1 10 8 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/565610c745acbf00aef0eb1e9b2e0878.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=NImDgiiVsRljM5w8e-NFw7sPTP15usVdgbAkB0ze6xglV%7ELGnAc9HilgJzb0zQBm6La-5nsBRq5-j9mKpd%7EMZJGZHFdn967ly7XzFns38TcByTDBwxOAeB2gSmdHfE5ca6HfyNgPZqzcl4yrF3gL0w2OyWxx5P4UI83ZJhLIz9fp7vduJIMGjmXA10E9zs54EimrxZsMJIyLGhBCJhtsc2oYkA0lvfWg0lZWmDcS4TuI1bTxvVkjjl-N%7E%7EgRM1f82P2nkswk7qEbuJIuJZL%7EAVPPkCZToroe%7EY-M8FYbPvhMrVRy3TuBp3E3En-DTByCTyZOaF1ESePhRtRJIlsoww__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 1d8486c50717ba93a900289260e5111f PDF Text Text 2S2.4 THE VOYSEY CASE, FROM AN HERETICAL STAND-POINT. BY MONCURE D. CONWAY. PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT, MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE. Price Sixpence- ��him ,n’: odJ vd ©T'([ r . oJt 3') ypf uir ;I'i di, i •' : ' ■■■ r <4 am , , ;.)’{> THE VOYSEY CASE, FROM AN HERETICAL STAND-POINT. -.... ■»---F the National Church is unable to fill its pews, it . has at least succeeded of late in filling the air with gossip. Its recent history has been a series of public scandals. The excommunication of a heretic is fol­ lowed by the insult of the bishops to a Unitarian invited by themselves to assist in the revision of the received version of the Bible, and this is succeeded by the legal reprimand of a Ritualist, all combining to im­ press the country with the idea that the Establishment has come to a pass when “ apostolic blows and knocks ’* have become the normal condition of its existence. The most salient feature in the most important of these events was, perhaps, its inevitableness. The most zealous adherents of the church plainly recognised that if Mr Voysey were brought to trial, orthodoxy could not gain its case except at a heavy cost. They saw that the trial would be the means of circulating the heretic’s opinions, and would invest him with the eminence of a martyr. But the church had no choice. If a clergyman with such views could retain his pulpit, there could be no reason why Socinians of simple Theists should not close their several chapels, and reinforce the rationalistic party in the church to an extent that would destroy its distinctive character and supernatural authority altogether. So the Church I �4 The Voysey Case, was placed at the mercy of the Vicar of Healaugh, and could only be saved from reviving an antiquated pro­ cedure, sure to injure itself more than him, by the quiet resignation which he refused to accord. There is a Bavarian fable of a boy gathering strawberries, who treated with rudeness an aged woman who met him with a petition for some berries. In return for this unkindness the old woman gave the boy a fine casket, out of which, however, when the boy opened it, came two small worms, which grew in size until they coiled about the boy’s limbs, and drew him far, and ever farther, into the dark forest, where he still wanders in the toils of the mighty serpents. The myth may express more than the lesson of Bavarian mothers that small sins swell into fatal habits; it may describe the miserable necessities which, in the course of time, may be evolved from the rich casket of power obtained by a church for its scorn of reason. Bound fast in the coils of that superstition and bigotry which it has preferred to progress and charity, it is drawn into the dark forest to which its selected masters belong, and cannot free itself even at the bidding of obvious self-interest. The trial came, and with it the incidents which have filled all heretics with delight. For some days Mr Voysey virtually edited the London papers, and turned the Times into a rationalistic tract. There was enough orthodox irritation at this, but it is difficult to rage a fact out of existence. Nor can it be shown that this advantage was unfairly gained by Mr Voysey and his fellow-free­ thinkers. This charge has been made in various quarters, and, since it involves the chief features of importance in the case, it may be well to consider it more closely. Soon after the judgment of the Privy Council was delivered, the Times in a leading article, atoned for the wide publicity which it had been the chief means of giving to the views of the heretic, by a remonstrance which states the case of those who censure Mr �From an Heretical Stand-Point. 5 Voysey’s position plausibly enough. The Times says :— “ Before the most conspicuous tribunal in the world—for Rome itself can show no such hearings, no such judgments, or so many readers—Mr Voysey preaches the Universal Creator and the Loving Father of all, in clear and lucid contrariety to every doctrine that could seem to contradict, qualify, or obscure the first teaching of Nature, and, as he believes, the essen­ tial truth of Holy Writ. Nobody can complain that Mr Voysey has this seeming advantage. Ours is an atmosphere of discussion. It is our boast to try all things, and hold fast to that which is good and true. 'But if Mr Voysey, and free inquirers in general, may be congratulated upon a success which is the very utmost they can have expected,—the. success of a fair trial and a world-wide publicity,—it remains to doubt whether this success, such as it is, has been lawfully .obtained, and whether Mr Voysey’s position be as good as he believes his teaching to be. Had he any right to deny all the distinctive doctrines of his church, claiming at the same time to be held an honest subscriber and faithful minister, with no other pos­ sible hope than that he might thereby proclaim his denial the louder and further to all the world? We cannot think so.” Passing by the naive confession implied in this pas­ sage, that the eminent prosecutors and the Lord Chancellor cannot hope to gain by publicity as much advantage for their orthodox views, as Mr Voysey for his heresies, let us examine the main charge brought against the integrity of the expelled Vicar’s position. It is no secret that Mr Voysey had to make up his mind to press his appeal between parties which urged him to anticipate an inevitable sentence by a sur­ render, and those who besought him to demand the decision which has been obtained. The latter party probably regarded the course they advised as per­ fectly consistent with a belief that even if Mr Voysey �6 The Voysey Case, had gained his case, it would have been his truest course to leave the church. Even if it could be shown that, by means of legal technicalities, a teacher of Mr Voysey’s opinions could manage to escape expulsion from the church, the far greater moral question remains, whether a man of earnest convictions, especially one who believes it his especial task to maintain them publicly, is justifiable in adhering to formularies plainly not framed to represent those convictions, and, at best, capable of expressing them only- by strained and unusual interpretations. But conceding that the thirty-nine articles are not the honest physiognomy of Mr Voysey’s faith, there were other elements in the relation in which he found him­ self to the church which rendered the practical ques­ tion of duty far more complex than the theory of his accusers admits. It is by no means the whole of Mr Voysey’s case that he courted the publicity which a trial would secure for his views. As Vicar he was related not only to the ehurch, but to the nation of people which that church is endeavouring to enlist in its service. His position made him for the moment the representative and spokesman of the religious rationalism of England, and the only one who could demand and wring from the church an answer to a question of paramount importance to every free inquirer in this land. The question is, .What is the exact price which the National Church demands for its advantages ? How much of the young man’s free­ dom, how much of his natural reason and conscience, must be laid down at this step and at that step on the path of promotion ? Undoubtedly, it is deplorable that there should be any such question as this, but that it exists is not the fault of the rationalists in the country, but of the church itself. If the terms of the contract between the clergyman and the church have become so confused that it is no longer certain whether an entrance to holy orders signifies an acceptance of the articles in their �From an Heretical Stand-Point. 7 ordinary sense, it is because the church itself has long been indulging its eminent beneficiaries in heresy. Such, indulgence has not been without advantages to the church. If the church had, during the last two genera­ tion, separated, like sheep and goats, all who held to the creeds and articles in their popular sense, and those who subscribed them under unusual interpretations, it would certainly have lost thcFprelatcs and scholars who have most reached the heart of the people and won the attention of the world. But if it is an advantage for a church to be represented in the world of thought and literature by such men as Whately, Arnold, Baden. Powell, Thirlwall, Stanley, jowett, Maurice, and Kings­ ley, this is an advantage that, like every other, has to be paid for. The church has long paid for the cham­ pions thus drawn from the literary and philosophical classes by offering them terms upon which they could enjoy the large opportunities it could give them for their congenial work. This indulgence of heresy was extended even to the protection of the writers of the Essays and Reviews,—a book which denied the super­ natural authority of the Bible, the depravity of man, the benefit of Foreign Missions, and miracles, and whose heresies were so formidable that even the American Unitarians declined to republish it in that country. .And when the prosecution against Bishop Colenso also failed, it seemed as if there were no limit to the tolera­ tion of free thought in the church. The Unitarian and Theistic Chapels seemed left without a raison d! titre, and such young men as were inclined to the ministry were freely saying, “ Surely we can have no fear in entering a church which tolerates Arian and Theistic bishops, Darwinian deans, and Socialistic canons.” But inside and outside of the church there has been an increasing perception that this state of things was morally indefensible. The increase of casuistry was a ruinous rate at which to obtain toleration in the Estab­ lishment, and the prospect of securing a church repre­ �8 The Voysey Case, senting all phases of religious thought was marred by the danger that such an institution when it came would equally represent the average Jesuitism of the nation. The real believers in the articles in their obvious sense, and they who utterly rejected them, alike felt that Dr Colenso and Dr Wilberforce could sit upon the same episcopal bench only by some mere trick, and that to one or the other the creed was not a real face but a mask. Rumours were afloat to feed the misgivings of sincere men of all beliefs. It was whispered that one divine was in the habit of shifting the reading of prayers to his Subordinates, and that a certain bishop was in the habit of prefacing his reading of the creeds with the announcement that he read them not as a believer in them, but as an officer of the Queen. It is creditable to the honesty of the country that those who were interested in keeping the standard of church orthodoxy vague, were not strong enough to overcome the determination that the vagueness should end, and if the apparent policy of the church to embrace all varieties of opinion were proved to be final, that its formularies should be altered to suit the fact. To compel this issue and decision no case could have been more perfect and opportune than that of Mr Voysey. The church had indeed tolerated all his heresies, but it had tolerated them as distributed through many in­ dividuals, each of whom held his segment of rationalism in connection with such an eminent or even courtly following, or held it with such dexterity of statement, that he could not be made a fair test, and remained in the church as its bait for clever young men. But all these heresies converged at last in one man. The honest orthodoxy of the church at last saw all the Broad Church heretics with one neck, that neck being Rev. Charles Voysey’s; and the outside world saw that the destiny of the church depended upon whether that neck could be cut off or not. This, then, was a much greater aim than that mere publicity for his opinions which, the Times says, was the utmost success Mr Voysey could hope to obtain. �from, an Heretical Stand-Point. 9 He and his friends aimed to compel the Church to show its hand, and their right—their duty—to do so was as clear as their intention was manifest. Are we told that a man ought not, and need not, to enter holy orders without knowing distinctly the terms of the con­ tract to which he commits himself, and that if he dis­ cover afterwards that he cannot fulfil his part of it he should quietly resign the corresponding advantages ? To this it may be replied (1.) that, for the reasons already stated, the clergyman cannot—or hitherto could not—know just what he was committing himself to. The Church itself, by the retention of the more emi­ nent or dexterous heretics, has confused the sense of subscription at the very moment that it has increased the inducements to it. Does the subscriber commit himself to the opinions of Dr Pusey or Professor Jowett?—to those of Dr Liddon or those of Dean Stanley? It is not the Voseys who have produced this confusion. Nay, (2.) so far from aiding the young divinity-student, before whom the same Church lays the Essays and Reviews and the Prayer-book, to avoid the error of committing himself to its work prematurely, it waylays him at a period of life when his future con­ clusions cannot be foreseen, and with profferred fellow­ ships and livings bribes him to take the dangerous step. If he hesitate, the Church eagerly rebukes his hesitation, and lures him on to the false position, in­ stead of encouraging the utmost caution. From the first moment that it gets hold of a single finger of him the Church watches him jealously to manipulate his mind for its own purposes. No sooner does the stu­ dent begin to follow Archbishop Whately’s advice, and misgive that he may not mistake, than the Church addresses itself to the work of repressing the misgiv­ ings, and furthering the mistake until it is irretriev­ able. No sooner does the youth begin to doubt and inquire than he is surrounded by weeping friends and sighing parsons, who grieve over him and pray over him, until, envying perhaps the old martyrs who were �io The Voysey Case, simply burnt, the sensitive heart yields itself to fetters forged from its^own affections. If any one thinks that this is an exaggerated statement of the fact, let him read the life of Dr Arnold, written by Dr Stanley. A sceptic from boyhood, Arnold no sooner turned his eyes upon the doctrine of a Trinity than he doubted it. Straightway clerical friends whisper, and mourn over him as if he had been guilty of some crime, and at length they hit upon a plan for him. It is not to warn him that if he enters the Church it will be a risk to his own character, and a danger to the Church: the scheme is,—and John Keble is to be credited with it, —Let us make haste and harness Arnold in the Church! Before he has time to think any more, get him in a living, and committed to parish work I (3.) The youth thus bribed and ensnared into the Church, if, as in the case of Mr Voysey and many others, he discover that he is out of his place, has been seriously wronged. The best years of his preparation for the work of life have been devoted to a career which he must now abandon; and this grave injury is enhanced by the grossly unjust disabilities which legally close against one who had entered holy orders the awards of poli­ tical life, and the professions in which his special studies might still be of some service. These, then, are the facts which have to be con­ sidered in estimating the rights and duties of a man in the position of Mr Voysey, who, having entered the ministry of the church in good faith, arrives at con­ clusions whose consistency with the articles he has subscribed is questionable. Surely he has a right to decide how he can make the misstep, for which he is in the smallest degree responsible, the most con­ spicuous warning to other young men who are being lured into holy orders, of the fetters that await them; and it is difficult to see how he could do so more effectually than by compelling the Lord Chancellor to pronounce solemnly that the simple and clear views of natural religion held by himself are forbidden to �From an Heretical Stand-Point. -II the beneficiaries of the National Church. The decision is given, and our feet rest upon truth more firmly than before. It remains to inquire whether that decision, while showing us more clearly where we stand, reveals a moral .and religious state of things worthy of England, or worthy of the intelligence and the conscience of this age. To what does the judgment of the Lord Chancellor amount? It distinctly affirms 1, that “ Christ bore the punish­ ment .due to our sins, and suffered in our stead,” and that “ He was crucified to reconcile His Father to us /that is, to mankind), and was a sacrifice,”—sacrifice also being defined as an “ offering to God.” 2. It asserts the existence of “ original dr birth sin,” that such sin u exists in every one descended from Adam; ” that children are by nature “childrenof God’s wrath;” and that it was for this original sin that Christ was a sacrifice. 3. It re-affirms the Nicene and Athanasian creeds, the doctrine of a Trinity, and declares that JesuS was supernaturally conceived, that he is to be worshipped as God, and that he will return as the Judge of the earth on the last day. 4. It declares that no clergyman has a right “upon his own taste and judgment, to assert that whole passages of the canonical books are without any authority whatever,” or can “ expound one part of Scripture as repugnant to another.” These .points represent the substance of the thirteen counts which have been sustained in the indictment against Mr Voysey. They represent the plain creed freshly labelled upon every clergyman who stands in a pulpit of the National Church. No one can read the passages from Mr Voysey’s Sling and Stone, which are held to be in contravention with the above creed, without recognizing that they are such as are familiar in the writings of the Broad Church clergy. No one acquainted with the teachings of the leaders of that school can doubt that the new heretic �12 The Voysey Case, has fed upon them, or that he honestly represents the substance and tendency of their belief. It maybe doubted whether Mr Voysey, before leaving.the church, might not have very properly availed himself of the opportunity for retractation offered him, and asserted that he believed the Thirty-nine Articles as they are interpreted by the distinguished theologians and officials of the church, whose opinions he quoted in his defence. When he offered those quotations, the court, unable to break their force, evaded it by saying that the line of argument implied that it should try the cases of each of the distinguished divines in question. The evasion was sufficient for the convenience of-the Judicial Com­ mittee of the Privy Council; but it was insufficient to alter the fact that the court was necessarily trying the divines in question, and was compelled to sentence them along with Mr Voysey. To each and all of them, —bishops, deans, canons, clergymen,—the Church and State with authoritative voice have said, “You hold your positions illegally and dishonestly, unless you believe that God is an angry and jealous monarch, and man a child of Satan, and unless you believe unre­ servedly all the statements contained in the Bible.” One word further about the offer to Mr Voysey of an opportunity for retractation. How grand and worthy a proposition is this for a church representing the national morals to make! Only say you believe what you do not believe, says the church, and you are quite welcome to. our pulpit! If Mr Voysey had fol­ lowed the example of Cranmer, and put forward a retractation to be itself retracted at the end, one can imagine its character to be somewhat as follows:— . “ I hereby renounce and deplore my wicked belief that God is a loving Father. I affirm, on the con­ trary, my faith that He is a jealous and wrathful being, who will torture untold millions of men, women, and children by fire for ever. I hold accursed my former belief, that God is just and merciful, and affirm that even the eating of a piece of forbidden apple by a �From an Heretical Stand-Point. 13 man who lived six thousand years ago, was enough ta make Him damn the whole human race to eternal misery,—a curse which would have been carried into execution, had it not been for the timely interference of a certain Pontius Pilate, who, assisted by one Judas, sacrificed to God the blood of the most innocent being in the world, the sight of which blood so pleased God, that He was prevailed upon to save from the said damnation a select few at least of mankind. Asking forgiveness of the Church for all I have said to the contrary, I now declare my implicit belief that a certain Jewish peasant was born 1871 years ago without a human father, and that he was Almighty God. Also that three are one, and one is three. I believe that a serpent in Eden and Balaam’s ass talked, and that Jonah resided three days and nights in a whale’s belly, whence he emerged quite safe. I believe that soothsayers turned rods to snakes; in the existence of sorcerers and witches and devils. I be­ lieve that all new-born babes are totally depraved, and that God looks upon them with feelings of anger. And finally, I believe that all who do not believe these things shall without doubt perish everlastingly!” This is a retractation which every eminent clergy­ man of the Broad Church really makes in the hearing of the world every time he ascends a pulpit, or offici­ ates in any way, since the Lord Chancellor’s judgment. No protest against that judgment cantear off the creed which now adheres to each of them, plainly legible in the eyes of the world. There it will adhere until they can reverse the judgment, or bring themselves to say with John Sterling—Adieu, O Church ! The world will await with anxiety, perhaps with some sternness, their action. It may sympathise with them as they approach the dregs of their cup, but the situation admits of no concealment, and the truth cannot be compromised. Mr Voysey is their child. They have nourished and reared him. Whatever may be their views of the dogma of vicarious suffering, there will be �List of Publications—Continued. The Analogy of Nature and Religion—Good and Evil. By a Clergyman of the Church of England. Price 6d. Commentators and Hierophants ; or, The Honesty of Christian Commen­ Price 6d. each Part. By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Part I., price Is. Part II., price Is. 6d. The Evangelist and the Divine. By a Beneficed Clergyman of the Church of England. Price Is. tators. In Two Parts. Free Discussion of Religious Topics. Lord Bishop of Norwich The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Creeds,—Their Sense and their Non-sense. By a Country Parson. Parts I., II., III. Price6d each part A Reply to the Question, “What have we got to Rely on, if we can­ not Rely on the Bible? ” By Professor F. W. Newman. Another Reply to the Question, “ What have we got to Rely on, if we cannot Rely on the Bible?” By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Norwich. Price 6d. The Utilization of the Church Establishment. By the Author of “ The Pilgrim and the Shrine," “The Meaning of the Age,” &c. &c. Price 6d. Modern Protestantism. By the Author of “ The Philosophy of Necessity.” Price 6<L A Reply to the Question, “Apart from Supernatural Revelation, What is the Prospect of Man’s Living after Death? By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Norwich. Price 6d. Tree and Serpent Worship. Price 6d. A Review of a Pamphlet, entitled, “The Present Dangers of the Church of England.’’ By W. G. Clark, M.A., Vice-Master of Trinity College, Ca mbridge. Price 6d. The Twelve Apostles. Price 6d. The Bible for Man, not Man for the Bible. By a Country Vicar. Price 6d. Is Death the end of all things for Man ? By a Parent and a Teacher.' Price 6d. On the Infidelity of Orthodoxy. By the Rev. Thomas Kirkman, M.A. F.R.S. In Two Parts. Price 6d. each Part. “The Finding of the Book.” By John Robertson, Coupar-Angus. Price 2s. On Moral Evil. Price 6d. The Claims of Christianity to the Character of a Divine Revela­ tion, considered. By W. Jbvons. Price 6d. The Unity of the Faith among all Nations. By a Padre of the Established Church. Price 6d. Clergymen made Scarce. A Letter to the Bishop of London, by a Presbyter. Price Sixpence. On the Efficacy of Opinion in Matters of Religion. By the Rev. W. R. Worthington, M.A. Price Sixpence. Sacred History as a Branch of Elementary Education. Part I. Its Influence on the Intellect. Price Sixpence. Part II. Its Influence on the Development of the Conscience. Price Sixpence. On Religion. By a Former Elder in a Scotch Church. Price Sixpence. The Nature and Origin of Evil. A Letter to a Friend, by Samuel Hinds, D,D., late Lord Bishop of Norwich. Price Sixpence. A. L Conversations. Recorded by a Woman, for Women. Parts I. and II. Price Sixpence each part. The Passion for Intellectual Freedom. By Edward Maitland. Price Sixpence. Reason versus A.m'H.O'B.iTs:. By W. 0. Carr Brook. Price 3d. An appeal to the Preachers of all the Creeds. By Gamaliel Brown A Woman’s Letter. Price 8d. The Voysey Case, from an Heretical Stand-point By Moncure D. Conway. Price 6d. Friends to the cause of “ Free Inquiry and Free Expression ” are earnestly requested to give aid in the wide dissemination of these pamphlets. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Voysey case, from an heretical stand-point Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway, Moncure Daniel [1832-1907.] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 14, [2] p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Part of Morris Miscellaneous Tracts 4. Publisher's list on unnumbered pages at the end. Date of publication from KVK. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Thomas Scott Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [1871] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G4861 Subject The topic of the resource Heresy Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Voysey case, from an heretical stand-point), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Bible-Criticism and Interpretation Charles Voysey Heresy Morris Tracts https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/dff402c1a0f958bf53446687b7cb2222.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=dCezXlaNnjO8bFOwKhzqmPPsZKOFiMCA5uWQ869wlb-lV57Tzik2H1usi6ziFYT1sIMPb1ep3RjvwESnqGYWjwHCZ7JH%7EDt3p-MGWXQ5C2-hfiKfE7XL1OizJqbd1rvWz01FixZ2yNQbtUM2Ho6CE7FVGOQZ7K6PRD7dOmvoeBADnpBicIi-YrGCJz5aXzWry-LeB11%7EBt35QQB2IouQjnt8YL03y-4BvUsri0Rg87WFMi2CzYmf0TbTPPmz6PuW8XdXGZFBQMTbf4LULY6KSWWDCMu1Pcj4UrHXUukb9sHySg797FgwXeCFwoCKdBQRIDWAkjfR8BY6oqqBvm3ELw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM eb860b1eedaddc34de43d425f3efa21a PDF Text Text three letters ON THE VOISEY JUDGMENT AND THE CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE SOCIETY’S LECTURES. REV. GEORGE WHEELWRIGHT, MEET. COLL., OXON., VICAR OF CROWHURST. PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT, MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE. Price Sixpence. �THREE LETTERS, &c. -------- ♦--------- IR, —Many doubtless have read with pleasure the article upon Mr Voysey’s trial, which appeared in the Examiner of February 25th 1871. Many, too, will echo the ominous words with which it closes : “ Every such judgment tells more against the Church than against the individual condemned: it puts another nail into its coffin,”—and in truth the last charge against Mr Voysey (derogation and depraving of Holy Scripture) leaves the clergy in a most per­ plexing situation. All knew them to be muzzled slaves, and yet hardly thought that the muzzle fitted as closely as the Lord Chancellor is determined to make it. One result I venture to predict from the Voysey judgment—the opening of people’s eyes to the immense gulf that now separates the two antagonists, Orthodoxy and Free-thought. Hitherto it has been the object of many well-meaning persons to make this appear less than it really is—as not so very serious after all. However much many have tried to patch up an unreal agreement between them, it is from this moment impossible—henceforth it is “ guerra a cuchillo,” and there is no discharge in that war, one or other must yield. How many amiable but weak attempts have been made to reconcile Scripture with science, as the phrase is; to shew that the two can go arm in arm without dispute or jostling! Good-bye to all such pleasant dreams! We are now told plainly that the Church’s living S �and Christian Evidence Society's Lectures. 5 to. Can anything be more characteristic of the per­ versity of our ecclesiastical rulers than the way in which the Ritual Commission has dealt with the Athanasian Creed ? Has it granted any relief to the laity who are still compelled to listen and be damned? So far from it, that a dispute has actually been carried on in the Times between certain members of the said Commission as to what its real opinion upon the sub­ ject was. The same mulish obstinacy meets us at every turn. Not a jot nor a tittle will our rulers surrender. We laugh at the Papal “ non possumus it is just the same here. Relief and concession have to be forced from them. Surely the events that have lately passed before their eyes should act as a warning. Let them think of the French statesman and his vain boast, “ Pas unpouce de notre territoire, pas une pierre de nos forteresses.” It is of no use to be for ever beating about the bush—lip salve never yet cured heart-disease; and religious belief in England (as our forefathers under­ stood the words) is paralyzed at the core. The whole question of miracles will have to be faced sooner or later, and the more our minds get accus­ tomed to this fact the better. The present is an era of rapid changes. Events that appeared at one time impossible, now take place in the natural order of things, and the only cause for wonder is that they have been so long in coming. And thus it is that the present is called an infidel age, wanting in reverence and respect for religion. Is it so ? Let the great debate upon education bear witness. Did the people ask for education without religion—were they satis­ fied with merely secular teaching ? The immense majority for religious instruction proves to me that we are just as our forefathers—a stubborn generation, not a faithless one : our hold upon religion is as firm as ever. We cling to it with the grasp of death. We are quite as God-fearing as they; but, and here �and Christian Evidence Society’s Lectures, y minds are becoming awakened, their judgments un­ fettered, their eyes opened, their ears unstopped, and the first use they make of their liberty is to turn upon their spiritual pastors and masters with the direct question, “ Are these things so 1—we have heard these words for many a long year—from our childhood the same story has been in our ears. We enquire of our fathers—of the years that are past, and all tell the same tale—they have known none other. Is it then all true, ‘ are these things so ? ’ ” All over the land is this query pricking and stirring men’s hearts—diverse in form and mode. One puts it in this shape, another in that. One can stomach this—his fellow stickles at that. The Bible is torn piecemeal. Brave is the man who can swallow the whole at a gulp, and feel none the worse for it—but alas ! for this degenerate age—ofo/ vuv (Bpotoi sl<ri—such hearty digestions are rare indeed. I remember once sitting upon a fallen log in the backwoods of America, and discussing Bible matters with an old Buckeye (as the Ohio men were then styled) and the only thing that troubled his primitive imagination was the tale of Samson and the foxes— “ the darn’d skunks ” as he called them—it was impossible—he was sure he himself could never have done it, and he had trapped and hunted ever since he could draw a trigger. Caricature you will say—no rude image neverthe­ less of men’s thoughts in this present age. Each one has his Samson and the Foxes—his own particular ob­ jection, doubt and difficulty, and be sure the day is not far distant when the long pent up murmurs will swell into one loud chorus of dissent, which the clergy and ministers of every denomination will find impossible to stifle, and very hard to answer. These thoughts passed across my mind upon reading a paragraph in the Times of last April 26th, headed “ Christianity versus Scepticism,” and giving �and Christian Evidence Society’s Lectures. 9 time for the authorized teachers and expounders of Holy Writ to come down from their lofty pedestals and stem the torrent which is bursting in upon us from so many and such different quarters. Sooth to say—it is none too soon. For the temper of the pre­ sent age is not to be played with, pooh-poohed, or put aside with the cold remark, “ we have heard this before, the Church and the World never did agree, nor ever will." So much the worse for the Church then—if she cannot lead men, she must give up all thoughts of driving them. If she can return a satisfactory answer to all that is implied in those words, “ are these things "so,” well and good, if not, she must give place to those that can. Let her look well to her armour and the joints of her harness, for new times bring new weapons, and unless she can forge something very different from aught that her armoury has yet supplied, I fear that perilous days are in store for her. Theologians can no longer shelter themselves behind the ample shield of Bishop Butler, or fly for refuge to Paley and Lardner. Arch­ bishop Thomson himself confesses in the notes to his “ Bampton Lectures on the Atonement," that “ the Analogy of Bishop Butler by no means covers all the ground contested at present,’’ and yet he finds a sufficient defence in the works of the two writers above mentioned. Truly this is going down to Egypt for help, a staff no better than a broken reed. I look upon this fact of Divines turning Lecturers as the greatest compliment that could be paid to the spirit of Free Enquiry which is now abroad. That the missiles with which modern Criticism has for the last thirty years been fighting the great battle of Free Thought should have at last pierced the pachy­ dermatous hide of slumbering orthodoxy; and so stung Prelates and Preachers that for very shame they can no longer keep silence, is indeed a thing to make a note of. And moreover that they should �and Christian Evidence Society's Lectures, n Since last I wrote to you, Sir, the oracle has de­ livered its response—Bos loculus est—eleven doughty champions of orthodoxy have shown us with what vigour they can repel the assaults and stem the tide of infidelity, which, as they assert, is rushing in upon this devoted land; and after a careful perusal of their several lucubrations, I am bound to confess that the great doings of Dame Partington and her mop have received in them a fresh illustration. Every one knows the story of the starving peasants in France previous to the First Revolution, when their bitter cry for bread reached at last the gilded halls of the Tuileries, and the Queen, amazed at the importunity of the “wordy peoples,” asked naively, why, if they were without bread, did they not eat those dear little buns which her Majesty, and the other grandes dames du Palais found so palatable. Now it seems to me that our hierarchy are pretty much of the Queen’s way of thinking, as I shall show further on. For years past a storm has been brewing in fitful, violent gusts, striking upon the Church’s venerated fabric from every quarter of the compass—doctrine after doc­ trine challenged—time-honoured traditions assailed and overthrown—old landmarks obliterated—the. veil torn ruthlessly from so called mysteries—prac­ tices hallowed by the superstitious reverence of past ages stripped of their tinsel covering, brought forth and exposed to the garish light of day—“ what was once rejected as heresy now all but recognised as Dogma,” and become the common talk of men, until at last the culminating point is reached in the Voysey case, and our spiritual guides and leaders are forced, per fas aut nefas, to confess that silence on their part is no longer becoming; in fact, impossible. How many vexed questions, how many perplexed and anxious thoughts have the last ten years awak­ ened in the breasts of men—a restless uneasiness, one knows not why or wherefore, has grown up in �and Christian Evidence Society’s Lectures. 13 the so-called facts which we have been taught to believe in about the Christian religion, facts indeed, or ecclesiastical fictions ? Are we to look upon what we find recorded in the Bible as true in its history, true in all its details as our teachers have always told us ? Is the old saying, ‘ Gospel true,’ to pass any longer current amongst men ?” What is the reply ? The querists, serious and earnest men (sceptics though they be), are seeking for some solid, wholesome mental food to strengthen and nourish both their hearts and intellects, and, as I said at the beginning of this letter, the Archbishop and his coadjutors when asked for bread, deal out buns instead, and moreover stale buns, of a somewhat puffy and indigestible kind. Let an unprejudiced reader go through these eleven lectures (they should have made up the baker’s dozen) and point, if he can, to any doubts dispelled by them, to honest difficulties openly and manfully faced. A few words shall substantiate this. The lectures are broken up into three groups, the first treats of three subjects—Materialism, Pantheism, Positiv­ ism ; the second of science and revelation, and the nature and place of the miraculous testimony to Christianity; group the third embraces the following subjects—the gradual development of revelation, the alleged historical difficulties of the Old and New Testament, the mythical theories of Christianity, the evidential value of St Paul’s Epistles, Christ’s teaching and influence on the world, the completeness and adequacy of the evidences of Christianity. Such is the Bishops’ answer, such their mode of dealing with the religious problems of the present day, and I maintain that as controversial writings (it is in this light only that I am viewing them) they are valueless, and worse, they are damaging to the sacred cause which they have been put forth to defend. With one or two exceptions, hardly any of the real difficulties �and Christian Evidence Society's Lectures. 15 fathers after the sober fashion of by-gone days, but who can no longer believe all that their ancestors did, or follow them in their blind unquestioning faith, their docile submission to their spiritual pas­ tors and masters. Sad will it be if ever the thought and intelligence of this land revolt from the Church’s teaching, as no longer answering to their spiritual needs and aspirations, to that yearning for greater breadth and freedom, that passionate desire for the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth, which has seized upon so many hearts at the present day, making itself heard in the oft-repeated question, “are these things so 1 ” Two much mooted points are especially prominent in the controversy we are now engaged in, viz.,—■ The moral difficulties that are felt in reference to some parts of the Old Testament, and. secondly, the authenticity of St John’s Gospel, and it is truly ominous to find them both omitted from these Lec­ tures. W^e are told indeed in the Preface that a Lecturer could not be got for the first, and with regard to the latter, Professor Lightfoot,. who had undertaken it, expressed a desire that his Lecture should not be published. Bishop Ellicott speaks of this as most unfortunate and regretable—hiatus vcdde deflendus—and well he may, for after the great question of miracles there is none of such grave import as this of the Fourth Gospel. Considering how much depends upon it, one is struck with wonder at the cool audacity which professes to meet its adversaries in fair and open combat, and then shrinks from the very trial that would most have put its manhood to the test. What must the outside world think of such a proceeding 1 What is this, but giving great occasion to the enemies of the Truth to blaspheme ? Of the whole eleven Lec­ tures, there are only three that can be said to deal with the special difficulties of our day, viz The �and Christian Evidence Society’s Lectures. words •, but the Professor has no such fear, and he certainly manages to make a very small argument go a long way. How far this dialectical skill would avail against an unbeliever in the fact of the Resurrection appears somewhat doubtful. I would ask any impartial reader of this Lecture whether he has got out of it all that the writer thinks he has put therein. The most that can be said is that St Paul believed in the Resurrection, and fortifies that belief by recounting the other traditionary appearances of our Lord, which were current in the church at his day. We now come to the Lecture which has the most direct bearing upon the chief stumbling block of our age, viz :—the question of miracles. Years ago M. Guizot maintained it as a special difficulty of Religion, to get people to believe in the supernatural. And this spirit of incredulity, like an avalanche set in motion, gathers force and intensity with each succeeding year. A singular instance of this has just presented itself in the case of Dr Kalisch, the well known Biblical expositor. In his elaborate Commentary upon the Pentateuch (of which the first volume, containing the Book of Exodus, appeared in 1855) he describes the Plagues of Egypt as based upon natural circumstances, adding that “ their miraculous character is unmistakeably observable in the following points,” which he then proceeds to enumerate. Whereas, in the first part of his Commentary on Leviticus (lately published) in the chapter on “ The Theology of the Past and the Future,” he says plainly, “ Miracles are both 'impossible and incredible—impossible because against the established laws of the universe, and incredible be­ cause those set forth by tradition, are palpable inven­ tions of unhistoric times.” Which now is Philip drunk, and which Philip sober here ? But to proceed with Dr Stoughton’s Lecture on. the Nature, and �and Christian Evidence Society’s Lectures. 19 Testament subserve a moral end or purpose; or he knew how impossible it now is to get people to be­ lieve in the ark’s capability for holding a pair of all living creatures, the standing still of the sun, or its going backward on the dial—in Balaam’s ass or Jonah’s whale—in the death of twenty-seven thousand people at once by the sudden fall of a wall—or in that most stupendous miracle of the Old Testament, the recovery to life of the dead Moabite when his body touched the bones of Elisha. Whatever be his reason, the love of simplicity or what not, this shirking of the most difficult part of his argument tells strongly against him; it is no proof of faith in a cause, to keep half of it in the dark, and every one feels that the whole Book must stand or fall together. But as Dr Stoughton well knows, one thing and one thing only, could make men accept the whole of the Bible as strictly and per­ fectly true, viz., the belief in its Infallible Inspiration. So long were its pages beyond the breath of cavil, none dared to raise his voice or stretch forth his hand against the sacred ark of God’s truth. But this incubus once removed, this bugbear of literal inter­ pretation taken out of the way, and henceforth men were free to make diligent and honest inquiry into the truth of what they read in the Bible, and the first fruits of this freedom we are now reaping in England. One thing we may thank the Bishops for, the generous and kindly spirit in which they regard the scepticism of the present day; neither is this as easy a matter as one might think it. Call to mind the flood of abuse which theologians have been too prone to heap upon an opponent; their ferocious hatred of everything that bore the name of Free-thought; the determination to find therein* “ a set and system of opinions, the most slavish, the most abject and base, * Bentley’s Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, p. 4. ��� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Three letters on the Voysey judgment and the Christian Evidence Society's Lectures Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Wheelwright, G. Description An account of the resource Place of publication: Ramsgate Collation: 20 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. The letters, written to Thomas Scott, centre around Voysey's trial, reported in the 'Examiner' of February 25th, 1871. Voysey's major work The Sling and the Stone was condemned by the conservative wing of the Anglican Church and William Thomson, Archbishop of York, began proceedings against him in 1869. He was summoned before the Chancery Court of York for heterodox teaching, where he defended his case for two years. He appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which gave its judgement on 11 February 1871. The pamphlet contains three letters; the full lectures to the Christian Evidence Society are not printed. Date of publication from KVK. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Thomas Scott Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [1871] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G5517 Subject The topic of the resource Bible Heresy Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Three letters on the Voysey judgment and the Christian Evidence Society's Lectures), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Bible-Criticism Charles Voysey Christian Evidence Society Conway Tracts Trials https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4d0a3f3a986009a004684048e6e59115.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=UYYj4dQzgfWFC2mPbqCZuYRFRy86alUn4DM7LHXfsr7JsKXNwVBSfwS9b%7EljrHTFBK02VCCM4xXA3LZHgQwE4T63JqpIp4wij5b8338FOl867yDU0PG7KGbsIQ3B2iQCrGOHclIw3tveaBjgzqN2ewBH0zt5Dloljl%7EsIROgiI55TFn72oYclfsT7iZFrL2eAeB0ZXwlzOs96x3FHd8NpZeooFe7mkSVRjzz-JgLOlK9m6nuOcz1heGZS57lUaj12WK%7EyjZGDsDYrFCQp4Sl-T3wiz7DwftRyvFn3aVTgUFl6nZv2tQFELSmkPyg-ZMiOkGXMO%7ENZnS5f94JnrOkVQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 383d4041c0f3ad4da96143dd23b28673 PDF Text Text THE THE CASE OE MR VOISEY. SOME REMARKS BY J. D. LA TOUCHE, VICAR OF STOKBSAY, SALOP. PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT, MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE. Price, Threepence. �ni ♦ ■t 4k - '■ -s ' �PREFACE. T AM anxious to state, that in sending the following pages to the press, I do so after the most deliberate consideration. The substance of them has been a constant theme of thought for many years, and the subject of frequent conversation with friends of every shade of opinion. Many reasons have been suggested both by myself and by others, why I should -not thus come forward, and I have felt as if some excuse is due for so doing, since it cannot be concealed that any one who attacks what he conceives to be serious popular error, is him­ self on his trial, and in the public estimation, is already condemned as a disturber of the peace—one of those who would turn the world upside down. But after all, though satisfied that a good and sound defence of my position is possible, it will perhaps be best to rest entirely on the justice of the cause,—avoid any appeal to complicated reasons which might not convince one person who already thinks I am wrong, and to look steadily to. the call of clear duty. �4 Preface. I must, however, before going further, express sorrow that.this task is necessary. I grieve when I think of the people to whom this paper will give pain, for I know their real worth, and how sincerely they hold the views here attacked. I am sorry for the alienation which may be hereby caused between myself and some of my brother clergy, men whom I sincerely love and respect, whose friendship I value, and with whom I have hitherto worked in harmony. It is not, however, the first time in the world’s history, when a choice has had to be made between even near and dear relations, and the path of duty. Whether this is mere sentiment, and whether or not I have made a wanton attack on unimportant blemishes in men’s faith, can alone be determined by fair and free discussion, and to this I am content to leave it, in perfect confidence that what is superficial will be eliminated, but what is true and sound will stand the test. �THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ‘ IN THE CASE OF MR VOYSEY. —>-----CLERGYMAN, the rector of a large and impor­ tant parish, said to in the of Aconversation, “oncethere anymepassage incourse New Is the Testament where Christ declares himself to be God?” This is a very suggestive question, for there is, absolutely, none. On the other hand, at least one notable passage may be brought forward to the con­ trary. Christ was once accused by the Jews of blas­ phemy, of making himself, as they said, equal with God. In reply, he justifies his words by the following argument. These words occur in your sacred writings, “ I said ye are Gods;” now there can be no blasphemy in my calling myself a son of God if that term is ap­ plied in your own Scriptures to other men. From this the plain inference is, that Jesus himself disclaimed any other divinity than that which is possible to the rest of mankind, and this is fqlly borne out by other passages which are, strangely enough, often brought up to prove his exceptional divinity ; such as, “ I and my Father are one,” when his meaning is explained by the parallel passage, in his prayer for his disciples, “ That we all may be one as Thou Father art in me, and I in Thee,” when this “oneness” in the former is explained, and extended to all who are of a similar mind to himself. If these simple statements are compared with those �6 The "Judgment of the Committee of Council of the Nicene Creed and much of the popular theology of the day, a marked difference must be observed. The worship of Christ is for the most part the centre of Christian devotion, and to deny to him the title of the supreme God, is to incur the most serioils.impu­ tation, if not personal harm. On what does this vast structure of the worship of Jesus rest ? It rests on ideas which sprung into existence shortly after his death, and for which he himself appears in no way responsible. His followers were partly of J ewish and partly of Pagan origin. The more educated among the former were imbued with the sublime Platonic philosophy, which was now beginning to influence all thoughtful men, and the latter could hardly be expected to lay aside all the influence of their previous lives. These men pondered on the pure and self devoted life of Jesus with extreme reverence. The Jewish converts saw in him the expected Messiah so vividly described in the then lately published book of Enoch, and the Pagan converts would naturally deify him as they had been accustomed to do the heroes of their own antiquity. The germ of this seed thus early planted has borne its natural fruit, and at this day the worship of the person of Christ, whether under a sensuous substantial form, or the not less subtle forms of an ideal man, who appeared on the earth some centuries ago, is being developed to an extraordinary degree. That such a state of things can last very long is not probable. The very nervousness with which any discussion on the subject is met by those who affect to be most confident, is a proof that they distrust it in their inmost hearts. Like all other idolatries, this must fall when the true facts of the case are known— when, it is thoroughly understood what are its founda­ tions, of what stuff it is made; no chain can be stronger than its weakest link, and when the. uncer­ tainty of the origin of the fourth gospel, and, indeed, of much of the New Testament, is admitted, as a fact �In the Case of Mr Voysey. 7 which cannot be denied by any competent person, all but the wilfully blind, and ignorant, and superstitious must abandon the present popular view.* The church which would uphold it would be a church to which no honest man could wish to belong, as it would be merely a state engine of the most corrupt kind, to keep things quiet and influence the ignorant. Abandoning truth in the most shameless way, it would take its stand on the quicksands of popular prejudices, and must infallibly fall. And yet, what might not a truly national church be ! Its roots sustained in truth, its branches and leaves nourished in charity as in an atmosphere, it would bring blessings to countless thousands who at present ignore or reject it with ill-disguised contempt, it would be the channel of every good to the lowest and poorest, helping forward the weak, and testifying in no faltering tones against sin and oppression—the true mother of all who could claim human brotherhood. The recent judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Mr Voysey, among other things, declares it to be part of the doctrine of the national Church, 1. That we ought to worship Christ as God. 2. That it is contrary to the articles to hold that God is not wroth with every human being born into this world. 