus sending you a written farewell, and praying from my soul that God may bless and keep you all, I cannot suppress the earnest entreaty that you would remember the best words of counsel which may have at any time fallen from my lips: that you would persevere in the daily study of the pure Book of Life; and that you would read it, not as feeling yourselves called upon to sit in judgment on its adorable contents; but rather, as men who are permitted to draw near; and invited to listen, and to learn, and to live. And so farewell!... "Watch ye, stand fast in the Faith,"—nay, take it in the original, which is far better:—Γρηγορεῖτε, στήκετε ἐν τῇ πίστει ἀνδρίζεσθε, κραταιοῦσθε. πάντα ὑμῶν ἐν ἀγάπῃ γινέσθω. Ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μεθ' ὑμῶν. ἡ ἀγάπη μου μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν.

Your friend,
J. W. B.

Oriel,
June 22nd, 1861.