Imagens da página


which, in his preface to the Second Part, he offers his acknowledgments and thanks. As regards all others, it seems as if Churchmen and Dissenters were for once agreed ; and, as far as the world of professing Christians in this country is concerned, the Bishop of Natal stands absolutely alone.

There is, indeed, one periodical—the Atheneum-which has admitted some letters written by Dr. Kalisch and Professors Hupfeld and Ewald to the Bishop of Natal, which have been inserted by the Bishop himself. These are full of sympathetic expressions ; and we doubt not thousands of unbelievers might be found who would express their opinion in language more or less resembling the contents of these letters. Meanwhile, we shall content ourselves with observing, that there does not appear, even amongst the most ardent admirers of Dr. Colenso, any appearance of compliment as to his critical skill or philosophical acumen. The point which elicits applause is his bold

Whether this quality, as exercised in the attempt to demolish the authority of Canonical Scripture, is entitled to a high degree of praise is what will be variously judged of according to the prepossessions of him who judges. The manifesto of the English and Irish Archbishops and Bishops, both as regards the names which it contains as well as the few who, for whatever reason, are not there, probably represents the state of feeling whi is general amongst the clergy and the more educated portion of the laity. If the opinion of the clergy were taken on the subject, there would be a few who, from some crotchetty objection or other, would not subscribe to such a document; some few, probably, who would only partially endorse it; many, of course, who would fall in with the stream, and just do as others do: and perhaps this section find their representatives in two or three of the Irish prelates, who shall be nameless : whilst we can scarcely doubt there would be rather a larger number in proportion than appears in the Bishops' Protest who would be too indifferent to the matter to take any active steps in connexion with it. But there is not enough dissent from this manifesto at all materially to interfere with the opinion that this book has been unanimously condemned by the English clergy.

We have implied that the organs of nearly all the religious bodies outside the pale of the Church, as well as those of different parties in the Church, are unanimous in their condemnation. We do not say this as if there were anything surprising in such a fact, or anything that affords especial matter for congratulation ; it is simply that unanimity which would appear against any form of infidelity when once recognised as such; it shows only that people are alive to the transactions which are going on around them, and that, whether they can answer difficulties or not, they do not mean to be cajoled out of their faith by specious arguments. Meanwhile, it may, perhaps, afford matter of surprise to some that one important body of religionists in this country remains silent: we allude, of course, to the members of the Roman Communion.

It may be thought that they are about equally concerned with ourselves when the Canonical Books which we in common hold are attacked, and their authenticity and genuineness denied. Yet, whatever scattered notices of the sceptical productions of the day appear in their organs, their reticence as to the general questions at issue is somewhat remarkable, and suggests an inquiry into its causes. We shall not, we trust, be thought uncharitable if we just allude to the undeniable fact of the great want of learning which characterises the mass of people who belong to the Roman Communion in this country. Their learned men may be counted by units, but their number will scarcely reach into two figures. After mentioning Cardinal Wiseman's name with the respect which is due to his various gifts of mind and his large acquirements, we are at a loss to find any of their number (we speak now, of course, of those who have been bred up amongst them, and not of converts from the Church of England) who will bear any sort of comparison with our own scholars and divines. They have, generally speaking, neither the means of providing for the education of their gentry, nor have they any of that liberal intelligence which, amongst ourselves, exhibits itself in innumerable Quarterlies and Monthlies. We say not a word in disparagement of the half-dozen intellectual converts whom they have gained, and whom we could ill afford to lose; but we think it cannot be denied that there is in their body, as at present existing both among clergy and laity, a very singular stagnation of intellect. The Review (Home and Foreign Review) which a liberal section of the English Romanists has lately started, as it has been all but condemned by authority, scarcely forms an exception to what we are saying. We shall be told, of course, that this is not singular, but merely the normal result which shows itself in the Roman Communion. It is not our business either to endeavour to substantiate or refute this accusation. We only notice the fact here as one of the causes which have been in operation to prevent replies to infidel objections coming from the pens of Roman Catholic writers. And it is right it should be mentioned, lest too great weight should be assigned to the other main cause to which the phenomenon is attributable.

We hope we shall not be misunderstood when we allege as the main reason of their silence the subordinate nature of the subject. Attacks upon the currently received interpretation of Scripture are judged to have more or less force in proportion as the person who judges of them gives his adherence to such


mode of interpretation. Now, it is obvious that there has been no more pronouncement of the Church Catholic upon the subjects of the Inspiration and Interpretation of Scripture, than there has been upon the Copernican theory of the Universe. It is quite possible that nearly all the pious minds of the seventeenth century may have felt strongly the impiety of a theory which appeared to them to contravene the express statements of Holy Writ. It was natural it should be so. Persons who were not acquainted with the Bible so far as to know that it spoke of the sun as moving round the earth, and people who disbelieved in the Divine origin of Holy Scripture, were in a more favourable position for judging of the scientific question than the learned and the religious. Neither ought the latter to be blamed for at first withholding their assent to assertions of which they could not understand the proof, and which appeared to them to militate against what had been revealed. Things took their own course ; the truths of science have been established, and there is no one now who thinks there is any

difficulty in the fact that Scripture speaks of the sun revolving round the earth, and that science tells us it is nearer the real state of the case to consider the earth as moving round the