3. That we must hold that God needed to be recon­ ciled to man, not man to God.' Now, in relation to the first, and to my mind, the most important of these points, the worship of Christ, * I must refer to Canon Westcott’s Introduction to the study of the Gospels (Macmillan & Co.), Tischendorff’s origin of the Gospels (Jackson, Walford, and Hodder), and above all, Tayler’s Treatise on the Gospel of St John (Williams and Nor­ gate). The facts so clearly stated in the first two, despite the previous opinions of their authors, fully bear out, I maintain, the above statement, while the last, a most able and thoughtful essay, by a learned man, and written in a truly reverent spirit, is to my mind conclusive against the authenticity of the fourth gospel. �8 The Judgment of the Committee of Council it must be observed that, unless the terms are further defined, it is impossible to know how they are to be obeyed, or whether they are infringed or not in any particular case. But they are not defined. “ Worship ” is an act varying in degree from the most profound re­ spect for a noble and holy person, to what passes under the name, in abject prostration before an idol. How many men “worship” God sincerely and effectually, when their souls are penetrated by his greatness and goodness seen on every hand in nature; nay, how much more worthy of the name of “worship” is that silent adoration of the heart, than the genu­ flexions of priests and devotees before decorated altars. But still more important is it to observe that there is no definition of the term “ God.” Is that term to be taken in the sense in which it is used in the pas­ sage, “ I said ye are Gods,” or is it to represent the eternal, omnipresent Creator, the unseen, in whom we live and move and have our being ? Between these two ideas there is an almost infinite interval, and un­ reservedly to declare that Christ is to be worshipped as God, is to leave us in utter perplexity. Now, if I am referred to the Articles, is the matter made much clearer ? The first Article defines the liv­ ing and true God to be without body, parts, or pas­ sions, whereas Christ in the fourth article is said to have “ taken his body with flesh and bones and all things pertaining to the perfection of man’s nature to heaven, where he now sitteth,” from which it is clear that the authors of the Articles did not consider Christ as God in the fourth, in the same sense as God is defined in the first. Am I to worship Christ as God as defined in the first, or in the condition described in the fourth? Theologians may tell me that these are very foolish questions, and show a shallow mind, and I well know how much may be written on them, what elaborate arguments may be spun by way of explanation of them ! I have read, I daresay, quite as much as �In the Case of Mr Voysey. z , * 9 most men, of this sort of thing ; yet, I must sincerely say, I doubt whether I ever understood it. A young man studying divinity often fancies he does so, that he has got hold of some theological axioms upon which he can construct certain theorems with a kind of mathematical exactness. But when he finds by expe­ rience in after years, that his axioms have none of that universal assent and obvious truth which are essential to axioms, his elaborate theories must fall to pieces. Once more, I am told to worship Christ as God. Is my worship to be of the nature of a sincere affection for the noble character embodied in Jesus, a practical desire, like him to live for the sake of others, and like him to despise all present ease in comparison, or is it to be the prostration of my body before certain emblems of him, and my mind before certain dogmas relating to him—dogmas, for the most part, begotten in times of fierce party warfare and bitter theological zeal, out of the brains of cruel men, and used by them as engines to crush their enemies 1 Again, is the object of my worship to be the eternal God, without body, parts, or passions of the first Article, or that Christ who “ took his body with flesh and bones to heaven,” spoken of in the fourth ? These are questions which the Judicial Committee, having introduced an expression not occurring else­ where in the formularies of the Church, will perhaps have to elucidate by some further declaration of doc­ trine. In the meantime I must repudiate one kind of worship while I hold to the other. I worship what was divine in Jesus in the sense of profound reverence, and a life’s devotion, as far as may be, to the ideal of purity and love which he presents to my mind. Worship in any other sense is reserved for the spiritual, eternal God, such a God as is defined in the first article. Then, again, with respect to that divine wrath which I am told to believe in, what does it mean 1—Is it a cold, forensic kind of wrath such as a judge �io The Judgment of the Committee of Council passing sentence on a criminal might be supposed to bear towards him 2 or is it that of a person highly indignant ? It is not easy to imagine wrath except in the latter sense, and yet can anything be more derogatory to the divine character ? The Almighty creating men, and then being wroth with them, and requiring some rites to be performed on them by their fellow-men to bring them into favour again with Him. If this, or anything like this, be the doctrine endorsed by the late judgment, my soul rises in indig­ nation against it, and I protest against it as dishonour­ ing God and tending to the grossest superstition. Again, it is reiterated in the judgment that it needed the sacrifice of Christ to reconcile God to man ; but it has been maintained by the Dean of Westminster that such a statement is as contrary to Scripture as to all just views of the relation of God to man, made known to us. I shall not do more than insert here a passage from a letter by Dean Stanley which appeared in the Guardian of May 3d, in relation to this subject, as no arguments of mine could strengthen the position taken in this controversy by that learned and able divine. “ To take a single instance of the charges against Mr Voysey by way of illustration. He is condemned for having contradicted a paragraph in the Second Article, which declares, that the object of the Redemption was to reconcile the Father, to mankind. I need hardly say that this contradiction is one which appears not only in the writings of the greatest divines of the early Church, but also in. some ■of the most eminent of our own. It appears in the statements of theologians as far removed from each other as Alexander Knox and Dr Arnold, Dr Mason Neale and Dean Alford, and was set forth not many years ago with the utmost precision, in a sermon (to which I have often referred) by the late Professor Hussey, preached at Oxford before, the present Bishop of Winchester, published at his desire, and �In the Case of Mr Voysey. 11 dedicated to him by his permission. I have myself repeatedly stated this doctrine in my 1 Commentary on the Corinthians,’ in speeches delivered in Convocation, and in sermons preached before the University.” It may be objected to what has been said, that the most distorted phases of the doctrines in question have been brought forward; that it is not fair to hold up the exaggerated and often immoral excesses to which ignorant men push them, as an objection to them. It would not, I admit, be fair to charge these distorted views on all the supporters of these doctrines, yet, when the words used by the Judicial Committee are such as, in the popular sense, might sanction what would seem to be idolatry, the only resource left to those who see and feel the evil is to protest strongly against it. To speak of the worship of Christ as God, and of the wrath of God, may with some have a very innocent meaning; but with others, and those the most ignorant, they are the channels of superstition. Worship, in the popular sense of the term, is not the act of a life, but that of a set time offered up in a particular place. The wrath of God means in ordi­ nary language the flames of hell fire and eternal tortures; so that to say God is wroth with every child till it is baptized, is to say that if it died then it would go to hell. And this is the way infidels and atheists are made—no one believes that God is so bad as that: and so being taught that these ideas are inseparable from Him, they are compelled to ignore or disbelieve in Him altogether. Once, in a school, I heard the master put the. following question to the head class : “■ How many Gods are there ?” The answer to which was “ three;” and this was taken as quite orthodox and correct. Perhaps it did really signify little to the poor child whether he believed in three or in one God, so confused are often the notions current on the subject; but the answer makes one reflect whether �12 The 'Judgment of the Committee of Council we have advanced so very far beyond Polytheism after all ? Can it be affirmed that children are always taught to “ believe in one God; ” and if this is not the case, at whose door will the dishonour lie 1—at that of the schoolmaster ignorant of the nice subtleties of theology, or of the heads of the church who tell him to worship Christ as God ? Nor is the foregoing a solitary instance ; my own limited experience could supply others of the same kind ; and from what school inspectors have told me, they could supply a large number to show what a distorted caricature of religious knowledge has often been taught in schools, a fact which fully accounts for the outcry which has of late arisen for purely secular instruction ; since it must be felt that the effect of such teaching on the minds of any thoughtful young person must be the very reverse of religious. Perhaps some may object, that, with the views I have here advanced, it is inconsistent in me to con­ tinue reading the church service : it certainly would be so it these immoral and superstitious meanings were distinctly declared by sufficient authority to be essential to certain words and expressions in it. But though the late judgment has apparently taken a step in this direction, it remains to be seen whether it can be maintained. It is hard to believe that a permanent retrograde movement has been made under the sanction of the highest authorities towards heathenism ; whether the clergy are henceforth to teach and believe in two gods ; whether Manichaeism is again to be revived, and the world is to be held as under the control of a demon, from whom, how­ ever, a merciful JEon will deliver them. Expressions which favour these views no doubt lurk in our Articles and formularies; for it must not be forgotten that they were the compilations of comparatively very unenlightened times, and it would only be surprising if they had been altogether free from the errors in the �In the Case of Mr Voysey. 13 theology of the age in which they were composed. But it is almost incredible that these expressions, so long allowed to lie unobserved, are now to be disin­ terred and dragged to light to quench that more liberal and purer interpretation of the ancient dogmas which was beginning to make itself felt—as incredible as that the thumbscrew and the boot should, in this 19th century, be brought from the glass-cases of a modern museum to eke out the decision of a court of justice. That a reasonable and edifying meaning may be attached to the expressions in the church service, if they are not pressed too literally, I would still fain believe. With its general spirit I agree; since through it I can worship, and ask others with me to worship God. That is its central idea. I should, however, in candour, except the Athanasian creed, the damnatory clauses of which are so directly con­ trary to what I hold as true, that I have not for many years, and could not, use that formulary. But as on the whole, the church service is to me a real help, I shall not, by my own act, separate myself from the church which has appointed it. Besides, be it observed, that when I entered into my engage­ ments as a clergyman, there was not that rigid defini­ tion of these abstruse doctrines, there was not this new formula which has now been introduced, and which unquestionably modifies, by making more precise and stringent, those tenets to which I gave my assent. To some who may read this paper, it will doubt- ' less give considerable pain, and they may ask, Why write it ? Why incur the risk of so much trouble, and perhaps serious loss, to yourself and others 1 My answer is, That I am not accountable for this pain ; its existence is no proof that these discussions are not necessary. It is caused rather by the admission, than by the existence of certain facts which have hitherto been kept in the background, but are now getting to be pretty generally known. But is there �14 The Judgment of the Committee of Council. not something unseasonable in this ? The opinions of one or of any number of persons about these facts, would not be any cause of concern if the facts them­ selves could be disproved ; but if they are true, it is madness not to give them their due weight and pro­ minence. I am not accountable for facts. A fact is the property, not of an individual, but of the world, and those rush to certain shipwreck who would blindly dash themselves against it. Is it e.g. true’or not, that the origin of the gospels is such as Tischendorff and Westcott have stated it to be, viz., that there is no direct evidence of the existence of any one of them until the end of the first quarter of the second century 1 Is it, or is it not true that, in Mr Westcott’s words,—“ Hitherto all the evidence which can be gathered from the circumstances of the early church and the traditions of the origin of the gospels has tended to establish the existence of an original Oral Gospel, definite in general outline and even in language with that which was committed to writing in the lapse of time in various special shapes, accord­ ing to the typical forms which it assumed in the preaching of different apostles.” For if it be so, it is obvious that, for the purpose of proving exact words or exact events, such records fail; that even under the most favourable circumstances, that is, supposing that every one who transmitted this oral gospel was influenced by the most conscientious motives, many variations and errors must creep in; but when there is no security against this, when it is well known that these books were compiled in the days of the marvel­ lous and that there was every temptation to exaggerate, then it is a clear duty, as we. value the truth, to scan them with care and to eliminate what is untrustworthy from them. Ao’ain, is it, or is it not a fact that the sense in which Christ is said to have claimed divinity for him­ self, was such as I have drawn attention to m the be- �In the Case of Mr Voysey. *5 ginning of this paper ? for if so, it is certainly incon­ sistent with the popular views on the subject. Once more, is it not a fact that the worship of Jesus as God, has been a development, a growth in the Christian Church, till in the present day it has assumed a proportion never witnessed before, which obscures the worship of the spiritual God, which can­ not be justified by the “sure warranty” of Scripture, and which is directly opposed to that essential article of the Christian faith, without which it must be one-sided and false, namely, the “ inferiority” of the Son; that, in short, his complete humanity is lost sight of and practically denied in the contemplation of his divinity. And this last remark will be a sufficient answer to an objection which has often been made, that these views are destructive of the Christian faith. What is in the present day popularly called the Christian faith is not the faith of Jesus or of Paul, nor even of the early Church. What is here advocated is no subversion of that faith, but of the errors which have overshadowed it, and is indeed a return to its purity. I cannot, therefore, apologise for thus coming forward; it has been in some sort a necessity. Of course it is most distressing to give pain, let us trust that like all other pain in this world it may be the transition to a more healthy state of things than has hitherto been. I do not think that anything can be more melancholy than the kind of arguments or reasons for letting things alone with which one is generally met. Even lead­ ing journals, which might be expected to use some­ thing like sound argument, have nothing better to oppose to such views as are here put forth than the wishes and inclinations of the unthinking multitude, as if that indolence, to which all are but too prone, is to be the measure of truth. This is indeed to degrade the minister’s office, to bring it to the level �16 The Judgment of the Committee of Council of that of the public performer, whose life is spent in catering for the entertainment of the multitude. Against this I earnestly protest. The clergy can­ not justify their existence unless they unflinchingly tell the truth, discreetly indeed, but frankly and sincerely. Such is the only means whereby that hollow religion which all good men deplore, and which, there is to reason to fear, has, in some instances, eaten into the very core of society, can be expelled, and the church can address herself to the elevation of our race. J. D. La Touche, Vicar of Stokesay, Salop. TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The judgment of the committee of council in the case of Mr Voysey: some remarks Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource La Touche, James Digues [1824-1899] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: Ramsgate Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. Tentative date of publication from KVK. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Thomas Scott Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [1871?] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G5539 Subject The topic of the resource Heresy Trials Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The judgment of the committee of council in the case of Mr Voysey: some remarks), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Charles Voysey Conway Tracts Trials (Heresy) https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/be825640c7435eaba45a526c52829d9a.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=Fv2Zn40JrILcHRBOXfIpPjGoV15uzGTlvvdP%7EbiO6qJXPgdp9LDxu-cyMwu0DGNhso9pnH-ARAy3TxCT5nQoA2%7EZyZcCk1d62MjLx9Z5WFTjUadvBRK5urxdUlIs7SqNGgCQigLovUZwjPN6ij3qCcmUM0wX8683cFiyqntsBTXrZ0ETwE5oINFvCh9jsQzyGkBxQKYHmI2CHdVYOSDczl2DPbe53ruJAqbrwcNpdpV5gEAaEmkv0LjmNKZ8aQeoK74qqzvEY2nmCe43hguwTCkOA4UMalv1YsWIqeK24HSnwwM%7EsqF9rRuUqC24%7EOJbhX6OQRs6qFi0MR5y46ybZw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM de3a145b92fef8dd08c2e4ff8fc8ce94 PDF Text Text i HERESY * AND HUMANITY AN ADDRESS Delivered before the “ Heretics ” Society in Cambridge, on the 7th December, 1909 BY JANE ELLEN HARRISON 4 London : WATTS & CO., i7 JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C. Price Threepence �THE RATIONALIST PRESS ASSOCIATION, LTD. Chairman : Edward Clodd Honorary Associates t Alfred William Benn Sir Edward Brabrook, C.B. George Brandes Dr. Charles Callaway Dr. Paul Carus Prof. B. H. Chamberlain Dr. Stanton Coit F. J. Gould Prof. Ernst Haeckel Leonard Huxley Joseph McCabe Eden Phillpotts John M. Robertson Dr. W. R. Washington Sullivan Prof. Lester F. Ward and Prof. Ed. A. Westermarck Bankers : The London City & Midland Bank, Ltd. (Law Courts Branch). Secretary anti Registered Offices i Charles E. Hooper, Nos. 5 and 6 Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, London, E.C. How to Join and Help the R.P.A. The minimum subscription to constitute Membership is 5s., renewable in January of each year. A form of application for Membership, with full particulars, including latest Annual Report and specimen copy of the Literary Guide (the unofficial organ of the Association), can be obtained gratis on application to the Secretary. Copies of new publications are forwarded regularly on account of Members’ subscrip­ tions, or a Member can arrange to make his own selection from the lists of new books which are issued from time to time. To join the Association is to help on its work, but to subscribe liberally is of course to help more effectually. As Subscribers of from 5s. to 10s. and more are entitled to receive back the whole value of their subscriptions in books, on which there is little, if any, profit made, the Association is dependent, for the capital required to carry out its objects, upon subscriptions of a larger amount and upon donations and bequests. HISTORY OF THE SCIENCES. A NEW AND IMPORTANT SERIES OF POPULAR BOOKS. NOW READY. History of Astronomy. By Pro­ fessor GEORGE FORBES, M.A., F.R.S., M.Inst.C.E. 164 pp., with Illustrations; cloth, is. net, by post is. 3d. History of Chemistry. Vol 1.: 2000 B.c. to 1850 A.D. By Sir EDWARD ! THORPE, C.B., LL.D., D.Sc., F.R.S. ! 156 pp., with Illustrations ; cloth, is. net, by post is. 3d. History of Chemistry. Vol. 11.: 1850 A.D. to 1910. 160 pp., with Illus­ trations ; cloth, is. net, by post is. 3d. History of Old Testament Criti­ cism. By Professor ARCHIBALD DUFF. 160 pp., with Illustrations; cloth, is. net, by post is. 3d. History of Anthropology. By A. C. HADDON, M.A., Sc.D., F.R.S. 168 pp., with Illustrations; cloth, is. net, by post is. 3d. History of New Testament Criti­ cism. By F. C. CONYBEARE, M.A. 156 pp., with Illustrations ; cloth, is. net, by post is. 3d. History of Geology. By HORACE B. WOODWARD, F.R.S., F.G.S. 160 pp., with Illustrations ; cloth, is. net, by post is. 3d. History Of Biology. By Professor L. C. MIALL, F.R.S. 160 pp., with Illus­ trations ; cloth, is. net, by post is. 3d. IN PREPARATION. History of Geography. By JOHN SCOTT F.S.S., F.S.A. KELTIE, Dr. F.R.G.S., (This volume will not be ready till Oct., 1911.) London: WATTS & CO., 17 Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, E.C. �bllöo NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY HERESY AND HUMANITY AN ADDRESS Delivered before the “Heretics ” Society in Cambridge, on the Jth December, 1909 BY JANE ELLEN HARRISON [ ISSUED FOR THE RATIONALIST PRESS ASSOCIATION, LIMITED ] London: WATTS & CO., 17 JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C 1911 �P �HERESY AND HUMANITY — j-— HE word “heretic” has still about it an emotional T thrill—a glow reflected, it may be, from the fires at Smithfield, the ardours of those who were burnt at the stake for love of an idea. Heresy, the Greek hairesis, was from the outset an -eager, living word. The taking of a city, its expzignatio, is a hairesis; the choosing of a lot in life or an opinion, its electio, is a hairesis; always in the word hairesis there is this reaching out to grasp, this studious, zealous pursuit—always something personal, even passionate. This comes out clearly in the words to which it is ■opposed—-hairesis, “choosing,” “electing,” is opposed to phuge, “ flight from,” “ rejection and again, hairesis, what you choose for yourself, is opposed to tyche—the ■chance from without that befalls you by no will of your own. Only in an enemy’s mouth did heresy become a negative thing, a sect, causing schism, a rending of the living robe. Free personal choice sounds to us now so splendid and inspiring ; why, then, in the past, was it so hated and so hunted? Why instinctively in our minds, when we hear the word “heresy,” does there rise up the adjective “damnable”? To be a heretic in the days of Latimer and Cranmer was to burn. 3 To be �HERESY AND HUMANITY 4 a heretic in the days of our grandfathers was to be some­ thing of a social outcast. To be a heretic to-day is almost a human obligation.1 The gist of heresy is free personal choice in act, and specially in thought—the rejection of traditional faiths and customs, qua traditional. When and why does heresy cease to be dangerous, and become desirable? It may be worth while inquiring. The study of anthropology and sociology has taught us that only a very civilised person ever is or can afford to be a heretic. For a savage to -be a heretic is not only not safe, it is practically impossible. We all know nowadays that the simple savage leading a free life is, of all mythical beings, most fabulous. No urbane citizen in the politest society is half so hide-bound by custom as the simple savage. He lives by imitation of his ancestors—z.e., by tradition. Long before he obeys a king he is the abject slave of that master with the iron rod—the Past; and the Past is for him embodied in that most dire and deadly of all tyrannies, an oligarchy of old men.2 The past, they feel, has made them what they are ; why seek to improve on it or them ? In such a society choice, heresy, is impossible. How came such a state of things to be? Why is it 1 Some portion of this paper was read at the Inaugural Meeting of the Cambridge Society of “ Heretics,’’ on December 7, 1909. My thanks are due to the Editor of the Englishwoman for permission to reprint it. 2 See Dr. Frazer, Lectures on the Early History of the Kingship, p. 84- �HERESY AND HUMANITY tolerated? 5 Why is it not only not disastrous, but for a time, as a stage, desirable ? Because, at the outset, what draws society together is sympathy, similarity, uniformity. In the fierce struggle for existence, for food, for protection, the herd and the homogeneity of the herd, its collective, unreflecting action, are all-important. If you are in danger of extinction, you must act swiftly, all together, all but automatically, you must not be a heretic. We see this clearly in that noblest of latter-day survivals, the “ good soldier.” The good soldier is not a heretic ; he does not, and may not, reflect and make personal choice. To him the order of his commanding officer voicing the herd is sacrosanct. Be it contrary to reason, be it contrary to humanity, it must still be obeyed. War has many horrors. To me not the least is this—that it must turn a thinking human being into an at least temporary automaton ; it bids a man forego his human heritage of heresy. What I want for the moment to emphasise is this : that only certain elements in civilisation, which later will be particularised, make heresy safe and desirable ; primitive man is always, and rightly, suspicious of heresy. The instinct to burn a heretic was in a sense, and for a season, socially sound ; the practice went on perhaps needlessly long. The instinct of savage law is the defence of collective, the repression of individual, •opinion and action. The milder forms of heresy-hunting, those that most �HERESY AND HUMANITY 6 of us remember in our childhood, deserve considera­ tion. It has puzzled—it has, alas ! exasperated—many that society should be so alert and angry, should feel so intensely, about heterodoxy. If I deny the law of gravitation, no one will worry me about it. Privately,, and rightly, they will think me a fool; but they will not come and argue at, and browbeat, and socially ostracise me. But if I doubt the existence of a God, or even, in the days of my childhood, if I doubted the doctrine of eternal damnation—well, I become a “ moral leper.”' The expression has now gone out; its mild, modern substitute is looking at you sadly. Such treatment naturally makes the honest patient boil with indignation ; but the young science of sociology comes to smooth him down by explaining how this isy and, so long as the strength of society is in its collective homogeneity, must be. Religious views, sociology teaches us, and many other views on matters social and political—in fact, all traditional views—are held with such tenacity, such almost ferocity, because they belong to the class of views induced not by individual experience, still less by reason, but by collective, or, as it is sometimes called, “herd,”' suggestion. This used to be called faith. The beliefs so held may or may not be true ; collective suggestion is not in the least necessarily collective hallucination. Mere collective suggestions—that is the interesting point—have the quality of obviousness ; they do not issue from the individual, but seem imposed from outside, �HERESY AND HUMANITY 7 and ineluctable; they have all the inevitableness of instinctive opinion ; they are what Mr. William James would call “ a priori syntheses of the most perfect sort.” Hence they are held with an intensity of emotion far beyond any reasoned conviction.1 To doubt them is at once idiocy and irreverence. Inquiry into their rational bases is naturally, and in a sense rightly, resented, because they are not rationally based, though they may be rationally supported. It is by convictions such as this that a society of the homogeneous kind—a society based on and held together by uniformity—lives and thrives ; to attack them is to cripple and endanger its inmost life. To realise this is clear gain. We feel at once quieter and kinder ; all, or most, of the sting is gone from the intolerance, or even ostracism, of our friends. When they look sad, and hint that certain views are not respectable, we no longer think of our friends as unreasonable and cruel. They are non-reasonable, 7>r<?-reasonable, and they are hypnotised by herd-sug­ gestion. They become, not cruel, but curious and interesting, even heroic; they are fighting for the existence of the homogeneous type of herd—a forlorn hope, we believe, but still intelligible. Further, we begin to see what we, as heretics, must do ; not reason with our opponents—that would be absurd—but try, so far as we can, to get on to the side we believe to be right 1 See especially a valuable paper by Mr. W. Trotter on “ The Socio­ logical Application of the Psychology of Herd Instinct,” in the Socio­ logical Review, January, 1909, p. 37. �HERESY AND HUMANITY 8 this immense force of herd-suggestion. Suggest to people that an unverifiable opinion is as unsatisfactory an implement as, say, a loose tooth ; and as to a mental prejudice, it is simply a source of rottenness, a decayed fang—out with it I Why, and how, has heresy ceased or almost ceased to be disreputable? Two causes have brought this about, Science and another movement towards what I will call Humanity, and which I shall try later to define. Science is from the outset the sworn foe of herd­ suggestion. Herd-suggestion, being a strange blend of the emotions and imaginings of many men, is always tolerant of contradictions ; religion revels in them ; with God all things are possible. Science classifies, draws ever clearer distinctions ; herd-suggestion is always in a haze. Herd-suggestion is all for tradition, authority ; science has for its very essence the exercise of free thought. So long as we will not take the trouble to know exactly and intimately, we may not—must not— choose. We must advance as nature prescribes, by slow, laborious imitation ; we must follow custom ; we must accept the mandates of the Gerontes—the old men who embody and enforce tradition. We must be content to move slowly. We must not be unjust to collective opinion ; it does move, though slowly, and moves even without the actual protest of open heresy. Things were said and written a century or two ago which, though no definite �HERESY AND HUMANITY 9 protest has been made, could not be written or said now. There has been a slow, unconscious shift. In the regu­ lations of the University of Cambridge it is still enacted that every year a prize be offered for the best poem on the Attributes of the Deity, and that this prize be annually awarded until such time as in the opinion of the Master of x College the said Attributes shall have been exhausted. Somehow, nowadays, we should word our regulations differently. Collective opinion, then, advances, but very slowly. Many people think that to be slow is sure ; but our wise copybooks used to say, “ Delays are dangerous. You may prop up an ancient building till it topples about your ears ; adherence to tradition may land you in straits made desperate by the advancing tide of knowledge. You may delay a reform till the exacerbation caused by your delay is worse than the original evil. Heresy, then, is the child of Science ; and so long as the child holds fast her mother’s hand, she may run her swiftest, she will not faint or fall. Science opens wide the doors that turned so slowly on tradition’s hinges, and opens them on clean, quiet places where we breathe a larger air. If heresy has in it too much of the fever and fret of self-assertion and personal choice, our remedy is to enter that “great kingdom where the strain of disturbing passion grows quiet, and even the persecuting whisper of egotism dies at last almost completely away.” 1 1 Professor Gilbert Murray. �IO HERESY AND HUMANITY It is well to remember our debt to science—our inward and spiritual as well as material debt, because the generation is passed or passing which saw and was well-nigh blinded by the great flood of light that came last century. But the complete heretic needs more than, science, he needs humanity, and this in no vague general sense, but after a fashion that it is important to understand as exactly as may be. Science broke the binding spell of herd-suggestion. For that great boon let us now and ever bless and praise her holy name. She cleared the collective haze, she drew sharp distinctions, appealing to individual actual experience, to individual powers of reasoning. But by neither individual sense-perception nor ratiocination alone do we live ; our keenest emotional life is through the herd, and hence it was that, at the close of last century, the flame of scientific hope, the glory of scientific individualism that had blazed so brightly, somehow died down and left a strange chill. Man rose up from the banquet of reason and law unfed. half-unconsciously for the herd. He hungered It seemed an impasse: on the one side orthodoxy, tradition, authority, practical slavery; on the other science, individual freedom, reason, and an aching loneliness. But life meanwhile was feeling its way blindly to a solution, to what was literally a harmony. Something happened akin to what goes on in biology. The old primitive form of society grew by segmentation, by mere multiplication of homogeneous units ; the new �HERESY AND HUMANITY n and higher form was to develop by differentiation of function—a differentiation that would unite, not divide. Instead of a mechanical homogeneous unity we get a. disparate organism. We live now just at the transition, moment; we have broken with the old, we have not quite adjusted ourselves to the new. It is not so much the breaking with old faiths that makes us restless as. the living in a new social structure. What is actually meant by organic as opposed tO' mechanical unity is seen, of course, very clearly —has. long been seen, though not rightly understood—in the ever-increasing development of the Division of Labour. M. Durkheim1 has shown that the real significance of this is social and moral rather than economic. Its best result is not material wealth, but the closer, more vital, sympathy and interdependence of man with and on his fellow man. Its influence extends far beyond the supply of material needs. If one man depends on you for his supply of butter and you on him for your supply of tea, you are drawn into a real relation ; but if the interchange be of thought and sympathy induced by that material commerce, the links are closer, more vital. This is no metaphor; it is a blessed and sometimes bitter reality. A close companionship withdrawn is a wound to our actual spiritual life : if our egotism and self-sufficiency be robust, we recover from it; if weak, we go maimed and halting, with minished personality. Division of labour has often been supposed to damage 1 To the specialist, my debt throughout this paper to the writings of MM, Durkheim and Levy-Bruhl will be evident. �12 HERESY AND HUMANITY the individual. Anthropology corrects this mistake. To the savage division of labour is almost unknown ; each man builds his own boat, carves his own weapons, and makes them scrupulously, religiously, as his fathers made them before him. Yet the savage has the minimum of individuality. It is not in his case that individuality is crushed out by the herd, but that it has not begun to exist, or only in faint degree, because the savage has not It is through this co-operation that begun to co-operate. we at once differentiate and organically unite. This is our new gospel: we are saved, not by science, not by abstraction, but by a new mode of life. As the individual emerges through co-operation and differentiation the force of tradition is gradually broken. What takes its place ? The answer is at first depressing. Fashion, a new and modified collectivism. Under the sway of tradition, as M. Tarde has pointed out, w copy our ancestors in all things; under the sway of fashion we follow otcr contemporaries in a few. Fashion, it will escape no one, rules us now, not only in matters of dress or food, but in the things of the spirit; and more and more, it would seem, as we escape more completely from tradition. But the rule of fashion, though some­ times foolish and light-headed, is, on the whole, bene­ ficent, and makes for freedom. It is better to be swayed by our contemporaries, because, unlike the ancients, they lack prestige, and never become sacrosanct; about their heads is no semi-religious halo. is fickle, swift to change ; Moreover, fashion small movements and �HERESY AND HUMANITY IS associations grow up to promote particular fads, and die as swiftly as they rose ; each association implies a dis­ sociation, and by this frequency of association and dissociation we get rid of the permanent homogeneous class, that insistent incubus of progress. Each person belongs to many temporary associations ; and at the cross-roads, as it were, his individuality emerges. More strange still at first, but assuredly true, is the fact that only through and by this organic individuality can the real sense and value of Humanity emerge. We are humane so far as we are conscious or sensitive to individual life. Patriotism is collective herd-instinct ; it is repressive1 of individuality. You feel strongly because you feel alike ; you are reinforced by the other homogeneous units ; you sing the same song and wave the same flag. Humanity is sympathy with infinite differences, with utter individualism, with complete differentiation, and it is only possible through the mystery of organic spiritual union. We have come, most of us, now, to a sort of physical union by sym­ pathy and imagination. To torture even an enemy’s body would be to us physical pain, physical sickness ; there will come the day when to hurt mentally and 1 M. Durkheim (De la Division du Travail Social, pp. 35-73) has. shown with great cogency, in his examination of criminal and civil law, that repression and vengeance are the characteristic and necessary notes of solidarité mécanique, and that the new justice of a society based on solidarité organique has quite other functions. The same­ thought has found fine expression in Mr. Galsworthy’s Justice, and in two penetrating and beautiful articles by him on the Suffrage­ question in the Nation, March 19 and 20, 1910. �HERESY AND HUMANITY spiritually will be equally impossible, because the spiritual life will by enhanced sympathy be one. But this union is only possible through that organic differen­ tiation that makes us have need one of the other. In a word, if we are to be true and worthy heretics, we need not only new heads, but new hearts, and, most of all, that new emotional imagination, joint offspring •of head and heart which is begotten of enlarged sym­ pathies and a more sensitive habit of feeling. About the moral problem there is nothing mysterious ; it is simply the old, old question of how best to live together. We no longer believe in an unchanging moral law imposed from without. We know that a harder incumbency is upon us ; we must work out our law from within. The first crude attempt was by agglutination—Qui se rctssemble s’assemble; differ at your peril. A. long •discipline of agglutination backed by religious sanctions was needful, it seems, to tame the tiger-cat, egotism within us. Primitive religion, most of us who inves­ tigate the subject are nowagreed, has made for civilisa­ tion mainly because it is the emphasis of social values, ■or, to put it more exactly, of herd-instincts. But in mere religious agglutination man was not to find his goal. We heretics believe the time for that is past, and that we must adventure a harder and higher spiritual task. Our new altruism involves a steady and even ardent recognition of the individual life, in its infinite variety, with its infinite inter-actions. We decline to be ourselves part of an undifferentiated mass ; we refuse to deal with others in classes and masses. Parents no �HENESY AND HUMANITY i5 longer treat their children as children, as a subject-class to be manipulated for their pleasure, but as human beings, with views, outlooks, lives of their own. Children, it may even be hoped, will learn in time to treat their parents not merely as parents—i.e., as persons privileged to pay and to protect and at need to efface themselves, but as individual human beings, with their own passions and absorptions. We are dissatisfied now not only with the herd-sanctions of religion, but with ■many of those later sanctities of law to which some even ■emancipated thinkers ascribe a sort of divinity. We feel the inherent savagery of law in that it treats indi­ viduals as masses. Only in a civilised anarchy, we some of us feel, can the individual come to his full right •and function.1 Yet all the time we know that we can, with spiritual safety, rebel only in so far as we are personally sensitive to the claims of other individual lives that touch our own. The old herd-problem remains of how to live together; and as the union grows closer and more intricate the chances of mutual hurt are greater, and the sensitiveness must grow keener. Others are safe from and with us only when their pain is our pain, their joy ours ; and that is not yet. Meantime, whenever the old tiger-cat egotism snarls within us we should resign our membership of the Society of Heretics, and go back for a season to the “ godly discipline ” of the herd. Jane Ellen Harrison. 1 My fellow Heretics are, needless to say, not committed to this personal view. �PRINTED BY WATTS AND CO., Johnson’s court, fleet street LONDON, E.C. �T New Library Edition of Professor Haeckei’s I I I, EVOLUTION OF MAN. . I.—.i...,. n N 1 .................. —......... — ■............... - k-.. Two vols., demy 8vo, xxxiL-774 pp., 463 Illustrations, 60 Genetic Tables, and 30 Plates; cloth, gilt tops, 12s. 6d. net (inland postage 8d.). HE first English translation of this great work was published twenty-seven years ago by Messrs. Kegan Paul. In 1904 the author decided to re-draft and enlarge his “ magnum opus ” in the light of later knowledge, making I it virtually a new book. When completed, arrangements were made with Mr. Joseph McCabe to undertake the translation, and the work in its final form was published in this country in 1905. It met with immediate success. The I whole issue was soon exhausted, despite the fact that the price of the two volumes was 42s. net. Later an abridged edition was put on the market, and " of the work in this form between seventy and eighty thousand copies have L already been sold. As was inevitable in a popular issue, many of the Illus­ trations had to be omitted, and none of the magnificent Plates could be r included. The complete work is now again being published in Library form, with the whole of the Plates and Illustrations, the text having undergone further revision at the hands of the Translator. The type is new and fairly bold, the I’ paper is of excellent quality, and the binding is handsome, with gilt tops, i ft *s far and awa-y the cheapest standard work ever published. Although | the format is almost equal to that of the 42s. edition, the price is only 12s. 6d. L net« 6 ':i '......... ■ ■ ■ A Typical Press Opinion T “ Professor Haeckel is an indefatigable worker, an enthusiast, the possessor of a , receptive or assimilative mind of the first order; and this book represents him at his l<best........ In the work under discussion the author has....... unquestionably produced the | most complete and conclusive treatise that has yet been written on the origin of man....... It is, indeed, incredible that any impartial student can read these volumes without t, arriving at the conviction, not only that man is related to and evolved from lower animal | forms, but also that there is lacking no iota of evidence that could possibly be expected I in demonstration of this fact. “ It is probably safe to say that no other living biologist could have adduced such a | mass of evidence, or marshalled it with such skill and completeness........ It is impossible B to withhold admiration for his skill and erudition. “ If there lives a man who is prepared, after reading these volumes, to question their t main thesis, he is to be complimented on his inviolate mind. Neither Fate nor facts can touch him.”—The Daily Chronicle. London: WATTS & CO., 17 Johnson’s Court, Fleet . Street, E.C. �OVER 2,000,000 SOLD. R.P.A. CHEAP REPRIN' 1. HUXLEY’S LECTURES AND ESSAYS. 2. THE PIONEERS OF EVOLUTION. By E. Clodd. 3. MODERN SCIENCE AND MODERN THOUGHT. By Samuel Laing. With Illustrations. 4. ’LITERATURE AND DOGMA. By M. Arnold. 5. THE RIDDLE OF THE UNIVERSE. By Ernst Haeckel. 6. ’EDUCATION: Intellectual, Moral, and Phy­ sical. By Herbert Spencer. 7. THE EVOLUTION OF THE IDEA OF GOD. By Grant Allen. 8. HUMAN ORIGINS. By Samuel Laing. 9. SERVICE OF MAN. By J. Cotter Morison. 10. TYNDALL’S LECTURES AND ESSAYS. 11. THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. By C. Darwin. 12. EMERSON’S ADDRESSES AND ESSAYS. 13. ON LIBERTY. By John Stuart Mill. 14. ’THE STORY OF CREATION. By E. Clodd 15. ’AN AGNOSTIC’S APOLOGY. BySiRL.STEPHEN. 16. LIFE OF JESUS. By Ernest Renan. 17. A MODERN ZOROASTRIAN. By S. Laing. 18. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF HERBERT SPENCER. By Prof. W. H. Hudson. 19. THREE ESSAYS ON RELIGION. By J. S. Mill. 20. CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. By W. R. Greg. 21. THE APOSTLES. By Ernest Renan. 22. PROBLEMS OF THE FUTURE. By S. Laing. 23. THE WONDERS OF LIFE. By Ernst Haeckel. 24. JESUS OF NAZARETH. By Edward Clodd. 25.’GOD AND THE BIBLE. By Matthe 26 and 27. tTHE EVOLUTION OF Ernst Haeckel. 28. HUME’S ESSAYS: I.—An Inquiry Human Understanding. II.—An Inq cerning the Principles of Morals. 29. HERBERT SPENCER’S ESSAYS. (A 30. AN EASY OUTLINE OF EV0LU17 Dennis Hird, M.A. 31. PHASES OF FAITH, By F. W. N” 32. ASIATIC STUDIES. By Sir A. C 33. MAN’S PLACE IN NATURE. By' 34. THE ORIGINS OF RELIGION. 35. TWELVE LECTURES AND I T. H. Huxley. 36. HAECKEL: His Life and Work. B 37, 38, and 39. ’LIFE OF THOMAS Moncure D. Conway. 40. THE HAND OF GOD. By Gran THE NATURE AND ORIGIN 41. MATTER. By H. Charlton Ba 42. LAST WORDS ON EVOLUTI 43. PAGANISM AND CHRISTIA Farrer. 44 and 45. ’HISTORY OF RAT. W. E. H. Lecky. 46. APHORISMS AND REFLECT’ Huxley.: 47 and 48. IHISTORY OF EURO By W. E. H. Lecky. R. P. A. EXTRA SERIES. JESUS CHRIST : His Apostles and Disciples in the Twentieth Century. By Count db Rbnesse. CRITICS ANSWERED. By 2. HAECKEL’S 1 Joseph McCabe. SCIENCE AND SPECULATION. By G. H.Lewes. NEW LIGHT ON OLD PROBLEMS. By John Wilson, M.A. 5. ETHICS OF THE GREAT RELIGIONS. By C. T. Gorham. 6. A NEW CATECHISM. By M. M. Mangasarian. 7. THE RELIGION OF WOMAN. 8. THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINl POSITIVE PHILOSOPHY. Bs 9. ETHICAL RELIGION. By W 10. RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION. Haynes. 12. THE SCIENCE OF EDUCAT. Hayward. 13. CONCERNING CHILDREN. B: 14. THE BIBLE IN SCHOOL. By„ Various (R. P, A. and Other) THE MAN versus THE STATE. Spencer. By Herbert CONFESSION OF FAITH OF A MAN By Ernst Haeckel. THE LATER GOSPEL. By J. S. B. ’DO WE BELIEVE? A Brief Exp Rationalist Faith. By J. A. Hed tTHE LIBERAL STATE. By T. Whi WOMAN IN POLITICAL EVOLUTP ’SOCIAL STATICS. By Herbert Spencer. *J. S. MILL’S AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (Unabridged.) THE CHILDREN’S BOOK OF MORAL LESSONS. By F. J. Gould. First Series. tTHE CHURCHES AND MODERN THOUGHT. By McCabe. P. Vivian. tTHE MARTYRDOM OF FERRER. INGERSOLL’S LECTURES AND ESSAYS. Three McCabe. Series. 160 pp. each. THE NEW THEOLOGY. By A. S. M< A FEW FOOTPRINTS. By J. Passmore Edwards THE TRUTH ABOUT SECULAR EDUU , History and Results. By Josef CHRISTIANITY AND RATIONALISM ON TRIAL. By Joseph McCabe, J. M. Robertson, and others. THE AGE OF REASON. By Thomas ' RIGHTS OF MAN. By Thomas ” THE FREEDOM OF WOMEN. By E. B. Harrison. PAINE’S POLITICAL WRITINGS. THE UNITY OF COMTE’S LIFE AND DOCTRINE. SUNDAY OBSERVANCE : Its Orig aiu By J. H. Bridges. ing. By W. W. Hardwick.. M. A THE LEGEND OF CHRIST. ByProfessor Virolleaud. marked with an asterisk or double dagger, are su . * The whole of the above List, with exception of those t Published at 6d. net (paper) and xs. 6d. net (ch in cloth at is. net. t Published at 6d. net (paper). London: WATTS & CO., 17 JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET ST., E.k � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Heresy and humanity : an address delivered before the "Heretics" Society in Cambridge, on the 7th December, 1909 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Harrison, Jane Ellen [1850-1928] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 15 p. ; 22 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Watts & Co. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1911 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N300 Subject The topic of the resource Heresy Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Heresy and humanity : an address delivered before the "Heretics" Society in Cambridge, on the 7th December, 1909), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Heresy NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/1904fcefb34ca0020501b73b8ed9acea.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=HqEaf91sm6PxD-EBvWEXaxGFyhnLyUNb5sFYlb-SedYQkHwVpGWq4VmibZmIiWRk8iUtoieWAwBC2BscGEIVhgvyHLf%7EO3w0mpyFUEyTAIHC86sGD55irJHzPjMFRd1gmzQrrJjaLUM1FLFjxd1gJIbeb0mAhv2vuadClE4OqSuhkXRiylrdLUt%7EH7I4TIus1ffXqlUTUiojrJO3-W%7ETJwDfSn4gdHz3-Q4-MyADeGZXYGMxq6m%7EHi1L5wlHbRgmS7Kc5ietr6i0mEKPiMvjeED6iPdtvDL%7E6IDFVM0I6leknRdidi-8F7Qyxijtp0h2JL3CB8XW5w9KVeAyfX4LAg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 829a39b0ca123ca533f98bb5c0a788fd PDF Text Text REMARKS UPON THE RECENT PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF ROBERT LORD BISHOP OF CAPETOWN AND METROPOLITAN AT HIS PRIMARY METROPOLITICAL VISITATION OF THE DIOCESE OF NATAL. BY THE RIGHT REV. JOHN WILLIAM COLENSO, D.D. BISHOP OF NATAL. LONDON: LONGMAN, GREEN, LONGMAN, ROBERTS, & GREEN. 1864. �LONDON PRINTED BY SPOTTISWOODE AND 00. NEW-STBBET SQUARE �CONTENTS. —♦— PAGE . Occasion of these Remarks............................................................................ 1 Proceedings of the Bishop of Capetown at Durban .... Proceedings of the Bishop of Capetown at Maritzburg The Bishop’s Charge; his claim of Jurisdiction 2 ... 10 .... 15 The Bishop of Capetown’s threatened Secession from the Church of England ....................................................................................................... 21 The Bishop of Capetown’s stronglanguage............................................. 27 The Bishop of Capetown’sown religious teaching 33 .... The Bishop charges the Bishop of Natal with reckless haste in publishing...................................................................................................... 38 The Bishop’s personal observations upon the Bishop of Natal . . 40 List of Books prepared by the Bishop of Natal for the use of Missionary Students and Native Scholars................................................................ 46 Another view of the charge of dishonesty............................................. 57 Appendix. 1. Extracts from the Bishop of Natal’s Books . . . .64 (i) On the Fear of Death, from the Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, p. 144-7............................................. 64 (ii) On the Reading of the Scriptures, from the Pentateuch Critically Examined, Part III, p.628-32 ... 66 2. Opinions of various 'Writers in the Church of England respecting the Authorship of the Pentateuch............................................. 69 3. Extracts from the Fathers and others, shewing their views as to the limitation of our Lord’s knowledge as the Son of Man 79 4. Correspondence of the Bishop of Natal with the Bishop of Oxford and the -Bishop of Capetown............................................. 81 5. Letters from native converts, received by the Bishop of Natal while in England......................................................................... 86 6. Proposed alteration of the Supreme Court of Appeal . . 94 ��REMARKS ^c. Occasion of these Remarks. I regret very much that it should be necessary for me to draw attention again in this way to the proceedings of the Bishop of Capetown. My respect for his personal character, — no less than my sense of duty to the high office which he fills,—would assuredly, under any ordinary circumstances, have constrained me to keep silence, even though suffering from acts (as it seems to me) of undue hastiness and precipitancy on his part. But the present is no ordinary occasion; and the course of conduct which Bishop Gray has pursued is so strange, that I can only regard it as a striking instance of the disturbing effect, on the purest mind, of strong religious and ecclesiastical prejudices. As the circumstances which have transpired during the last two months in my distant diocese, though partially reported from a partizan point of view in certain journals, are probably unknown to the great mass of English Churchmen,—are cer­ tainly unknown to them in their naked simplicity,—and, as those circumstances are such as to justify fully to my own mind the present publication,—I have thought it right to place on record the main facts of the late Metropolitical Visitation of the Diocese of Natal, as I have gathered them from the colonial journals, from published documents, and from private com­ munications. It will thus be seen that not merely my own personal interests are here concerned, but that far graver issues have been raised, B �2 REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF of vital consequence to the whole National Church,—in fact, no less than this, whether Her Majesty’s Supremacy shall any longer be maintained, in matters ecclesiastical affecting the Clergy of the Church of England, within the Province of Cape­ town, and, by inevitable consequence, within the other colonies of the British Empire, if not, ultimately, within the mother­ country itself. Proceedings of the Bishop of Capetown at Durban. The following extract from the Natal Mercury of May 3, 1864, will inform the reader as to the circumstances attending the Bishop of Capetown’s arrival in the colony on this Visita­ tion. I may premise that Natal contains, at the present time, an European population of 13,990 (by the last Blue Booty, of whom about 10,000 are English. There are only tw.o towns— Durban, on the coast, which, regarded as a port, is known commonly as Port-Natal, with a white population of 2,567, and Maritzburg in the interior, the capital city and seat of govern­ ment, with a population of 3,118, and a very small cathedral, consisting merely of a nave and chancel, and capable of holding, comfortably seated, about 250 persons. The remainder of this small European population is scattered about the colony, in separate farms or small villages, over 18,000 square miles of country—an area about one-third the size of England and Wales. Bishop Gray landed at Durban on April 27, and the Mer­ cury reports as follows:— On Sunday last, the 1st of May, the Bishop of Capetown, as Metropolitan of the Church of England in South Africa, carried out in St. Paul’s Church, Durban, his expressed intention of ‘deposing ’ the Bishop of Natal from his office, and of prohibiting him from the exercise of his functions in the (Metropolitan Province of South Africa.’ As his Lordship’s views were generally understood after his arrival on Wednesday, and as a large number of Churchmen in Durban held strong opinions (wholly irrespective of Dr. Colenso’s theological views) regard­ ing the illegality of the position taken up by Bishop Gray, as opposed to Her Majesty’s Letters Patent, the following protest was sent in on Saturday:— �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 3 ‘ To the Wardens of St. Paul’s Church, Durban. April 29, 1864. ‘Gentlemen,—We, the undersigned members of St. Paul’s Church, Durban, having heard that the Bishop of Capetown intends to pronounce “ sentence ” or “ judgment ” against the Bishop of Natal, beg most empha­ tically to protest against any proceedings which interfere with the authority of the Bishop of Natal (pending the decision of the Queen in Council), and tend to disturb the peace and quiet of our Church. ‘ Edward W. Holland ‘ And a number of others.’ To this document [which was handed to him by the Churchwardens] the Bishop made the following reply :—• ‘Gentlemen,—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of the documents placed in my hand late on Saturday night. I regret that, when you found that any members of the Church were disturbed in their minds about the publica­ tion of the Sentence delivered in Capetown during Divine Service, you did not at once communicate with me, and that, when I was anxious, even at the late hour at which I received the memorial, to discuss the matter, they declined to accept my invitation. The publication of the Sentence in the diocese is a mere matter of form; but I am advised that it is essential to its completeness and validity. It will be published to-day in all the diocese. I could not revoke the order which I have given as regards St. Paul’s Church, on the grounds which Dr. Colenso’s friends suggest, without stultifying my whole proceedings, and acknowledging the right of appeal to the Privy Council, which I formally repudiated. The appeal to Canter­ bury, provided for by the Letters Patent, and which I did recognize, I am informed by His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury has never been made. I have already mentioned to you that the Sentence is not one of excom­ munication of Dr. Colenso, as one of you informed me was widely believed to be the case. It is simply the notifying the fact, that the Bishop has not retracted the opinions which have been condemned, and that the Sentence of Deprivation, therefore, takes effect. The Judgment itself requires that this should be done. ‘ It is to me a source of very great regret that any misunderstanding should have arisen. I have come here at the earnest request of the clergy, who have all determined never to recognize Dr. Colenso again as their Bishop, and to take charge, as my office of Metropolitan requires me to do, of a vacant, distracted diocese, which, as I believe you well know, is rapidly sinking into a lifeless condition. I am ready to receive your assurance that very few of the subscribers sympathise with Dr. Colenso’s views : but you have candidly admitted that the document fbrwarded to me has been got up by those who have alas! through him been led into unbelief. It is clear that the subscribers will, unless they disclaim the imputation, be generally and fairly considered as having adopted the views of those who have been. B 2 �4 REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF forward in the matter. I need scarcely say that it deeply grieves me that, coming as I do with a sincere desire to help you, and to revive a languishing Church, my efforts should, as far as your parish is concerned, be greatly hindered by the misunderstanding which has arisen. 11 remain, Gentlemen, 1 Durban: Sunday morning, May 1st, 1864.’ (Signed) 'R. Capetown.’ On Sunday morning St. Paul’s Church was crowded,—a large number of attendants of other Churches [i.e. members of other religious bodies] in town being attracted by the novelty of the proceedings. After the Nicene Creed was read by the minister of the parish, the Rev. A. W. L. Rivett, the reverend gentleman proceeded to read the following document. No sooner, however, had he begun, than several gentlemen (the number of whom is varyingly stated at from fifteen to forty) got up and left the Church. * [Then follows a formal notice, ending with these words :— 'Now, therefore, we do hereby adjudge and decree the sentence so pro­ nounced on the Sixteenth of December, One thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, to be of full force, virtue, and effect, from and after this date; and we do, accordingly, decree and sentence the said Bishop of Natal to be deposed from the said office as such Bishop, and prohibited from the exercise of any divine office within any part of the Metropolitical Province of Cape­ town. ' In testimony whereof, &c. R. Capetown.’] After the service was over, his Lordship delivered a sermon, which is variously spoken of by many who heard it, concluding with a vehement ex­ hortation upon the unhappy state of things existing in the Church of England in this diocese. This Sentence of Deposition will be disregarded by a large body of the Church of England in this colony, and it is believed that the authorities will not recognize its validity. This attitude has reference to the civil aspect of proceedings only, and does not necessarily involve any concurrence in’ the theological opinions avowed by Bishop Colenso. There are some points in the above letter of the Metro­ politan which may be noticed. * An anonymous correspondent of the ‘ Guardian ’ states that ‘ a few, who had come to church in order to leave it when the Bishop entered the pulpit, did so,’ whereas, in fact, they left because the officiating clergyman began to read the Sentence of Deposition. He speaks also of ‘ home ideas of Church and State perplexing many minds,’ and of ‘some having prayed his Lordship, the night before, to stay the Sentence,’ whereas a number of the Laity had ‘ most emphatically protested' against the Bishop’s proceedings. It will be seen, as we proceed, that these are but instances of the suppress™ veri, which characterises the communi­ cation of this correspondent throughout. �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 5 (i) It is not easy to see how the protesters could be quieted by being told that the publication of the ‘Sentence’ was ‘a mere matter of form,’ and yet that it was ‘ essential to its com­ pleteness and validity.'' (ii) The Bishop says that he had ‘ recognized the appeal to Canterbury, provided for by the Letters Patent.’ But it must be observed that he did not recognize it as a right which the Patent distinctly allowed, but only vouchsafed it as a favour,— ‘ in this particular case, which is in itself novel, and of great importance to the whole Church.’ See my Letter to the Laity, p.2. * (iii) It is impossible to avoid observing the undue pressure, here put upon the subscribers to the Durban protest,-—which expressed no more than a simple desire on their parts to await, as loyal subjects, ‘the decision of the Queen in Council,’—by the intimation that, if they did not openly ‘ disclaim the im­ putation ’ of sympathising with my views, they would be ‘ generally and fairly considered as having adopted them.’ (iv) It was also, as it seems to me, not worthy of the present grave occasion, to have stigmatized the gentlemen, supposed to have promoted the address, as ‘ having alas I through him (the Bishop of Natal) been led into unbelief’—as if no layman in Natal was capable of forming some judgment for himself, as educated men do^ upon the relations of Science and Scripture. (v) If, however, as the Bishop of Capetown assumes, ‘ very few of the subscribers sympathised with my views,’ there must be others of the Laity in Natal who do; inasmuch as I received from them some months ago a hearty expression of good-will, in an address numerously and respectably signed. But I desire to draw attention, specially, to the following two statements which are made in the Bishop’s letter:—* The Bishop (Waldegeave) of Cablisle says in his recent Charge,— ‘ There has been on the part of the Bishop of Capetown a resolve,—in the carrying out of which he has received no little encouragement from the authorities, both civil and ecclesiastical, at home, and also, of late, from his own Suffragans on th e spot,—to vindicate for himself a Metropolitical Jurisdiction, independent, as far as possible, of that of the See of Canterbury.’ �6 REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF The Bishop says— I could not revoke the order,—[which had been issued for the publi­ cation of this ‘ Sentence ’ in St. Paul’s Church,]—without stultifying my whole proceedings, and acknowledging the right of Appeal to the Privy Council, which I had formally repudiated. It should be observed that I have not appealed to the Privy Council, but to Her Majesty Herself as Head of the Church of England, who has exercised Her constitutional right in this matter, and referred my petition to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But again the Bishop says— I have come here at the earnest request of the clergy, who have all deter­ mined never to recognize Dr. Colenso again as their Bishop. This was a very grave statement for him to have made on an occasion like the present: and I must think that it ought not to have been made by the Metropolitan, without the most perfect certainty that it expressed the actual state of the case. No sanguine expectations of his own,—no mere assurances of eager and excited partizans,—as to what was, or would be, the state of feeling among the clergy,-—could have justified, as it seems to me, so strong an assertion,—nothing but the fact, that he had actually received such a ‘ request,’ and an expression of such a ‘determination,’ from all the clergy—from all, at least, who were in the colony, and accessible. But how stands the fact ? The total number of the clergy in the diocese is, as stated by the correspondent of the Guardian., June 27, at this time eleven,—besides two now in England, and two engaged as Missionaries, beyond the border of the colony, in Zululaud. And by the previous mail I was made aware that this statement was certainly not correct, so far as three, at all events, of those eleven clergy were concerned. I very much doubt, also, if, at that time, all even of the remaining eight had expressed any such a determination. But the following letter from one of the clergy in question, which appeared in the Natal Mercury of May 19, 1864, will speak for itself:— �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 7 To the Editor of the ‘ Natal Mercury.' Sir,—Tn the Bishop of Capetown's letter to some of the inhabitants of Durban, dated May 1st, appears the following- statement:—11 have come here at the earnest request of the clergy, who have all determined never to recognize Dr. Colenso again as their Bishop.’ Allow me to state through your journal that I am not aware of having joined in that request, or expressed any such determination. If the ‘ Privy Council,’ to which Dr. Colenso has appealed, recognize him as the lawful Bishop of Natal, I will do the same, or return my license. No real good can be effected by disobeying the law, or disregarding the highest civil authority in the land. And I hope, therefore, that some, at least, of my brother clergymen will pause before they lend themselves to any course of action, which in future they may have reason to regret. We need not fear the result of investigation and criticism : for the doc­ trines of the Church, and the teaching of the Bible, have a solid foundation ; and, when the storm has past, and the dust subsided, we shall see the truth even more clearly than before. 1 If this Council or this work be of man, it will come to nought; but, if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it.’ I hope you will publish this without delay, as an accident, which I met with a few days back, made me unable to attend to' it earlier. Umgababa Mission Station, I remain, Sir, yours, &c., Umkomazi, May 7, 1864. A. Tonnesen. The anonymous correspondent of the Guardian writes of the above clergyman as follows :— One [of the clergy], unhappily, did withdraw himself from his brethren,— not, it is said, because he has been drawn away from the truth, but on some extreme views of Church and State;— that is to say, he still clings, it seems, to the good old English Protestant principle, of recognizing the Queen as supreme in all matters within her realm, spiritual as well as temporal, and of regarding it as the first duty of an Englishman, whether clergyman or layman, to render obedience to the law. But, it is added by the same authority, this clergyman ‘ has since, we hear, come in.’ This means that he has been obliged to succumb, to some extent, under the heavy pressure brought to bear upon him, and has published in his church, by the com­ mand of the Metropolitan, the ‘ Sentence of Deposition,’ which he had at first refused to do. I have reason to know that the following arguments, among others, have been used to produce this effect with him, and, possibly, with others of my clergy �8 REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF (i) That they are wrong in disobeying the Metropolitan^— (ii) That the sentence is a spiritual sentence, which does not fall under the jurisdiction of the ‘ Privy Council,’— (iii) That the Bishop of Natal had not appealed, and, therefore, they had no right to assume that, as a ground for any opposition,— (iv) If they would not obey the Metropolitan, their licenses would be with­ drawn, and their names struck off the list of the Gospel-Propagation Society. This, then, is the process by which dissentients are to be eliminated or coerced, and the unanimity of the clergy is to be secured in this matter ! With respect to the arguments brought thus to bear upon them, I may remark as follows:— (i) The clergy of Natal would have been perfectly justified in disobeying the command of the Metropolitan,—as Mr. Long was in disobeying that of Dr. Gray as Bishop,—if they deemed it unlawful, and were prepared to take the consequences of dis­ obedience. But, being ignorant themselves of the real facts of the case, and having before them only the positive statements of the Metropolitan,—not corrected by the information, which my published ‘ Letter to the Laity of Natal ’ would have given them, had it by that time reached the colony,—I cannot wonder at the course which for the present the majority have taken. (ii) The idea, that the Bishop of Capetown’s sentence, being a ‘spiritual’ sentence only, will, therefore, ‘not fall under the jurisdiction of the Privy Council,’ will, I apprehend, be found to be a fallacy. The 36th Canon says distinctly:— The King’s Maj esty, under God, is the only supreme Governor of this realm, and of all other His Highness’s dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal. If the Bishop had first resigned his Patent, he might issue, no doubt, sentences of deposition and bulls of excommuni­ cation, as a Bishop of the ‘ Church of South Africa,’ fortified by the ‘ Canons of Antioch, confirmed by the General Council of Chalcedon,’ as quoted in p.29 of his recent Charge. And such proceedings would certainly not be referred by Her Majesty to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But they would be as harmless, and would as little trouble our �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 9 peace and order, as Members of the Church of England, as if they were issued by a Roman Catholic Bishop, or by the Greek Patriarch, or by the Pope himself,—by whom indeed, speaking in the name of all £ the Churches of the Roman obedience,’ (Charge, p.4), the Bishop himself is, at this very time, con­ demned of schism and heresy, and excommunicated. But, so long as the Bishop of Capetown holds Her Ma­ jesty’s Letters Patent, he is, I apprehend, responsible to the Queen Herself for using the powers committed to him, whether spiritual or temporal, in relation to any of the Queen’s subjects, rightfully and lawfully. Otherwise it is plain that, by means of this new device of a distinction between 4 spiritual ’ and ‘ temporal ’ judgments, (long ago used in defence of the Inquisition,) he might use his high office to condemn with a 6 spiritual sentence,’—to place under the ban and excom\nunicate, and so virtually deprive of his ministry,—any one of\his own clergy, without being liable to have his proceedings\brought under review, as they were in Mr. Long’s case, before yhe Civil Courts of the colony, and finally before the Queen in Council. (iii) I regret that any of my clergy should have been misled by the statement that I had not appealed,—a statement which, under the circumstances, would be naturally understood to mean that I was not intending, and had taken no steps, to test- the legality of the Bishop’s proceedings. I had, however, given formal notice of my intention to do this; and it was perfectly well known that I was seeking to obtain a judicial decision upon the case from the highest Court of Justice in the Realm. But the Bishop of Capetown has moved so precipi­ tately in the matter, that there was no time for me to receive even a reply, as to the advice which would be tendered to Her Majesty with respect to my petition, before he proceeded to carry out his Sentence in Natal. (iv) Such arguments as these, which threaten to take away �10 REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF a man’s means of livelihood, or in well-known Zulu phrase to ‘ eat him up,’ for disobedience, must often be irresistible,— especially when coupled with positive assertions, as above, with respect to the extent of the Metropolitan’s jurisdiction, and his independence of control. Yet the threat held out— of striking off the Missionary’s name from the list of the Pro­ pagation Society, if he refused obedience to such a command of the Metropolitan—was, in fact, not justified by any vote of the Society, empowering the Bishop to pledge it to this course of proceeding, as a means of coercion in such a case. On the contrary, it is well known that, when the Bishop recently applied to the Society to grant him virtually such a power, the request was refused, in a great measure through the sound advice of some eminent laymen. In fact, it is plain that, under the arrangement desired by the Bishop of Capetown, the Society’s funds would be em­ ployed to support the system,—not of the ‘ Church of England,’ which it is generally understood to represent, but—of the ‘ Church of South Africa.,’ which, in the language of the Bishops meeting in Synod at Capetown, while ‘receiving ’ the Articles and Formularies of the Church of England,— is not bound by any interpretations put upon those standards by existing Ecclesiastical Courts in England, or by the decisions of such courts in matters of faith. Proceedings of the Bishop of Capetown at Maritzburg. The Bishop, having concluded his Visitation at Durban, proceeded to Maritzburg, and there, on May 18, delivered a ‘ Charge ’ in the Cathedral Church (which shall be considered presently)—after which the clergy then present, who appear to have been nine in number, signed and presented the following Address, drawn up probably by the correspondent of the Guardian, with the view of its being signed by all the clergy: — �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 11 To the Most Reverend the Lord Metropolitan of South Africa. My Lord,—We, the clergy of the Church of England in the diocese of Natal, assembled in the cathedral church of Pietermaritzburg, to confer with your Lordship on the present state of the diocese, desire to express our deep sympathy with your Lordship in the painful duty you have been called upon to perform in sitting on judgment upon Bishop Colenso, and gratitude for the fatherly care and help your Lordship has extended towards this portion of your province, in the perplexities and trials to which it has been sub­ jected. We would also place on solemn record our emphatic repudiation of the erroneous teaching of Bishop Colenso, and our conviction that, should it please Gon, for the chastisement of our sins, to allow Bishop Colenso to return to the diocese with legal authority, he must still be regarded as lying under a righteous sentence of condemnation, and that we dare not acknowledge him as having authority in spiritual matters. We would further beg to be allowed to offer your Lordship our most grateful thanks for the Charge your Lordship has delivered to us in this cathedral this day, and pray your Lordship to permit it to be printed, that it may be in the hands of every member of our flock, and to allow the MS. to be placed among the archives of this diocese. St. Peter’s Cathedral, Pietermaritzburg, 18th May, 1864. The above was signed by 1 the Dean,’ and eight other clergy. Among the above signatures is that of one of the Missionaries in Zululand ; and, accordingly, the informant of the Guardian writes— You will remark that, whilst I give the numbers of the clergy as eleven, there are but eight signatures to the Address. One clergyman is in England; another, having broken a blood-vessel, is lying ill in bed, but is well known to believe (s«c). Thus this address has been signed by eight colonial clergy, of whom several are catechists, who have been ordained by myself. And these have been permitted by the Metropolitan—nay, en­ couraged, if not, in some instances, virtually commanded and compelled, to give their judgment on these great questions of the day, and pronounce condemnation on their own Bishop, who at any rate has been to some of them a Father in God, from whose hands they have received ^ordination. If it had been signed by all the clergy of such a diocese as that of Natal, it is obvious that the weight to be attached to such a document would have been incomparably less than would belong to a like declaration, if made by the majority of the clergy of an English �12 REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF diocese. And the value even of such signatures has been recently set very low by the Bishop of St. David’s. The Bishop of Capetown replied as follows:— Deanery, Maritzburg, May 19, 1864. Reverend and Dear Brethren,—I beg to thank you very sincerely for your Address. The duty, which I have had to discharge, has been a most pain­ ful one. All personal considerations, however, must give way, when the faith of Christ is at stake. The questions, which your late Bishop has raised, are, as I have said in my Charge, no less than these,—Is there a written revelation from God ? Is our Lord, God Incarnate ? Is Chris­ tianity true ? We ought not to suppose for a moment that any Civil Court would, if appealed to on the question of civil right, venture to send back to this land one, whose teaching you yourselves, with the whole Church, have solemnly repudiated, with the right to take possession of the property of the Church, given for far different purposes ; nor do I imagine that anyone would have thought it possible, had it not been for the confident tone of Dr. Colenso himself, assuring those to whom he had written that such was about to be the case. It rejoices me, my brethren, to receive from yourselves the assurance that, let the worldly position of Dr. Colenso be what it may, you ‘ dare not acknowledge him as having authority in spiritual matters.’ Maintain your ground as witnesses for Christ, and for ‘ the faith once for all delivered to the Saints,’ and, in God’s good time, all will be well. Our country’s Courts will not commit the great wrong of giving a legal right to a bishop, deposed and rejected by the Church, to force himself into your churches, and pro­ claim from your pulpits ‘ erroneous and strange doctrines, contrary to God’s Word,’ which he and you have sworn at your ordination ‘ with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away,’ and thereby to compel your congregations, —who, I rejoice to hear, have no more sympathy than yourselves with the late Bishop’s teaching,—to abandon the churches which they have erected for themselves. But, if it were so, your course is plain. Christians have, before now, been driven to worship on the mountain-top or by the river-side, in dens and caves of the earth. I believe there is faith and zeal enough among yourselves, if driven to it, to do the same. I shall have much pleasure in complying with your wish, by publishing my Charge, and by placing the MS. afterwards at your disposal. I am, Rev. and Dear Brethren, Your faithful servant and brother in Christ, R. Capetown, Metropolitan. The Rev. the Clergy of the Diocese of Natal. A similar document, almost the counterpart of the chief clause in the clerical ‘ declaration,’ was subsequently signed by �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 13 the same nine clergymen as before, and also by seven laymen —six signing as churchwardens of four churches, but signing in their own names merely, without the authority of the congre­ gations. It is obvious to remark how positively in his reply, as above,-—and we shall see that he does the same in his Charge,— the Metropolitan reiterates the statement, that e the whole Church has solemnly repudiated my teaching,’ that ‘ I have been deposed and rejected by the ChurchC But he must have * been aware that my books have never been condemned at all by the whole Church, or by any competent authority in the Church of England, and that not a few of the clergy of that Church, and a very large body of the more intelligent laity, are so far from condemning me, that they have openly come forward to declare their disapproval of his proceedings. Further, I maintain, as I have partly shown in my ‘ Letter to the Laity,’ p. 10-14, that all the charges brought against me at my (so-called) ‘ Trial ’ will fall to the ground by virtue of recent decisions in this country, some in consequence of recent Judg­ ments of the Privy Council, others by reason of a decision in the Court of Arches—the very Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury, under whose ‘general superintendence and revision’ the Bishop of Capetown bound himself to act, in accepting his Letters Patent from the Crown,—which decision, however, he distinctly repudiates, see Trial, p.388, declaring positively that he ‘ cannot concur ’ in it, and presuming to say that ‘ it is a wrong to the Church ’ of which he is still content to remain a Bishop. With respect to the ‘ questions,’ which, as the Bishop of * Of the ‘ nearly fifty ’ clergy in the diocese of Capetown, very many of them selected or ordained by the Bishop himself, about one-third do not appear to have signed the ‘Declaration’ of ‘rejection,’ lately published in the Times, Sept.l. But the signatures to this Declaration do not profess to be those of Clergy of the Church of England, but of Clergy ‘ ministering in the Church in South Africa,' and they address, accordingly, the ‘ Bishops of the Church in South Africa.’ �14 REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF Capetown says, ‘ I have raised,’ or which, as he says elsewhere, Charge, p.14, ‘have really been raised by my writings,’ I cannot be responsible for inferences, which he or others may think proper to draw from my critical conclusions. I must refer the reader to the books themselves for the statements which I have really made; but I emphatically deny that I myself have raised these ‘ questions.’ On the contrary— (i) I have said of the Bible, Part I.p.13, that it has— ‘through God’s providence, and the special working of His Spirit on the minds of its writers, been the means of revealing to us His True Name, the Name of the only Living and True God, and has all along been, and, as far as we know, will never cease to be, the mightiest instrument in the hand of the Divine Teacher, for awakening in our minds just conceptions of His character and of His gracious and merciful dealings with the children of men. Only we must not attempt to put into the Bible what we think ought to be there,. . . and lay it down for certain beforehand, that God could only reveal Himself by means of an infallible book.’ (ii) I have done my utmost to show, Part I.p.xxix-xxxii, Part II.p.xv,xvi, Part Ill.p.xxxiii-xl, that the recognition of the results of the criticism of the Pentateuch ‘ is perfectly consis­ tent with the most entire and sincere belief in our Lord’s Divinity,’—whereas Bishop Gbay’s view seems to lose sight of the human nature of our Lord altogether, or to trench on the Eutychian and Monophysite heresies, which confounded the two natures in one. (iii) I fully believe in the Divine origin of Christianity, —not certainly of that Christianity, which may be blown away by a breath, which teaches that ‘all our hopes for eternity are taken from us,’ if one line in Esther or Chronicles is shown to be unhistorical or untrue, whose ‘ foundation ’ is the dogma, that ‘ the whole Bible is the unerring Word of the Living God,’ —but a Christianity rooted and grounded in those ‘words of Christ’ — ‘the primal, indefeasible truths of Christianity,’ as Dean Milman calls them,— ‘ which shall not pass away,’ — a Christianity which at once satisfies the deep wants and longings of the human heart, and is confirmed, as of Divine original, py �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 15 the whole course of human history,—a Christianity, to use again the words of the same writer, which is 4 comprehensive, all-em­ bracing, catholic, which knows what is essential to religion, what is temporary and extraneous to it,’ and, being such, ‘ may defy the world.’ And let me say further, it is not I who have said that Chris­ tianity will not bear a close and critical investigation, that it will not endure the searching eye of ‘ free enquiry.’ I believe that it will, that it is essentially and eternally true. But I do not believe that all is true, which ancient or modern dogmatisers have asserted to be essential to the creed of Christendom, and by which they always obscure, and not unfrequently put out of sight altogether, the grand truths, which alone are ‘ indefeasible ’ and imperishable. I hold with Bishop Thirlwall, Charge, p.123, that— The numbers, migrations, wars, battles, conquests, and reverses of Israel have nothing in common with the teaching of Christ, with the way of sal­ vation, with the fruits of the Spirit. They belong to a totally different order of subjects. They are not to be confounded with the spiritual revela­ tion contained in the Old Testament, much less with that fulness of grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ. . . . Such questions must be left to every one’s private judgment and feeling, which have the fullest right to decide for each, but not to impose their decisions as the dictate of an infal­ lible authority on the consciences of others. Any attempt to erect such facts into articles of faith would be fraught with danger of irreparable evil to the Church, as well as with immediate hurt to numberless souls. The Bishop’s Charge; his claim, of Jurisdiction. I come now to consider the Bishop of Capetown’s Charge, which is described by the correspondent of the Guardian as—• the greatest, some say who know England well, that had ever been delivered by an English Bishop. In the first portion of it, p.1-12, the Bishop states his views as to the office and powers of a Metropolitan. These I need not here consider at length, as these points, no doubt, will come under discussion when my case is heard, as Her Majesty has ordered, by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I �16 REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF remark only that I have no concern with, and do not in any manner recognize, the powers of a Metropolitan, as they may have existed at some time or other in the ancient Catholic Church, or as they may now exist ‘in the Churches of the Roman obedience,’ in which latter, says the Bishop, p.14— since the Council of Trent, the powers of the Metropolitan, as well as those of the Episcopate generally, have been, to a very great extent, merged in the Papacy. I recognize them only so far as they exist in ‘the United Church of England and Ireland, as by law established,’ in which, as is well known, the supreme powers, usurped by the Pope in the Roman Church, are restored by the Constitution to the Crown. And I note that the Bishop has entirely ignored the Act of Submission of the Clergy, 25 Henry VIII, which surrenders all those powers to the Sovereign, with respect to which Mr. A. J. Stephens says, Laws relating to the Clergy, i.p.23 :— The grand rupture [with Rome] happened in the reign of Henry VIII, when all the jurisdiction usurped by the Pope in matters ecclesiastical was restored to the Crown, to which it originally belonged, so that the statute 25 Hen. VIII was but declaratory of the ancient law of the realm. I may observe, however, that the Bishop repeats on p.8 the assertion, which I have already been obliged to contradict on p.6 of my ‘ Letter to the Laity ’; for he says— Your late Bishop, who had for years recognized my jurisdiction, as has been abundantly shown by the documents produced at his Trial, denied on that un­ happy occasion that I had any jurisdiction over him, and protested against the exercise of it. I have shown in my Letter— (i) That I have never recognized in the Bishop of Capetown any jurisdiction over me personally, though I have recognized his Metropolitan dignity, as my Patent requires me to do, in accordance with the system of the Church of England; that is, I have recognized (i) his preeminence and precedence as that of a Bishop primus inter pares, (ii) the right of any one of my clergy, who may deem himself aggrieved by any of my decisions, to appeal to him as Metropolitan ; ., �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 17 (ii) That the documents produced at my so-called ‘Trial’ do not imply any recognition of the jurisdiction which he now claims over me as Metropolitan; (iii) That the Bishop of Capetown himself, only a few years ago, was then, as he expressed himself,— in doubt as to the extent of Metropolitan jurisdiction. By this time, I hope, my ‘ Letter to the Laity ’ may have cleared up this matter of jurisdiction to the minds of many of my Clergy and Laity. In the absence of any such correcting influence, I cannot wonder that they should have been much impressed by the positive statements of the Metropolitan, and by his language at p.8— If Dr. Colexso claims to be Bishop over the Clergy and Laity of this diocese, he can scarcely question my authority over him. We derived our respective jurisdictions from the same source. I have shown in my^ Letter,’ p.5, that in my Patent, which is of an earlier date than that of the Bishop of Capetown, I am placed by the Crown in the same relation to him as Metropolitan, that any one of the Suffragans of the Province of Canterbury stands in to the Archbishop of that Province. And if, as I am advised, the office of a Metropolitan in England involves no right or power to exercise an irresponsible jurisdiction over a Suffragan, without any right of appeal to the Sovereign, then neither has the Bishop of Capetown any such right or power over me, nor could such a power have been given him by the later Patent which he has received. The Bishop, however, says, p.6— There remain the facts, that, if the Church; and Crown united in the appointment of a Bishop, they were united also in the appointment of a Metropolitan,—that, if one office exists, the other exists also,—and that each of the eight South African Bishops, that have been appointed since tfie Province was formed, solemnly swore before God that he would render canonical obedience to me as Metropolitan at his consecration. I have already shown, ‘ Letter to the Laity,’ p.4, that according c �18 REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF to the principle laid down by the Privy Council in Long v. Bishop of Capetown, viz.— the oath of canonical obedience does not mean that the clergyman will obey all the commands of the Bishop against which there is no law, but that he will obey all such commands as the Bishop by law is authorized to impose,__ I am not bound by this oath to any obedience, except to such commands of the Metropolitan as he may be lawfully empowered to impose. And while I recognize his e dignity ’ as Metropolitan, I deny that he is ‘ by law authorized ’ to summon me before him, and sit in judgment upon me. Moreover, that the dignity of Metropolitan may exist, without his having any lawful jurisdiction, is plain from the following letter, which has been recently addressed by the Duke of New­ castle, as Secretary of State for the Colonies, to the GrovernorCreneral of Canada. Downing Street, 10th February, 1864. My Lord,—A Correspondence, which arose out of the recent case of Long v. The Bishop of Capetown, has led me to submit, for the opinion of the Law-Officers of the Crown, the question whether any, and, if so, what, Metropolitan preeminence or jurisdiction was conveyed by the Letters Patent bearing date the 12th Feb. 1862, which constituted the Bishop of Montreal Metropolitan Bishop in the Province of Canada, The following is the answer which I have received:— 4 We think it was competent to the Crown to constitute his Lordship a Metropolitan, and thereby to give him gyreewiinence and precedence over his Suffragans, but that, as to the coercive jurisdiction which the Metropolitan, may exercise, and the manner in which it is to be exercised, these are matters which must be settled by the Bishops, Clergy, and Laity of the Church in a general Assembly of the Province, according to the provision of the local Act of the Canadian Legislatru-e, 19 & 20 Victoria, cap. 121.’ You will be good enough to communicate a copy of this opinion to the Bishop of Montreal, adding, that it will be for his Lordship, in concert with the other authorities of the Canadian Church, to determine for them-’ selves whether they would prefer to apply for fresh and amended Letters Patent, or to allow the existing instrument to remain in force, with the knowledge that, so far as it assumes to invest the Metropolitan with coercive jurisdiction, it is of no effect. I have, &c., (Signed) Newcastle. It will be observed that the Patent of the Bishop of Montreal �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 19 did profess to give him, as Metropolitan, a power of e juris­ diction,’—probably in the very same terms as those used in the Bishop of Capetown’s. But this part of his Patent is pro­ nounced invalid, by reason of rights already existing. And the Metropolitan of Canada has only 4 preeminence and pre­ cedence ’ over the other Bishops of his Province—he is primus inter pares—but cannot exercise any jurisdiction over them. I believe that precisely the same state of things exists in the Province of Capetown, and that this will be made plain by the decision of the Privy Council upon the hearing of my case. What would be thought, however,—or what would be said and done,—if the Bishop of Montreal were to throw to the winds this opinion of the Law-Officers of the Crown, and, in defiance of the Royal authority, were to assert, with the Bishop of Capetown, that, in the exercise of what he pretends to call a spiritual jurisdiction, he will proceed to summon, convict, sus­ pend, deprive, any one of his Suffragans—e.g. the Bishop of Heron,—and ‘should he presume to exercise Episcopal func­ tions in his diocese, after the sentence of the Metropolitan shall have been notified to him,’ will further proceed, ‘after due admonition, to pronounce the formal sentence of excommunica­ tion against him’ ? I apprehend that, in such a case, the LawOfficers of the Crown would have another duty to perform, and would vindicate in due course Her Majesty’s Supremacy. But the Bishop of Capetown lays great stress upon the point that the Church, as well as the Crown, has conferred on him his office as Metropolitan, and from the former he seems to derive his 4 spiritual jurisdiction.’ But how has 4 the Church ’ done this ? The Bishop says, p.5— The subject was fully discussed at a meeting of the English Bishops, and. such of the Colonial Bishops as were within reach, summoned by the late Archbishop of Canterbury in 1853. At that meeting, at which I was pre­ sent, it was resolved that Metropolitans should be at once appointed over the churches of Canada, New Zealand, South Africa (Australia and the Hast Indies being already under Metropolitans); and the concurrence and joint, c 2 �20 REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF action of the Crown in this matter was sought and obtained. The Crown gave what force of law it was in its power to do to the decision of the Church. • • • By the concurrent action of the Church and of the Crown, and, at their united call, I hold the office which I now fill. It is obvious to ask, by what concurrent action of the Church and State were the Metropolitans of Australia and India appointed, previously to this meeting of the Bishops ? Here, however, a resolution of certain Bishops is spoken of as a ‘ decision of the Church ’! to which the Crown ‘gave what force of law it was in its power to do’! Convocation had no voice in the matter: the Laity were not consulted: only a private conclave of Bishops, English and some Colonial, c resolved ’ that ‘Metropolitans should be at once appointed,’ and then ‘the concurrence and joint action of the Crown in this matter was sought and obtained.’ And this is called ‘the action of the Church ’I I leave Archdeacon Denison to settle this matter with the Bishop of Capetown. But I maintain—and the Duke of Newcastle’s letter abundantly shows it—that the Crown alone appointed these Metropolitans. The Bishop again observes, p.10— It is the Canons, which define the relations of the Priest and Deacon to the Bishop, of the Bishop to the Metropolitan, of the Metropolitan to the Primate and at present, it would seem, the de facto Patriarch of all Churches of the English Communion. And then he proceeds to speak of the authority given him as Metropolitan by the ‘Canons of the Church.’ Not a word, however, is said in the Canons of the Church of England as to the relations of the Bishop to the Metropolitan, or of the Metropolitan to the Primate or Patriarch; nor are even the names of Metropolitan, Primate, Patriarch, so much as men­ tioned in any one of them. And, further, the appeal from the Archbishop of York is not to the Archbishop of Canterbury as ‘ Patriarch,’ but to the ‘ Queen in Council.’ The Bishop refers, no doubt, to certain ancient Canons, which, however, have no force in the Church of England, except that, as Lord Hale says, in Stephens, Laws relating to the Clergy, i.p.225,— �THE BISHOP OP CAPETOWN. 21 So far as such, laws are received and allowed of here, so far they obtain, and no farther. And this is made still more plain by Lord Denman, as quoted in Stephens, ii.p.1449 :— I think it necessary to reassert, what has so often been declared by our illustrious predecessors in this Court, and by the greatest writers on the English constitution, that the Canon Law forms no part of the law of Eng­ land, unless it has been brought into use and acted upon in this country. Hence I am of opinion that the burden of proof rests on those, who affirm the adoption of any portion of it in England. But the hearer or reader of the Bishop’s words, if ignorant of ecclesiastical matters, would be misled by the context, and suppose that he was speaking of the Canons of the English Church, since the next preceding sentence of the Charge runs thus— They [English Churchmen, who go out as colonists] carry with them their Bible and their Prayer-book, and with them the laws of their Church embodied in the Canons, so far as these are applicable to their new circum­ stances. It is the Canons which define, &c.,— that is to say, in two successive clauses, the Bishop uses the expression c the Canons ’ in two totally different senses ! The Bishop goes on to assure my Flock that the Law-Officers of the Crown were e not likely to consent ’ to advise Her Majesty to refer my case to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, —that the Queen could only do so 4 by a stretch of Her pre­ rogative,’ p.ll,—that this would be— in fact, to revive the Courts of Preview, Star Chamber, and High Commission, with all their arbitrary powers. The only answer to these assertions is the fact, that Her Majesty, by the advice of Her Privy Council, has so referred it, and, in so doing, has exercised an unquestionable right, derived from the first principles of our Protestant Constitution. The Bishop of Capetozvris threatened Secession from the Church of England. But should Her Majesty, acting upon the advice that may be tendered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, be �22 REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF pleased to decide in my favour, it appears that the Bishop of Capetown contemplates in that case a formal secession from the Church of England. His language on this point is most remark­ able, and cannot, as it appears to me, be understood to mean anything short of this. The fear is expressed, that a Civil Court might send back Dr. Colenso as Bishop of this Diocese, because there is no legal power in the Metropolitan to deprive him. The question, however, is, not whether there is a legal power, i.e. a power conferred by some civil law—[in other words, a power conferred by Her Majesty’s Letters Patent],—but whether there is any right in the Metropolitan to deprive, and whether I am Metropolitan. I have shown above that, by the joint action of the Church and the State, I am Metro­ politan, and that the Metropolitan has power by the laws of the Church [what Church ?] to deprive. I do not believe that any Civil Court would deny this; because, first, by so doing it would declare that the Church, or, if the term is preferred, the ‘voluntary association,’ in this country, called the Episcopal Communion, is the only religious association, or the only society in the land of any kind, that cannot remove an unfaithful officer from his office : for, if the Metropolitan, with the aid of the other Bishops of the Province, cannot do it, no power on earth can. The Archbishop of Canterbury cannot do so. The Crown cannot. Were a Bishop to become an Atheist, or were he to believe in Mahomet, or to teach all Roman doc­ trine, it would by such a sentence be affirmed that there is no redress, no power of removal, pp. 12,13. Let us stop here for a moment, and consider the statement which I have above italicized, and in which lies the Bishop’s whole misapprehension of his position. He asserts that the Crown cannot remove a Bishop: I am advised that the Crown can remove a Bishop, and that no other power in the Church of England can. Here, then, is the true remedy for the present supposed grievance. The Queen, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, can cancel my Patent, or, if necessary, can cancel that of the Bishop of Capetown. If, then, as it is asserted, I have transgressed so grievously—nay, if I have transgressed at all—the laws of the Church of England, it is perfectly competent for the Bishops of Capetown and Grahamstown, or any Bishops of England my accusers, to make their complaint to Her Majesty, and seek redress at Her hands ; they �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 23 may present, as I myself have done, a petition to be heard before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or any other Court which Her Majesty may see good to appoint, while accusing me of serious derelictions of duty, in the discharge of the high office which I hold by Her Majesty’s authority. I call upon them solemnly to do this, and not to persist in the unjustifiable practice of uttering abusive and, in fact, libellous invectives against me. I will put no obstacles in the way of such an enquiry: I will raise no technical objections, nor interpose unnecessary delays. But, if they refuse to do this, then let them hold their peace as to the point, of my having broken faith with the Church of England, and violated her laws. Or, if they reject Her Majesty's Supremacy, and desire to shake off the control of those wholesome laws, which protect the clergy of the Church of England from the grinding oppression of mere eccle­ siastical domination, then let this purpose be distinctly avowed, and so we shall understand more clearly the end which is aimed at, and the nature of the conflict in which we are engaged. But the Bishop proceeds, p.13— And, next, it would thereby declare that the Church in this colony, which is a branch of the oldest Corporation of the world, shall not be governed by its own laws,—laws which it inherits from the Church from which it derives its origin. I will not believe that any Civil Court on earth would so openly violate the religious liberties of any denomination of Christians. Here, again, is the same fallacy as before. If the Bishop of Capetown will surrender his Letters Patent, and, with any of the Clergy or Laity, who are willing to secede with him from the ‘ Church of England,’ will form another Church—to be called, e.g. ‘the Church of South Africa, in union and full communion with the United Church of England and Ireland,’— and to be modelled (if they desire it) after that of some ancient Church, with a complete mediaeval system of ecclesiastical tra­ ditions, Priestly Authority, Episcopal and Metropolitan Courts, exercising jurisdiction over clergy and laity, issuing sentences of �24 REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF suspension and deprivation for the former, and decrees of excommunication for both,—there is nothing to prevent their so doing: no Civil Court would interfere with them, or e violate the liberties ’ of such an 4 association.’ But he cannot, I appre­ hend, retain his status as a Bishop of the Church of England, and then renounce the system of that Church, which rightly or wrongly—most rightly, as I believe, though the Bishop of Cape­ town seems to think otherwise—declares by the 37th Article and the 36th Canon, that— the Queen’s Majesty under God is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other Her Highness’s dominions and countries, as well in all spi­ ritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal. The Bishop still proceeds, p.13— But, if it did, it would only deprive the Church of its property. It could not give spiritual authority to any man. Christ has not given this power to Kings or Civil Courts. He has given it only to His Church: and, if any Church were to surrender this power to Civil Courts, it would un­ Church itself—cease to he a Church. But the Church of England notoriously asserts that to the Queen in Council rightfully Belongs the power of allowing or disallowing the judgments, which may have been passed by Archbishops and Bishops upon their clergy ; nor does it recog­ nize the distinction, which the Bishop of Capetown attempts to draw, between their 4 spiritual’ and ‘temporal’ jurisdiction. And, accordingly, Dr. Williams has been restored to his spiritual functions by the decree of the Privy Council, in direct oppo­ sition to the strongly-expressed sentiments of his own Bishop. It is obvious that, on the principle put forth by Bishop Gray, Bishop Hamilton might have condemned Dr. Williams 4 spi­ ritually,’ in spite of the decision of the Privy Council,— he might have announced to him in the very language (mutatis mutandis') of the three South-African Bishops, in their 8th Resolution, adopted at the 4 Synod,’Dec. 15, 1863, with reference to myself (see Letter to the Laity, p.31)— Should [Dr. Williams] presume to exercise [Priestly] functions in the �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 25 diocese of [Salisbury], after [this spiritual] sentence of the Bishop shall have been notified to him, without an appeal to Canterbury, and without being restored to his office by the [Bishop], he will be ipso facto excommunicate, and it will be the duty of the [Bishop], after due admonition, to pronounce the formal sentence of excommunication. Of course, the Bishop of Salisbury, though feeling so deeply on this question, has never attempted to carry out such a measure. The notion of such a proceeding would not now be tolerated for a moment in England. Besides, the Bishop of Salisbury knows that by the First Canon of the Church of England, he himself, as well as the Bishops of Capetown and Graiiamstown, is bound— To the uttermost of his wit, knowledge, and learning, without any colour or dissimulation, to teach, manifest, open, and declare, four times every year at the least, in his sermons and other collations and lectures, .... that the king’s power, within his realms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and all other his dominions and countries, is the highest power under God;— and that by the Second Canon it is declared— Whosoever shall hereafter . . . impeach any part of his regal supremacy in the said [ecclesiastical] causes restored to this Crown, and by the laws of this realm therein established, let him be excommunicated ipso facto, and not be restored, but only by the Archbishop, after his repentance and public revocation of those his wicked errors. If, however, such a proceeding be acquiesced in silently, while being thus introduced in a distant colony,—if it be once admitted, in any part of the Queen’s dominions, that a distinc­ tion may be drawn between a 4 spiritual ’ and a 4 temporal ’ judgment of an ecclesiastical Judge of the Church of England, —I venture to predict that the experiment will be tried, at no distant day, at home. But Bishop Gray proceeds as follows, and I call special attention to these ominous sentences, which seem very distinctly to imply that he contemplates secession from the Church of England, should the Privy Council pronounce in my case (what he ventures to call beforehand) an 4 unrighteous decision,’ by which he means a nullification of his own judgment, and a �26 REMARKS OX THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF declaration of my right to retain—under the laws of the Church of England—the office which I hold as Bishop of Natal. If this diocese, therefore, were to be deprived of its temporalities by an unrighteous decision, the Mother Church would provide means for the support of another Bishop, and send him out to minister to the faithful in the land. I would myself, were life and strength spared, undertake to return home, and rouse it up to the discharge of this duty, and would, with my episcopal * brethren, consecrate another Bishop to minister to the flock, and to witness for Christ, and His word, and His truth, in this land. If the Bishop first resigns his See, and his connection with the Church and State of England, it is perfectly open to him to adopt the course proposed, and to establish this ‘Free Church.’ The Bishop, indeed, says, p.8— I have claimed the same right, but no greater, to administer the laws of this Church, whether in my capacity as Metropolitan or in that of Bishop, than would be conceded to a Roman Catholic Bishop or a Wesleyan Super­ intendent, in the administration of the laws of their respective communities. This I deny. I think I have sufficiently shown that the Bishop claims the right, not of administering the laws of the Church of England, as they are laid down in her formularies, and inter­ preted by the decisions of her highest Courts of Appeal, but of declaring, by his own authority, the laws which he is to administer, or, at all events, the interpretation which he will put upon those laws, as Metropolitan of the Church of South Africa. Besides which, the heads of the Roman Catholic, Wesleyan, Dutch Reformed, and other Churches, have never subscribed the Canons and Articles of the Church of England, and conse­ quently are not bound by her laws, as the Bishop of Capetown is. If Bishop Gray really does what he has here threatened to do, without relieving himself by resignation of those grave responsibilities which he incurred, when he signed his adhe* Would the English Bishops, with the penalties of prcemunire before them, venture to do this ? or would even Bishop Cotterill of Grahamstown, or Bishop Welby of Saint Helena, holding Her Majesty’s Letters Patent ? Bishops Twells and Tozer, or any other Missionary Bishops, not holding office from Her Majesty, might possibly set at nought the Royal Supremacy. �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 27 rence to the 1st, 2nd, 36th and 55th Canons, and declared his unfeigned eassent’ to the 37th Article, and as the very condition of his being admitted to the Episcopate of the Church of England, ‘solemnly swore before God,’ to use his own words, that he would exercise whatever jurisdiction might be committed to him— according to such authority as you have by God’s Word, and as to you shall be committed by the Ordinance of this Realm,— I apprehend that the act would be one of disobedience of the Law, violation of the Oath of Consecration, and rebellion against the Queen’s Supremacy. I doubt, however, if there are many of the Laity, or even of the Clergy, of Natal, who would be prepared to follow the Metropolitan in this secession. I doubt also if all of those, who signed their names to the documents already quoted, appreciated fully at the time the nature of the act which they were committing, or saw clearly the course to which the Bishop of Capetown wTas pledging them. For these remarkable passages were not uttered in their hearing as a part of the original Charge, but were added after­ wards as a note, as the Bishop says, p.12—■ in the hope that it may relieve the anxieties of some, who have spoken to me on the subject. The Bishop of Capetown’s strong language. The Bishop has asserted on p.13 that my condemnation— has been deemed unavoidable by the Bishops of this Province, as well as by the whole Episcopate of the Church. I do not believe that he has any authority for this latter statement. I presume it to be of the same kind as that other assertion, into which his warmth of feeling has betrayed him, viz. that all the clergy of Natal had declared that they would never again receive me as Bishop. At all events, the language of the Bishop of London and others in Convocation showed sufficiently that they, at least, would not for a moment justify �28 REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF an act so unconstitutional and so unrighteous, as that which Bishop Wilberforce regarded with so much complacency, viz. the condemnation and deprivation of a Bishop of the Church I of England by the single voice of a Metropolitan, without any right of appeal whatever,—not even to the Archbishop of Canterbury,—a right which is enjoyed by the humblest Deacon in the diocese of Capetown. The Bishop then goes on to speak of the case on its merits. And here he certainly does not spare hard words, which, indeed, with thoughtful minds will not supply the absence of arguments, and would not be used, I imagine, in support of a really strong cause, but which produced, no doubt, to some extent, the desired effect for the present moment upon the feel­ ings of those who heard them. He speaks of ‘ the heresy of these awful and profane words,’ p.19, of my ‘ reckless arrogance, like that which marked the infidels of the last century,’ p.20, of my using i the language of the boaster and the scorner,’ p.21, of my ‘distempered imagination,’ p.21, of my ‘awful writings, and of his duty to ‘ earnestly warn the flock against their im­ piety,’ p.25, of my ‘ being led captive of the Evil One,’ p.33, of my ‘ instilling the poison of unbelief,’ p.33, of my ‘ teaching the very opposite to that which I undertook to teach,’ and ‘enjoying the emoluments of my abused office and violated trust,’ p.31, of my— ‘ teaching directly contrary to what She [the Church, i.e. as his hearers would suppose, the Church of England] holds on fundamental points, and directly opposite to what I undertook to teach when She gave me my com­ mission, and for the teaching of which her faithful children have provided for me a maintenance,’ p.32. Finally, he asserts, p.36, that I ‘have forsaken the Living Word of God,’ and, p.37, that— all that would be respectable in the world, ignorant and careless though some be,—all but the scoffer and unbeliever,—avowedly are on God’s side,— and, therefore, he evidently means it to be inferred, are in direct opposition to ‘ the Evil One ’ and me. �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 29 These are, certainly, strong expressions. I cannot wonder that the Clergy or Laity of Natal, who were present, after hearing these terrible denunciations, enforced by the personal energy of the Metropolitan and the (supposed) authority of his office, signed at once the documents above quoted. Indeed, I found it necessary, after reading this vehement Charge, to turn for a while to the quiet reading of my own books, that I might know myself again, and satisfy myself that I was not really such a monster of iniquity as is here depicted. As some of those, however, into whose hands this pamphlet may come, may not have seen the two works of mine which have been so stigmatised, and may not be able to procure them, I have thought it well to quote a passage of some length from each of them in the Appendix (1), from which the reader will be able to judge in some measure how far such language as the above was really justified. I shall also, for my own protection from misrepresentation, publish, as soon as possible, an abridged popular edition of my work on the Pentateuch, so far as it has proceeded, which will enable many, I hope, to form a more correct opinion of its nature than they could gather from reviews, whether friendly or hostile. As before, however, I challenge the Bishop of Capetown to present me by petition to Her Majesty, praying that the charges against me may be heard and investigated before a lawful Court, in such manner as Her Majesty may direct. And thus it will be decided, not by the arbitrary judgment of a single ecclesiastic, but by the rightful authority of the Sovereign, as Supreme Head of Church and State, acting through the recognised organs, whether I have in any way ‘ abused ’ my office, or i violated ’ my trust. But the Bishop also uses, as others have done, another class of weapons, in place of argument: he tries to cover me with ridicule and contempt. My writings—which I have ‘ poured forth voluminously, borrowing for the purpose from all sources of German infidelity,’ have been e met and exposed by �30 REMARKS OX THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF not less than seventy writers ’; and he repeats the usual formulge, p.25,26,— The rapidly declining interest felt in his writings, now that the novelty arising from the author’s position has worn away,—the wearisome length of full replies,—an objection, started in a few lines, requiring many pages for a 'thorough and efficient answer,—the little bearing that many of these sceptical questionings have upon the real point at issue,—may all combine to make theologians think that their time had better be devoted, as some are devoting it, to solid works, such as the two great Commentaries on Scrip­ ture, now in the course of publication, in which the chief doubts and difficulties, which not a single writer only, but others, whether in England or the Continent, have raised or felt, may be examined, and receive such solu­ tion as our present knowledge and learning may enable us to give them. I am glad to find that in these ‘two great Commentaries/ the ‘ chief doubts and difficulties,’ which continental, as well as English, writers have ‘raised or felt,’ will be examined, and ‘receive such solution’ as the case admits of. But I venture to predict that, if this is really done, the result will be somewhat different from that which the Bishop of Capetown anticipates. It is obvious that he himself is not personally acquainted with the criticism of the Pentateuch, or he would not have ventured to speak (p.19) of ‘the seeming difficulties and obscurities’ in it, as— arising, to a very great extent, from the brevity with which it relates events, and possibly from errors in the text, which from multiplied transcriptions may have crept in, but which are of no great moment. If he had personally devoted some time to the close exam­ ination of the matter, he would have found that the difficulties are not seeming, but real,—that they do not arise chiefly from any ‘ brevity ’ in the narrative, which is often, on the contrary, very diffuse, but from conflicting statements, written by different hands in different ages,—that any errors of the text, which may arise from transcription, are, indeed, ‘ of no great moment,’ but they scarcely affect any one of the more important of these ‘ difficulties.’ At all events, he would have found, as others have found already (App.ty, who have honestly commenced the critical examination of the Pentateuch from the most orthodox �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 31 point of view, that the popular traditionary notion, to which he clings, of its being wholly the work of Moses, cannot possibly any longer be maintained. But the Metropolitan has still other modes of describing me. He says, p.27,— With many other unbelievers, he is purely a fanatic. mysticism, based upon assumption. His system is a false The passage, which contains the evidence of my 4 fanaticism,’ is the following, from a letter to himself produced at my 4 Trial’:— Another takes a different view of Inspiration, as I do myself, and believes that God’s Spirit is, indeed, speaking in the Bible to all, who will humbly seek and listen to His teaching,—but that, even when we read the different portions of it, we are to 4 try the spirits, whether they are of God,’ to 4 prove all things, and hold fast that which is good,’ to 4 compare spiritual things with spiritual,’—that it is a part of our glorious, yet solemn, responsibility to do this,—that, having the Spirit ourselves, an 4 unction from the Holy One, that we may know all things,’ having the promise that we shall be 4 guided into all truth,’ if we seek daily to have our minds enlightened and our consciences quickened, by walking in the Light already vouchsafed to us, we are not at liberty to shake off this responsibility of judging for ourselves, whether this or that portion of the Bible has a message from God to our souls or not; God will not relieve us from this responsibility; He will not give us what, in one form or other, men are so prone to desire,— an infallible, external guide—a voice from without, such as men often wish to substitute for the voice within. I have quoted the passage at length, that the reader may see from the whole context, and not merely from the defective * * The Bishop has more than once misquoted my expressions. Thus he speaks of me as having said that ‘ a man can try, and ought to try, the very words of our Lord Himself, whether they teach truth or not,’ p.14, as ‘intimating that he may sit in judgment upon the very words of Him, whom he still professes to regard as God Incarnate,’ p.18,—whereas my words are these,—‘ By that light the words recorded to have been littered by our Lord Himself must all be tried.’ In like manner, he has quoted me, p.20, as saying, ‘ though a thousand texts of Scripture should be against us,’—whereas I have written, ‘ should seem to be against us; ’ and I have further ex­ plained myself thus, Comm, on Romans, p.209: ‘Either we have misinterpreted the words of Scripture, or we have missed their connexion, or we have lost sight of the real point and spirit of the passage, insisting on the mere letter of the word, and some minor particulars, which were only thrown in to fill up the imagery, but were never �32 EEMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF extracts quoted by the Bishop, what is my real meaning,—that I am speaking here of Christian men, devout students of the Bible, and am not claiming, as the Bishop says,— for the heathen, quite as much as for the Christian, ... an unction from the Holy One to guide him unto all truth. But when the Bishop ridicules me as a ‘ fanatic,’ p.16,17, for intended to bind our consciences.’ Again, on p.19 he quotes my words thus: “ ‘It is not to be supposed,’ lie says, ‘ it cannot be maintained,’ that ‘ He possessed a know­ ledge, surpassing that of the most pious and learned adults of His nation, upon the subject of the authorship and age of the different portions of the Pentateuch,’ that ‘ He knew more than any educated Jew of His age.’ ” But my words are these, Part I,p.xxxi: ‘ It is not supposed that, in His human nature, He was acquainted, more than any educated Jew of the age, with the mysteries of all modern sciences ; Dor, with St. Luke’s expressions before us, “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature,” can it be seriously maintained that, as an infant or young child, He possessed a know­ ledge, surpassing that of the most pious and learned adults of His nation, &c.’ So on p.23 he says of me, “In his Part IV,p.xiii, after having spoken con­ temptuously of the Creeds, . . regarding them, evidently, as venerable documents, which we may, if we please, altogether set aside, and quoting, in support of his unbelief, the language of one, who, even in the worst days of the last century, was, in his sense of duty towards his flock, and to the Chief Shepherd, far behind others, &e.” I do not intend to endorse the character here given of Bishop Watson ; but, at any rate, it would have been fair to have told his hearers that it was not I, but His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, who brought him forward as a bulwark of the faith, one who had long ago ‘refuted my arguments,’ and that I had expressed no opinion whatever of my own respecting the Creeds, contemptuous or otherwise, but had merely quoted Bishop Watson’s views. But perhaps the most notable instance of this strange habit of misquotation occurs on p.22 of the Charge, where the Bishop writes as follows “Again, p.629, he says: ‘.They must try the spirit of the Prophet’s words by that law, which they have within them, written upon their hearts.’ . . ‘If the words which that Prophet speaks to them come home to their consciences as right and true words, then, in God's name, let them acknowledge and welcome them, and send them [on] with a blessing of ‘ God-speed ’ to others. If the voice which speaks within declares that the utterance from without is false, then shall thou not hearken; the word is not God’s, and he, who hears it, must not obey it.’ In other words, every living man has a higher inspiration in him than the Prophet; or, as most plain men will think, the Prophet has none, i.e. he was not commissioned by God, not moved by the Spirit to deliver what he did deliver.” The reader will scarcely believe that the Bishop has here left out the first and third clauses of a paragraph, of which he has quoted all the rest,—those two clauses distinctly showing that I am here only paraphrasing the words of a passage of Deuteronomy, xiii.l—3. See the whole passage quoted in App.l,p.67. �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 33 believing that there is in every heart a witness for God, and for saying that-— the voice of this inner witness is closer to him than any that can reach him from without, and ought to reign supreme in his whole being; for the Light in which he thus sees light, the Voice which he hears, is the Light of the Divine Word, is the Voice of his Lord:— and when he asks— What is this but to place man’s mind above God’s Holy Word,—human reason above Divine Revelation ?— I can only say that it appears to me to do just the very opposite ; it teaches that man’s mind must be subject to the ‘Word of God/ to the Living Voice which speaks within him,—that ‘ Divine Revelation ’ is the very light of ‘ human reason,’—that, in truth,— ‘ There is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth him understanding.’ Job.xxxii.8. At all events, I should say that such a view, if wrong, scarcely deserves to be derided as the ‘fanaticism of unbelief,’ p.15,— that it is one, at least, which is shared with me by multitudes of good men now, as it was held by many holy men of old, who were not ashamed to be stigmatized as ‘ fanatics,’ because with St. John, i.4,5, they believed in ‘ the Life, which was the Light of Men,’ ‘ the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.’ The Bishop of Capetown's own religious teaching. It would be impossible, as it would be useless, to discuss here at full length the different points on which the Bishop of Capetown accuses me, as— teaching directly contrary to what the Church [of England] holds on funda­ mental points. I have already touched upon these above, and in my ‘Letter to the Laity’: and I can only repeat that I have taught nothing, as I believe, which is forbidden by the laws of the Church of England, and I challenge him to bring the doctrines of my books before the only authority which has a right to try them. D �34 REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF But the reader will gather the position which the Bishop him­ self has assumed, in direct defiance to the recent decisions of the Privy Council, from the following extracts from his Charge — (i) ‘Our Church, in common with the whole Catholic Church, of which she claims to he a branch, holds that the Bible is the Word of God. Dr. Colenso says that it is not.’ j>.31. [I have said, Part II,p.387, 1 The Bible is not itself “ God’s Word ” ; but assuredly “God’s Word” will be heard in the Bible by all who will humbly and devoutly listen for it.’ I have said also, Part III,p.28, ‘ There is a sense in which I am quite ready to speak of the Bible as the “ Word of God.” . . . But I prefer the language of the First Homily : “ In it (Holy Scripture) is contained the Word of God: ” and I agree fully with the language of Dean Milman : 11 The moral and religious truth, and this alone, I apprehend, is the ‘Word of God,’ contained in the Sacred Writings.”’ But our Church,—the ‘Church of England,’ not the ‘Church of South Africa,’—has declared, as the Bishop already knew, by the voice of her highest Court of Appeal, that she does not require her clergy to say that the Bible is the Word of God.] (ii) ‘ The Church teaches that the wicked perish everlastingly,—that this is our time of trial and probation,—that in the eternal world there is no more trial,—that the judgment fixes our condition for ever. Dr. Colenso rejects this view, in the teeth of the Word of God and the faith of the whole Church of Christ! ’ p.32. [Though the Church of England does not require its clergy to maintaiu the endlessness of future torments, and I have given reasons why I should refuse any longer to do so, yet, in point of fact, I have not maintained the contrary. I have said that, ‘ I dare not any longer dogmatize at all on the matter; I can only lay my hand upon my mouth, and leave it in the hands of the righteous and merciful Judge.’ Nay, I have said further: ‘As many leave this world, whether in Heathen or in Christian lands, it may seem to us almost past belief that the vessel so defiled should ever be cleansed again, and made fit for the Master’s use. And it may be so: we cannot assert to the contrary, whatever hidden hope we may entertain.’—Comm, on the Homans, p.216.] There is one point, however-—the question, I mean, of ‘ as­ cribing ignorance to Jesus as the Son of Man ’—which has never been discussed before the Privy Council, and on which the Bishop lays very great stress, speaking of ‘ the heresy of these awful and profane words,’ p.19, and not thinking it beneath the �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 35 gravity of the occasion to use (as he does more than once in the course 'of the Charge) a tone of mockery and scoffing. With respect to this point I assert once more, that I have said nothing which is not strictly consistent with the most orthodox faith— that my view is the orthodox view, and that the dogma, which my adversaries maintain, bears no little resemblance to that which was considered ‘ heresy ’ in Eutyches, who is said to have main­ tained — That the Divine nature of Christ had absorbed the human, and that, con­ sequently, in Him there was but one nature, viz. the Divine. Mosh. H.v.22. In addition to the words of Bishop Thirlwall, already quoted in my ‘Letter to the Laity,’ pp.35,36, I think it well to repro­ duce in the Appendix (3) some extracts from the letter of the Rev. W. Houghton, printed at length in the preface to my Part III—since it may not be known to many of my readers. The following are some further extracts from the Bishop’s Charge, &c., from which the reader will be able to judge how extreme are his views, on some of the great subjects which are now under discussion at home. Thus he maintains the infallible truth of every statement in the Bible, as follows, Trial, p.390 — The Church regards, and expects all its officers to regard, the Holy Scriptures as teaching pure and simple truth: it is nothing to reply that they teach what is true in all things necessary to salvation. And again he says, Trial, p.388:— ‘The Ordinal does not ask of those, who are seeking to be admitted to the lowest office in the ministry, whether they believe that the Scriptures u contain everything necessary to salvation,” but whether they believe them to be God;s Word—whether they believe them [‘ all the Canonical Scrip­ tures ’] to be true. This is the first condition of admission to the ranks of the ministry. The truth of the Scriptures [of every statement of the Book of Chronicles, Esther, the Book of Job!] lies at the foundation of Christianity. The first and most anxious enquiry, therefore, of those about to be sent forth in the Church’s name, though without full authority to teach, is whether they believe them—believe them to be true. Then, when the Priestly office is sought, when the position of teacher is to be undertaken, the Ordinal goes further (!), and requires not merely belief in the Scriptures n2 �36 REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF themselves, [as being- in every line and letter infallibly true], but a belief that those Scriptures contain [N.B. the Ordination Sendee says 11contain sufficiently”] all things necessary to salvation, and a promise to teach nothing, as required of necessity to eternal salvation, but wliat [N.B. a you shall be persuaded ”] may be concluded and proved by the Scripture.’ [I need hardly say, that these assertions are made directly in the teeth of the late judgment of the Court of Arches, which stands at the present time as Law in the Church of England, and by which it was ruled that the pledge given in the Deacon’s Declaration at Ordination 1 must be regarded as sufficiently fulfilled, if there be a bond fide belief that the Holy Scriptures contain everything necessary to salvation, and that to that extent they have the direct sanction of the Almighty.’ But their extravagance is at once apparent, when we find the Bishop attempting to maintain that the Decla­ ration made by the Priest at Ordination goes further than that of the Deacon, the latter being understood in the sense in which it has just been interpreted by himself,—i. e. he asserts that the avowal, that the Scriptures ‘ contain sufficiently all things necessary to salvation,’ goes further than the assertion, that every single statement in the Bible is divinely and infallibly true,—e. g. that the colloquies in Job i.6-12, ii.1-6, between Jehovah and Satan, literally took place in the courts of heaven, or that Jehovah ‘answered Job out of the whirlwind,’ in the grand Hebrew poetry of Job xxxviii-xli. Let it be noted that the same Declaration, which is made by the Priest, is made also by the Bishop; so that it cannot be said that the Deacon’s stringent declaration of belief is not repeated at the admission to the Priest­ hood, because, having been once made, the second declaration is only super­ imposed upon it; for, if this is the case, why is this second form of declara­ tion required to be made again by the Bishop? Nor is there any ground for saying that the Priest has to make an additional declaration as a ‘ teacher ’; for ‘ it appertaineth to the office of the Deacon ’ also ‘ to preach, if he be admitted thereto by the Bishop.’ . . It is plain that the declaration of the Priest and Bishop really interprets that required to be made by the Deacon,—in accordance, in fact, with Dr. Lushingtox’s decision.] The following is taken from the Bishop’s ‘ Sermon, preached at Maritzburg, on Sunday, May 8, 1864,’ p.10:— The fact of the Resurrection is not questioned, nor yet the accu­ racy of the records which the Gospels furnish of our Saviour’s life and teaching. But, if they were, it would not avail. Other records besides these abundantly testify to the historic Christ. AU the great facts concerning Him are preserved in other writings, Were there no written and inspired record of the Christ, uninspired history would, upon all fundamental points, supply the deficiency (!). The following are taken from the Charc/e:— ‘ We must commence by assuming something. We need assume for our �THE BISHOP OP CAPETOWN". 37 purpose no more than that the facts recorded in the New Testament are facts, ■—that the things were done, and the words were spoken, which are there declared to have been done and spoken.’ p.34. ’ ‘ What the Catholic Church, while yet one, during the first thousand years of her history (!), under the Spirit’s guidance in her great Councils, declared to he, or received as, the true faith, is "the true Faith, and that we receive as such. More than this we are not bound to acknowledge. Less we may not.’ p.35. [What was it that happened at the precise moment indicated, a.d. 1000, to deprive the decisions of the 1Great Councils’ of the Church of that character of infallibility, which is here ascribed to them up to that time ? But the Church of England says in her 21st Article: ‘ General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And, when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God), they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God.'] ‘It is the office of Reason to examine the grounds, to weigh the ■ evidence, of their being a Revelation from God. Prophecy and miracles are the grounds upon which Revelation rests its claims! Through them an appeal is made to the reason of man in support of the truth of God’s Word [?. e. of every line and letter of Esther and Chronicles], and the Divine Mission of our Lord. . . When the understanding is convinced that the Bible is the record of God’s Revelation [“ ? that the letter of the Bible is God’s Revelation”], the functions of Reason end. It has no right to sit in judgment upon the contents of that Revelation, and reject what it dislikes, or cannot comprehend.’ p.15. [Alas for the multitudes of ‘ wayfaring men,’ if the only grounds upon which the Bible claims our reverence, as ‘containing God’s Word,’ are the external grounds of ‘prophecy’ and ‘miracles’! But there is One who has told us that it is only ‘an evil and adulterous generation’ that ‘seeketh after a sign’: and the Bible itself teaches us, Deut. xiii.1-3, that ‘ if there arise a Prophet, and give us a sign or a wonder,’ and the ‘sign’ or the ‘wonder’ actually come to pass, whereby he has attempted to seduce us from our duty, from that which we know to be the right, the good, and the true, from the worship in heart and life of the One True and Living God,—we are not to hearken to the words of that Prophet. * Yes, truly! ‘the Word of God * Comp, the language of the Reviewer in the Guardian, Aug. 31, 1864, p.858:_ ‘ Thus much seems to be clear, that a miracle per se neither has nor ought to have that infallibly demonstrative effect, which Mr. Row attributes to it. Has he for­ gotten that the Israelites in old times were forbidden (Deut.xiii.) to be lad away into error by workers of miracles, and that we are no less expressly warned in the N. T. against “ false Christs and false prophets, who shall shew great signs and wonders, and deceive the very elect ” ? How then can a miracle, simply as such, accredit an alleged revelation ? ’ �38 REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.’ Thank God ! we have no need to 'examine the grounds’ and 'weigh the evidence,’ in order to believe that we have in the Bible a Divine Revelation,—in order to realise most fully 'the truth of God’s AVord ’ and the 'Divine Mission of our Lord? But, in fact, the Bishop, it will be seen, while professing to vindicate the authority of the Bible, really rests it all upon the authority of the Church, and puts the Creeds on a level with the Bible.] To sum up, we believe the Scriptures to be the AVord of God, because the Church, under the guidance of the Spirit of God, declared them to be such. . . . On the very same grounds, we believe the Creed [he says afterwards 'the Creeds ’] to be the true interpretation of the Word in all essential points. It icas fi amed by the Church under the same guidance, vouchsafed in conse­ quence of the same promises. 'One step further I will go. The Creeds, interpreted as the Church, which drew them up under the Spirit’s guidance, intended them to be interpreted, contain the whole Catholick Faith.’— Charge, p.34-35. ' Even were there no Scripture, the truth would not fail. We should still have an independent witness to Christ in the teaching of the Apostles’ Creed. That Creed, though in strictest accordance with Scripture, is a witness in addition to Scripture. Both owe their origin to the Church, under the Inspiration of the Spirit of God.'' *—Sermon at Moritzburg, p.13. [Is it Dr. Guay that I hear, or Dr. Williams ? the Bible' owes its origin to the Church,’ says the one—it is ' the written voice of the Congregation,’ says the other. The Bishop charges the Bishop of Natal with reckless haste in publishing. On p.27 of his Charge the Bishop of Capetown makes a statement which I am bound to notice. Upon the appearance of his first work, assailing the faith through his Commentary [on the Romans], I wrote a letter, earnestly entreating him * It is remarkable how exactly the Bishop of Capetown re-echoes the words of the Bishop of Oxford, who says in his last Charge (1863), p.58:—‘AVe shall in the long run be unable really to maintain the Divine authority of Holy Scripture, if we give up the Divine authority, in its proper place [what does this mean ?], of ‘ the Holy Catholic Church ’; and again, p. 60, ‘ Once received on external evidence, [«.e. on the authority of the Church], as the revealed will of God, soul after soul will have, in passage after passage, the inward witness, that, through it, God Himself is speaking to its inward ear. . . . But the Book, as a Book, must come to [the faithful soul] from the witness of the Church, before it is capable of receiving from his own spiritual experience these inward confirmations.’ It is obvious to ask, how did the ‘AVbrd of God’ come home with piercing power to the hearts of men in those centuries, when the canon of Scripture was still �. THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 39 not to publish, and, when too late to hinder publication, sought to point out to him wherein he had taught amiss. When unable to convince him, I referred the book, and our correspondence, to the Fathers of the Church at home, who met, at the call of the late Archbishop, now with God, to consider it. Before I could receive their answer, the death of the beloved Bishop Mackenzie compelled me to proceed to England. I then received the concurrence of the Bishops, generally, in the course which I had pur­ sued ; and, on the arrival of your late Bishop shortly after me in England, I communicated their views to him. At the same time I entreated him to meet three of the most eminent Bishops of our Church, who had expressed their willingness to confer with him on his arrival, and discuss his difficulties with him, hoping that he might thereby be induced to suppress his book so full of error. He, however, declined. He would not meet more than one, and then not as if he were in any error, but only as a common seeker after truth. At that time he had not published his open assault upon the Word of God; but, hearing that he had printed, for private circulation in the Colony, a work reputed to be sceptical in its tendency, I besought him not to put it forth in England, until he had met and discussed his views with the Bishops. But this also was declined, and the work was published. I must first correct one statement in the above, which might lead to an erroneous impression. The Bishop says that he had ‘ heard that I had printed ’ the rough draft of my work on the Pentateuch £ for private Circulation in the colony.’ The information, which the Bishop had received, was not correct: and as I myself stated distinctly to him (see (i) in App.^p^') the reason for which I printed it, viz. to put it the more easily before learned and judicious friends in England, I regret that he has repeated the above misstatement. The charge, however, is here made formally against me, that I wilfully rejected the kindly-offered counsel of my Episcopal Brethren in England,—that I rushed hastily and impetuously into publication, without caring for the advice of those eminent scholars on the English Bench, who might have rendered me assistance in my difficulties. This charge, unsettled ? But from the above principles the Bishop, of course, deduces the paramount necessity of believing in the Church, that is, as he says, of ‘ a hearty belief alike in her Sacraments, her Creeds, her Orders, and her Bible,’—so that belief in the Divine authority of ‘the Church’s’ Bible is here put on exactly the same footing as belief in that of Episcopacy and Episcopal Ordination! �40 REMARKS OX THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF I am aware, has been insinuated in other quarters, and probably has done me some injury in the minds of fair-judging men. But I have never seen it openly made before; and I am thank­ ful for the opportunity, which it gives me, of setting the real facts of the case before the eyes of my fellow-countrymen. As the Bishop of Capetown has stated so circumstantially the course which he adopted towards me, I feel it incumbent on me also to state what occurred, and to support my statement with the necessary documents: The Bishop’s personal observations upon the Bishop of Natal. There is yet one other portion of the Bishop’s Charge which I am compelled in my own defence to notice. And here I must, indeed, express my astonishment at the course, which the Bishop has thought it right to pursue. Holding the very strong opinions which he does on the subject of Church authority and Scripture infallibility, and other questions raised in the present day, I am not altogether surprised—however I may regret—that he has denounced so vehemently the views which I have expressed, that he has warned my flock solemnly against adopting them, and laboured zealously to build them up in the belief, which he himself holds to be essential to a true living faith. And, confident as he appears to be in the strength of bis ecclesiastical position, I can understand—though I cannot justify—his hastening to anticipate any steps on my part, for bringing the matter, though with unavoidable delays, before the highest authority in the realm. He may be—and, I believe, he is—acting now illegally, and with undue precipi­ tation. He has hurried up to Natal, and taken advantage of my absence to undermine my authority, and, in violation, as it seems to me, of the constitution and order of the Church of England, he has sought to withdraw my Clergy and my Flock from their allegiance to their lawful Bishop. And even now he is acting, as I apprehend, in defiance of the law, and in dis­ �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 41 regard of Her Majesty’s authority, by setting at nought the decision of the Court of Arches, and asserting positively, in his assumed office as Judge, that the Church of England does hol'd, and requires its Clergy to hold, two doctrines, which the late Judgment of the Privy Council has declared the Church of England does not maintain; and he threatens to go still fur­ ther, should the decision of the Privy Council be in my favour. But the Metropolitan manifestly transgressed the bounds of what could be proper and becoming on such an occasion, even from the highest view that may be taken of his office, when he proceeded to discuss my personal religious life before my Clergy and Laity in my own Cathedral, and to hold up to them—many of them my own children in the ministry, ordained by me to the Diaconate and Priesthood,—a picture of ‘ the past career of Bishop Colenso.’ As he has said of my criticisms that— an objection started in a few lines requires many pages for a thorough and efficient answer,— so here, in making these personal remarks upon me, the Bishop' must have been perfectly aware that I could not reply to his charges, made in a few words, without entering at length into details, which, though well known to himself, would be weari­ some to my readers, and would involve the characters of others. (I know,’ however, to use the words of the Bishop of Oxford, on a recent occasion in the House of Lords,—however little he has acted up to the spirit of these words, in the language which he has used with reference to myself and others— I know enough of the people of England to know that it is not by trying to produce a momentary pain on those who cannot properly reply to them, that great questions will be solved; but that it is by dealing with them with calmness, with abstinence from the imputation of motives, and, above - all, with the most scrupulous regard to stating upon every -point that which shall prevent any man being led to a conclusion other than that which the facts warrant. The Bishop of Capetown speaks, for instance, of the Euro­ pean population of the colony, as ‘ a soil in which the Church �42 REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF might have struck deep her root,’ if I had only done my work more faithfully; he says— the spiritual wants of the English population would have been supplied; an influence would long ere this have been brought to bear on the tribes within the colony, and the regions beyond; and, socially and politically, the condition of this land would have been sounder and safer than it is, and, religiously, nearer to God. p.30. He does not mention that special reasons existed, independently of the Bishop, why the Church has not ‘ struck her root ’ more deeply in the white population,—that in Maritzburg the principal clergyman, one of Bishop Gray’s own choice, holds views, de­ scribed by the Bishop himself, as expressed in language ‘ going beyond that of the Church,’ such views being utterly opposed to the general feeling of the whole community,—or that in the other chief town there existed an equally sufficient reason of another kind, which I cannot here mention, but which will be well known to every colonist, and especially well known to the Bishop of Capetown himself, who warned me, when I took charge of the See, that I should find this particular difficulty. He well knows also that, of the Clergy now in the diocese, several are invalids—who either sought the colony at first because of their health giving way in England, or have broken down in their work in Natal. And yet these are still drawing their stipends as missionaries from the limited funds granted to my diocese by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel; and it would be impossible at present, through want of means, to fill up their place with others. Then, as regards the heathen, the Bishop says, p.30:— There is no saying what the effect of vigorous and extensive Church Missions might have been upon the mass of untutored heathenism around you, directed by one endowed with considerable gifts, who had prepared the way for great success, by mastering, beyond all others, the difficulties of the language, and making its future acquisition easier to all religious teachers. But there came a falling away. The subtle poison of unbelief entered in: the mind was turned away from the practical work which lay before it, and given to the working out of sceptical theories. Confidence was shaken. Works, begun well, were abandoned. Progress there was none. Instead �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 43 thereof there has been declension. The Clergy are reduced in number from what they were. Men are unwilling to remain under such a state of things as has existed among you. Others have shrunk from supplying their places. Whatever there is of real work, whether in the mission-field or in parochial work, was the result of first efforts, when faith was not undermined; and for the last few years has been carried on by zealous men,—apart from, almost in opposition to, him who might have been the soul of it, but from whom there has been of necessity a continually increasing alienation. The statements in the above passage—the only object of which seems to be that of overwhelming the merits of my case with prejudices—involve, I assert it deliberately, a most unjust and cruel suppression of the truth. I will not stay to ask how the Bishop was authorised to pronounce so definitely about the direct consequences of my f falling away,’ as he calls it, in its effect upon my practical work, of which he knows nothing, but what he has heard from others, and those my adversaries. But I may state that the chief contents of my Book on the Romans, which he deems so e heretical,’ were present to my mind many years before I went to Natal,—that I have gone over the ground, again and again, with my own soul and with my pupils, while yet I ministered as a Parish Priest in England, —and that (as the memoir of Bishop Mackenzie mentions) I expounded this very epistle—in substance, on almost all main points, precisely as I afterwards commented upon it—in daily lectures to the Missionary party who went out with me at first to the colony. The spirit of that book has been all along —and will be, I trust, to the end—the very life of my Mis­ sionary labours. But what have those labours been ? When I landed in Natal, there were no books in Zulu for the instruction of Missionaries, no dictionary, no grammar, (except an admirable sketch in Danish, which a lady of my acquaintance most kindly translated for me)—there were none for the education of the natives, no translation of the Scriptures or Prayer Book, (except a translation of St. Matthew by the American Missionaries,—an excellent first attempt, but very defective,—and a few scraps of �44 REMARKS OK THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF Genesis). The whole work had to be done from the beginning, the language having to be learned from natives who could not speak a word of English, and written down, and analysed, with infinite, intense, labour,—and this in addition to the other duties which devolved upon me, of preaching and ministering to Europeans and natives, visiting from time to time on horseback the different parts of my diocese, (one-third the size of England and Wales,) and keeping up a laborious correspondence. The Bishop of Capetown, I believe, has never set his hand to this branch of the Missionary work: and he, therefore, knows not what it is. When he had charge, at first, for several years, of the Kafirs and Zulus in his vast original diocese, he made no attempt, I imagine, to acquire the native tongue; nor now, I believe, has he done anything personally to acquire the language of such wild tribes as still exist within his own present diocese. The coloured people, who abound in the more civilised districts of his diocese, speak, more or less, the Dutch language : and I do not suppose that he has ever preached in Dutch even to them. But, if so, there were books enough in existence, from which that language might have been learned. Very far, indeed, am I for blaming him for this omission: he, too, has had intense, infinite, labour; but it has been labour of another kind, in building up the Church chiefly among a civilised European population. And hence the injustice of his remarks upon myself. He speaks, indeed, of my being s endowed with consider­ able gifts,’ of my having— prepared the way for great success, by mastering, beyond all others, the difficulties of the language, and making its future acquisition easier to all religious teachers. But he seems totally unable to estimate the amount of work involved in this. I thank God for such c gifts ’ as I have, and for the blessing of an University education, which has enabled me to use them more effectively. But I have no special gift for languages, but what is shared by most educated men of fair �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 45 ability. What I have done, I have done by hard work—by sitting with my natives day after day, from early morn to sunset, till they, as well as myself, were fairly exhausted,—conversing with them as well as I could, and listening to them conversing, —writing down what I could of their talk from their own lips, and, when they were gone, still turning round again to my desk, to copy out the results of the day. In this way, and by degrees, I was able to force my way into the secrets 'of their tongue, and to overcome those difficulties which had to be encountered before any Missions could be set forward to any considerable effect among the natives. Instances of missionaries, indeed, may occur now and then—I am fortunate in having some at this time among my clergy, of whom, however, two are foreigners—by whom the native language may be acquired, without the aid of books, from mere contact with the natives, the Missionary himself having natural gifts, and de­ voting his whole time to the study and practice of it. But with the ordinary English teacher the case is different. He needs a grammar, dictionary, translations—by means of which he may correct the faults, which he makes in his first attempts at con­ versation, and increase his acquaintance with the forms of speech and vocabulary of the language. And the Missionaries will all need books for the use of their native classes, and these, not only portions of the Bible and Prayer Book, but books of instruction in matters of common life,—containing the simple lessons, which an English child should learn, in Geography, Astronomy, History, Geology, &c. Before, therefore, any considerable number of Mission stations could be established, this work had to be done ; and such books it has been my duty to prepare, for the use of the teachers, as well as of the taught. And, after the character which the Bishop of Capetown has given me, I must ask to be forgiven for showing to what this labour has really amounted. I landed with my family in Natal on May 20, 1855 : and it happened �46 REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF that on the same day of the year, May 20, 1862, after a sojourn of exactly seven years, I re-embarked for England. Let it be remembered that, during this interval, a considerable time had to be spent in mastering sufficiently for myself the native tongue, before I could venture to undertake the work of preparing books for others. And then let the reader judge if the Metropolitan was justified in his remarks upon me, when he had, or might have had, before him the results of my labours, even in this one department, during these seven years. List of Books prepared by the Bishop of Natal for the use of Missionary Students and Native Scholars. (i) Grammar of the Zulu-Kafir Language, pp. 184. (ii) First Steps in Zulu-Kafir, an abridgment of the former, pp. 82. (iii) Zulu-English Dictionary, pp. 552. (iv) Three Native Accounts of a Visit to the Zulu King, in Zulu, with translation, vocabulary, and explanatory notes referring minutely to the Grammar, designed expressly for the use of Missionaries studying the language. (v) First Reading Book or Primer (in Zulu). . (vi) Second Reading Book—fables and stories (in Zulu), some of which were communicated to me by one of the Missionaries. (vii) Third Reading Book—sentences and narratives, from the lips of natives (in Zulu). (viii) Fourth Reading Book—elements of Geography and History (in Zulu), 2nd Ed. (ix) First Lessons in Science, Part I—elements of Geology, written in easy English for Zulus learning English. (x) First Lessons in Science, Part II—elements of Astronomy, do. do. (xi) Common Prayer-Book, Morning and Evening Prayer, Collects, many Psalms, and all the Occasional Services, and Metrical Psalms and Hymns (in Zulu), 3rd Ed. (xii) Book of Genesis (in Zulu), 2nd Ed. (xiii) Book of Exodus (in Zulu). (xiv) Books of Samuel (in Zulu). (xv) Harmony of the four Gospels (in Zulu), 2nd Ed. (xvi) New Testament, complete (in Zulu). (xvii) Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, upon the proper treat­ ment of cases of Polygamy, as found already existing in converts from heathenism, 2nd Ed., pp. 94. (xviii) Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, pp. 311. �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 47 I might add also the first rough sketch of my work on the Pentateuch, pp.72O; for I believe that by this work, and by my Commentary on the Romans, I have done more to promote the cause of sound learning and religious education, than by all my other labours put together.<■ Of course, in preparing for each new edition of any book, the whole work had to be carefully gone over again with my natives. I make no mention here of first attempts, now thrown aside as imperfect,—though they may have cost much labour to produce,—but only name those books which are actually in use in our Missions in Natal and Zululand, or, at least, will be in use as soon as I return to the diocese: for I understand that in my absence it has been ordered that none of my books sjiall be circulated, for fear of their containing, I suppose, some porten­ tous heresy. In fact, among other attempts to defame my character, in order to dispose more easily of my arguments, I have seen in the Guardian statements to the effect that I have corrupted the Scriptures in my translations. It is ridiculous to suppose that I could attempt such a folly, which any Missionary of any Church might detect. I am far indeed from supposing that my versions are perfect; I may have missed the meaning of the original in some places, and failed to express it satisfactorily in Zulu in others. And I shall of course make it my duty, as new editions are required, to revise and amend them continually, giving all due heed to the suggestions of others now engaged in the Mission work. But I challenge anyone to point out a single passage, wherein I have dishonestly departed from the meaning of the text of Scripture,—not certainly as it exists in the English version, but in the Hebrew and Greek originals, as interpreted by the most able commentators. And this also I can say with confidence, that these books are all written in correct idiomatic Zulu, and, as such, are very acceptable to the natives themselves. My plan to secure �48 REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF this correctness was, never to trust to my own translations, but to pass every word through the mouth of some one or other intelligent native before I printed it. I would take, for instance, the Greek Testament; and, first representing in Zulu, as accurately as I could, the meaning of a clause of the original, I would then require my native to repeat the same in his own phraseology. In so doing, he would adhere, of course, generally to mine; but, having been trained to understand my purpose, he would introduce also those nicer idioms, which at once mark the difference between the work of an European and a native. Having mastered the Zulu tongue sufficiently to be able to know whether he had clearly expressed the meaning of the original or not, I would persevere in this way until the desired object was gained; although, perhaps, in the rendering of difficult passages, a considerable time might have to be spent in expressing perfectly a single verse. All Mission­ aries, of course, who have been personally engaged in the work of translation, know something of this labour, and are able to appreciate it: but the Bishop of Capetown seems to make very light of it. And who was the chief printer of many of these books ? A Zulu lad, whom I took as a young savage from his kraal a few years ago, with a number of others, who were given up to us for education by their fathers for five years. The story of their being brought to us is very interesting, but it cannot be told at length here. Suffice it to say that we did keep them for five years, as agreed, and that during this time—with the usual drawbacks, difficulties, disappointments, failures,—which must attend any school, but especially a school of savages, whose white teachers at the best spoke only with stammering lips in the native tongue,—we made fair progress with them in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and the general elementary work of vil­ lage schools. Some of them, besides, were taught the business of the printer and binder, and others made some progress in �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 49 other manual arts, though not so much as we had hoped and desired. The great difficulty was to procure the proper teachers —steady energetic men, possessing manual skill of any kind, yet willing to work in instructing these lads in a colony like ours, where such skill and industry were much less easily obtained than in Capetown, and secured readily among the colonists a far greater remuneration than the Mission station could afford to give them. At the end of the five years, when the term for which they had been sent to us had expired, their mothers, brothers, sisters, worried their fathers to reclaim them: and, just as in any English school, the lads, now grown many of them to the critical age, themselves desired to be released from thraldom. At that time, also, I had no efficient teachers skilled in manual arts, under whom to place them if they had been willing to remain ; and I was about myself to return to England—as I should have had to do in any case, quite independently of my book on the Pentateuch, for the purpose of raising supplies of money and men for extending our Mission work. Of course, it was im­ possible for me to conduct the whole work of this primary Institution myself, or even to oversee it at all times, though it was carried on beneath my own roof. I felt this more especially when required to visit the different parts of my diocese, or when called to leave it for some weeks together, to visit the Zulu king, or to attend a conference of Bishops, 800 miles away, at Capetown. Under all these circumstances, I had no alternative but, for prudential reasons as well as in answer to the expectations of the boys and their parents, to allow the children of the Insti­ tution to return for the present to their homes, about a year before I left Natal. They were most of them able to read and write and cypher, and had made some progress in other ways ; and I trust that they have carried to their kraals the first seeds of a civilizing influence,—so far, at least, as to lead them to desire to bring their own children hereafter for training, and E �50 REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF leave them in our hands with more hearty readiness than their parents did. And this is the work of which the Bishop says, c works well begun were abandoned ’—as if it were nothing that one of these very boys, now a youth of eighteen, is at this very moment conducting the whole work of our Printing Press, continuing steadily at his labour, during my absence, without any super­ vision in his office, correcting the sheets himself with the greatest accuracy, and sending me regularly, month by month, the fresh (proofs ’ from the press, which mark the progress of his work, and not only labouring himself, but training others also, without any white man to help him I Doubtless, during the last twelve months or more of my residence in Natal, my mind had been intensely occupied with the questions which had been raised upon the Pentateuch in the course of, and by consequence of, that very ‘ practical work ’ itself, in which I had been engaged. If I had never translated with my natives the books of Genesis and Exodus,—if I had been content merely to superintend the diocese, devoting myself to the more easy and pleasant occupation of riding about from place to place, visiting and preaching to the English community, addressing the native congregations by the dull, lifeless, process of speaking through the mouth of an interpreter, but letting the native language alone,—I should, perhaps, never have had my attention drawn so closely to the criticism of the Pentateuch. But so far was I even then from ‘ abandoning ’ my native work, that my very last act before leaving Natal was to revise carefully once more the Prayer Book, the New Testament, and the book of Genesis throughout, in order to give my boy steady employ­ ment during my absence in England. I think it best to quote in the Appendix (5) some letters from this youth, received during my sojourn in England, which will not only show the steady industry and energy with which he carries on his appointed labour, but will also indicate �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 51 the course which the Metropolitan has thought it right to take with respect to my native converts. It was not enough, it seems, to brand me before my Clergy and Laity, generally, with all kinds of hard names, but my poor simple natives must be told that I have i gone astray exceedingly,’—that I 4 have rebelled,’ —-that I 4 do not believe in God.’ I translate also in the Appendix some letters which I have received, while in England, from native catechists, of whom also the Metropolitan says nothing. They will serve to show in what spirit these, too, have been trained, and to what temper they have attained, by God’s blessing, under my instructions. I repeat, it is unjust and reckless in the extreme in the Bishop of Capetown, who went up to my residence, and saw this very work going od, to make these statements—and others like them —for the mere purpose of raising prejudices and causing pain. As regards the particular assertion, that— for the last few years this work has been carried on by zealous men, apart from, almost in opposition to, him who might have been the soul of it, but from whom there has been of necessity a continually increasing alienation,— I do not think it necessary to descend into personal questions of this kind: but I may say, (i) that such alienation, wherever it may exist, may arise from other causes as well as ‘ sceptical theories,’ and may be the fault of others as well as myself,— (ii) that the Bishop’s statement is here, as I have shown it to be elsewhere, very heated and exaggerated,—(iii) that with respect to one, at least, of the most 4 zealous ’ and able Mis­ sionaries in the colony, the Bishop, as appears from the facts already stated, is prepared to drive him from the diocese, notwithstanding the small number of the clergy which he laments so much, because of his dutiful attachment to me as his Bi,shop, whatever differences may exist in our religious views. But the Bishop says— The clergy are reduced in number from what they were. Men are unwilling to remain under such a state of things as has existed among you. Others have shrunk from supplying their places. E2 �52 REMARKS ON TIIE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF Doubtless, those among the clergy, who do not agree with those ‘ extreme views of Church and State,’ which the correspondent of the Guardian naively calls e home views,’ and who are prepared with the Metropolitan to abandon the Church of England altoge­ ther, rather than submit to her system and her laws, may be 4 unwilling to remain ’ under present circumstances. But the statement that 4 the clergy are reduced in number from what they were,’ coming from the Bishop of Capetown, is again most unfair and unwarranted. In the first place, the statement is not correct. The clergy under my charge are at the present moment fifteen, including two now in England, and two—both ordained by myself, and drafted from my ozvn diocese, but—sent by myself to labour beyond the bordei' in Zululand, and there placed, by an express resolution of the Gospel-Propagation Society, under my charge as Bishop. On reference to the lists of the Society from the year 1853, when I first took charge of the diocese, (though I only began to reside in 1855), to 1863, the numbers of clergy labouring under my direction will be found as follows, 4, 4, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 11, 12, 13,13;—to which are to be added in each year two chaplains, military and colonial, who do not appear in the Society’s lists, and also, from 1855 to 1860, my dear departed friend and fellow-labourer, Bishop Mackenzie, whose noble services as Archdeacon, given gratuitously to my diocese, I need scarcely say, were not likely to be replaced. Thus the number of the clergy has been increased from 6 in 1853 to 15 in 1863. And I may add that, when I first landed in the diocese, there was one single small church approaching to completion ; while in the case of the two principal churches, (the Cathedral at Maritzburg, and St. Paul’s at Durban,) the works indeed had been begun, but they were stopped in each instance for want of funds, the walls being only partially raised, and suffering injury from exposure to the weather. At this time there are fourteen churches, not reckoning chapels on Mission Stations. Thus the statement above quoted is not even accurate in �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 53 point of fact. * But, when I consider the circumstances under which it was made, I have still more reason to complain of it. * The correspondent of the Guardian writes as follows: ‘His lordship [the Bishop of Capetown] arrived by the mail-steamer on April 7th, to find the number of the clergy dwindled down to eleven, some of whom also from ill-health are incapable of work;—a sad sight to one who had just left nearly fifty clergy and thirty catechists, actively and zealously employed in his own diocese, containing a population inferior in number to ours.’ The audacity of this assertion is really amazing. In the first place, the number of clergy has not ‘ dwindled ’ at all, as appears from the above data; secondly, the fact, that some are in ill-health, is no fault of mine, but makes it more difficult to supply their inefficiency with more active labourers, as the invalids still receive the stipends of the Society; thirdly, as to the comparison with Bishop Gray’s diocese, let it be noted that (i) the diocese of Capetown (52,702 sq. miles) is nearly four times as large as mine (14,397 sq. miles); (ii) the white population of the former (54,477) is also/owr times as large as mine (13,990), while a very large proportion of the coloured people of the former (66,026) are comparatively civilised, living in towns or villages, and able to speak Dutch or English, whereas the 156,061 natives , of Natal are almost all mere savages, living in their kraals, and speaking only some Kafir dialect; (iii) that the colonial government at the Cape allows for the clergy of the Church of England in the Western Province AJ2,032 per annum, and I presume that similar assistance is given in the matter of schools, while in Natal only £350 is allowed (of which £250 goes to the chaplain at Durban, and £100 to the Dean of Maritzburg), and the legislature has distinctly refused to grant more. In short, such a comparison as the above may be hazarded in England; but it would simply be deemed ridiculous in Capetown or Natal. The whole grant of the Society in my diocese for heathen-work was £1,350 per annum, which (allowing for contingencies) would not support more than six or seven married missionaries, since their stipends must almost wholly be paid from home. And how far would the £500 allowed for work among Europeans go, in a colony like ours, where the white population are very much scattered, except in the two chief towns, and where other denominations are very strong? For some years, the Dean of Maritzburg absorbed £150 of this sum, and Archdeacon Fearne another £100; and even in Maritzburg, the cathedral city, Dean Green, by the last Blue-Book, received only £50 from his congregation, whereas the sum raised by the Cathedral Church of Capetown in one year is returned by the last Blue Book as £1,288. For the diocese of Capetown, the Society paid, in 1861, £3,782; in 1862, £4,101; in 1863, £4,398, ‘general, appropriated, and special funds’; and only two or three, I believe, of the clergy are engaged in work among the heathen-, so that the amount granted viz., £6,430 from the Government and the Society, that is, thrice as much as is granted to my diocese—is almost all effective in stimulating the exertions of the white population. And, I need hardly say, it is comparatively easy to secure those, who will be willing to minister among civilised people, white or coloured, in villages or towns. Whereas, even when the means of livelihood are provided, it is most difficult to find well-educated men, (i) willing to devote themselves to the study of a barbarous language, (ii) able sufficiently to master it, (iii) ready to bury themselves in the solitudes of savage heathenism, far removed from medical advice, congenial society, and the other blessings of civilisation. �54 EEMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF No one knows better than the Bishop of Capetown that the first thing needed for securing clergy in a colony is money—and then men—men of the right stamp, who will not be a hindrance to the work, instead of a help in it. Bishop Gray, I believe, has once—if not twice—been in England, collecting money and obtaining men for his work, while I have been fastened to my desk in Natal, engaged upon Zulu nouns and particles. It would have been just to have remembered this. And then, also, it would have been only fair to have borne in mind that my diocese is, as regards the European population, in very different circumstances from his own. The Cathedral city, Maritzburg, contains about 3,000 white inhabitants, while Capetown alone has more than 17,000, a population a fourth as large again as the whole white population of Natal. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel had strictly limited for some years past, before I left Natal, its grant for the colonists to 500/. per annum, of which the Dean of Maritzburg alone had been receiving 150/. (reduced of late to 100/., and, perhaps, now to 50/.), so leaving but a small sum to be divided among the other clergy, in the more sparsely inhabited, and therefore poorer, parishes. Efficient men are not to be secured, except in rare instances upon the narrow * and uncertain incomes which colonial cures usually supply. Yet, for work among the white-men of a colony, such men are needed, as well as for work at home, not catechists of limited attainments, or clergymen going out in search of health, (though, for want of others, we should thankfully make use of these)—but gentlemen of education, intelligence, and energy, who will help to form the minds, and raise the tone of feeling, as well as guide the religious belief, of the next generation. And for work among the heathen, too, such men are needed— men of large hearts, and abilities strengthened and refined by aca­ demical training, with the power of mastering a native language, * * Of five catechists, sent out to me some years ago from England for native work, with the view of their being, perhaps, ultimately ordained, one only shewed �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 55 and, when they have mastered it, of sitting down to talk out religious questions with the native, entering within his heart, as it were, penetrating into its secret chambers of thought, and drawing out into the light of day the fears and hopes which are common to man,—the religious ideas which lie undeveloped in the consciousness of the veriest savage, ready to be quickened into life by Christian teaching,—the eternal laws, which are written by the finger of God on his heart as well as on ours. This work, I need hardly say, is something very different from the tame repetition, with babbling defective utterance, of the cumbrous, and often unintelligible and absurd, circumlocutions, which stand so commonly as representatives, in a barbarous tongue, of the grand expressive language of our formularies. But this work requires men of a different stamp from the great majority, who are generally willing to give themselves to it. Admission to the ministry in the Church of England invests many a man on a Missionary Station with the social rank of a gentleman, who in England would have been but a second-rate schoolmaster in a National School, and who is utterly inca­ pable of appreciating the grandeur, as well as the difficulties, of the work which lies before him. To such a teacher let the native bring his doubts, and he will be crushed with a severe reproof, and warned of the guilt of unbelief. And so the old evil will be repeated, and the futile attempt will be made to propagate, as the essentials of religion, dogmas, from which the native’s own quickened intelligence, as he makes increased ac­ quaintance with facts in our schools, will of its own accord revolt, and which he will hear also disavowed by many—not of loose­ living and irreligious, but—of the most thoughtful and intelli­ gent, white-men around him. I believe that the Missions of the Church of England require much improvement in this respect, and demand the services of some of our best University men, and would any capacity whatever for learning the Zulu language. It was impossible to turn the others to account for our purposes, to my extreme disappointment, as at the time they were very greatly needed. �56 REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF abundantly reward their labours. For myself, however, instead of employing a number of inefficient and illiterate clergy for this work, I would rather devote myself to raising up an intelligent body of native teachers, who, if precluded from being ordained as clergy—(for they might never be able to sign their adherence to the Thirty-nine Articles and the Athanasian Creed, which latter cannot at present even be expressed in their language)— would yet, I trust, do good work as catechists and schoolmasters, in spreading throughout their tribes the light of civilization and Christianity. So far, then, as ‘practical work ’ is concerned, I can assure my readers that the Metropolitan’s fears are unfounded. My mind is not‘ turned away ’ from it. I never felt a more hearty desire to engage in such work than I do now. And I believe, as I have said, that no part of all my life has been better spent for the advance­ ment of this ‘practical work’ of religious teaching, and more especially of Missionary teaching among the heathen, than that which I have devoted to the composition of my books upon the ‘ Epistle to the Eomans ’ and the ‘Pentateuch.’ If, then, there has been any seeming intermission in my personal labour—as, of course, there has been during my two years’ stay in England—I have but recoiled for a moment, to spring to it again with more vigour than ever, and in the spirit of my books to carry forward the work of God among my people. My labours in the Zulu tongue are now, to a great ex­ tent, completed—at least, those more pressing labours, which have kept me, as I am painfully conscious, during the past seven years, so closely engaged in work for the natives, as to seem—but only to seem—to have felt less acutely the wants of the European portion of the colony. The Bishop of Capetown knows nothing, I imagine, of such distraction. But I shall be free now to expend more of my time, as I fully hope to do, in ministering to the wants of this part also of my flock, telling them the glad tidings of their Father’s Love, revealed to us in the Gospel of Christ, and teaching them that ‘having these promises,’ �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 57 as 6 sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty,’ they should— ‘ cleanse themselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.’ Another view of the charge of dishonesty. I have now concluded my review of the Bishop of Cape­ and Charge. There is nothing in his subse­ quent Visitation of the diocese which requires further notice at present. But I think it right to say one thing more. The Bishop has accused me repeatedly, in the plainest terms, of dishonesty in the course which I am pursuing. He has spoken of me, p.32, as one who is— town’s proceedings teaching directly contrary to what she [the Church of England] holds on fundamental points, and directly opposite to what he undertook to teach, when she gave him his commission, and for the teaching of which her faithful children have provided for him a maintenance. And he says further, Trial, p.399 :— It appears to me to be of far higher obligation to maintain good faith in the keeping of engagements voluntarily undertaken with most solemn vows, than to remain in a post, the duties of which one can no longer fulfil, in the hope of bringing about a change. I, in my turn, will now set before the reader two pictures, and will leave it for him to say which presents the portraiture of the more honest and consistent clergyman of the Church of England. The Bishop of Natal held, when in England, a College living, the reward of his exertions in earlier days, and which no Bishop could have taken from him for anything that he has written. He resigned this preferment, and accepted from the Crown the appointment to the See of Natal, knowing that he would be a Bishop of the Church of England, and, as such, would still be under the protection of her laws, whatever those laws might be. For the sake, however, of what he believed to be the truth, he was prepared to resign his See, if he had found that the laws of the Church of England forbade the publication of his views on the Pentateuch. He now challenges his adversaries to point out a single �58 REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF passage in his works, which is condemned by the existing laws of the Church, or else, if they are in doubt on any points, to bring them at once to an issue before the only lawful authority. He is ready also even now to resign his See, whenever he shall be satisfied that he cannot hold it con­ scientiously, or that it would be better for his fellow-men, and for the Truth itself, that he should resign it,—which he does- not feel to be the case at present. The Bishop of Capetown has subscribed the 36th Canon, viz.— The Queen’s Majesty, under God, is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other Her Highness’s dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal; he has declared his ‘unfeigned assent’ to the 37th Article, viz.— The Queen’s Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other her dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, doth appertain ; he has ‘ solemnly sworn before God ’ to ‘ correct and punish ’— according to such authority as to him should be committed by the Ordinance of this Realm; and he has received his appointment as Bishop and Metropolitan, on the express conditions implied in the above acts. He was bound, therefore, to exercise any jurisdiction which he might claim as Metropolitan, in agreement with the above conditions. But the Bishop of Capetown, while still holding Her Majesty’s Letters Patent, deliberately sets aside the existing Law of the Church of England, disregards the Queen’s authority, and re­ pudiates the judgments of the Privy Council, past and pros­ pective. And he positively asserts, in the teeth of the late decision, that the Church of England holds all her officers bound to teach two dogmas, which, it has been declared on the highest authority, she does not hold them bound to teach, viz. that ‘the whole Bible is the Unerring Word of the Living God,’ Trial, p.382, and that ‘the punishment of the wicked in hell is endless,’ Trial, p.370. Let Englishmen, lovers of fair play, judge between us. I do not accuse the Bishop of Capetown of downright dishonesty in �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 59 the course which he is pursuing, though it is obvious that the very same language, which he has applied to me, may be retorted, and with, at least, equal force applied to himself: e.g. p.31 — What we have to consider is, whether one, who undertook an office of great trust and dignity [at the hands of the Crown, as Bishop and Metropolitan of the Church of England], and received the emoluments [and honours] thereof, upon a distinct understanding that he ivould [acknowledge the Royal supre­ macy in the Church of England, and act according to the laws and constitu­ tion of that Church, which the Queen of this Protestant nation, who appointed him], deemed to be of the very deepest importance [for the repression of ecclesiastical domination, and the promotion of true religion among her people], is to be allowed, now that he has changed his mind, and holds and teaches [independence of state-control,—a principle] the very opposite to that which he undertook to teach, and atfirst did teach—to retain his position in the Church [of England], and to enjoy the emoluments of his abused office and vio­ lated trust: or again, p.32— She [Her Majesty the Queen] has no wish unduly to interfere with [Dr. Gray’s] liberty of thought or teaching; but she says, that, if he teaches directly contrary to what she [in her constitutional office, as head of the Church of England,] holds on fundamental points, [enforcing, as doctrines of the Church of England, dogmas, as to the Bible and endless punishment, which she has authoritatively forbidden to be enforced within the Church of England,] and directly opposite to what he undertook to teach, [in respect of the Royal Supremacy], when she gave him his [appointment], he shall not do so in [her] name, or as a Bishop of the Church [of England]. He must do it outside the Church [of England] : or again, as above:— It appears to me to be of far higher obligation to maintain good faith in the keeping of engagements voluntarily undertaken with most solemn vows, than to remain in a post, the duties of which one can no longer fulfil, in the hope of bringing about a change * * In like manner, it would be easy for anyone so disposed to retort upon the Bishop some of his other expressions. Thus he calls me a ‘ fanatic’: but no fanati­ cism can exceed that with which, shutting his eyes to the realities around him, and to the circumstances of the age in which he lives, he appears to surrender his whole being to the worship of his own ideal of a Catholic Church, which, in defiance of the known facts of history, he assumes to have continued one and ■undivided ‘ during the first thousand years of her history,’ and of which he seems to consider himself, by virtue of his ‘Apostolic Succession,’ the infallible repre­ sentative and exponent in all South Africa. So, when he exclaims in his Sermon at Maritzburg, p.10, ‘ Conscience, Reason, Intellect—These be thy Gods, �60 REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF As I have said, I would not ascribe such dishonesty to the Bishop of Capetown, though he has not hesitated to ascribe it to me. I assume that, from his own point of view, his course of conduct appears correct and justifiable, however others may view it, who, perhaps, might say that, if he is not satisfied with the laws and constitution of the United Church of England and Ireland, and feels that he cannot conscientiously, in the exercise of his Episcopal or (supposed) Metropolitan jurisdiction, allow as the laws of the Church of England do allow—a clergyman to say that e the Bible is not in itself God’s Word, though it contains it,’ or that ‘ the punishment of the wicked may not be endless,’ his only proper course is to resign his office as one of that Church’s ‘ representatives in her high places’—that he might still exercise jurisdiction as the Head of a dissenting community, but not as a Bishop of the Church of England. But the Bishop, with the exercise of charity and courtesy, might have admitted the possibility that my course of conduct also, from my own point of view, appears to me at least as correct as his own—if not more correct—since that, which I and those who think with me have done, we have done in the very spirit of the Protestant Reformation, which proclaimed the principle of ‘ free inquiry,’ and the right and duty of ‘ private judgment.’ We have taken merely a step further in the very same direction. As the Bishop of London said in his Charge (see my Part II,p.xxvi)— As to free inquiry, what shall we do with it ? Shall we frown upon it, denounce it, try to stifle it ? This will do no good, even if it he right. But after all, we are Protestants. We have been accustomed to speak a good deal of the right and duty of private judgment. It was lyy the exercise of this right, and the discharge of this duty, that our fathers freed their and our souls from Home's time-honoured falsehoods. But the course followed by the Bishop of Capetown would lead us back to Rome: it is directly opposed to the spirit of the Reformation. Bishop Gray speaks, indeed, Charge, p.35, 0 Israel! ’ it is obvious to substitute ‘ Tradition, Authority, Sacerdotalism! ’ If some are in danger of unduly exalting one set of powers, others are, at least, in as much danger of making idols of the others. �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOW. 61 of 4 the modem Roman corruptions of, and additions to, the faith,’ which, he says, the true Churchman 4 rejects and even these he describes in very mild terms, as 4 grave errors and mistakes on matters rather of opinion than of faith,' against which the Church 4 protested,’in her Articles, 4 at the period of the Reformation.’ This is certainly strange language from a Protestant Bishop, the 19th Article of whose Church declares that— as the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred, so also the Church of Home hath erred, not only in [heir living and manner of cere­ monies, hut also in matters offaith. In fact, the principle put forth by Bishop Gray is the very same with that which was advanced in the celebrated Tract, No. 90, the author of which subsequently acknowledged his position in the Church of England to be untenable, by seceding to the Church of Rome. 4 Modem corruptions of the Church of Rome ! ’ We know, at all events, that the worship of the Virgin Mary, Saints, and Images, was in full operation in the Church of Rome at the beginning of the eighth century. * So much for the purity of the Catholic Church 4 during the first thousand years of its history! ’ Nay, before the end of that same century, the portent of the Papacy itself loomed already, as a dark cloud, on the horizon,—and the minds of men were rapidly becoming familiar with the idea of an 4 Universal Bishop,’ by whose irresponsible decisions the whole Church was to be bound. And the fact is, that, of these papal pretensions, the claims, put forth by the Bishop of Capetown, are, though on a small scale, the counter­ part; and, if we are driven to compare them, the latter are as exorbitant as the former, and more preposterous, as resting * See Milner s Church History, iii. p.159, where he quotes from a letter of Pope Gregory III., as follows: ‘ We do not look upon them [images] as gods: but, if it be the image of Jesus, we say, “ Lord, help us! ” if it be the image of His Mother we say, “ Fray to your Son to save us ! ’’ if it be of a Martyr, we say, “ St. Stephen, pray for us! ” ’ ’ �62 REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF on a less tangible basis, while they arrogate to the Metropolitan more than even papal irresponsibility. He claims, for instance, for himself, and for all Metropolitans and quasi-Metropolitans, absolute freedom from all control. He might be guilty with impunity of simony, felony, or treason; he might go over openly to the Church of Rome; or, to use his own words, p.22,— Were a [Metropolitan] to become an Atheist, or were he to believe in Mahomet, or to teach all Roman] doctrine, it would by such a [principle] be affirmed that there is no redress, no power of rem oval. Happily, the constitution of the Church of England, by recog­ nizing the Royal Supremacy, forbids such a claim as this to be made within her pale. Were there no other reason for my maintaining firmly my ground against his proceedings, I should feel bound as a Bishop of the English Church to do so, in order to vindicate the Church of England from any complicity with those essentially Roman principles, which are—perhaps unconsciously—maintained by some, and by none more persistently than by the Bishop of Cape­ town, but which I believe to be antagonistic to the first prin­ ciples of our reformed Protestant Church, as by law established. And so, when he continually repeats that— ‘the faithful children of the Church of England have provided for him, as Bishop of Natal, a maintenance,’ p.32,— and speaks of the congregations of Natal being— 1 driven from the churches which they have built, in faith that the teaching of the Church, and of the Word of God, would be ever proclaimed within their walls, and compelled to seek refuge in other religious bodies, where discipline will at least secure to them the essentials of the faith,’ p.33,—• when he says, Trial, p.399, that— the founders of the See filled by the Bishop were still living, and provided an endowment only ten years before, expressly for the purpose of teaching and maintaining those truths, which they still hold, but which he has aban­ doned,— and talks [see above, p.12] of my being 4 sent back ’— with the right to take possession of the property of the Church given for far different purposes,— �THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN. 63 I reply that, if any, in England or in South Africa, have con­ tributed to the foundation of the See of Natal, and to the erection of the churches within the diocese, in the idea that that See would be abused by me, while holding Her Majesty’s Letters Patent, to cooperate with the Bishop of Capetown for the establishment of a ‘ Church of South Africa,’ which should set at nought the decisions of the Court of Arches and the Privy Council, and disown the Royal Supremacy—or that those churches would not be opened as widely, for the utterance of free thought and the results of free inquiry, as is allowed to be lawful in the Church of England,—they deserve to be disap­ pointed : I never have been, and never will be, a party to such a scheme,—to such ‘ wicked errors,’ [see 2nd Canon]—to such (as it would seem to me) a treacherous abuse of my office. But, as regards the churches in my diocese, I would remind the Metropolitan that there are some, at least, of the laity who have helped to build them, who do not agree with his views. Further, I would observe that they are almost without exception built on land granted as a free gift by the Crown itself, and that these sites, as well as the far more valuable tracts of land, which have been given by the Government for missionary purposes, and which are now beginning to become productive, were granted to me, as Bishop of the United Church of England and Ireland, in trust for the uses of that Church, and not for the ‘ Church of South Africa,’ which disregards the decisions of the Supreme Court of Appeal (App.G) in the Church of England, and disavows the Queen’s Supremacy. For such a Church as this these grants were certainly never intended: this ‘property,’ at all events, c was given for far different purposes.’ And I should hold it to be an act of dishonesty on my part, if I allowed it to be diverted from the purpose for which it was originally be­ stowed, so long as Her Majesty retains Her hold upon the district of Natal as a British possession, and so long as I am entrusted with authority to act in Her name as Bishop of Natal. �APPENDIX ■—♦ — 1. Extracts from the Bishop of Natal’s Books: p.29. (i) On the Fear of Death, from the Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, p. 144-7. Death in itself is no sign of a curse. Death was in the world, for the countless races of animals and animalcules, ages before man’s .sin. There was no sign of curse in their death. Nor would the death of man be attended with any notion of a curse attached to it, but for the consciousness of sin. The less we know or think of sin, the less we dread deatli; the more we know and think of sin, the more we dread it, unless we have the Light of God’s Love in the Gospel to cheer us. As human beings, bound by ties of tender affection to one another, there is, of course, connected with death, the grief of separation from those whom we love. There is also, generally, the anticipation, and the actual sense, of pain and physical dis­ tress. But the sense of grief and pain is not the sense of a curse. And feelings of this kind are often overpowered by nobler feelings, quickened within the hearts of men—even heathen men—by the grace of God, though untaught, by more intimate acquaintance with the truth, as we Christians know it, to understand more fully the baneful nature of sin, and to bless God for its antidote revealed in the Gospel. How many thousands die on every battle-field, or in the active discharge of life’s duties in every land, without any dread of death, as necessarily coupled with a curse ! What notion of a curse embittered the glorious hours of those who fell, fighting for their homes and their fatherland, at Thermopylae or Marathon ? So then, the idea of death is not necessarily connected in the minds of men with that of a curse. But then comes the Law, and brings home to our consciences the bitter sense of sin, of evil that has been committed, against the light which we had, against our better knowledge and better resolves, before the Face of a most Pure and Holy Being. And the Devil—the Slanderer—the Accuser of God and the Brethren—makes use of this to fill our hearts with guilty fears, which keep us away from our Father's footstool. He teaches us thus to connect the idea of a curse with �APPENDIX. ® 65 death. .-And many go trembling along the path of life, with the gloomy grave at the end of it, afraid to look the ghastly terror in the face. And so they turn their eyes ever, as it were, to the ground as they go, and busy them­ selves closely with the petty things of this life, its business and pleasures, that they may for the present forget their fears, instead of making light of death, as they might, as they ought, and manfully pressing on to do the work of their Lord. For how utterly unchristian, how utterly contrary to the whole spirit and letter of the Gospel, is this notion of death, as something to be dreaded, not merely for the pain, or present sense of separation from the objects of our love, which it brings with it, but for itself, for some idea of a curse attending it, as the carrying out of a fearful doom, a judgment from God, which Adam’s sin has brought on his race ! Separations take place continually in families, lifelong separations, for various reasons, in the common path of duty, with grief of heart, no doubt, and the dropping of natural tears of pure affection, sometimes with bitter pain and anguish, but yet without sense of awe or horror. Extreme pain is undergone under various circumstances, in the hospital-ward, on the battle-field, far exceeding in intensity that which we see to be generally connected with death. Often such pain is borne courageously and cheerfully, sometimes with fear and shrinking; but there is no sense of horror, no notion of a curse, mixed up with this fear. Now, if we read the New Testament rightly, we shall learn to look at the sepa­ ration which death brings with it, and the pain which may attend it, in something of this temper. We shall learn to look upon death as a Chris­ tian should do, as St. Paul did, who takes but little account of it, and rushes very small provision in his letters for the comfort of bereaved friends, 'and none at all for the dying Christian himself, except to tell him that he has fought the good fight, and finished his course, and may now hope to enter into rest. Indeed, we make far too much of death in these days. We crown him King of Terrors, when our gracious God and Father has bereft him of all his power to harm us, and deprived him of his sting, and made him a messenger of grace to us. Will it be said that after death still comes the judgment ? Why, yes, and before death too. And this is the point, which we ought to bear in mind, not to prepare for death, but to prepare for our Lord’s appearing, for His coming to judge us, as He may do at any moment, as He actually does, from day to day, from hour to hour’, in the ordinary work of common life, as well as on special great occasions. The reason why we are so ' prone to connect this judgment only with death is this, that we cannot conceive of its actually taking place in this blessed world, where on every side we find a Father’s Love. And yet it is really taking place from day to day even here. A Father’s Hand is blessing continually, or chastening, His children. But we feel as if we shall then stand before Him all alone, stripped of the countless gifts of His Goodness, which here relieve our fears, F �66 APPENDIX. and are meant to do so under the Gospel of His Grace, but which are too often perverted into reasons for sinning yet more, and turned into lascivious­ ness. In truth, however, the 1 judgment after death’ is but the carrying on of that which is going on in life,—the manifestation of that which is now taking place, it may be in silence and secrecy,—the revelation of that Lord, who is even now, daily and hourly, taking account with His ser­ vants. Those, who never bethink themselves now of their Master’s Presence, will, indeed, then seem to see Him, perhaps, for the first time, who has been with them, speaking in their consciences, observing and overruling their doings, all along. And those, who have been consciously 1 keeping back the truth in unrighteousness,’ all their lives long, and have died, hardened in impenitence, may have reason to dread death, because it will bring them face to face with Him, whose Voice they have heard in their hearts, whose Light shone upon their minds, whose Love they felt on every side, and yet they chose ‘the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil.’ But even to such as these death itself has no curse attached to it. It is but the gate, through which their Lord and Master calls them to Him, that He may pass the righteous sentence of His Love upon them— that is, that He, who knows exactly what they are, in consequence of what they have done, may appoint for them that lot, that degree of purifying chastisement, which they need. And this, indeed, may be something fearful and terrific, as the needful rod is to children. But Christians should learn to make light of death, as St. Paul did. Indeed, he tells us, ‘ we shall not all die.’ And, as we do not couple the 1 change,’ which St. Paul says, will pass on the bodies of some, by which 1 this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality,’ with any notion of a curse attached to it, so neither ought we to connect any such notion with death, as it will come to others. To ‘ die,’ or to ‘ be changed,’ it is all one, it should be all one, to the Christian. How courageously and cheerfully may we go to the duties of life, whatever dangers they may entail upon us, with this thought to sustain us, instead of shrinking and weakly wailing with fear at the idea of death ! To the frail flesh, indeed, the form of death may often be terrible : but the thing itself ought not to be, even to the spirit. There are some, who will say ‘ good­ night ’ to one another, and retire to rest, perhaps at early eve, perhaps at midnight, and who, on waking on the glorious mom, will put on their new apparel. There are others who will not go to rest at all, but, having watched all night, will rise up at once at the break of ‘ that day,’ and be clothed upon, and mortality will be swallowed up at once in life. (ii) On the Reading of the Scriptures, from the Pentateuch Critically Examined, Part III, p.628-32. "We must, then, even in reading the Scriptures, ‘ fry the spirits, whether they are of God.’ In this way only can we do the Will of God, and discharge �APPENDIX. 67 the true duty, and rise to the true dignity, of man as the child of God. We might wish, perhaps,—many do wish,—to have it otherwise, to be able to fall back upon the notion of an Infallible Book or an Infallible Church. But God has not willed it so. He will not give us,—at least He has not given us,—a Revelation of such a kind, as to relieve us from the solemn duty of judging, each for himself, what is right and true in His Sight. His Spirit has quickened us, that we may do, as living men, His work in the world: He will not suffer us to abdicate the glorious office to which He calls us. We must—not only claim and exercise the right, but—bear the responsibility, of private judgment, upon the things of the life to come, as well as of this world. ■ The Beuteronomist himself will teach us this lesson. He tells us, indeed, that God in all ages will.raise up Prophets like unto ourselves, xviii.18, will kindle His Fire within the heart, and put His words into the mouth, of men, who, in all the weakness of humanity, shall speak to their fellow-men all that they feel commanded to teach in His Name,—who shall utter His Eternal Truth, and minister to their brethren the lessons of 1 doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness.’ And their brethren shall c hear ’ them; they dare not neglect the Truth, of whatever kind, which God’s own grace imparts and brings home to them from the lips of a fellow­ man, however high or humble. But they must not listen to him with a blind unreasoning acquiescence, though He speak to them in the Name of Jehovah, and though the '■ sign or wonder ’ come to pass, xiii.2, which he brought to them as the very creden­ tials of his mission. They must ‘ try the spirit ’ of the Prophet’s words by that law which they have within them, written upon their hearts. Jehovah, their God, is proving them, to know whether they truly and entirely love Him, and love His Truth, ( with all their heart and with all their soul.’ If the words, which that Prophet speaks to them, come home to their con­ sciences as right and true words, then in God’s Name let them acknowledge and welcome them, and send them on with a blessing of ‘ God speed! ’ to others. If the Voice, which speaks within, declares that the utterance from without is false, then ‘shalt thou not hearken,’ xiii.3; the word is not God’s; and he, who hears, must not obey it. In this spirit we must read the book of Deuteronomy itself, and we shall find the Living Bread which our souls may feed on,—we shall find in it the Word of God. And that Word will not be at variance with the eternal and essential substance of Christianity, with those words which ‘ shall not pass away.’ Then we shall live no more in constant fear, that some rude stroke of criticism may shake, perhaps, the ‘very foundations of our faith,’ or that the announcement of some simple fact of science or natural history may threaten to ‘take from us our nearest and dearest consolations.’ We shall learn thus to have ‘faith in God,’ as our Lord has bidden us, Mark xi.22, and not in the written records, through which He has been pleased, by r 2 �68 APPENDIX. inspiring the hearts of our brother men with life, to quicken and comfort our own. When we hear such words as these— ‘ Man doth not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God doth man live,’ D.viii.3— ‘ Thou shalt also consider in thine heart that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the Living God, thy God, doth chasten thee,’ D.viii.5— ‘ If from thence ’—from the very depth of sin-wrought misery—‘ thou shalt seek the Living God, thy God, thou shalt find Him, if thou seek Him with all thy heart and with all thy soul,’ D.iv.29— we shall joyfully welcome them as messages of truth, not merely because we find them in the Bible, but because they are true—eternally true. It is true that God loves us as dear children, and that we may go to Him at all times, as to a wise and tender father, with a child-like trust and love, as with a child-like reverence and fear. Rather, we must go to Him thus if we would please Him, and act upon the words of our Lord, who has taught us all to say, ‘ Our Father.’ We must ‘consider in our hearts ’ that He, who has planted in our breasts, as parents, dear love to our children, a love stronger than death, does by that very love of ours shadow forth to us His own Eternal Love. Our love can take in every child of the family: our hearts can find a place for all; yes, and our love embraces the far-off prodigal, in his miserable wanderings, no less surely and no less tenderly, than the dear obedient child, that sits by our side, rejoicing in the sweet delights of home. He that has taught us to love our children in this way, how shall He not also love His children, with a Love in which the separate loves of earthly parents are blended, and find their full, infinite, expression,—the Father’s loving wisdom and firmness, to guide and counsel, and, if need be, to correct and chasten,—the Mother’s tender pity and compassion, that will draw near with sweet consolations, in each hour of sorrow and suffering, will sympathise with every grief and trial, will bow down to hear each shame-stricken confession, will be ready to receive the first broken words of penitence, and whisper the promise of forgiveness and peace. Ah! truly, the little child may cling to its mother’s neck, and the mother’s love will feel the gentle pressure, and will delight to feel it: but it is not the feeble clinging of the little one that holds it up; it is the strong arm of love that embraces it. And we, in our most earnest prayers and aspirations, in our cleaving unto God, in our longing and striving after Truth, as in these poor enquiries, are but as babes, ‘ stretching out weak hands of faith ’ to lay hold of Him, Whom no man hath seen or can see, but Who, unseen, is ever near us, whose tender Love embraces all His children, those that are far off as well as those that are near, the heathen and the Christian, the sinner and the Saint. Happy, indeed, are we, who are blessed to know this—to know the high calling and the glorious privileges of the children of God—not that we may be more safe than others, who as yet know it not, but that we jnay be filled �APPENDIX. 69 with hope and strength and courage in the assurance of this Truth,—that we may he more living and earnest and joyful in our work,—more brave to speak the Truth, to do the Right, to wage eternal war with all that is false and base and evil, within us and without,—more patient in suffering, —more firm and true in temptation and trial,—more sorrowful and ashamed when we have fallen,—more quick to rise, and go on again, in the path of duty, with tears and thanksgivings,—more eager to tell out the Love of God to others, whether to those who as yet are groping, ‘ if haply they may feel after Him and find Him,’ Who ‘ is not far from any one of them,’ ‘ in Whom they live and move and have their being,’ or to those who have known Him, but know no longer now the joy of His children, 1 sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death, fast bound in misery and iron.’ But, in all this, it is not our knowledge, however clear, or our faith, how­ ever firm and orthodox, or our charity, however bright or pure, that holds us up daily, and binds us to the Bosom of our God. ? Our Father ’ will delight in all the sacred confidences of His children,—their clingings of faith and hope,—their longings of pure desire for a closer sense of His Presence, — their holy aspirations and penitential confessions. But it is not our prayer that will hold us up. It is His Love alone which does this. ‘ The Eternal God is our refuge, And underneath are the Everlasting Arms.’ D.xxxiii.27. 2. Opinions of various Writers in the Church of Eng­ land RESPECTING THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH : p.30. It is interesting to observe that many, who have recently gone into the questions of criticism connected with the Pentateuch—not merely those treated of in Part I of my work, but such as are discussed in Part II, and especially in Parts III and IV,—though starting from the traditionary point of view, have arrived at conclusions more or less departing from it. This alone must be sufficient to show to any thoughtful mind that that view, at least—which ascribes the whole Pentateuch to Moses, except, perhaps, a few sentences, interpolated here and there by another hand—is, at all events, uncertain and disputable. (i) Thus Bishop Browne, who has engaged to write upon the Pentateuch in the Speaker’s Commentary, has said in his reply to the clergy of Cambridge, in reference to my criticisms,— ‘The study of all the objections lately raised may, probably, oblige us to take a wider view of some points than we had atfirst expected.’ (ii) The Rev. W. H. Hoare has said (see my Part III, p.xiii)— ‘ The general idea of dividing the documents in the manner that has been in­ dicated [i.e. into Elohistic and Jehovistic portions], has, I believe, been sho-wn to be based on more than merely critical conjecture. Aaron or Eleazar may �70 APPENDIX. fairly contest with Samuel the honours of the Elohist, and Moses, with “the promising young men of Samuel’s time,” the honours of the Jehovist.’ (iii) The Rev. W. Houghton has said (see my Part IH,p.xl)— ‘I have diligently, conscientiously, and prayerfully studied the whole question at issue for the last six months, and am compelled to admit. the general truth of your arguments, though differing in some particulars. You are aware that I published a pamphlet in reply to your Part I. I have withdrawn that reply from circulation.’ (iv) The Rev. J. J. S. Perowne has said (see my Part LV,p.xxix)— ‘ So far, then, judging this work [the Pentateuch] simply by what we find in it, there is abundant evidence to show that, though the main hulk of it is Mosaic, certain detached portions of it are of later groivthd (ff) The ‘Layman,’whose book is dedicated by permission to the Archbishop of York, says (see my ‘Letter to the Laity,’ p.39-41)— ‘ It must be confessed that the results we have arrived at do differ very 'materially from the views commonly held. . . . These are facts very strongly at variance with the notions generally entertained. Facts they are, however,__ not mere theoretic fancies or unfounded assumptions. ‘ Much of it [the Pentateuch] is certainly un-Mosaic, some earlier, some contemporary, some later than Moses. Many portions of the Pentateuch could not have proceeded from his pen, or even have been written under his direction.’ It is true, the Archbishop of York has now stated, in his correspondence with the Rev. James Brierley, published in the Times of July 26, that he ‘does not concur’ in the conclusions of the ‘Layman’ : nor do I. I believe that they are only the first conclusions of an honest and truth-seeking enquirer, which he will, perhaps, hereafter feel obliged to modify, as he becomes better acquainted with the subject, and, in so doing, he may find himself compelled to depart still further Rom the traditionary view, and approximate more closely to my own on some points. But, however this may be, these and other important statements are still allowed by his Grace to circulate under the authority of his name; and though they had been specially brought under his notice on May 18, by one of the clergy of his diocese, yet two months afterwards, on July 15, he had not ‘found time’ even to look into the book, of which (we must believe) a presentation copy lay upon his table. The only inference, as it seems to me, that can fairly be drawn from this fact is, that the Archbishop is aware that these statements, though he does not wholly concur in them, are yet, more or less, and substantially, true,—that his Grace knows that an honest examination into the question will lead to results such as these, differing only in detail from my own,— that, at all events, he did not consider these statements, which were so severely judged when made by me, to be of so deadly a nature, when circulat- �APPENDIX. 