It is most probable that if any book of Canonical Scripture had followed, in point of chronology, after some great physical discovery, which had been generally recognised, the expressions made use of by the writer would have accommodated themselves to the then existing state of knowledge. Thus the words of the inspired writers would have varied with the variations in the amount of scientific knowledge possessed by themselves and others of their time, as they manifestly adapted themselves to the state of development of the language at the time when they were written. Why should it be thought more repugnant to the truth that the writers of Canonical Scripture were inspired, that the sentiments they uttered did not anticipate the discoveries of modern science, than that they were clothed in a language which, at least in the New Testament, had greatly declined from its classical purity and beauty ? Ever since the revival of Greek literature, scholars have been busily pointing out to us what, in some sense, may be called the defects of style in Evangelists and Apostles. This analogy between the two cases of science and language, as affecting theories of Inspiration, seems to us worth attending to; probably it may throw some light upon the question of verbal inspiration, as well as help towards the understanding of the subject generally.

But we have digressed a little from our immediate subject, which is the comparative unimportance to Catholics, whether

NO. CXX. - N.S.


Roman or English, of attacks upon the received meaning of Scripture. We have said that the Church has not defined, for the most part, the interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. We are far from saying that the history is not literally true, still less that Scripture has not an ascertainable sense, but it is certain that the Church has never pronounced an interpretation on every particular of it. In fact, it is manifest that many parts--as, for instance, poetical or metaphorical expressions, and the like-would never be supposed by anybody to be taken literally. The alarm, therefore, that pervades the Protestant mind, which has nothing to fall back upon when its own interpretation of Scripture is impugned, scarcely reaches the Catholic, who has never laid so much stress on any particular method of exposition. Add to this the fact, that the one class of people are accustomed to disbelieve everything, unless they can see, or fancy they see it, proved from Scripture, and that the others take all doctrine upon the authority of the Church, and it is at once seen that the state of mind with which either comes to the perusal of such a book as Dr. Colenso's is quite different.

Now, we shall not surprise readers of the Christian Remembrancer if we say that we give our entire adhesion to the Catholic view on this point as opposed to the Protestant. We explained, in our last article on this subject, the meaning of the Sixth Article of Religion, and we challenge any one to give any other explanation of this Article which shall be at once consistent with common sense and the notorious facts of the case. And we say that the attitude of English Churchmen towards such questions ought to be quite as calm and serene as that of members of the Roman Communion is indifferent. It will at once be seen that we are preparing the way for the admission of unsolved difficulties in the text of Scripture. As regards the Old Testament, these are almost innumerable. Some of the difficulties of reconciling the accounts of the Kings and Chronicles appear to us to be very great or even insuperable. We gladly recognise attempts, whether by the aid of critical acumen or modern discoveries, to make an entirely consistent account of this period of Jewish history; but we fully believe that many of the difficulties will remain to the end of time. Many of them are known to the most superficial readers ; many more make their way to the surface, as people become better acquainted with the subject. We need not repeat Bishop Butler's argument, that difficulties are to be expected in Revelation, if only on the very ground that there are difficulties in Nature. In Nature, Grace, and Revelation we may expect the same difficulties, and the same difficulty, or even impossibility in solving them. The point at present for considera

tion is, that everybody has been familiar with many such difficulties, and that people in general do not seem to have minded them. Of course not. They have been content to think that they are not possessed of all knowledge or all science, and have left explanations to others who are wiser than themselves. The only real difference between the state of things now and that of fifty years ago is this, that a very few more difficulties have been dragged to light by modern critical researches, and that they have been thrown into a popular form, and published in the compass of a small volume, by a colonial Bishop, who has, moreover, unfortunately for himself, vastly overstated his case, and represented his argument as much stronger than even his friends, the Sceptics and Rationalists of Germany, will be able to admit.

And now, perhaps, we have said enough on the general bearing of the subject, and may proceed to give an account of the second part of the Bishop of Natal's book, the title of which is at the head of this article. We do not suppose that many of our readers will have been induced by our account of the first part of this work to read the work itself for themselves. And, probably, few readers of any kind will have followed the author through his weary details of arithmetical calculations. Suffice it, therefore, here to repeat, that Dr. Colenso occupied himself in the first part entirely in the work of destruction. We did not profess to follow each argument and to refute his conclusions seriatim; we gave what we supposed was a fair description of the book, and left it to tell its own story, only interspersing with our description of it such observations as might tend to elucidate the absurdity of the magnificent conclusion which the author professes to have deduced from the premises.

That conclusion was, that the whole story of the Exodus was unhistorical, neither written by Moses nor any other contemporary, but an entire fiction from beginning to end. We think we are not misrepresenting Dr. Colenso in saying this, because, whatever earlier stories the history of the Exodus may have been developed out of, it is plain that he considers the main story, and nearly every detail, to be pure invention.

However, before we proceed any further, the author shall recapitulate his first volume for himself.

He proceeds as follows:

“Thus it is obvious that large portions of the Pentateuch, including the account of the Exodus itself (see E. x. 19, where the word “sea” is used for “west”), must have been composed long after the times of Moses and Joshua.'

'Further, it cannot be supposed that any later writers would have presumed to mix up, without distinction, large and important sections of history of their own composition, with writings so venerable and sacred, as any

« AnteriorContinuar »