71 lag in a book 1 dedicated by permission ’ to himself. I may now, surely, predict with some confidence, that at no very distant day the main results of these criticisms on the Pentateuch, which have been scorned and stigmatised by ■many of my clerical brethren, both here and in South Africa, will be generally acknowledged as truths in the Church of England, and form part of the basis of all sound theological training. Since the above was written, the ‘ Layman ’ himself has addressed a letter to Mr. ~Rp.rRHT.-RV, which appears in the Guardian of August 8, as follows:— 1 July 26. ‘Rev. Sir,—My attention having been drawn to the letters which have passed between yourself and the Archbishop of York, (touching a work of mine on the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch), published in this day’s Times, I desire to inform you that his Grace is in no sense responsible for any of the views there set forth, still less for the way in which they are expressed. For all this I alone am answerable. I have never regarded his Grace’s acceptance of the dedication as in any way implying his sanction or approval of its contents, but merely as an expression of his kindly feeling towards myself. And I must confess that I am surprised that you should have put any other construction upon it. I may add that the Archbishop expressly declined to inspect any portion of this work before publication, doubtless from the desire to leave both himself and me entirely unfettered. ‘ With regard to the matter of your observations, I would recommend a more attentive study of the views I have set forth, in the form and connection in which I have stated them, before you hastily conclude them to be identical in tendency with those advanced by the Bishop of Natal. The main point at issue in this controversy (as I apprehend it) is not whether every verse of the Pentateuch was actually written by Moses himself—a point of very little moment—but whether the Pentateuch is to be regarded as a true history, composed in or about the times of which it treats, or as a collection of utterly untrustworthy legends, wrought up into their present shape by writers many centuries removed from the events narrated. On this fundamental point the views advanced by the Bishop of Natal and myself are as diametrically opposite as can well be conceived. Of this it will be easy for you to con­ vince yourself, if, instead of trusting to a few extracts culled by the Bishop to suit a particular purpose, you should think it worth while attentively to peruse the books themselves. I remain, Rev. Sir, yours respectfully, ‘ A Layman or the Church or England. ‘Author of The Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuch Considered? With reference to the above, Mr. Brierley has favoured me with the following communication:— 1 Mossley Hall, Congleton, Aug. 25, 1864. ‘Mv Lord,—In the Guardian of Aug. 3, there appeared a letter addressed to myself from the “ Layman,” author of “ The Pentateuch Considered.” ‘ On Aug. 8 I sent the enclosed 11 Reply ” to that letter to the Editor of �72 APPENDIX. the Guardian. As this has not been published in that j oumal, either on the 10th or 17th or 24th, I can only conclude that it has been designedly, and, I must say, most unfairly, suppressed. ‘1 now beg leave to forward it to you, requesting you to make any use of it you may think proper. I have the honour to be, my Lord, your humble and obedient servant, ‘ James Brierley.’ (Mossley Hall, Congleton, August 8, 1864. * Sir,—In reply to your letter addressed to me, and published in last week’s Guardian, I beg leave to make the following observations:— * (1) The question is not in what light you may have regarded the Arch­ bishop’s acceptance of your dedication, but in what light the Church atlarge, and readers generally, will regard it. ‘(2) I put no “ construction” upon his Grace’s acceptance of it, until I had drawn his attention to the extracts in question, had asked whether he approved of them, and had waited six weeks in vain for a reply, when I very naturally assumed that his Grace did approve of them. ( (8) It now appears that it was not through some accident, or from want of time, that the Archbishop did not look at your book, before he allowed it to circulate under the authority of his name; but that he de­ liberately a declined" to look at it beforehand, “doubtless,” as you say, “from the desire to leave both himself as well as you unfettered.” ‘ This course of proceeding will seem strange, I think, to many of the Clergy and Laity, with reference to such a book as this, at such a crisis in the history of the Church. 1 (4) I said nothing of the u tendency ” of your views. I stated only that, assuming your statements to be in any degree well-founded, they are u ex­ traordinary ”; that “they make it impossible to deny the Tight of the a Bishop of Natal to maintain his theory of the composition of the PentaII teuch, which only differs in point of detail from yours ”; that we “ must il now make up our minds to admit the composite character of the Penta11 teuch, and the non-Mosaic origin of considerable portions of it.” 1 (5) The question at issue is not certainly whether every verse of the Pentateuch was actually written by Moses himself, but whether large portions of it—(you say, more than one-fifth at least)—were written “ after the conquest of Canaan,” while, you add, “ a variety of explanatory notes, “ additions, and occasional alterations, with a few passages of greater “ length, chiefly from other ancient narratives, were introduced by a writer “of much later date, very probably, in the days of Saul,”—that is, I suppose, by a writer some centuries removed from the events narrated. ‘ (6) Though I and others may admit that this point, of the Mosaic authorship of the whole Pentateuch, is “ a point of very little moment,” yet you must be aware that this is a point considered to be of vital consequence �APPENDIX. 73 by numbers of the orthodox Clergy and Laity, as by the Rev. Sir PI. Thompson, who says of your own statements, in the Churchman of July 14, that their 11 intended drift is to unsettle our belief that the Pentateuch is the u work of Moses," and that they are “ scattering broadcast throughout the “ land the seeds of doubt and infidelity.” 1 (7) As towhat the Bishop of Natal’s motives in “culling” extracts from your book may have been, of course I know nothing; but it appears to me that he has done so for no other purpose than to show, as he says himself, in his letter to the Laity, p.38, that an honest enquirer (meaning yourself) has been obliged to admit “that the results which he has arrived at do “ differ very materially from the views commonly held," that “these wq facts, “ very strongly at variance with the notions generally entertained," that “facts “ they are, however, not mere theoretic fancies, or unfounded assumptions." ‘ At all events, the Bishop does not claim you as agreeing in his “ views.” He says in his letter, p.41, that “ the author believes, apparently, in the “ literal historical truth of the accounts of the Creation, Paradise, the Fall, “ the Deluge, the Rainbow, and the Confusion of Tongues,” which the Bishop, in his books, tells us plainly he does not believe in. i (8) In conclusion, if I could only find time, I would gladly read your work : but-you must pardon me for saying that it can scarcely be necessary for me to do so; since, however, your views upon the whole subject may differ from the Bishop of Natal’s, the admissions made by yourself (as proved by the extracts quoted) sufficiently agree with his statements, as to satisfy me that th the main the question as to the unity and authenticity of the Pentateuch is pretty much as the Bishop has stated it to be,—in accordance, I believe, with most of the great continental critics. 11 remain, Sir, yours truly, 1 James Brierley, 1 Incumbent of Holy Trinity, Mossley, near Congleton. 1 To “A Layman,” &c.’ (vi) The Bishop of Oxeord, also, appears to have made admissions of some importance at the recent Conference of his clergy at Oxford, though it is somewhat difficult to gather the Bishop’s exact meaning from the reports which have been given of his words by different hearers, and from his own statement as copied below. (1) One report (Standard, August 10) says as follows:— 1 The Bishop of Oxford, in an elaborate address, enlarged with much force upon the anti-Biblical opinions enunciated by distinguished members of the University during the past few years, and by careful argument urged that the true explanation of the unhappy differences existing was to be found in a misconception of the manner in which inspired truths were trans­ mitted to us. He contended that the apparent anomalies in Holy Writ were �74 APPENDIX. in consequence of indirect revelations,—the persons, to whom many of the revelations were made, having varied their rendering of them to such an extent as to give grounds for objections on the part of those, who are disposed to look at the Scriptures with a severely critical eye. In proof of this position, his lordship pointed out that the Ten Commandments, which were inscribed by the finger of God on Mount Sinai, and the miracles He worked, and the parables He gave,—the whole of which acts were performed directly by God Himself,—had never been the subject of adverse criticism from the pen of the greatest infidel, from the proclamation of the Gospel to the present time. That anomalies did exist, no one was prepared to doubt. But the clear and only explanation was given in the fact, that the messages from Heaven were not verbally transmitted. And his lordship strongly urged that this construction was one that should be used by all members of the Chris­ tian Church, in refuting the attacks to which it was subject at the hands of those who were prepared to doubt, or to induce others to doubt, the inspi­ ration and authenticity of the Divine Word.’ (2) The account in the Guardian of August 17, taken from the Oxford Herald, and having all the appearance of being a tolerably accurate report of the Bishop’s words, contains the following statements as corm’ng from his mouth in the course of his address:— ‘Reverend Brethren,—It has been set down in the scheme of this after­ noon that I should address a few words to you first upon a discussion of the Word of God, of which you are afterwards to hear from Archdeacon Lee and Dr. Wordsworth. But I am at a loss to know what to do in saying a few general words to the purpose; because, in doing so, I might be in dan­ ger of intrenching upon the deliberations of those, who have prepared papers for this Congress; and I almost thought it would be better to offer no remarks till the conclusion of your proceedings. But I have been told that you think I am under an engagement to offer some preliminary observations; and I therefore do not hesitate to respond to the wishes so expressed. Of course, the great matter before us is the consideration—not of that doctrinal question so admirably set before us in the sermon this morning, for which we cannot be too grateful,—it is not so much to discuss that, as it is to considei' the question of the Inspiration of the Word of God, which some of the present members of the Church have raised into great prominence, so that we may be prepared with answers to objections so raised. ‘ It is of great importance at the present time that these matters should have been well thought over by the clergy in considering the great and difficult subject of what is understood by the Inspiration of the Word of God. In limine it is of great importance to notice this question: for the fact, that all Scripture is written by Inspiration for our instruction, means that Scripture is inspired by the Holy Ghost; and, because that is true, we dispose of the most formidable objections, which stand in the way of any dispute. �APPENDIX. 75 I All truth is from God alone. Truth on any subject-matter being from God, shows that it must be inspired so far as it is true. . . . But now what is Inspiration ? Because we all know that TIoly Scripture has given us no definition of what it is, or what the Church has held it to be, and we are therefore led to decide what it is according to the ordinary latitude of in­ terpretation. And, first, in approaching that point, and in giving our inter­ pretation of what Inspiration does mean, we can have recourse to no antecedent probabilities as our sure guide—nothing which would show what would be the precise message of God's thought to man, so that the only way is to take the Rook as a fact, examining it as to the way in which God has been pleased to give us His inspired word. * And, if we do that, we are met by this view. Taking it as a message from God to man, knowing that it embodies thought, which man without the message could not have conceived, and knowing that he could not from antecedent probabilities have discovered the inten­ tions of God, we must examine it as we should any other message, and see how He, who has sent it, has been pleased to send it to us...... ‘ As under the first message that was inscribed in stone, or that was spoken by the Prophet in a state of rhapsody, there would be the simple communi­ cation from God to the receiver; but in the other cases, in which the mes­ senger was to deliver the message, there was room for admitting the presence of the human essence, in a way that, while it had the authority of God, leaves room for the surrounding human element, in which there might be direct error, without touching the slightest truth of Inspiration.’ (3) 'An Oxfordshire Rector’ reports to the Record (August 10) as follows:— II was present yesterday and to-day at a conference of the clergy under the presidency of the Bishop of the Diocese. The subjects for discussion were “ The Word of God and Inspiration.” All the speakers recognised the fact, that these for the Christian are the great subjects of the day. The Bishop opened the conference with some general remarks, and inter alia propounded his theory of Inspiration. It was, I think, as follows,—“ That the writers of the Old and New Testament might be either conscious or unconscious of the meaning, scope, and object of the message which they * I need hardly say that it is very satisfactory to find the Bishop of Oxford here using language, which is almost identical with that, by which on p.xix of my Part IV I have sought to justify my Critical Examination of the Pentateuch. I have said: ‘ We are utterly unable to judge a priori what parts of Scripture must be recorded with strict verbal accuracy. We can only do—what in these criticisms we are endeavouring to do,—that is, work out,—with all care, with all the ability which God has given us, and with all the help of our best critical apparatus,—a posteriori, from the documents actually in our hands,—the real substantial facts which the Bible contains, and take them as God’s facts for our guidance.’ �76 APPENDIX. delivered; that, if the first, as would, of course, he true in the case of Jesus, they could make no possible mistake, all which they said would be abso­ lutely true, it would be without reservation the mind of the Spirit of God; that, if the latter, they might err, from the want of the power of comprehension incident to humanityThe Bishop explained, with his accustomed power and facility of diction, the opinion which he had formed upon the subject, and illustrated his meaning at length by adducing the simile of the servant sent by his master to convey a message to a friend, of the nature of which the two corresponding parties wished the servant to be ignorant: and, in the course of his remarks, the Bishop used the terms, “ the human element in the Bible.” ‘ There was, of course, considerable discussion subsequently upon the re­ marks made by his lordship, and to-day the subject was again referred to. Many of the clergy present felt startled to find that one of those, who were foremost to denounce Colenso and the Essayists, appeared to endorse the truth of the principle which they advocate. The Bishop attempted to explain his meaning to-day : he re-announced his opinion with this saving proviso, that as yet he had not found, and he believed he never should find, a particle of error in the Word of God. But what of the principle which he enunciated ? Many assert that they have discovered historical, geographi­ cal, arithmetical, scientific, moral, and religious error in the Bible. How does his lordship propose to answer them ? ’ (4) Among the clergy, who ‘ felt startled ’ at the above remarkable admis­ sions, appears to have been the Rev. W. R. Fremantle, one of the leaders in procuring the signature of the 11,000 clergy to the Oxford Declaration. He writes to the Record (August 17) as follows:— ‘ What I understood the Bishop to say [on the second day] was that the whole Scripture had been written under the superintendence of the Holy Ghost, so that all and every part of it was absolutely free from error,—that no error had as yet been found in it, and he believed no error ever would be found in it. He believed the Bible not because it contained the truth, but because it was given to us by inspiration of God. Then, in speaking of the two forms of inspiration referred to by the u Oxfordshire Rector,” the Bishop said that, as regards the human element, he thought there were some points in which a man’s natural reason and memory would suffice without a su­ pernatural revelation, as, for example, St. Paul referring to his cloak being left at Troas (!) In this department of the subject, he could conceive the possibility in the surroundings of the man of the existence of inconsistency, contradiction, and error, if the writers had been left entirely to themselves. But, inasmuch as a revelation to the man was one thing, and inspiration to record truth was another, so the human element had been guided and kept from error by the general superintendence of the Holy Ghost. ( This explanation I accepted with much thankfulness; for, after the state­ �APPENDIX. 77 ment made by his lordship on the first day, I, in common with others of the clergy present, was in some doubt as to what he really meant.’ (5) So, too, the Rev. F. M. Cunningham writes to the Record (August 19) and states, inter alia, as follows :— ‘ On the second day, Mr. Fremantle called his Lordship’s attention to the fact that the minds of his clergy were disturbed, and requested him to give an explanation of his meaning. He did so, and in such terms as led Mr. Fremantle to say that his mind was inexpressibly relieved. In this view of the case I am convinced that most of those who were present fully con­ curred.’ But Mr. Cunningham also admits that 1 in his Lordship’s address on the first day, there was undoubtedly room for anxiety, and the minds of many were disturbed. I largely shared in their anxiety, though I felt assured that I had misunderstood the Bishop, when I heard him, at the end of the first day’s proceedings, endorse with entire cordiality all that had fallen from Archdeacon Lee of Dublin.’ (6) Once more, ‘ An Oxford Rector ’ (the Rev. A. M. W. Christopher) writes also to the Record, of the same date, stating that he had enclosed to the Bishop the Standard}s report of what he had said, and also that of the ‘Oxfordshire Rector,’ asking his Lordship,'/if he thought fit to do so, kindly to write briefly his opinion on the subject on which he spoke, that this might be "given accurately in his own words ’: and he also added, ‘ Your Lordship will not, I am sure, think me wanting in respect, if I say that I was not satisfied by what your Lordship said, as I understood it, on the first day of the Conference.’ (7) The Bishop replied as follows :— ‘ ‘ Many thanks for your very kind letter. I had not seen either of the newspaper extracts you send me. But if I had, I should not have answered them. It is a hopeless endeavour to set oneself right by answering anything: and, if you reply to one, you must reply to all. I therefore leave matters to right themselves. It is quite a different matter replying to you; and I do it with the greatest pleasure. I said nothing of the sort attributed to me in these extracts. Perhaps the subject was too abstruse to be treated so briefly; and this has led to misapprehension. In brief, my belief is this: The whole Bible comes to us as “ The Word of God,” under the sanction of God the Holy Ghost. We cannot pick and choose amidst its contents. All is God’s Word to us. But, as I believe that this, which I hold as the only orthodox view, is encompassed with many difficulties by what is called the theory of “Verbal Inspiration,” I desired to show how, in my judgment, a careful scrutiny of the Bible, which revealed the “divers manners” in which the Holy Ghost spake,— 1 (1) Sometimes by the mere mechanical use of the human agent who �78 APPENDIX. conveyed the message, as when (i) God wrote words on the first tables, (ii) dictated them for the second, or (iii) committed them to prophets simply to repeat, or (iv) spake them through the prophets,— ‘(2) Sometimes by possessing the human instrument with a complete knowledge of that he was to speak, and leaving him to express it, under the mere suggestions and guardianship of His own special presence, according to the natural use of the human faculties,— ‘I desired, I say, to show how this would greatly lessen these difficulties, and enable men to realize the essential difference between Holy Scripture and any other books,—namely, that as all truth comes from God, other books may be in a sense said to be inspired because they are true, but Holy Scripture alone can be affirmed to be true because it is inspired. ‘ You are quite free to make any use of this you see fit. ‘I am, yours most truly, 'S. Oxon.’ The above, which ‘ inexpressibly relieved ’ the minds of Mr. Fremantle and others of the clergy, represents, we must suppose, what the Bishop said on the second day. It is very difficult to understand from the above letter what the Bishop really does hold on the subject of Inspiration. But it is singular that such a master of rhetoric, upon a subject of such grave importance at the present time, and which he himself, no doubt, had fixed beforehand for the consideration of his clergy, expressed himself on the first day so imperfectly, as to have been so seriously misunderstood—not only by the sih? above quoted, viz. the reporters of the Standard and Herald, the Oxfordshire and Oxford Rectors, the Rev. Messrs. Fremantle and Cunningham,—but, it would seem, by the whole body of the clergy. As the subject was known beforehand, it was not necessary that there should have been any ‘cloudiness’ in the original statement, however brief. But it is difficult to see how the view now put forth by the Bishop lessens any of the more serious difficulties of the theory of 1 Scriptural infallibility,’ which, it would seem, (if I understand him rightly,) the Bishop still maintains,—e. g. that which arises from Moses saying in D.v.22, ‘ These words Jehovah spake unto all your assembly in the Mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, and He added no more; and He wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me ’ —compared with E.xx.l, ‘God spake all these words, &c.’ which latter 1 words ’ differ materially from the former; comp, especially E.xx.11 and D.v.15. (8) In the Spectator of August 27, a letter appears from Oxoniensis, from which I quote the following extract:— ‘ An article of great ability recently appeared in the Quarterly Review, which is almost universally attributed, in part if not wholly, to the Bishop of Oxford, It contains statements about Inspiration, which I believe to be �APPENDIX. 79 perfectly wise and just. It is too long to quote, but its gist is that there is a “human” as well as a “Divine” element in Scripture, and that humanly the Scripture writers were liable to occasional error. The following are some of the words:—“ In the utterance his own peculiarities will all be present, and so his ignorance upon matters lying wholly outside the message, as to which, therefore, the sender of the message has not enlightened his mes­ senger. . . . When, for instance, St. Paul reveals to us the depths of the Divine counsels, we know that we are listening, not to man, but to God. . . . But, when the same apostle writes that the cloak which was left at Troas should be brought after him, does any reasonable man really maintain that, if it could be made certain that the cloak was left—not at Troas, but—at another place, the veracity of Holy Scripture would be thereby impugned ? ” ’ I add another extract from the same article in the Quarterly, April 1864, p.552 1 If the intention of the Almighty was through His word to reveal reZagious truth to man, what would be more natural than that He should pour into the minds of His instruments a flood of light upon those truths, which He intended them to declare, leaving them still uninformed as to matters, of which they were the bearers of no message to their brethren ? . . . On this theory, as to whatever it (the Bible) professes to reveal, we know it must be absolutely true, because in that it is the result of the inspiration of God ,• whilst in that, which is the accident and not the object of the message, the messenger is left to his own unaided powers.’ I need hardly say that this is precisely the ground, which I myself have taken in all my writings. The ( religious truth,’ which God 1 intends to reveal] that, and that alone, is the ‘ Word of God ’ in the Bible. 3. Extracts from the Fathers and others, shewing their VIEWS AS TO THE LIMITATION OF OUR LORD’S the Son of Man: KNOWLEDGE AS p.35. For Mr. Houghton’s letter, with the references at full length, see my Part HI on the Pentateuch, p.xxxviii-xl. The following are some of the authorities which he quotes on the subject:— ‘ One must know that most of the Fathers—indeed almost all—appear to say that He (Christ) was ignorant of some things; for, if He is said to be in all respects of the same substance with us, and we are ignorant of some things, it is manifest that He also was ignorant, and the Scripture says of Him, that He increased in age and wisdom.’—Leontius. ‘To whom can it be a matter of doubt that He has a knowledge of that hour, indeed, as God, but is ignorant of it, as man ? ’—Gregory Naz. (As on becoming man He hungers and thirsts, and suffers with men, so with men, as Man, He knows not.’—Athanasius. �80 APPENDIX. 'The ignorance, then, does not belong to God the Word, but to the form of the servant, which knew at that time such things as the indwelling Divinity revealed.’—Theodobet. ° We ought not to accuse the Word of God, and rashly to impute any ignorance to Him. But we should rather admire His love towards man, who did not refuse, out of His love towards us, to bring Himself down to so great an humiliation, as to bear all things that are ours, one of which also is ignorance. ’—Cybil of Alexandria. * Just as Chbist took this upon Himself in common with men, to hunger, thirst, and suffer the other things which are spoken about Him, exactly in the same way is nothing to offend any one, if He be said, as man, to have been ignorant also in common with men.’—In. ' He is ignorant, then, according to His human nature, who knows all things according to the power of His Divinity.’—Chbysostom. Dr. Pusey, after stating what he considers to be the ' doctrine of the Church ’ on this point says, on Atman. Diss. II. against Arianism (Library of the Fathers), ch.xxviii:— 'However, this view of the sacred subject was received by the Church after St. Athanasius’s day; and it cannot be denied that he and others of the most eminent Fathers use language, which primd facie is inconsistent with it. They certainly seem to impute ignorance to our Lord as man, as Athanasius in this passage.’ But foi the doctrine of those which . . . only affirm that, though as God He knew all, yet as man He was ignorant of some things, just in the same manner as He was passible and subject to all human infirmities which had not sin in them, . . . this sure is so far from heresy that ... it is the [almost] unanimous assertion of all the Fathers.’—Hammond. ' To say that the Second Person in the Trinity knows not something, is blasphemy; to say so of the Messias, is not so, who nevertheless was the same with the Second Person in the Trinity.’—Lighteoot. ' Certainly, when the Apostle teaches that He (Jesus) was like to us in all things, sin excepted, without doubt he comprehends this also, that His soul was subjected to ignorance. ... In fine, unless anyone pleases to deny that Chbist was made a true man, let us not be ashamed also to confess that He voluntarily took upon Himself all things which cannot be separated from human nature.’—Calvin. ' As it may be truly said of the body of man that it is not immortal, though the soul be, so it may be truly said that the Son of Man was not knowing, though the Son of God knew everything.’—Watebland. In the face of all these authorities, however, the Bishop rides, Trial, p. 345 ' I must decide that in imputing to our Blessed Lord [the Bishop does not give my full statement, " as the Son of Man ”] ignorance, and the possibility of error, the Bishop has committed himself to a subtle heresy.’ Let the reader notice that I have used identically the same language as �APPENDIX. 81 Gregory Naz., Athanasius, Cyril, Chrysostom, and 1 others of the most eminent Fathers,’ who, says Dr. Pusey, ‘ certainly seem to impute ignorance to our Lord as man.’ 4. Correspondence of the Bishop of Natal Bishop of Oxford and the Bishop of Capetown : with the p.40. Within a few days after my arrival in England, I received a letter from the Bishop of Oxford, which, being marked 1 secret,’ I do not quote—except so far as is rendered absolutely necessary, for my justification under the present circumstances. In this letter, the Bishop said, with reference to some points in my Commentary on the Romans :— Gin these points I should greatly like calmly and prayerfully to talk with you, if you will let me. They are too long for writing. But what I mainly wish for now is, to pray you not to take any irretrievable step, until you have, in free discourse with some of us, reviewed the whole matter. . . . All I would ask for Christ’s sake is, that you rest not satisfied until you have given us some such opportunity of free brotherly converse. ... If you could come to me, to give a day or two to such a consultation, you would find a warm greeting, and, I hope, a loving and unprejudiced discussion of differences.’ To this affectionate appeal I was about to respond at once in the same spirit, accepting heartily the invitation given, when another post on the same day brought me a letter from the Bishop of Capetown, which seemed to change wholly the character of the proposed discussion. It appeared to me, in short, that, instead of being invited to a friendly conference, I was about practically to be ‘ convened ’ by him, as Metropolitan, before a bench of Bishops for my offences. And that I was not wrong in this supposition, is shown by the fact, that the Bishop of Capetown did not correct my own view of the matter, as expressed in my letters to him, copied below, and that he still says, in the extract cited on p.39, from his Charge,— 1 He would not meet more than one [of the English Bishops], and then not as if he were in any error, but only as a common seeker after truth.’ This language may be compared with the expressions of the Bishop of Oxford—‘free discourse with some of us,’ ‘free brotherly converse,’ ‘loving and unprejudiced discussion of differences.’ (i) As by submitting to be thus called to account by him, I should have recognised indirectly the j urisdiction of the Metropolitan, I thought it my duty to reply to the Bishop of Oxford and to the Bishop of Capetown, as follows, Aug. 9, 1862 ‘ To the Bishop of Oxford. i I thank you most sincerely for your most kind and friendly letter. I should be most happy to discuss any points in my Book on the Romans, G �82 APPENDIX. either with yourself or any other brother Bishop, singly and privately ; though I must confess that I do not anticipate much result from such a conference, as the views which I have expressed in that book are, generally speaking, not the result of a few years’ colonial experience, but have been long held by me, have grown with my growth, and are, as I fully believe, quite com­ patible with a conscientious adherence to the Articles and Formularies of the Church of England. I do not think, however, that any good would result from my meeting a number of Bishops together upon the subject, and, therefore, would prefer declining your very kind invitation. 1 Under any circumstances, I am sure that you would be the last person to wish me, for any personal reasons, to shrink from the confession of what I believe to be the truth.’ To the Bishop of Capetown. ‘Just before your letter reached me, I had received one—a very kind one —from the Bishop of Oxford, making a similar proposal. I should be most haPPV t° meet any of my brother Bishops singly, and discuss with him any portions of my Book on the Romans ; but for various reasons I do not think it would be productive of any good result for me to meet a number of them together, and I have written to that effect to the Bishop of Oxford. ‘ With respect to my other book ... it is quite true that I have been for some time past deeply engaged in the study of the Pentateuch, and have arrived at some startling results. I have had a portion of them privately printed, for the express purpose of laying them before such of my friends in England as would be most likely to be able to give me assistance and advice in this matter, by possessing sufficient acquaintance with the subject, and by being free from those strong prejudices, which would prevent their discussing calmly and dispassionately with me the points in question. I trust that I duly leverence both the Church and the Bible : but the Truth is above both. I have already taken measures for submitting my views on the Pentateuch to some of my friends, and shall be glad to do so privately to any intelligent candid, and truth-seeking student. Among others, 1 had thought of asking the Bishop of St. David’s to confer with me upon the subject. But I am not prepared at present to propound my views prematurely to any one.’ (ii) The Bishop of Capetown replied as follows, A u *g. 12, 1862 :— ‘I think you have not quite understood the object of my proposal. I have been placed in great difficulties by the book [Commentary on the Romans] you have published. People in England, and many of the Bishops who have read it, are pained and shocked by it. They have thought, and so have I, that the most Christian course was for those who were able to do so, to meet you, and endeavour to convince you that you were in error. 1 If, by God’s blessing, they should succeed in this, it might lead to your �APPENDIX. 83 withdrawing a book which so many think unsound, and render all other jjroceedings unnecessary. ‘ I doubt much whether one Bishop would meet you (!), and I do hope that you will not decline to meet any who wish to discuss the language used, lovingly with you, as a Brother.’ As from the expression above italicised it was now plain to me that the proposed proceedings, under the guise of a friendly conference, were really intended to have a formal meaning, and to be, in fact, indirectly, an asser­ tion of jurisdiction over me,—and as I did not believe that, in my Book on the Romans, I had written anything which could warrant such a course of conduct torvaids me, so that I must not so much as indulge the thought that any Bishop of the Church of England would be willing to meet me singly, in private, friendly, conference—I replied briefly, adhering to my former resolution. (iii) I now quote the Bishop of Capetown's answer, dated Aug. 20,1862 : (I am very(gorry that you have come to the conclusion that you will not meet the Bishops ; and I do earnestly hope that you will reconsider your decision. ‘ Just think what the position of this painful case is. You have pub­ lished a work [on the Romans] which has distressed many, both in this country and in Africa,—which has led some of your clergy to communicate formally with me on the subject,—which, when examined, appears to me, and the other Bishops of the Province, to contain teaching at variance with that of the Church of which we are ministers, and which is, in consequence referred by me to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and, through him, to cer­ tain other Bishops for their opinion. These Bishops, without pretending to sit in judgment upon the work, do, nevertheless, very generally [X.B°not unanimously] concur in thinking that its teaching is extremely painful and apparently not in accordance with that of the Church of England,—so much so, indeed, that several of them have expressed themselves as unable, under present circumstances, to admit you to officiate iu their dioceses. You may be able, at an interview, to explain much that shocks the minds of others^- or they may, if they should meet you, be able to convince you that yoJ have expressed yourself unguardedly and unscripturally. ‘In the hope that by God's grace they might be able"to do this, men like the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Oxford, the Bishop of Lincoln and I doubt not, others too, would meet you, and endeavour to show you wheie your error lies. If they should succeed, they would win a brother. If they should fail, they would at least have used every effort to lead him back to the truth, from which they believe him to have departed. Is not the course proposed, of ‘ two or three ’ meeting you, the truly Christian and Scriptural one ? And is it right to refuse to be a party to it ? ‘ The case is not an ordinary one. You cannot but be aware that you have propounded views which are very startling—which you did not hold when g 2 �84 APPENDIX. you were consecrated—some of which have just been condemned by a legal Court—and which it is impossible that the Church should silently acquiesce in. It is not we who are the first to move in this matter. It is you that have departed from your former standing-ground, and have been led to adopt views, which l am sure you are far too honest to maintain are those of the Church of England, and to propagate those views by your writings and by word of mouth. As the guardians of the Church’s faith, we cannot but, under such circumstances, plead with you. ‘ Forgive the freedom with which I write. There is, I believe, on the part of the Bishops a very earnest desire to do what in them lies to recover one who ... [I omit some complimentary expressions.] I venture to hope that, if you are willing to meet the chief Pastors of the Church at home in the same spirit in which they are prepared to meet you, and to discuss with them those views which you have recently adopted and propounded, good only would result from it. But I confess that I do not see how they can consent to meet you, one by one, merely in a private way, or treat the grave statements which you have made as open questions. Many of these statements, however qualified by a different language in other parts of your book, appear to all the Divines that I have met with, who have studied your book, to be both unsound and dangerous. You may be able to show them that you have been misunderstood, or you may be led to qualify statements which we regard as rash and erroneous. Do not lightly throw away the chance of setting yourselfbright, and settling a matter of very great importance to yourself and to the Church.’ (iv) My reply to the above was as follows, dated August 27, 1862 :— ‘I received your last letter before I left Cornwall, but have delayed replying that I might give its contents a due consideration. I thank you most sincerely for the kind expressions which you have used towards myself in it. I wish, indeed, that I were more worthy of them. But, as to the main question, I am sorry to be obliged to say that I feel it due to myself, and to my rightful position, to adhere to my resolution of declining to meet a number of Bishops together in the way proposed. ‘I do so for the following reasons among others. I am so far from con­ sidering that the views which I have expressed in my Commentary on the Romans are contrary to the teaching of the Church of England, that— as, indeed, I have already stated in the first letter which I addressed to you from Natal in reply to yours, expressing your disapproval of my book,—I entirely believe that what I have taught in that book I am permitted to teach, within the liberty allowed me by the Articles and Prayer Book of the Church of England, and with a conscientious adherence to the letter and spirit of them. With, I think, two exceptions only, those views I held as strongly, and preached them as plainly, when I was consecrated, as I do now. On two points, I admit,—the Scripture doctrine of the Atonement, �APPENDIX. S5 and the subject of Eternal Punishment,—my mind has progressed with advancing age, experience, enquiry, and meditation, to my present views. But I have said nothing, as I believe, and as able and eminent divines assure me, which can justly deserve the censures which some have passed upon my book. 1 Of course, I am aware that the recent judgment of Dr. Ltjshington [in “ Essays and Reviews ”] brings me under condemnation on certain points. But you cannot surely believe that flat judgment will be maintained in the Court of Appeal, when it obviously departs from the very principles which the Judge himself laid down, and which the higher Court has laid down in other cases. Mr. Grote’s pamphlet makes this abundantly plain. If, however, it should be confirmed on these points, it will then be the dutv of myself and a multitude of other clergymen, who have held and taught views like my own, to decide on our future course. ‘Believing, then, that there is no real ground whatever for the opinion that the views expressed in my Commentary on the Romans, however they may differ from those of some of my episcopal brethren, ai’e in any way con­ demned by the Articles and Formularies of the Church, and having already entered into a full explanation on all those points, on which you expressed objection to my teaching, in a letter which (I presume) has been laid before the Bishops assembled to discuss my book, I feel that I should place myself in a false position, if I should consent to be convened before a number of Bishops in the way proposed, which would, in fact, amount to a recognition of their right to interrogate me. ‘Nevertheless, as I have said, I shall be most glad to meet singly and privately with any Bishop, who either from a sense of duty to the Church, and to what he believes to be the truth, or from a feeling of charity to­ wards a brother whom he wishes to “recover,” would be willing to meet and discuss with me any of the questions raised in the Commentary. It seems to me that this course will be most truly in accordance with the Scriptural rule to which your letter refers. ‘ I was wholly unaware that Bishop Clavghton had joined in the con­ demnation of my book, (though I knew that he did not agree with some of my views), and certainly from his letters to myself I should never have inferred it. The only pain I feel is that of causing to yourself so much anxiety and giief, in addition to your other vexations. But this God lays upon you (and upon me also) in the'path of duty.’ (v) At the end of three weeks, I received this note from the Bishop of Capetown, dated Sept. 17, 1862 ‘ I think that I ought to tell you that the dear good old Bishop of St. Asaph has expressed a readiness to discuss your views with you, if you chose to visit him with a^view to that purpose, and that, although I have �86 APPENDIX. no commission from the Bishop of Oxford to say so, I cannot help feeling that he would be ready to do the same. I cannot tell you how deeply I grieve over the case.’ As the Bishop of Capetown must have discussed the whole matter with the Bishop of Oxford, and ‘ had no commission from him ’ to say that he would be -willing- to see me, of course the latter porti'on of the above note had no meaning- for me under the existing- circumstances. For the Bishop of St. Asaph I have the deepest esteem and respect, and, perhaps, I ought to have gone to him for the purpose. But I was in London, he in Wales; and I liaidly felt that, with a Prelate of his advanced years, a discussion upon my Commentary would be likely to lead to any practical result, and I had no leason to suppose that he had studied at all the criticism of the Penta­ teuch. To the Bishop of St. David’s, whom I myself mentioned to Bishop Gray, and whose learning might, indeed, have been profitably consulted bv us, my proposal, as his Lordship has informed me, was never in any wav communicated. 1 he fact was, as I believe, and as the above correspondence, I think, will sufficiently evidence, that the Bishop of Capetown was determined from the first to bring me to account, if possible, in some form 01 other, for my Book on the Romans,—which, though containing, as I maintain, no single statement at variance with the Articles and Formu­ laries, was yet very strongly condemned by himself and others, holding­ extreme views in the Church on either side, both in England and in South Africa. If I had consented to be thus ‘ convened,’ no doubt the act would have been quoted, as my private letters have been, to show that I had 1 recognised’ the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan. 5. Letters from native converts, received by the Bishop of Natal while in England: p.5O. From a native youth, C) 1 Feb. 2, 1863. (My Father,—I thank you very much for your reply to me about that matter which I told you about [his marriage], and I too for my part wish that you may come and settle that affair. Wre here are living verv happilv. We rejoiced greatly at the arrival of Dulela [sent back from England]; she arrived on J an. 6 : we asked of her the news about you, and she told us. But we shall be very delighted when we see you all, through the mercy of our God and Father. A little while ago I was sick for a time, Oct. 23,1862; and I vent away home, but returned here ag-ain, Nov. 3, 1862. I began to print the Gospel of Matthew, and finished it on Jan. 28, 1863. Now I am printing the Gospel of Mark. Lingane is working upon the Book of Genesis; and I think he works remarkably well. Llansi also is learning very well: as far as I can see, I should say that he will learn well presently. But I wish very much to hear when you will come back to us here; for we all remember you exceedingly, longing that you may come immediately. I �APPENDIX. 87 should like you to tell the Inkosikazi [Mrs. Colenso] that I am now learning to play the harmonium; but I teach myself by myself; some tunes too I am now able to play well when we worship. Also the Inkosikazi [Mrs. Grubb] said to me that she would like me to help her in teaching other people of an evening; so I teach them, Umpiwa there, and Simoi, and Henry, another man of Mr. Robertson the teacher in Zululand. Again, I have heard that now Umpiwa wishes to be admitted into the Church of the Lord, and be baptized. I rejoiced very much at that. Salute for me, &c.; all of ours here salute you very much. But all blessing and glad­ ness are in the hands of God our Father, who is Almighty, of His great mercy, to protect us well and all our brethren.’ i March 20, 1863. Father,—I wish now to write to you about how we are going on at Ekukanveni. I wish also to hear how you are going on in England. We are all well: but I am just now in great trouble, because Llansi is going away. I do not all complain of his being sent away : I am only very sorry for it: for I see that I shall be without any one to help me, since Lingane wishes also soon to go. But I have spoken with the Archdeacon, and asked him to send for Mankentyane. The Archdeacon consented, and I hope that M. will help nicely in what I want: besides I know that he is much more expert than either Lingane or Llansi. But, as for Llansi, I did hope that he would have helped me, and that I should have taught him thoroughly according to your word: now, however, I am quite grieved at the sad story of his going away. [Llansi had not committed any very serious offence: but he was in fault, and it was thought most prudent to send him away from the station, and he was then employed by a printer in town.] We are very glad to hear of your welfare at this time; and we trust that God will grant us through His mercy to see you again. Glut, my father, about the matter of the gun, which I wished to buy, now I see that I don’t much need it. I wish to leave it, and not to buy it now. I don’t say that I leave it, because I see something else which I desire : I wish to leave it simply because I don’t particularly want it. What I wish now is to lobola [deposit cows for a girl whom he wishes to marry] a little. Not that I want to marry immediately—I remember your advice to “ wait till I am older.” I quite agree to this : I only wish to begin by de­ grees. Therefore I should like you to tell ------ that I wish to use this money of the gun for this purpose, since this affair is to be settled by you as that of the gun was ; and, though I still wish for this gun, I wish also to restrain my heart with respect to it, lest, perhaps, I should injure any one with it. ‘ Salute for me Inkosikazi and all the children. Tell them that I shall greatly rejoice to see them again through the mercy of our Father.’ (ii) i My �88 APPENDIX. J-111) _ ‘April 29, 1863. ‘ My Lord, I rejoiced exceedingly to-day because we heard of your life and your work there in England; for there arrived that letter of yours which you sent to William, and we heard it all clearly ; it rejoiced us ex­ ceedingly. . . . But one thing will gladden us especially ; we shall joy when we see you heie again in Natal, since we have been looking for you exceed­ ingly- • . . I am now at work with Mankentyane and Fani ; Lingane went away a few days after Llansi’s departure ; but presently these two arrived. They help me capitally. I am now in the middle of Luke: Mankentyane has printed Genesis: Fani is stitching Prayer-books. This is how we are working here. ... A few weeks past Undiane made a call, coming to ask the Aichdeacon [Grubb] for a book, “ First Lessons in Science ” : I fancy the Archdeacon gave him one. . , .’ The above three letters are translated literally from the original, written in Zulu. I give now three letters in English from the same lad, verbatim and literatim (the spelling not altered) as he wrote them. The reader will judge whether there are signs here of any ‘progress,’ and any solid re­ sult of my labours, observing that these letters indicate the present state of things during my absence from the Colony, and that this lad was a little naked savage when I first took him from the kraal. If a well-educated Englishman finds it so difficult to write grammatical Zulu, how much more difficult must it be for a native to write English !—when he has first to be taught the very elements of grammar, and that by a teacher who can scarcely explain his own meaning in the native tongue, and often knows but little about grammar himself, or knows only the grammar of the English tongue, which differs totally from that of the Zulu. (iy) ‘Ekukanyeni, June 29, 1863. ‘ My dear Lord,—I have no time now to write all what I wish to say to you, but I am very glad to see you writing, for I like very much to write every word in English tongue, but I can’t do that, for I know not all the sorts of English word. ‘ At this time I am very glad to my work, I have only Fani who help me in the place of Mankentyane and Lingane. When Mankentyane was just came here, he was with us only one month and half, when he hears that the sickness of small pox will be at Natal he gone away, he left Fani in his place, but I hope that Lingane will come to me if Fani go home. ‘ Jojo says that I better write and tell you that he is not at Ekukanyeni now, he saw that his wife is very ill, and go to his friend to help him by giving him. (Jojo) medicines to give his wife for she was very ill. But he says that I tell you that he is not go away at Ekukanyeni, he only stay for a few months for he fears that his wife will be ill again. He has a child, her name is Unoziduli, I hope that she will grow very well by the might of God. Jojo and his wife Nomvuzo says that I may salute you for �APPENDIX. 89 them and Inkosikazi [and the children], as they hope that they will see them again by the power of our Father. ‘ But, my Lord, the thing which I want to know about it, is this that I want to know that, if I done all the copies of the book of New Testament, what shall I do ? I say that for I don’t like to go away to some body, I don’t like to leave Ekukanyeni. I say that for I see now I will done them at April or May, 1864, I don’t know yet, only thinking. I want to know if you will send some copies for me, for I want to work very much now I am very oblige [desirous] to work my printing books in the printing-office. ‘ All the people salute you, my Lord, every person which know you salute you. I hope to see you again, if God wills. Salute Inkosikazi for me, please, and ask her that [whether] she will glad if I many? I think that I will many for [in] few months, but I have no enough cows to give the father of intombi yami [my girl]. Tell Inkosikazi that, if I marry, I will ask something for my wife, for she is my mother indeed, and the intombi says that I may salute for her to Inkosikazi her mother. Salute Inkosikazi and children for me, tell them that I will write for them all in next steamer. If God wills that we see you, we shall be glad.’ (v) ‘ Aug. 23, 1863. ‘ My dear Lord,—I am very glad this day that you send me this letter, my heart is so fully rejoice to see it. At this time I know that you will come back to us again, for if I take this your letter and look at it, I see this to be sure that you wish for yourself to come again at Natal. ... I have heard that Ngoza [a chief] want to bring here his boys. Now I am only [alone] in the printing-office. Fani has go home at the end of last July, and he left me alone, but though he is gone I am working comfortable, and need nothing. I just print only [alone] like my doing when you was here. You know that at that time I was only [alone] in the printingoffice. If God helps me I will do all that you told me to do. Now I leave the New Testament, I want to [have] done the Book of Genesis be­ fore [first]; when I done it, I shall go on the New Testament, and when I done it, I will go on Exodus. ‘Salute Inkosikazi. . . . for me, and tell them that I will be very glad to hear about them all right. All people who know you say ‘ Good bye.’ I can’t count them for they are so many. If God of peace and love might send our friends back to us, as it pleased Him, we shall be glad and rejoice, through Christ Jesus, who is our Lord and Savior. Good by to every one. I am your faithful servant.’ (V1) ‘ Bishopstowe [Ekukanyeni] : March 27, 1864. ‘ My dear Lord and Father,—I want to hear of your coming very much at this time, for I heard not about your matter in England, only I know that you shall come back again as you told me in last month’s, but I don't �90 APPENDIX. know which time you will be here. But, my Lord, my work in thislast month goes very slowly, for I sent my proof to------ but he keep it for a long time, and then I thought in my mind, I said, “it is better that (am do)= [I do] for myself the jjroves which I printed,” and then I begin to print Exodus, for got my proof of the book of New Testament; but I think to take that proof also to him, for it is right to me to do all which is my business and finish it. For I can do the proves for myself, if there is no man to take them. . . . But for myself I shall thank God if I see you here in Natal again. But all our doings are in the hands of God our Heavenly Father, to send our friends here again, that we may see one another by God’s seeing [providence] and love. That is all now. I shall be veiy glad to hear of your coming to us again. For we live here like as children who have not their father and mother. ‘ This is the two sheets of the beginning of Exodus, which I had done for myself, and try to do right, all the words, that they may [be] without mistakes, as I try to do so.’ [In these two sheets, corrected by himself, there was only me small printer’s error.] The following is a literal translation of a letter, which I received from the same youth by the last mail, reporting the proceedings of the Bishop of Capetown, when he paid a visit to my residence. (v^) 1 Ekukanyeni: May 29, 1864. My Lord, I rejoiced greatly to hear your letter which you sent to M illiam. I wish much that you would write to me also, that I may hear clearly whether these people are speaking the truth, or no, about you. The other day, May 10, there came the Bishop of Capetown along with Mr. Robertson : they reached Ekukanyeni both together. And so Mr. Robert­ son called William, saying he wished to see him. They came in both together into the printing-office, and looked at my work. Afterwards we went out together with them in the afternoon; and we talked with Mr. Robertson, and asked “Where is the Bishop [of Capetown] going to?” Said he, “Aha! that Bishop has come to put all things properly. For Sobantu [the native name for the Bishop of Natal] has gone astray greatly; I don t suppose that he will ever come back here.” Again he said, f<The Bishop has come to tell the people to abandon the teaching of Sobantu; for Sobantu has gone astray exceedingly; he has rebelled; he does not believe in God our Father, and in Jesus Christ our Lord.” William and I, however, contradicted, saying, “ As to Sobantu, we know that he, for his part, is a man who believes exceedingly. When has that [which you speak of] come upon him?” Said he, “When he was in England he rebelled ; his book, too, speaks badly.” 11 wish, now, to hear plainly whether, indeed, they have spoken truth or not, Mr. Robertson and others, to-wit, that you no longer believe. But I �APPENDIX. 91 know that there is not a word of truth in what they say. Just the one thing is, that we believe in God our Father, who knows everything. ‘As to my work, it is going on very well indeed. I should say that in about another month I shall have finished this Book of Exodus which I am now printing. But I have only a part of it here : I don’t know where the rest of it is. I have here Ch. i-xxix. I don’t know anything about the rest. LI did not translate the description of the details of the tabernacle, &c.]. After that I shall print the New Testament, beginning there at Luke [where he had left off], and the others, until I have finished all that book of the Histories, and the Acts of the Apostles, and Paul’s writings, and so on with the others. After that I shall print the Book of Samuel ; when I have finished that, there will be an end of the work which you set out for me. But that will take some little time before I have finished those Books, because I am working all alone. For my part I ask very much for monev, that I may have a boy to help me, that I may work well. ‘Salute for me, &c.’ The following are literal translations of letters received from native catechists, and will serve to show the tone of thought which I have en­ deavoured to cherish among them, down to the last hour of my residence in Natal. (viii) ‘ 0 Nkosi [Sir] do you remember us here ? 0 Nkosi, I trust indeed that v ou do 1 emember us. Ah I but, Nkosi, I am grieved because no tiding's come to say when you will return. Bo not delay, Nkosi, lest it should seem that you have gone away altogether. But, Nkosi, know this that there is a longing, I cannot say how great, for you, ever since you went away. In truth, there is a painful sense of desolation at your departure. ‘ Well, Nkosi, your people are living comfortably at present; but they are looking for your return. It seems as if, when you shall have come, what has now come short will be made to meet, what has bent down will be lifted up, what is unfinished will be completed, yes, and what is sleeping by the way will arrive. But, Nkosi, as to the people in Maritzburg,—I mean, those who worship in oui chapel [whom he taught],—they are doing well at all times; their business goes steadily forward continually. There are also some of them who are particularly attentive. There are five, too, who wish to be baptized. But among those who wish to be baptized, one is very ill indeed in his lungs. ‘ I salute all those of your house, yourself, and the Inkosikazi, and the boys and the young ladies. All of my house salute; they look for your return; and I, too, am looking for a word to say, “ I will return at such and such a time.” ’ (ix) . . . Again, Nkosi, I hoped very much that, as soon as you reached England, you would send a man at once, coming from you, to help me in �92 APPENDIX. Maritzburg, according to what we planned. And even now, Nkosi, if you send him, I should be very glad. Fuither, Nkosi, know that we all here desire to hear your word, that you should send it among your people, and they may hear it, and rejoice at it. By that they will think that you still remember them, and will rejoice at it, just as that Paul did, you know, to his people. [The writer greatly admired that Paul ; but he said that his epistles always made his headache,” while helping me to translate them.] For there are many who worry us, saying, 11 Sobantu will not return again ”; others say, “Sobantu—he is now turned out”; others say, “ Sobantu—he is no longer a Bishop; he is no longer a minister; he is just nobody. . . .” 1 Nkosi, farewell! May God, whom you serve, deal with you as He sees good,—help you with His glorious might in all which you are doing,—be a Father to you, and you be a child to Him, in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, who gives to us all! Amen. ‘'As to us here, we are living happily; but the one thing that we are looking for is your coming. That is the one great thing above all others. Farewell, my Lord.’ ‘ Jan. 28, 1864. (x) 1 May it please you, Nkosi, to answer a little to this which I am saying. You know, however, that I would not urge you about answering if it cannot be done. I desire to ask, “ When will you at length return ? Can you not promise a little ? ” For you must know, Nkosi, from the time you went away, people are talking continually, saying, “ Sobantu will never come back.” But we, your flock, are looking for you with red [straining] eyes all the days,—I say, all the months,—I say, all the years—of our life; we are looking for your return, Nkosi Sobantu. However, Nkosi, supposing that you will not return, say so, or supposing that you will return, say so, a little. But Nkosi, do not think that I shall be satisfied to write to you merely. No ! I don’t desire that at all. For the one thing, which I look for more than anything else, is your coming—that alone, Nkosi. For, as to this your departure, in you is the very sole excellence of our work, as to which we had looked continually that it should go on and prosper,—I mean, of course, the excellent great work, which is through our Lord Jesus Christ. So it is, Nkosi Sobantu., beloved by the baud of faith! I have no wish to be [merely] writing to you continually. For I look for one thing, to be brought about through the name of the Living God, which is looked for by all the believers of ours—I mean, your return. For, Nkosi, it seems to me that, if your return shall only be heard of as certain, it would be as if the rain came, as if the sun shone, as if an eclipse happened, as if the earth were overturned, as if the rivers had run dry, as if the sea had stilled its roaring, as if all winds had ceased to blow, as if all were fair, as if all were clear-. Foi, suiely, it is plain that it is right that one, who is a Bishop, should be �APPENDIX. 93 here in the land; since he works for men, because that is his office, to manage men. For some, truly, are trusted with the management of men : others are trusted with the collecting of money. There are offices and offices established in the workings of men. Farewell, my Lord ! I am still alive, and I am one of yours at Ekukanyeni.’ This is the last letter of the same catechist, just arrived, which will show the kind of work which the Bishop of Capetown has thought it right to do among my poor native flock. Quid non relligio potuit! 1 Mav 29, 1864. (xi) 11 have received your letter, Nkosi; I am very thankful for it. I rejoice also because I find that you are well, both in body and soul. For indeed, so it is, upon my word, that there is a great noise among all people about you : some say, 11 Sobantu has rebelled ”; others say, u Sobantu goes astray ” : ’tis so continually with them all. ‘But, Nkosi, see! do, I entreat, make a guess, and promise about your return. For, you know, Nkosi, to expect and wait for you is but a short matter: but, according to their talk, you will never more return at all. ‘Also the other day there arrived the Bishop of Capetown ; he just came to have a look at Ekukanyeni, accompanied by Mr. Robertson. They went also to the place of worship [St. Mary’s Native Chapel] in town, going to see the people. We asked about Sobantu. But Mr. Robertson [by the Bishop’s direction, of course, the latter not speaking Zulu] made a long discourse to all the people : he said, “ Sobantu will never again come back : Sobantu has rebelled entirely, he has gone astray. His going astray we white people don’t wonder at; for it has been always so among the white people; there are always arising people such as he.’’ Whereupon I asked, and said to Mr. Robertson, “ What then ? do not you know Sobantu, that he is a man who believes entirely in God?” He assented. Then said I, “Well then, when did he begin to rebel, when he was in England, or here ? ” Said he, “At the time he left this country, he had already begun to rebel; but, when he arrived in England, be rebelled altogether.” I contradicted. But, Nkosi, there was more which I cannot possibly write, the whole of it. ... . ‘Nkosi, I salute you very much. I remember you every day; I don’t forget you for one single day. But to see a letter coming from you is quite as if I were dreaming. Salute for me kindly to the Inkosikazi, salute for me to the young ladies, salute for me to the boys, salute all those who love us together with you. Oui’ Father, who is over all, preserve you, deliver you from all, grant you that the wealth of the Holy Spirit may abound to you.’ Here, lastly, is a note from another native catechist, who has been equally disturbed by Bishop Gray’s proceedings. (xii) ‘ My Lord,—It was pleasant to hear your words: for we were in a �94 APPENDIX. state of great excitement, not knowing what is the real state of the case. I also said about you, Nkosi, it cannot possibly be true for us: for you had come to bring light among those in darkness. I say, your doing was not like a white-man ; it was like the words which say, 11 He sends forth His sun upon evil and upon good,”—the way by which you came among us continually. But before God our Father we may be comforted about you until we see your face. . . . The sea is a great thing ; because, although we love you so much, we cannot see you. Salute, &c.’ I venture to believe that the above letters give evidence of a solid and permanent work, wrought by God’s grace, in preparing these natives for future usefulness among their people. Their intellectual powers have been cultivated, as well as their hearts : they have been taught to think about religion, and not merely crammed with dogmatic formulae, although, in such exercise of their reasoning powers, they have compelled me to give close attention to difficulties, which in English teaching are too commonly passed over or altogether ignored. But the reader will perceive that a tone of true Christian feeling—of simple healthy piety—characterizes all these letters; and the steady industry of the young printer, amidst all his difficulties and discouragements, is to me most refreshing and hopeful, as a sign of real ‘ progress. ’ 6. Proposed alteration of the Supreme Court of Appeal : p.63. The Bishop of Capetown says of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Charge, p.12:—‘ The Judgment, which it has just given, in oppo­ sition to the Archbishops and the voice of Convocation, has convulsed the Church of England, and is forcing her to repudiate its decision, and to demand an alteration in the Court of Appeal * * The Bishop also says, Charge, p.12:—‘Is not the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council the final Court of Appeal for the Church of England ? In certain cases it is so, with the presence of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the Bishop of London. For the last thirty years, by a mere oversight, as Lord Brougham has stated publicly in the House of Lords, it has been so.’ It must, have been, however, a happy oversight, even in the opinion of Lord Brougham, if the following statement of Dr. Manning is correct, Letter, &e., p.7: ‘The late Bishop Blomfiekd introduced into Parliament a Bill to amend the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Crown in matters of Doctrine. By that Bill it was provided that in all such questions the matter of Doctrine should be divided from the matter of Law, and that the Doctrine should be adjudged by the Bishops, the Law by the Judges of the Privy Council. . . . Lord Brougham spoke against the Bill. He said, with plain English common sense, that the Bishops would constitute no sufficient tribunal for questions of controverted Doctrine, because they might divide in equal numbers, and give, therefore, no decision, or by a bare majority, which �APPENDIX. 95 There is certainly & party in the Church which ‘demands’ such an altera­ tion, and in no very mild terms. Thus Dr. Plsey writes in his recent manifesto,, p. 18:—'■ Will the Church of England require that the Court, which has shown itself so partial, so dishonest,—which, had it been a matter of human property, would not have dared so openly to profane justice,—should be reformed?’ But the following are the views of the Bishop (Waldegrave) of Carlisle on this question, Charge, p.48 :— 1 A third party have—without avowing the purpose, though I can hardly think without contemplating the result—availed themselves of the present season of disquiet, for advocating a modification of the constitution of the Court of Appeal, which would certainly issue, and that at no distant date, in the dis-establishment—and, be it well remembered, in the dis-endow­ ment also—of our National Church............. This would be nothing less than to supersede the teaching of our written formularies, unmoved as they ever are and must be by the tempests of party and passion, by the opinion of living men, who cannot but be liable to be swayed by all the tumultuous gusts of the fleeting hour. Would our Laity, think you, for one moment tolerate the existence of such a tribunal ? . . . I, for one, can have no sympathy with men, who had rather that all things should be brought to a standstill, than that any the least alteration should be made which does not fully and exactly tally with the day-dreams of their own ambitious imaginations. And such men there still are at work amongst us. They were, until recently, regarded with a just and an universal suspicion, as animated by that spirit of sacerdotal absolutism, which, more than two centuries ago, involved our Church and Kingdom in a common overthrow. The notable zeal with which, all the while retaining a cordial dislike to the distinguishing doctrines of the Reformation, they have thrown themselves into the antirationalistic movement, has caused too many to condone their errors, and thus given them the opportunity, of which they have been by no means backward to avail themselves, of silently urging onward their cherished scheme of un-protestantizing the National Church. Of this scheme it is difficult not to believe that this plan of ecclesiastical-law-reform is an inte­ gral portion.’ Among those, who are most violent in ‘ demanding ’ this reform, is the Ven. Archdeacon Denison, one who signed the famous Anglican ‘ Declaration,’ with reference to the ‘ Gorham Judgment,’ in common with Dr. Ptjsey, Dr. Newman, Dr. Manning, and nine others, of whom, says Dr. Manning, to an Anglican Friend, p.l, ‘six afterwards submitted to would carry no moral conviction to any one, or the majority, however great, would not tell by number against a minority, in which were found the few of known learning and influence, with whom public opinion would certainly go. The end of the Bill might have been foreseen. It was rejected with an overwhelming rejection, not only of opposition, but of arguments.’ �96 APPENDIX. the Catholic [Boman] Church, four are no more, and five are still Angli­ cans.’ By the ‘ Declaration ’ it was affirmed, that, if the Church of England acquiesced in the Gorham Judgment, ‘by such conscious, wilful, and deliberate act’ it would ‘become formally separated from the Catholic Body, and could no longer assure to its members the Grace of the Sacraments and the Demission of Sins.’ The Church of England has acquiesced in that judgment: but both Dr. Pvsey and Archdeacon Denison still remain as clergymen of the Church of England. It is to Archdeacon Denison, however, that the Bishop of Capetown has applied, for six additional clergy to be planted in my diocese : so at least I infer from a letter in the Guardian of Aug.31, bearing, as signature, the motto of the Archdeacon’s journal (Church and State Review), ‘ Pro Ecclesia Dei.’ At any rate, it is plain that it is intended to take advantage of my absence, to force upon my diocese, if possible, a number of clergy holding ‘extreme views of Church and State,’ such as those which are held by Archdeacon Denison and Dr. Prsey, as well as by Bishop Gray and the Natal correspondent of the Guardian. With reference to this point, I think it right to say that, it is my purpose, with the Divine assistance, on my return to my diocese, both to maintain inviolate, as far as shall lie in my power, all rights, spiritual or temporal, belonging to me as its Bishop, and, at the same time, to consult for its religious peace and quietness, by overlooking, wherever possible, all offences against its ecclesiastical order, which may have been committed during my absence. These offences have mainly arisen from the intrusion of another Bishop into the affairs of my diocese. The Bishop of Capetown, however, has no more authority over my diocese, than I have over his, except so far as it shall have been lawfully given him by the Crown, of which the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty’s Privy Council will be the judges. Accordingly, his appointment of clergy to minister in the diocese of Natal would, if illegal, give them no mission : in pretending to give it, he would be the author of a Schism: his own clergy, who might affect to support him, and any Society at home, which should furnish stipends to persons so nominated, and exercising their functions without my Licence, would be its abettors. In many periods of ecclesiastical history we meet with examples of Bishops charging each other with heresy, and defying each other with mutual excommunications. I shall endeavour always to avoid following the example of this unseemly kind of warfare. But I feel called upon to caution some, who might, perhaps, otherwise be led away, against abetting­ proceedings ecclesiastically irregular and schismatical,—politically seditious, —injurious to the cause of religion and to the progress of Christianity,— and hurtful individually to the religious life of all who promote them. SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., PRINTERS, NEW-STREET SQUARE, LONDON. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Remarks upon the recent proceedings and charge of Robert Lord Bishop of Cape Town and Metropolitan at his primary metropolitan visitation of the diocese of Natal Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Colenso, John William [1814-1883] Gray, Robert [Bishop of Cape Town] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: [4], 96 p. ; 21 cm. Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Appendix 1: extracts from the Bishop of Natal's Books. 2: Opinions of Various Writers in the Church of England Respecting the Authorship of the Pentateuch. 3: Extracts from the Fathers and Others, Shewing their Views as to the Limitation of our Lord's Knowledge as the Son of Man. 4: Correspondence of the Bishop of Natal with the Bishop of Capetown. 5: Letters from Native Converts, received by the Bishop of Natal while in England. 6: Proposed Alteration of the Supreme Court of Appeal. Printed by Spottiswoode and Co., New Street Square, London. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts & Green Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1864 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G5199 Subject The topic of the resource Heresy Trials Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Remarks upon the recent proceedings and charge of Robert Lord Bishop of Cape Town and Metropolitan at his primary metropolitan visitation of the diocese of Natal), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Bible. O.T. Pentateuch Robert Gray Trials (Heresy) https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0301929f5e641c03c52e33ba49983ce6.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=dVsxIG4eIPjiml2IftZCe88kcoSH64UzoMJex9PzmZX6BsWh1c8%7E5T3spEjar2PNGPwvIZPrG13TBRN19LYHStb54No2XoL9nFWtezMbHo9SlfFD-VJYhJFQT6LAJHJU7DgRRP37LDIZ5NB8UCNb7AhyVclbXXEcSWc0OXycvzWYt5%7EEww9tXHYcZbcNkXV07Gs-5hP8yugwqK4Z0lJtyvyxfFEF4M02V7ITzG-HwX0OPxEBIsZTXMwovtWl5LGc3G3v-C4UyhJ%7EsTxD3Za7E2lie0lAYqn%7ENpjO-uGBfZ75FtPNCxGeP1KSvkXa0jgWaPiTYXkDIuw713HTfS0ixw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 4f7f42e8fe0dea6e8569f740de8df04b PDF Text Text HERETICS AND HERESIES. NATIONAL SECT n a n COLONEL ROBERT G. INGERSOLL. LONDON: FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28,, Stonecutter Street, E.C. PRICE FOURPENCE. �LONDON : PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGITr 28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. �HERETICS AND HERESIES. “Liberty, a word without which all other words are vain.'1 ' x Whoever has an opinion of his own, and honestly expresses it, will be guilty of heresy. Heresy is what the minority believe; it is a name given by the powerful to the doctrine of the weak. This word was born of the hatred, arrogance, and cruelty of those who love their enemies, and who, when smitten on one cheek, turn the other. This -word was born of intellectual slavery in the feudal ages of thought. It was an epithet used in the place of argument. From the com­ mencement of the Christian era, every art has been exhausted, and every conceivable punishment inflicted, to force ail people to hold the same religious opinions. This effort was born of the idea that a certain belief was necessary to the salvation of the soul. Christ taught, and the Church still teaches, that unbelief is the blackest of crimes. God is sup­ posed to hate with an infinite and implacable hatred, every heretic upon the earth, and the heretics who have died are supposed, at this moment, to be suffering the agonies of the damned. The Church persecutes the living, and her God burns the dead. It is claimed that God wrote a book called the Bible, and it is generally admitted that this book is somewhat difficult to understand. As long as the Church had all the copies of this book, and the people were not allowed to read it, there was comparatively little heresy in the world; but when it was printed and read, people began honestly to differ as to its meaning. A few were independent and brave enough to> give the world their real thoughts, and for the extermination of these men the Church used all her power. Protestants, and Catholics vied with each other in the work of enslaving the human mind. For ages they were rivals in the infamous effort to rid the earth of honest people. They infested every country, every city, town, hamlet, and family. They appealed to the worst passions of the human heart. They sowed the seeds of discord and hatred in every land. Brother denounced brother, wives informed against their husbands, mothers ac­ �4 HERETICS AND HERESIES. cused their children, dungeons were crowded with the inno­ cent ; the flesh of the good and the true rotted in the clasp of chains, the flames devoured the heroic, and in the name of the most merciful God his children were exterminated with famine, sword, and fire. Over the wild waves of battle .rose and fell the banner of Jesus Christ. For sixteen hundred years the robes of the Church were red with innocent blood. The ingenuity of Christians was exhausted in devising punish­ ment severe enough to be inflicted upon other Christians who honestly and sincerely differed with them upon any ipoint whatever. Give any orthodox Church the power, and to-day they would punish heresy with whip, and chain, and fire. As long as a Church deems a certain belief essential to sal­ vation, just so long it will kill and burn if it has the power. Why should the Church pity a man whom her God hates? Why should she show mercy to a kind and noble heretic whom her God will burn in eternal fire ? Why should a Christian be better than his God ? It is impossible for the imagination to conceive of a greater atrocity than has been perpetrated by the Church. Let it be remembered that all Churches have persecuted heretics to the extent of their power. Every nerve in the human body capable of pain has been sought out and touched by the Church. Toleration has increased only when and where the power of the Church has diminished. From Augustine until now the spirit of the Christian has re­ mained the same. There has been the same intolerance, the same undying hatred of all who think for themselves, the same determination to crush out of the human brain all knowledge inconsistent with the ignorant creed. Every Church pretends that it has a revelation from God, and that this revelation must be given to the people through the Church; that the Church acts through its priests, and that ordinary mortals must be content with a revelation—not from God—but from the Church. Had the people sub­ mitted to this preposterous claim, of course there could have been but one Church, and that Church never could have advanced. It might have retrograded, because it is not necessary to think, or investigate, in order to forget. With­ out heresy there could have been no progress. The highest type of the orthodox Christian does not for­ get. Neither does he learn. He neither advances nor recedes. He is a living fossil, imbedded in.that rock called �HERETICS AND HERESIES. 5 faith. He makes no effort to better his condition, because all his strength is exhausted in keeping other people from improving theirs. The supreme desire of his heart is to force all others to adopt his creed, and in order to accomplish this object he denounces all kinds of Freethinking as a crime, and this crime he calls heresy. When he had the power, heresy was the most terrible and formidable of words. It meant confiscation, exile, imprisonment, torture, and death. In those days the cross and rack were inseparable com­ panions. Across the open Bible lay the sword and fagot. Not content with burning such heretics as were alive, they even tried the dead, in order that the Church might rob their wives and children. The property of all heretics was confiscated, and on this account they charged the dead with being heretical—indicted, as it were, their dust—-to the end that the Church might clutch the bread of orphans. Learned divines discussed the propriety of tearing out the tongues of heretics before they were burned, and the general opinion was that this ought to be done, so that the heretics should not be able, by uttering blasphemies, to shock the Christians who were burning them. With a mixture of ferocity and Christianity, the priests insisted that heretics ought to be burned at a slow fire, giving as a reason that more time was given them for repentance. No wonder that Jesus Christ said, “ I came not to bring peace but a sword ! ” Every priest regarded himself as the agent of God. He answered all questions by authority, and to treat him with disrespect was an insult offered to God. No one was asked to think, but all were commanded to obey. In 1208 the Inquisition was established. Seven years afterward, the fourth council of the Lateran enjoined all kings and rulers to swear an oath that they would extermi­ nate heretics from their dominions. The sword of the Church was unsheathed, and the world was at the mercy of ignorant and infuriated priests, whose eyes feasted upon the agonies they inflicted. Acting as they believed, or pre­ tended to believe, under the command of God, stimulated by the hope of infinite reward in another world—hating heretics with every drop of their bestial blood—savage be­ yond description — merciless beyond conception — these infamous priests, in a kind of frenzied joy, leaped upon the helpless victims of their rage. They crushed their bones in iron boots, tore their quivering flesh with iron hooks and �6 HERETICS AND HERESIES. pincers, cut off their lips and eyelids, pulled out their nails, and into the bleeding quick thrust needles, tore out their tongues, extinguished their eyes, stretched them upon racks, flayed them alive, crucified them with their head downward, exposed them to wild beasts, burned them at the stake, mocked their cries and groans, ravished their wives, robbed their children, and then prayed God to finish the holy work in hell. Millions upon millions were sacrificed upon the altars of bigotry. The Catholic burned the Lutheran, the Lutheran burned the Catholic ; the Episcopalian tortured the Presby­ terian, the Presbyterian tortured the Episcopalian. Every denomination killed all it could of every other; and each Christian felt in duty bound to exterminate every other Christian who denied the smallest fraction of his creed. In the reign of Henry VIII., that pious and moral founder of the Apostolic Episcopal Church, there was passed by the Parliament of England an Act entitled, “An Act for Abolishing of Diversity, of Opinion.” And in this Act was set forth what a good Christian was obliged to believe. . First, that in the sacrament was the real body and blood of Jesus Christ. Second, that the body and blood of Jesus Christ was in the bread, and the blood and body of Jesus Christ was in the wine. Third, that the priest should not marry. Fourth, that vows of chastity were of perpetual obligation. Fifth, that private masses ought to be continued. And sixth, that auricular confession to a priest must be maintained. This creed was made by law, in order that all men might know just what to believe by simply reading the statute. The Church hated to see the people wearing out their brains in thinking upon these subjects. It was thought far better that a creed should be made by Parliament, so that ■whatever might be lacking in evidence might be made up in force. The punishment for denying the first article was death by fire. For the denial of any other article, imprison­ ment, and for the second offence—death. Your attention is called to these six articles, established during the reign of Henry VIII., and by the Church of England, simply because not one of these articles is believed by that Church to-day. If the law then made by the �HERETICS AND HERESIES. 7 "Church could be enforced now, every Episcopalian would be burned at the stake. Similar'laws were passed in most Christian countries, as 4111 orthodox Churches firmly believed that mankind could be legislated into heaven. According to the creed of every Church, slavery leads to heaven, liberty leads to hell. It was claimed that God had founded the Church, and that to deny the authority of the Church was to be a traitor to God, and consequently an ally of the Devil. To torture and destroy one of the soldiers of Satan was a duty no good Christian cared to neglect. Nothing can be sweeter than to 'earn the gratitude of God by killing your own enemies. Such a mingling of profit and revenge, of heaven for yofirself and damnation for those you dislike, is a temptation that your ordinary Christian never resists. 1 According to the theologians, God, the Father of us all, wrote a letter to his children. The children have always differed somewhat as to the meaning of this letter. /In consequence of these honest differences, these brothers began to cut out each other’s hearts. In every land, where this letter from God has been read, the children to wIiqIti and for whom it was written have been filled with hatred and malice. They have imprisoned and murdered each other and the wives and children of each other. In the name of God every possible crime has been com­ mitted, every conceivable outrage has been perpetrated. Brave men, tender and loving women, beautiful girls, and prattling babes have been exterminated in the name of Jesus Christ. For more than fifty generations the Church h&s ■carried the black flag. Her vengeance has been measured ■only by her power. During all these years of infamy no heretic has ever been forgiven. With the heart of a fiend she has hated; with the clutch of avarice she has grasped ; with the jaws of a dragon she has devoured, pitiless., as famine, merciless as fire, with the conscience of a serpent., .Such is the history of the Church of God. I do not say, and I do not believe, that Christians are'as bad as their creeds. In spite of Church and dogma, there have been millions and millions of men and women true to the loftiest and most generous promptings of the human heart. They have been true to their convictions, and with a self-denial and fortitude excelled by none, have laboured and suffered for the salvation of men. Imbued with the spirit of self-sacrifice, believing that by personal effort �8 HERETICS AND HERESIES. they could rescue at least a few souls from the infinite­ shadow of hell, they have cheerfully endured every hardship and scorned danger and death. And yet, notwithstanding; all this, they believed that honest error was a crime. They knew that the Bible so declared, and they believed that all unbelievers would be eternally lost. They believed that religion was of God, and all heresy of the Devil. They killed heretics in defence of their own souls and the souls, of their children. They killed them, because, according to. their idea, they were the enemies of God, and because theBible teaches that the blood of the unbeliever is a most acceptable sacrifice to heaven. Nature never prompted a loving mother to th'roA her child into the Ganges. Nature never prompted men to exterminate each other for a difference of opinion concerning the baptism of infants.. These crimes have been produced by religions filled with all that is illogical, cruel, and hideous. These religions, were produced for the most part by ignorance, tyranny, and hypocrisy. Under the impression that the infinite Ruler and Creator of the Universe had commanded the destruction of heretics and infidels, the Church perpetrated all these crimes. Men and women have been burned for thinking therewas but one God; that there was none; that the Holy Ghost is younger than God; that God was somewhat older than his son; for insisting that good works will save a man, without faith ; that faith will do without good works ; for declaring that a sweet babe will not be burned eternally, because its parents failed to have its head wet by a priest for speaking of God as though he had a nose ; for denying; that Christ was his own father; for contending that three persons, rightly added together, make more than one; for believing in purgatory; for denying the reality of hell; for pretending that priests can forgive sins ; for preaching that God is an essence ; for denying that witches rode through the air on sticks; for doubting the total depravity of the human heart; for laughing at irresistible grace, predesti­ nation, and particular redemption ; for denying that good bread could be made of the body of a dead man; for pre­ tending that the Pope was not managing this world for God, and in place of God ; for disputing the efficacy of a vicarious atonement; for thinking that the Virgin Mary was born like other people; for thinking that a man’s rib was hardly sufficient to make a good sized woman ; for denying that God used his finger for a pen ; for asserting that prayers are- �HERETICS AND HERESIES. 9 not answered, that diseases are not sent to punish unbelief; for denying the authority of the Bible; for having a Bible in their possession; for attending mass, and for refusing to attend ; for wearing a surplice ; for carrying a cross, and for refusing; for being a Catholic, and for being a Protestant, for being an Episcopalian, a Presbyterian, a Baptist, and for being a Quaker. In short, every virtue has been a crime, and every crime a virtue. The Church has burned honesty ' and rewarded hypocrisy, and all this she did because it was commanded by a book—a book that men had been taught implicitly to believe, long before they knew one word that was in it. They had been taught that to doubt the truth of this book, to examine it, even, was a crime of such enor­ mity that it could not be forgiven, either in this world or in the next. The Bible was the real persecutor. The Bible burned heretics, built dungeons, founded the Inquisition, and trampled upon all the liberties of men. How, long, O how long will mankind worship a book? How long will they grovel in the dust before the ignorant legends of the barbaric past ? How long, O how long will they pursue phantoms in a darkness deeper than death ? Unfortunately for the world, about the beginning of the sixteenth century a man by the name of Gerard Chauvin was married to Jeanne Lefranc, and still more unfortunately for the world the fruit’ of this marriage was a son, called John Chauvin, who afterward became as famous as John Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterian Church. This man forged five fetters for the brain. These fetters he called points. That is to say, predestination, particular redemption, total depravity, irresistible grace, and the per­ severance of the saints. About the neck of each follower he put a collar, bristling with these five iron points. The presence of all these points on the collar is still the test of orthodoxy in the church he founded. This man, when in the flush of youth, was elected to the office of preacher in Geneva. He at once, in union with Farel, drew up a con­ densed statement of the Presbyterian doctrine, and all the citizens of Geneva, on pain of banishment, were compelled to take ar oath that they believed this statement. Of this proceeding Calvin very innocently remarked that it pro­ duced great satisfaction. A man by the name of Caroli had the audacity to dispute with Calvin. For this outrage he was banished. �io HERETICS AND HERESIES. To show you what great subjects occupied the attention of Calvin, it is only necessaty to state that he furiously dis­ cussed the question as to whether the sacramental bread should be leavened or unleavened. He drew up laws regu­ lating the cut of the citizens’ clothes, and prescribing their diet, and all whose garments were not in the Calvin fashion were refused the sacrament. At last, the people becoming tired of this petty, theological tyranny, banished Calvin. In a few years, however, he was recalled and received with great enthusiasm. After this, he was supreme, and the will of Calvin' became the law of Geneva. Under the benign administration of Calvin, James Cruet was beheaded because he had written some profane verses. The slightest word against Calvin or his absurd doctrine was punished as a crime. In *553, a man was tried at Vienne by the Catholic Church for heresy. He was convicted and sentenced to death by burning. It was his good fortune to escape. Pursued by the sleuth hounds of intolerance, he fled to Geneva for protection. A dove flying from hawks, sought safety in the best of a vulture. This fugitive from the cruelty of Rome asked shelter from John Calvin, who had written a book in favour of religious toleration. Servetus had forgotten that this book was written by Calvin when in the minority ; that it was written in weakness, to be forgotten in power; that it was produced by fear instead of principle. He did not know that Calvin had caused his arrest at Vienne, in France, and had sent a copy of his work, which was claimed to be blasphemous, to the archbishop. He did not then know that the Protestant Calvin was acting as one of the detectives of the Catholic Church, and had been instrumental in procuring his conviction for heresy. Igno­ rant of all this unspeakable infamy, he put himself in the power of this very Calvin. The maker of the Presbyterian creed caused the fugitive Servetus to be arrested for bias1 phemy. He was tried; Calvin was his accuser. He was convicted and condemned to death by fire. On the morn­ ing of the fatal day Calvin saw him, and Servetus, the victim, asked forgiveness of. Calvin, the murderer, for any­ thing he might have said that had wounded his feelings. Servetus was bound to the stake, the fagots were lighted. The wind carried the flames somewhat away from his body, so that he slowly roasted for hours. Vainly he implored a speedy death. At last the flame climbed around his form ; �HERETICS AND HERESIES. 11 through smoke and fire his murderers saw a white, heroic face. And there they watched until a man became a charred and shrivelled mass. Liberty was banished from Geneva, and nothing but Presbyterianism was left. Honour, justice, mercy, reason, and charity were all exiled; but the five points of predestin­ ation, particular redemption, irresistible grace, total de­ pravity, and the certain perseverance of the saints, remained instead. Calvin founded a little theocracy in Geneva, modelled after the Old Testament, and succeeded in erecting the most detestable government that ever existed, except the one from which it was copied. Against all this intolerance, one man, a minister, raised his voice. The name of this man should never be forgotten. It was Castellio. This brave man had the goodness and the courage to declare the innocence of honest error. He was the first of the so-called reformers to take this noble ground. I .wish I had the genius to pay a fitting tribute to his memory. Perhaps it would be impossible to pay him a grander compliment than to say, Castellio was in all things the opposite of Calvin. To plead for the right of individual judgment was considered as a crime, and Cas­ tellio was driven from Geneva by John Calvin. By him he was denounced as a child of the Devil, as a dog of Satan, as a beast from Hell, and as one who, by this horrid blas­ phemy of the innocence of honest error, crucified Christ afresh, and by him he was pursued until rescued by the hand of death. Upon the name of Castellio, Calvin heaped every epithet, until his malice was satisfied and his imagination exhausted. It is impossible to conceive how human nature can become so frightfully perverted as to pursue a fellow-man with the malignity of a fiend, simply because he is good, just, and generous. Calvin was of a pallid, bloodless complexion, thin, sickly, irritable, gloomy, impatient, egotistic, tyrannical, heartless, and infamous. He was a strange compound of revengeful morality, malicious forgiveness, ferocious charity, egotistichumility, and a kind of hellish justice. In other words, he was as near like the God of the Old Testament as his health permitted'. The best thing, however, about the Presbyterians of Ge­ neva was that they denied the power of the Pope, and the �T2 HERETICS AND HERESIES. best thing about the Pope was that he was not a Presby­ terian. The doctrines of Calvin spread rapidly, and were eagerly accepted by multitudes on the Continent. But Scotland, in a few years, became the real fortress of Presbyterianism. The Scotch rivalled the adherents of Calvin, and succeeded in establishing the same kind of theocracy that flourished in Geneva. The clergy took possession and control of everybody and everything. It is impossible to exaggerate the slavery, the mental degradation, the abject superstition of the people of Scotland during the reign of Presby­ terianism. Heretics were hunted and devoured as though . they had been wild beasts. The gloomy insanity of Presby­ terianism took possession of a great majority of the people. They regarded .their ministers as the Jews did Moses and Aaron. They believed that they were the especial agents of God, and that whatsoever they bound in Scotland would be bound in heaven. There was not one particle of intel­ lectual freedom. No one was allowed to differ from the Church, or to even contradict a priestx Had Presbyterianism* -"maintained its ascendancy, Scotland would have been peo­ pled by savages to-day. The revengeful spirit of Calvin took possession of the Puritans, and caused them to redden the soil of the New World with the brave blood of honest men. Clinging to the five points of Calvin, they, too, estab­ lished governments in accordance with the teachings of the Old Testament. They, too, attached the penalty of death to the expression of honest thought. They, too, believed their Church supreme, and exerted all their power to curse this Continent with a spiritual despotism as infamous as it was absurd. They believed with Luther that universal toleration is universal error, and universal error is universal hell. Toleration was denounced as a crime. Fortunately for us, civilization has had a softening effect upon the Presbyterian Church. To the ennobling, influence of the arts and sciences the savage spirit of Calvinism has, in some slight degree, succumbed. True, the old creed remains substantially as it was written, but by a kind of tacit understanding it has come to be regarded as a relic of the past. The cry of “heresy” has been growing fainter and fainter, and, as a consequence, the ministers of that denomination have ventured now and then to express doubts as to the damnation of infants, and the doctrine of total depravity. The fact is, the old ideas became a �HERETICS AND HERESIES. >3 little monotonous to the people. The fall of man, the scheme of redemption and irresistible grace, began to have a familiar sound. The preachers told the old stories while the congregation slept. Some of the ministers became tired of these stories themselves. The five points grew dull, and they felt that nothing short of irresistible grace could bear this endless repetition. The outside world was full of progress, and in every direction men advanced, while the Church, anchored to creed, idly rotted on the shore. Other denominations, imbued some little with the spirit of investigation, were springing up on every side, while the old Presbyterian ark. rested on the Ararat of the past, filled with the theological monsters of another age. Lured by the splendours of the outer world, tempted? by the achievements of science, longing to feel the throb and beat of the mighty march of the human race, a few of the ministers of this conservative denomination were compelled, by irresistible sense, to say a few words in harmony with the splendid ideas of to-day. These utterances have upon several occasions so nearly awakened some of the members, that, rubbing their eyes, they have feebly inquired whether these grand ideas were not somewhat heretical? Those ministers found that just in proportion as their orthodoxy decreased, their congre­ gations increased. Those who dealt in the pure unadulter­ ated article, found themselves demonstrating the five points to a less number of hearers than they had points. Stung to .madness by this bitter truth, this galling contrast, this harassing fact, the really othodox have raised the cry ot heresy, and expect with this cry to seal the lips of honesty men. One of these ministers, and one who has been enjoying the luxury of a little honest thought, and the real rapture of expressing it, has already been indicted and is about to be tried by the Presbytery of Illinois. He has been charged : First. With speaking in an ambiguous language in re1 lation to the dear old doctrine of the fall of man. With having neglected to preach - that most comforting and consoling truth, the eternal damnation of the soul. Surely that man must be a monster who could wish to blot this blessed doctrine out and rob earth’s wretched children of this blissful hope ! Who can estimate the misery that has been caused by this most infamous doctrine of eternal punishment ? Think of the lives it has blighted—of the tears it has caused—of �14 HERETICS AND HERESIES. the agony it has produced. Think of the millions who have been driven to insanity by this most terrible of dogmas. This doctrine renders God the basest and most cruel being in the universe. Compared with him, the most frightful deities of the most barbarous and degraded tribes are miracles of goodness and mercy. There is nothing more degrading than to worship such a God. Lower than this the soul can never sink. / If the doctrine of eternal damna­ tion is true, let me have my portion in hell, rather than in heaven with a God infamous enough to inflict eternal misery upon any of the sons of men. Second. With having spoken a few kind words of Robert Collyer and John Stuart Mill. I have the honour of a slight acquaintance with Robert Collyer. I have read with pleasure some of his ‘exquisite productions. He has a brain full of the dawn, the head of a philosopher, the imagination of a poet, and the sincere heart of a child. Is a minister to be silenced because he speaks fairly of a noble and candid adversary ? Is it a crime to compliment a lover of justice, an advocate of liberty; one who devoted his life to the elevation of man, the discovery of truth, and the promulgation of what he believed to be right ? Can that tongue be palsied by a presbytery that praises a self-denying and heroic life ? Is it a sin to speak a chari­ table word over the grave of John Stuart Mill? Is it heretical to pay a just and graceful tribute to departed worth ? Must the true Presbyterian violate the sanctity of the tomb, dig open the grave, and ask his God to curse the silent dust ? Is Presbyterianism so narrow that it conceives of no excellence, of no purity of intention, of no spiritual and moral grandeur outside of its barbaric creed ? Does it still retain within its stony heart all the malice of its founder ? Is it still warming its fleshless hands at the flames that con­ sumed Servetus ? Does it still glory in the damnation of infants, and does it still persist in emptying the cradle in order that perdition may be filled ? Is it still starving the soul and famishing the heart? Is it still trembling and shivering, crouching and crawling, before its ignorant con­ fession of faith ? Had such men as Robert Collyer and John Stuart Mill been present at the burning of Servetus, they would have extin­ guished the flames with their tears. Had the Presbytery of Chicago been there, they would have quietly turned their backs, solemnly divided their coat-tails, and warmed themselves. �HERETICS AND HERESIES. i Third. With having spoken disparagingly of the doctrine of predestination. If there is any dogma that ought to be protected by law, predestination is that doctrine. Surely it is a cheerful, joyous thing, to one who is labouring, struggling, and suffer­ ing in this weary world, to think that before he existed, before the earth was, before a star had glittered in the heavens, before a ray of light had left the quiver of the sun, his destiny had been irrevocably fixed, and that for an eternity before his birth he had been doomed to bear eternal pain ! Fourth. With having failed to preach the efficacy of “vicarious sacrifice.” Suppose a man had been convicted of murder, and was about to be hanged—the governor acting as the executioner. And suppose that just as the doomed man > was to suffer death, some one in the crowd should step forward and say, “ I am willing to die in the place of that murderer. He has a family, and I have none.” And suppose further that the governor should reply, “ Come forward, young man, your offer is accepted. A murder has been committed, and somebody must be hung, and your death will satisfy the law just as well as the death of the murderer.” What would you then think of the doctrine of “ vicarious sacrifice ” ? This doctrine is the consummation of two outrages—for­ giving one crime and committing another. Fifth. With having inculcated a phase of the doctrine commonly known as “ Evolution ” or “ Development.” The Church believes and teaches the exact opposite of this doctrine. According to the philosophy of theology, man has continued to degenerate for six thousand years. To teach that there is that in nature which impels to higher forms and grander ends, is heresy, of course. The Deity will damn Spencer and his “ Evolution,” Darwin and his “ Origin of Species,” Bastian and his “ Spontaneous Genera­ tion,” Huxley and his “ Protoplasm,” Tyndall and his “ Prayer Guage,” and will save those, and those only, who '•declare that the universe has been cursed from the smallest atom to the grandest star ; that everything tends to evil,"and to that only ; and that the only perfect thing in nature is the Presbyterian confession of faith. Sixth. With having intimated that the reception of Socrates and Penelope at heaven’s gate was, to say the least, a trifle more cordial than that of Catharine II. �i6 HERETICS AND HERESIES. Penelope waiting Tpatiently and trustfully for her lord’s return, delaying her Isuitors, while sadly weaving and un­ weaving the shroud ofWaertes, is the most perfect type of wife and woman produced by the civilization of Greece. Socrates, whose life was above reproach, and whose death was beyond all praise, stands to-day, in the estimation of every thoughtful man, at least the peer of Christ. Catharine II. assassinated her husband. ^Stepping upon his corpse, she mounted the throne. She was the murderess of Prince Iwan, the grand-nephew of Peter the Great, who was imprisoned for eighteen years, and who, during all that time, saw the sky but once. Taken all in all, Catharine was probably one of the most intellectual beasts that ever wore a crown. Catharine, however, was the head of the Greek Church, Socrates was a heretic, and Penelope lived and died without having once heard of “particular redemption,” or “.irresist­ ible grace.” Seventh. With repudiating the idea of a “ call ” to the ministry,” and pretending that men were “ called ” to preach as they were to the other avocations of life. If this doctrine is true, God, to say the least of it, is an exceedingly poor judge of human nature. It is lhore than a century since a man of true genius has been found in an orthodox pulpit. Every minister is heretical just to the extent that his intellect is above the average. The Lord seems to be satisfied with the mediocrity ; but the people are not. An old deacoh, wishing to get rid of an unpopular preacher, advised him to give up the ministry, and turn his attention to something else. The preacher replied that he could not conscientiously desert the pulpit, as he had a “ call ” to the ministry. To which the deacon replied, “That may be so, but it’s mighty unfortunate for you that when God called you to preach, he forgot to call anybody to hear you.” There is nothing more stupidly egotistic than the claim of the clergy that they are, in some divine sense, set apart to the service of the Lord; that they have been chosen and sanctified; that there is an infinite difference between them and persons employed in secular affairs. They teach us that all other professions must take care of themselves; that God allows anybody to be a doctor, a lawyer, statesman, soldier, or artist; that the Motts and Coopers—the Mans­ fields and Marshalls—the Wilberforces and Sumners—the �HERETICS AND HERESIES. 17 Angelos and Raphaels—were never honoured by a “ call.” These chose their professions and won their laurels without the assistance of the Lord. All these men were left free to follow their own inclinations, while God was busily engaged selecting and “calling”'priests, rectors, elders, ministers, and exhorters. Eighth. With having doubted that God was the author of the 109th Psalm. The portion of that Psalm which carries with it the clearest and most satisfactory evidences of inspiration, and which has afforded almost unspeakable consolation to the Presby­ terian Church, is as follows : “ Set thou a wicked man over him; and let Satan stand at his right hand. “When he shall be judged, let him be condemned; and let his prayer become sin. “ Let his days be few; and let another take his office. “ Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. “ Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. “Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour. “ Let there be none to extend mercy unto him ; neither let there be none to favour his fatherless children. “ Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. * ***** *** “ But do thou for me, O God the Lord, for Thy name’s sake; be­ cause Thy mercy is good, deliver thou me. * * * I will greatly praise the Lord with my mouth" Think of a God wicked and malicious enough to inspire this prayer. Think of one infamous enough to answer it. Had this inspired Psalm been found in some temple erected for the worship of snakes, or in the possession of some cannibal king, written with blood upon the dried skins of babes, there would have been a perfect harmony between its. surroundings and its sentiments. No wonder that the author of this inspired Psalm coldly received Socrates and Penelope, and reserved his sweetest smiles for Catherine the Second! Ninth. With having said that the battles in which the Israelites engaged with the approval and command of Jehovah surpassed in cruelty those of Julius Caesar. Was it Julius Caesar who said, “And the Lord our God delivered him before us ; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain ” ? �18 HERETICS AND HERESIES. Uid Julius Caesar send the following report to the Roman Senate? “And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, three-score cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og, in Bashan. All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; besides unwalled towns a great many. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon, King of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children of every city.” Did Caesar take the pity of Jericho “and utterly destroy all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old”? Did he smite “all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings, and leave none remaining that breathed, as the Lord God had commanded ” ? Search the records of the whole world, find out the his­ tory of every barbarous tribe, and you can find no crime that touched a lower depth of infamy than those the Bible’s God commanded and approved. For such a God I have no words to express my loathing and contempt, and all the words in all the languages of man would scarcely be suffi­ cient. Away with such a God ! Give me Jupiter rather, with Io and Europa, or even Siva, with his skulls and snakes, or give me none. Tenth. With having repudiated the doctrines of “ total depravity.” What a precious doctrine is that of the total depravity of the human heart! How sweet it is to believe that the Jives of all the good and great were continual sins and perpetual crimes; that the love a mother bears her child is, in the sight of God, a sin; that the gratitude of the natural heart is simple meanness; that the tears of pity are impure; that for the unconverted to live and labour for others is an offence to heaven; that the noblest aspirations of the soul are low and grovelling in the sight of God; that man should fall upon his knees and ask forgiveness, simply for loving his wife and child, and that even the act of asking forgiveness is, in fact, a crime! Surely it is a kind of bliss to feel that every woman and child in the wide world, with the exception of those who believe the five points, or some other equally cruel creed, and such children as have been baptized, ought at'this very moment to be dashed down to the lowest glowing gulf of hell! �HERETICS AND HERESIES. T9 Take from the Christian the history of his own Church; leave that entirely out of the question, and he has no argu­ ment left with which to substantiate the total depravity of man. A minister once asked an old lady, a member of his ■Church, what she thought of the doctrine of total depravity, and the dear old soul replied that she thought it a mightygood doctrine if the Lord would only give the people grace enough to live up to it I Eleventh. With having doubted the “perseverance of the saints.” I suppose the real meaning of this doctrine is, that Presby­ terians are just as sure of going to heaven as all other folks are of going to hell. The real idea being, that it all depends upon the will of God, and not upon the character of the person to be damned or saved; that God has the weakness to send Presbyterians to Paradise, and the justice to doom the rest of mankind to eternal fire. It is admitted that no unconverted brain can see the least of sense in this'doctrine; that it is abhorrent to all who have not been the recipients of a “new heart”; that only the per­ fectly good can justify the perfectly infamous. It is contended that the saints do not persevere of their own free will—that they are entitled to no credit for per­ severing; but that God forces them to persevere, while, on the other hand, every crime is committed in accordance with the secret will of God, who does all things for his own glory. Compared with this doctrine, there is no other, idea, that has ever been believed by man, that can properly be called absurd. As to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, I wish with all my heart that it may prove to be a fact. I really hope that every saint, no matter how badly he may break on the first quarter, nor how many shoes he may cast ■at the half-mile pole, will foot it bravely down the long home stretch, and win eternal heaven by at least a neck. Twelfth. With having spoken and written somewhat lightly of the idea of converting the heathen with doctrinal sermons. Of all the failures of which we have any history or know­ ledge, the missionary effort is the most conspicuous. The whole question has been decided here, in our own country, .and conclusively settled. We have nearly exterminated the Indians; but we have converted none. From the days of �20 HERETICS AND HERESIES. John Eliot to the execution of the last Modoc, not one In­ dian has been the subject of irresistible grace or particular redemption. The few red men who roam the Western wil­ derness have no thought or care concerning the five points of Calvin. They are utterly oblivious to the great and vital truths contained in the Thirty-nine articles, the Saybrook platform, and the resolution of the Evangelical Alliance. NO’ Indian has ever scalped another on account of his religious belief. This of itself shows conclusively that the mission­ aries have had no effect. x Why should we convert the heathen of China and kill our own? Why should we send missionaries across the seas, and soldiers over the plains ? Why should we send Bibles to the East and muskets to.the West? If it is impossible to convert Indians who have no religion of their own ; no perjudice for or against the “eternal procession of the Holy Ghost,” how can we expect to convert a heathen who has a religion; who has plenty of gods and Bibles and prophets, and Christs, and who has a religious literature far grander than our own? Can we hope, with the story of Daniel6in the lion’s den, to rival the stupendous miracles of India? Is there anything in our Bible as lofty and loving as the prayer of the Buddhist? Compare your “Confession of Faith” with the following: “Never will I seek nor receive private individual salvation, -—never enter into final peace alone; but forever and every­ where will I live and strive for the universal redemption of every creature throughout all worlds. Until all are delivered, never will I leave the world of sin, sorrow, and struggle, but will remain where I am.” Think of sending an average Presbyterian to convert a man who daily offers this tender, this infinitely generous and incomparable prayer! Think of reading the 109th Psalm to a heathen who has a Bible of his own, in which is found this passage : “ Blessed is that man, and beloved of all the gods, who is afraid of no man, and of whom no man is afraid ! ” Why should you read even the New Testament to a Hin­ doo, when his, own Christna has said: “If a man strike thee, and in striking drop his staff, pick it up and hand it to him again ” ? Why send a Presbyterian to a Sufi, who says : “ Better one moment of silent contemplation and inward love, than seventy thousand years of outward worship ” ? “Whoso would carelessly tread on one worm that crawls on �HERETICS AND HERESIES. 2I earth, that heartless one is darkly alienate from God ; but he that, living, embraceth all things in his love, to live with him God bursts all bounds above, below.” Why should we endeavour to thrust our cruel and heart­ less theology upon one who prays this prayer: “ O God, show pity toward the wicked ; for on the good thou hast already bestowed thy mercy by having created them vir­ tuous”? .X Compare this prayer with the curses and cruelties of the Old Testament—with the infamies commanded and ap­ proved by the being whom we are taught to worship as a God, and with the following tender product of Presbyterian­ ism : “ It may seem absurd to human wisdom that God should harden, blind, and deliver up some men to a repro­ bate sense; that he should first deliver them over to evil, and then condemn them for that evil; but the believing, spiritual man sees no absurdity in all this, knowing that God would never be a whit less good, even though he should destroy all men.” Of all the religions that have been produced by the egotism, the malice, the ignorance, and apabition of man, Presbyterianism is the most hideous. But what shall I say more ? for the time would fail me to tell of Sabellianism, of a “ model trinity,” and the “ eternal procession of the Holy Ghost ” ? ___ Upon these charges a minister is to be tried, here in Chicago ; in this city of pluck and progress—this marvel of energy, and this miracle of nerve. The cry of “ heresy,” here, sounds like a wail from the Dark Ages—a shriek from the Inquisition, or a groan from the grave of Calvin. Another effort is being made to enslave a man. It is claimed that every member of the Church has solemnly agreed never to outgrow the creed; that he has pledged himself to remain an intellectual dwarf. Upon this condition the Church agrees to save his soul, and he hands over his brains to bind the bargain. Should a fact be found inconsistent with the creed, he binds himself to deny the fact and curse the finder. With scraps of dogmas and crumbs of doctrine, he agrees that his soul shall be satisfied for ever. What an intellectual feast the confession of faith must be ! It reminds one of the dinner described by Sydney Smith, where everything was cold except the water, and everything sour except the vinegar. V Every member of a Church promises to remain orthodox, �22 HERETICS AND HERESIES. that is to say—stationary. Growth is heresy. Orthodox ideas are the feathers that have been moulted by the eagle of progress. They are the dead leaves under the majestic palm, while heresy is the bud and blossom at the top. Imagine a vine that grows at one end and decays at the other. The end that grows is heresy: the end that rots isorthodox. The dead are orthodox, and your cemetery is the: most perfect type of a well-regulated Church. No thought, no progress, no heresy there. Slowly and silently, side by side, the satisfied members peacefully decay. Them is only this difference—the dead do not persecute. And what does a trial for heresy mean? It means that the Church says to a heretic, “ Believe as I do, or I will withdraw my support; I will not employ you ; I will pursue you until your garments are rags ; until your children cry for bread; until your cheeks are furrowed with tears. I will hunt you to the very portals of the tomb, and then my God will do the rest. I will not imprison you. I will not burn you. The law prevents my doing that. I helped, make the law, not, however, to protect you, nor deprive me of the right to exterminate you, but in order to keep otherchurches from exterminating me.” A trial for heresy means that the spirit of persecution still lingers in the Church ; that it still denies the right of private judgment; that it still thinks more of creed than truth ; that it is still determined to prevent the intellectual growth of man. It means that churches are shambles in which are bought and sold the souls of men. It means that the Church is still guilty of the barbarity of opposing thought with force. It means that if it had the power the mental horizon would be bounded by a creed, that it would bring again the whips, and chains, and dungeon keys, the rack and fagot of the past. But let me tell the Church it lacks the power. There havebeen, and still arc, too many men who own themselves—toomuch thought, too much knowledge for the Church to graspagain the sword of power. The Church must abdicate, for the Eglon of superstition, science, has a message from truth.. The heretics have not thought and suffered and died in vain. Every heretic has been, and is, a ray of light. Not .in vain did Voltaire, that great man, point from the foot of the Alps the finger of scorn at every hypocrite in Europe. Not in vain were the splendid utterances of the infidels^ wliile .beyond all price are the discoveries, of science. �HERETICS AND HERESIES. 2 3- The Church has impeded, but it has not, and it cannot \ stop the onward march of the human race. Heresy cannot ] be burned, nor imprisoned, nor starved. It laughs at pres- ' byteries and synods, at (Ecumenical councils and the impo- ■ tent thunders of Sinai. Heresy is the eternal dawn, the morning star, the glittering herald of the day. Heresy isthe last and best thought. It is the perpetual, new world; the unknown sea, toward which the brave all sail. It is the eternal horizon of progress. Heresy extends the hospitali­ ties of the brain to new thoughts. Heresy is a cradle : orthodoxy a coffin. Why should a man be afraid to think, and why should he fear to express his thoughts ? Is it possible that an infinite Deity is-unwilling that man should investigate the phenomena by which he is sur­ rounded ? Is it possible that a god delights in threatening and terrifying men ? What glory, what honour and renown a god must win in such a field ! The ocean raving at a drop; a star envious of a candle ; the sun jealous of a fire-fly I Go on, presbyteries and synods, go on ! Thrust the ' heretics out of the Church. That is to say, throw away your brains—put out your eyes. The infidels will thank you. They are willing to adopt your exiles. Every de­ serter from your camp is a recruit for the army of progress. Cling to the ignorant dogmas of the past; read the 109th Psalm; gloat over the slaughter of mothers and babes thank God for total depravity; shower your honours upon hypocrites, and silence every minister who is touched with that heresy called genius. Be true to your history. Turn out the astronomers, the geologists, the naturalists, the chemists, and all the honest scientists. With a whip of scorpions, drive them all out. We want them all. Keep the ignorant, the superstitious, the bigoted, and the writers of charges and specifications. Keep them, and keep them all. Repeat your pious platitudesin the drowsy ears of the faithful, and read your Bible to heretics, as kings read some forgotten riot-act to stop and stay the waves of revolution. You are too weak to excite . anger. We forgive your efforts as the sun forgives a cloud —as the air forgives the breath you waste. How long, O how long will man listen to the threats of God, and shut his ears to the splendid promises of Nature ? How long, O how long will man remain the cringing slave of a false and cruel creed? �24 HERETICS AND HERESIES. By this time the whole world should know that the real Bible has not yet been written : but is being written, and that it will never be finished until the race begins its down­ ward march or ceases to exist. The real Bible is not the work of inspired men, nor prophets, nor apostles, nor evangelists, nor of Christ. Every man who finds a fact, adds, as it were,, a word to this great book. It is not attested by prophecy, by miracles, or by signs. It makes no appeal to faith, to ignorance, to credulity, or fear. It has no punishment for unbelief, and no reward for hypocrisy. It appeals to man in the name of demonstration. It has nothing to conceal. It has no fear of being read, of being investigated and understood. It does not pretend to be holy or sacred ; it simply claims to be true. It challenges the scrutiny of all, and implores every reader to verify every line for himself. It is incapable of being blasphemed. This book appeals to all the surroundings of man. Each thing that exists testifies of its perfection. The earth with its h^art of fire and crowns of snow; with its forests and plains, its rocks and seas ; with its every wave and cloud ; with its every leaf, and bud, and flower, confirms its every lyord, and the solemn stars, shining in the infinite abysses, are the eternal witnesses of its truth. �� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Heretics and heresies Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 24 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: No. 34c in Stein checklist. Date of publication from Stein. Marginal markings in pencil. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Freethought Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [1877] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N356 Subject The topic of the resource Heresy Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Heretics and heresies), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Heresy NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/632f60a4af847944dfe5e57feed99334.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=iVpaHAuChfLRMZaGX1aAW%7EAxGuQsrQanABPRSOS-1Q1-8aGRdHungaKX-NcCn2TpscBfoLSWBe%7Ebc-M6ydS9KEIR8QgBOMCstJSlXfBe3M59RpYiwG3TyuKLxa85qc5-%7EmFaoHA3s49T3mNvT9jONCdOeIodDJXpf98r2stFS34c2SvmeiawDbT2lx2jQHnsveFhTwoFSliNQ%7EfYgQlImAtL9QL3z5NM5z1huXh-BUgCXTd2ZeQZKGYMzIdPprQDt8ChKPCiwWL7WFFOP0-ZAPxm864FR5kfxHn7tU2tBUOmnyWP51QurxGfx%7EnKCj%7E6K%7Ei4NUSi77iqzBND9r85Eg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 9f86c8d4cfdbb0fc4a446e5852c62cd5 PDF Text Text Why should Charles Voysey be supported? A LETTER TO A FRIEND, FROM A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. It may be well to inform the reader that neither the writer nor his correspondent are connected with Manchester Meeting. LONDON: PROVOST & CO., HENRIETTA ST., COVENT GARDEN. 1871. ��WHY SHOULD CHARLES VOYSEY BE SUPPORTED? Friend, I thank thee for thy letter received a few days ago. It is always interesting and useful to have a plain honest opinion and judgment, especially when they differ from our own. I fully agree with much that thou says, but not by any means with all. It seems to me that Charles Voysey is a man who has sacrificed every outward consideration for the sake of his religious convictions, that he is able to say as few men of the present generation can—“ I have left all, and followed Thee.” More than this, there is abundant evidence that he is a man of a deeply earnest religious spirit. This is amply sufficient to command the sym­ pathy of all who really value religious liberty, and freedom of religious thought; and who believe it to be the highest duty and privilege of man to follow that Light which is revealed in his own soul, and the Guide which speaks to him there. This alone ought to be quite sufficient to command the sympathy of every Quaker. It is not needful to enquire whether there is a theo­ logical agreement before extending sympathy and help. By so doing we assist in keeping up the old and still prevalent idea that Dogma and Creed must be the basis of religious fellowship. This idea is the basis of sec­ tarianism and the parent of all that intolerance and My dear �4 TF7?y should Charles Voysey be supported I want of charity, which have more or less disgraced the history of every organized church and ecclesiastical body. Thou says thou art ignorant of my “ theological position,” and enquires if I “ share Charles Voysey’s opinions”; and thou “regrets to think of my name being cast in with his.” As a matter of fact, there are many points on which I differ widely from him, more ' widely probably than thou dost. In my apprehension, he looks at many passages in the Bible, and at much of its teaching, from a partial point of view, and mistakes its real character. Much reference has been made to the manner in which Charles Voysey treats the character of Jesus Christ. I understand the position he takes to be this. If certain things which the New Testament records concerning the sayings and doings of our Lord are true, then His character cannot have been what it is asserted to have been. Hence the conclusion is that the Bible records have, in these respects, come down to us incor­ rectly or imperfectly. This is such an important item in the accusations made against Voysey, that, at the risk of seeming tedious, I must quote some illustrations from his writings. The following beautiful passage speaks for itself:— “ If my temper towards some chief priests in my own age makes me read with delight those revilings of the chief priests by Jesus, and feel glad at the abuse poured upon them, it reveals to me the fact that I am stirred by revengeful or, at least, very angry feeling—that I am in a state of hatred. But if I prefer to think of Jesus as one who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, who, when He was reviled, reviled not again, when He suffered, He threatened not, I am aware that my temper is improved, and that I prefer the more gentle and patient picture by reason of my own pro­ gress. In this way, if we do not actually make our �Why should Charles Voysey be supported ? n own image of Jesus, we at all events change it at will, taking away features that we have ceased to reverence and admire, and adding others that we have learned to consider still more noble than we have ever worn. Whatever is to us loveliest, purest, gentlest, most loving, most manly, that is to us our Christ; and so long as His name is cherished in the hearts of men, and taken up adoringly on their lips, it will surely stand as a sign or symbol of what God wishes us to be ; and His loving life and loving death will be to us the example of what He wishes us to do. In any case, we must own that, if St. Peter’s account of Jesus be the truest, few, if any, of our race have yet reached so high a perfection. He is still the firstborn among many brethren, and none can dispute His right to be called the 1 Shepherd and Bishop of our souls.’ ” * The nature of Voysey’s belief in Christ as our Saviour appears in the next passage :— “ God’s work of salvation is never ended; for, as we rise higher and higher, the attainments we thought so good become hardened into habits, and cease to be vir­ tuous ; while the weaknesses which we once excused are regarded no longer with leniency, but must be con­ quered and trampled down as sins. And God uses men and women to help Him in his work of salvation. Good fathers and good mothers, good husbands and good wives, faithful friends, and good masters and good servants, are all saviours, as much and more so to us than the noble army of martyrs and the glorious com­ pany of apostles and prophets. So too, only in the highest degree, the Lord Jesus Christ is our Saviour, enlightening the world by His own beautiful life, and by the good news of a Heavenly Father’s love, which He brought into the darkness of a despairing world. Whatever helps to reveal the constant love of God the Sermons, vol. iii. pp. 231, 232. �6 II hy should Charles Voysey be supported 1 Father for us all—whatever helps to rekindle our dying love for Him, and for each other—that, in the best sense, is a means of salvation. And wherever men and women are, in however slow a degree, amending their lives, and becoming more and more a blessing and hap­ piness to those around them, whatever be their creed, there surely is the Almighty and Most Merciful God at work ‘redeeming their lives from destruction, and crowning them with loving-kindness and tender mercies.’ ” * Voysey constantly expresses the highest reverence for the character of Christ, and his aim is to remove blemishes which he believes the Scriptures themselves place upon it. Whether the passages in question are susceptible of a different meaning and complexion than that which he gives to them is another matter alto­ gether. Thy letter specially refers to the conclusion of Voysey’s recent “ Lecture on the Bible,” where he comments on Jesus saying to His mother, “Woman, behold thy Son.” Even if we admit the adjectives which he applies to this scene, it is perfectly clear from the context that Voysey looks upon the account as false, and in no way accuses Christ of acting in a manner which he so deprecates. I cannot resist again quoting from his writings, to show how Voysey endeavours to teach men to follow Christ:— < Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross, and follow me.’ We call ourselves the dis­ ciples and followers of our Lord . . . but the majority of us Christians are about as ignorant of the character’ and work of Christ as the apostles were. Few ever think of Him as ‘ one who came to bear witness unto Sermons, vol. ii. pp. 10, 11. �Why should Charles Voysey be supported I 7 the truth,’ and as one whose great object was thereby to deliver men’s souls from bondage, and to save them from their sins. Most of us Christians either forget or do not even know the meaning of Christ’s coming to bear witness unto the Truth, to live and die for it; while many of those who contemplate the death and passion of our Lord regard it only as a means of deliver­ ance from everlasting punishment............. God’s call is to speak the truth boldly, let the consequences be what they may ; man’s advice is to be very cautious, and not at all bold, and to be guided entirely by reference to the consequences. This is the Church of to-day, and I deliberately, but sorrowfully, say, we neither under­ stand Christ, nor follow Him. If any will truly come after Him, at however humble a distance, he can only do so by ‘ denying himself and taking up his cross.’ . . . I have been speaking much, if not altogether, in refe­ rence to the clergy—to the following Christ in teaching unpalatable truth. But there is even a far more im­ portant following of Him than this, to be done day by day, by each and all of us, in our own homes, where every one ought to give way and to deny himself that he may do better for others. The crosses of life are not always heavy, but they are daily and constant, and it just makes all the difference between a true and a false following of Christ, whether we systematically refuse to bear our own cross, laying it or trying to lay it upon some one else instead, or take it up submissively and cheerfully, as something doubly precious and sanc­ tified, as sent by God for the good of our souls, and as sent also by Him as a means of comforting and saving the lives of others. . . . Our true reward, our highest happiness on earth as well as in heaven, depends on our following Christ, not merely in the great and rare struggles of the human mind after truth and liberty, but also, and most of all, in our daily living in a spirit of true self-denial, and seeking only the peace and welfare and happiness of those around us. Let us pray then that, both in our public and private callings, the �8 JP7z?/ should Charles Voysey be supported ? same mind may be in us which was also in Christ Jesus. For, £ if any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of His.’ ” * “ They rightly judged that God had reversed the ignorant judgment of men—that Him whom men had rejected and crucified, God had exalted to highest happiness above, and to the position of Prince and Lord in the hearts of His followers. They rightly judged that ‘ God had highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name’—subject only to God Himself, who is, and was, and will for ever be, our all in all. This is right and proper loyalty to Jesus Christ as the noblest of the Sons of God whom the eyes of men had ever seen.”! Thou uses the expression—££ follower of Charles Voysey.” There is nothing which he himself would more strongly deprecate. In a private letter, written a few months ago, he says :—“ Truly I am glad I am what I am ! A poor and undignified country parson. Had I been a Bishop, what shoals of worldly, frivolous, pandering followers I might have had, men whose souls were barren, dry, and empty, and as really irreligious as the blind devotees of the Stock Exchange or the Race-course. As it is, all my work is simply the con­ quest of Truth over prejudice, error, ignorance, and every worldly influence. The man is forgotten in what he says. And so it should ever be; for all the Truth he utters is God’s, and not his at all. I cannot accept the title of Guide. All I want is to lead men to their only Guide—the God of Truth and of Love, and to regard those who are privileged to speak Truth, as only fellow-labourers, full of faults and errors —£ earthen vessels ’— into which some little Divine Treasure has been poured. It has been the great mistake of humanity * Sermons, vol. iv. pp. 99—104. + Sermons, vol. iv. pp. 35, 36. �Why should Charles Voysey be supported ? 9 to surround the teacher with a halo which serves to conceal his imperfections, and at the same time to dazzle the observers. For this reason, Paul the Apostle left on record his painful humiliation, which, for want of an interpreter, has never had its due weight in keep­ ing his followers from regarding him as infallible. The whole blunder and perversion of Christianity to-day, has been o'wing to the calling of Jesus ‘ Lord, Lord,’ instead of doing God’s will as He directed us. I have a horror of being thought to be more than I am, or of standing even for one moment on my own authority, as a dictator to the minds and hearts and lives of my fellow-men.” We may well say, “How are the mighty fallen,” when such a man as this does not receive the united moral support of the Society of Friends. The real reason of this is, that the Society of Friends has become one of the Churches and Sects, out of which it was George Fox’s mission to call the Children of God. It is impossible that thy “ liberal Friend correspondent,” whose letter thou quotes, can have any comprehension of Voysey’s spirit when he says, “We are to cease to listen to Christ, and hearken to the Rev. Charles Voysey.” The spirit of Quakerism teaches us to follow no man, neither Fox, Penn, Barclay, nor Voysey. William Penn, in his Preface to George Fox’s Journal, speaking of the first “ Friends,” says :— “ They directed people to a principle by which all that they asserted, preached, and exhorted others to, might be wrought in them, and known through expe­ rience to them, to be true. Which is a high and dis­ tinguishing mark of the truth of their ministry. Both that they knew what they said, and were not afraid of coming to the test. For as they were bold from cer­ tainty, so they required conformity upon no human authority, but upon conviction. And the conviction of this principle, they asserted, was in them that they preached unto. And unto that they directed them, that �10 TJ'Vzz/ should Charles Voysey be supported? they might examine and prove the reality of those things which they had affirmed of it, as to its mani­ festation and work in man. And this is more than the many ministries in the world pretend to. . . . Which of them all pretend to speak of their own knowledge and experience ? or ever directed men to a Divine prin­ ciple or agent, placed of God in man, to help him? And how to know it, and wait to feel its power to work that good and acceptable will of God in them.” In George Fox’s writings he constantly testifies to the same thing :—That “ the Light which every man that cometh into the world is enlightened with, is the salvation to the ends of the earth”; that “ this was Christ’s doctrine,” that “ this Light is Christ, the sub­ stance, the righteousness of God.” He says “ How is man’s salvation wrought out hut by the power of Christ within ? How is the old man destroyed but by Christ within? . . . Who feels Christ within feels salvation.” * And Charles Voysey says :— “ God or Love is the Father of the Divine Nature of Jesus and of men. He has begotten us all, and as children of Him we possess part of His own life and spirit. ... I know there is plenty of wickedness amongst us, quite enough even in the best of us to say—1 Father, I have sinned against Thee, and am no more worthy to be called Thy Son,’-—to make us echo the Apostle’s graceful apostrophe, 1 Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God ! ’ But then how could we tell that God is so good, and that we are unworthy of His Fatherhood, if it were not that God is already dwelling in us and revealing Himself to us ? No book, nor word of man, nor word of Jesus, could of itself make us feel what God is, and why we are unworthy of our high calling as His Sons. This is only and * See many passages, especially in vol. iii. of G. F.’s Works, American edition. �Why should Charles Voysey he supported ? 11 solely due to God’s indwelling-—to the Spirit which He Himself has begotten in us. Therefore as God was in Christ, so in like manner, though not yet in like degree, He is in us, or we should never have been able to learn any truth about Him, or to feel our sonship, or to bewail our own unworthiness. . . . Let us thankfully accept at the lips of Jesus the assurance of a tie between our­ selves and our Heavenly Father which nothing can ever break. For if Jesus dwells eternally in the bosom of the Father, so also do we; for His Father is our Father, and His God is our God.” * It is to my mind an entire perversion of the true facts of the case, to speak of “the disastrous effects which the support given to Charles Voysey has had at Manchester.” Rather should we speak of the disastrous effects produced by the undue assumption and exercise of ecclesiastical power,—the same old story, and the same old temptation, into which Churches have ever fallen. I hope thou wilt excuse the extreme plainness with which I have written, and that my meaning is also plain. I hope also I do not lose sight of the dangers from which thou warns me;—that it may be quite possible, even with the best intentions, to pursue a mischievous course, and one which is prejudicial to the cause we have most at heart. At the meeting which I attended in London, I expressed the belief that the worst thing we could do would be to take any action which would tend to form a “ sect of Voyseyites.” This feeling was united with by the meeting. So far as I can understand the spirit which is now guiding Charles Voysey’s line of action, it may be summed up in the following extract from one of his later sermons :— “ If a man is convinced that he has found a faith more true, more helpful, more consoling, than other Sermons, vol. iv. pp. 206, 208. �12 Why shoiddXhharles Voysey be supported ? faiths which are common in his time, it is surely that man’s duty to try and teach that faith to his fellow­ men. In proportion as he himself has found it to be more elevating, more comforting, more consistent with reason and experience, so surely he ought to be more eager and constant in proclaiming his own faith, and in doing what he can to lead others to embrace it also. I am one of those who think they have found a nobler faith, and I feel sure that my faith is to be found in the Bible, and that it was taught by the Hebrew Prophets and Psalmists, and by Jesus of Nazareth most of all.” * The great need of the present time seems to me to be the preaching of a religion of Life—not of doctrine— not of belief. That God is the Father of all men, and will instruct all men in the way in which they are to walk. This is the substance of Charles Voysey’s teach­ ing. He is at the present time its representative man. Therefore he must be supported; notwithstanding he may at times be mistaken, and even say harsh, weak, or bitter things. I have felt and do feel it a privilege to have rendered him some little moral and material help, and to have been the means of conveying to him from others, both material and spiritual expressions of sympathy. I am, thy friend sincerely, * * # # * 1, viii. 1871. * Sermons, vol. iv. p. 3. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Why should Charles Voysey be supported? A letter to a friend, from a member of the Society of Friends Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 12 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Includes bibliographical references. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Scribbled marks in ink on last page. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Provost & Co. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1871 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CT3 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource A Member of the Society of Friends Subject The topic of the resource Heresy Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Why should Charles Voysey be supported? A letter to a friend, from a member of the Society of Friends), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Charles Voysey Conway Tracts Heresy Quakerism Society of Friends https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/37346aba43f3530c55ff3d3342e6a340.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=YhmEYjJ4vezIe8UH35Ew2RorGwZ7zuhne2RI6XcfEN4JhZXbvXUg2Udl4G79ooiIZ8-GkbpjJgRxNBoGHQHYfrwpq2USvO7g-n9s3hcRDrRm15MtgKdoHw8ybQt0UihFDb3PervUIcDJba3Ghv1NVMBLUlMxRhEoV1A0lLxaAPhtST0gikSXK4LPRgcVZByXpIyHGNHad9bSJnN6IVmY8U5va1hHCtV%7ENjv9gizpR0e53c7lR1Q3xmF5dAo0sxXxo5Xxj3y4QOFAnlLg3xs7%7EUInjRW2O0rGEtLCp4-tglW-Wc6yzsRweYV2R%7EFswW7P1A9aIx%7EXHszNBzXPHKZhlw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM afdad8eec029684613474ae6b821147c PDF Text Text NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY THE PAST AND PRESENT OF THE HERESY LAWS. DELIVERED BEFORE THE SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY, ON SUNDAY AFTERNOON, 1st DECEMBER, 1878, BY ‘ W. A. HUNTER, M.A., Barrister-at-Law, Professor of Jurisprudence, University College London. ’ Hontian: PUBLISHED BY THE SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY, 1878. PRICE THREEPENCE. �SYLLABUS. Mr. Lecky’s views on the causes of Persecution. Dogma and Persecution arose from the struggle of the clergy for political supremacy. I. Punishment of Heresy as a crime. 1. By the Ecclesiastical Courts. 2. By judge and law. 3. By statute. 4. Proposed article in the New Criminal Code. II. Deprivation of Civil Rights of Heretics. 1. Nullification of contracts tainted with heresy. 2. Illegality of heretical trusts. 3. Guardianship of children. 4. The refusal of evidence. Oaths. Witnesses. III. Heresy in morals. IV. The Persecuting Spirit as perverting the administration of justice. �HISTORY OF THE HERESY LAWS. HE History of Persecution presents to the philosophic mind a strange problem. Why should men cruelly maltreat and murder their fellow-men, who do them no harm, because of a mere difference of opinion regarding super-terrestrial objects ? The question is not easy to answer. It implies, on the part of the persecuting sects, intellectual blindness and moral callousness. For surely —from a mere intellectual standpoint—nothing can be more absurd than to punish a man for his belief. To inflict evil upon a man because his reason does not recommend a popular creed may make him a hypocrite, but by no possibility a believer. It implies not less moral obliquity. For the simplest rule of morals is that we should do unto others as we would have others do unto us. But the persecutor never admits that it is right to punish him for his opinions. His opinions, he tells us, are right opinions, and it would be highly criminal to punish a man for holding right opinions. Thus reasons the bigot with himself. Sometimes indeed he tries to evade this difficulty. He will tell us, with engaging candour, that persecution is always right in principle, however unfortunate it may sometimes be in its applica­ tion. He will assure us that he persecutes because he believes it right to suppress error; and he admits that if his party is the weaker it would be right to persecute him in turn. By this ingenuous admission he hopes to shelter himself under the golden rule; but it is to be observed that such a confession is never made when there is any opportunity of testing his sincerity. If this candid gentleman were to find himself among the persecuted, he would be the first to call out most lustily against the wickedness of his persecutors. When, therefore, we take a persecutor and calmly examine him, we find his moral sense as much at fault as his intellect; both his T �4 The Past and Present intelligence and his conscience are clouded; in a word, he is both a rogue and a fool. In putting the issue on that broad and simple basis I make an assumption. I assume that the bigot is sincere according to his light. I assume that he reverences truth; that he wishes to see truth prevail among man­ kind, and that error be driven away. It is from this point of view that Mr. Lecky, the distinguished historian of Rationalism in Europe, discusses that most melancholy chapter in the history of the human race, the rise and progress of persecution. He ascribes the tremendous energy of the spirit of persecution to the doctrine of eternal punishment for religious error, and in a vigorous passage he thus denounces a cause of untold suffering to the human race:—* “If men believe with an intense and realising faith that their own view of a disputed question is true beyond all possibility of mistake, if they further believe that those who adopt other views will be doomed by the Almighty to an eternity of misery which, with the same moral dis­ position but with a different belief, they would have escaped, these men will, sooner or later, persecute to the full extent of their power. If you speak to them of the physical and mental suffering which persecution produces, or of the sincerity and unselfish heroism of its victims, they will reply that such arguments rest altogether on the inadequacy of your realisation of the doctrine they believe. What suffering that man can inflict can be comparable to the eternal misery of all who embrace the doctrine of the heretic? What claim can human virtues have to our forbearance, if the Almighty punishes the mere profession of error as a crime of the deepest turpitude ? If you en­ countered a lunatic who, in his frenzy, was inflicting on multitudes around him a death of the most prolonged and excruciating agony, would you not feel justified in arrest­ ing his career by every means in your power—by taking his life if you could not otherwise attain your object? But if you knew that this man was inflicting not temporal but eternal death, if he was not a guiltless though danger* “ Rationalism in Europe,” Lecky, vol. ii. page 1. �of the Heresy Laws. 5 ous madman, but one whose conduct you believed to involve the most heinous criminality, would you not act with still less compunction or hesitation ? ” Mr. Lecky enforces his argument by a short and striking sentence from Thomas Aquinas, the great orthodox logician of mediaeval Catholicism. “If dealers in false money or other malefactors are forthwith justly delivered to death by secular princes, much more ought heretics, the moment they are convicted of heresy, to be at once, not merely excommunicated, but justly put to death.” This sentence is worthy a moment’s consideration. It has the appearance of an argument; in form it professes to be reasoning; but even a glance is sufficient to show that it possesses merely the form and not in any degree the substance of reasoning. The premiss is that dealers in false money are justly put to death; the conclusion is that heretics ought to be put to death. But, heretics are not coiners of bad money; and it would just be as logical to say—because murderers are justly executed, therefore those who eat meat on Fridays ought to be executed. The conclusion has simply no relation to the premiss whatever. Viewed as a logical proposition, which it pro­ fesses in form to be, the saying of St. Thomas Aquinas is a rank and childish absurdity. But, if we are to under­ stand it aright, we must discard the pretentious form of logic in which it is enveloped. What it really means is that the writer, and those whom he addressed, considered heresy to be a worse crime than coining false money or murder, and upon that assumption St. Thomas Aquinas is logical enough in saying it ought to be visited with the penalty of death. If it be a greater crime to doubt or deny any proposition which the Church of Borne puts forward as true—for that is the meaning of “ heresy ” in the mouth of St. Thomas Aquinas—if that be a greater crime than forgery or murder, then truly it is difficult to say that heretics ought not to be slain. But, is heresy a crime worse than murder ? In the days of Thomas Aquinas this was a question that admitted neither denial nor doubt. To have said a word for the heretic would have been to incur imminent risk of the fate of the heretic. At the present day, so �6 The Past and Present deep, so wide, is the revolt from the Church of Borne, that a person who should gravely maintain the thesis of the saintly doctor would incur universal ridicule. The greatest spiritual dominion which Europe has ever known has been broken up. The sceptre has departed from Borne, and the Pope has no longer the power of killing those whom he calls rebels; he can do no more than brandish the empty thunderbolts of excommunication. That is why heresy is no longer a crime. Heresy was to the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope what treason is to the secular authority of kings. Heresy denied the right of the priesthood to lord it over the consciences of men. By denying the dogmas which the priests promulgated the heretic assailed them in their tenderest point. If their dogmas were not true, then were they downright impostors, and the very bread they ate was got by false pretences. The most cursory examination of the history of the Christian Church shows that dogma w’as the bond by which the priesthood reared the extraordinary fabric of the papacy, an institution which claimed to over-ride sovereigns, and to exercise the power, without incurring the responsibility, of secular government. To support dogma the crime of heresy was invented. The aggrandise­ ment of the priesthood was the end to be accomplished; the punishment of heretics was the means. To achieve so holy an end the priests had no scruple in recommending the destruction of those who stood in the way. The end not merely justified but sanctified and glorified the means. Is it a marvel, when the clergy had preached for some hundreds of years the sacred doctrine of the murder of their enemies and illustrated it, whenever they had the chance, by practical example, that in the days of St. Thomas Aquinas every voice in Christendom acknow­ ledged the guilt of heresy ? It seems to me, therefore, that Mr. Lecky, in tracing the practice of persecution up to the doctrine of eternal punishment for erroneous belief, misses a most important element in the problem. Without grave confusion of ideas mankind could never have fallen into the horrible crime of persecution; but, even under the narrowest doctrine of eternal punishment, men would have stopped �oj- the Heresy Laws. 7 short of murdering heretics, but that their hatred was inflamed by the sinister ambition of an insatiable priest­ hood. The ghastly catalogue of crime would not have been so long had there been no dupes; but it never would have existed at all if there had not been a design­ ing oligarchy of churchmen building up for themselves a throne higher than that of the oldest and proudest monarchies of Europe. Worldly ambition, using as its tools the fears and passions of its dupes, is the real parent of persecution. Jesus Christ said, my kingdom is not of this world; but the priests, who pretended to be His followers, resolved that their kingdom should be of this world, and that they should sit on the necks of kings, and they pursued this scheme of universal dominion with pitiless cruelty. The tortures of the inquisition will be remembered with a shudder when the blackest crimes perpetrated by individual ambition have fallen into oblivion. It is well to bear this in mind. The true source of persecution is not erroneous religious opinion, but priestcraft. Heresy, it is asserted, is disloyalty to truth. But not for that reason was it punished with death. It was disloyalty to the priests that fired their bitter indignation, and rooted out of their breasts those feelings of tenderness and humanity which we may believe they shared at their birth with the generality of mankind. This sad story in the history of our race is well illustrated by the relation of Christianity to the Roman Empire. Books have been written to show the benign influence which Christianity is alleged to have exercised on Roman Civilization and Roman Law. It was under Constantine, and by his help, that in the year a.d. 312, Christianity was adopted as the religion of the Roman Empire. I have carefully read the jurisprudence of Rome before Christi­ anity was introduced and afterwards. And what do I find? That a spirit of humanity and justice was breathed into the dry bones of heathen law ? Nothing of the sort. Humanity and justice reached their highest development under such heathens as Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. You will search in vain through the Law of Rome for any traces of reform under Christianity; �8 The Past and Present but, there are two things of which you will get more than enough. You will get laws intended to aggrandise the priests, to shield them from civil and criminal responsibility, and to enable them to extort money with ease and hoard it with safety. You will, also, find many statutes passed to despoil of their property, to banish, and even to kill, all those sects of Christians who did not bow the knee to Rome, but were guilty of the crime of understanding the teaching of Christ differently from the Roman Bishops. Rew people are aware of the ruthless violence with which all dissent from the Church of Rome was stamped out. Before a century had passed under the Christian emperors, the catalogue of Rome’s victims were to be reckoned by hun­ dreds of thousands. In a statute passed in the year a.d. 428 against heretics we have a curious enumeration of sects, as regards some of whom even ecclesiastical antiquaries are silent. They were:—Arians and Macedonians, Pneumatomachi and Apollinariani and Novatiani or Sabbatiani, Eunomiani, Tetraditae, Valenteniani, Papianistse, Montanists or Priscillianists, Marcianists, Borboriani, Messaliani, Eutychitse or Enthusiastse, Donatists, Audiani, Hydroparastatae, Tascodrogitae, Batrachitae, Hermeieciani, Photiniani, Pauliani, Marcelliani, Ophitae, Encratitae, Apotactitae, Saccophori, and worst of all Manichaeans and Nestorians. Here is a list of about thirty sects who were broken up and destroyed by the criminal law. That is how the marvellous unity of the Catholic Church was obtained. It won its conquests by blood and iron; by the same means it maintained them ; but it lasted long enough to show that truth is stronger than tyranny, and that the sword of the Spirit can cut deeper than any weapons of steel. In the course of time the priests invented an ingenious plan for perpetuating their dominion. Owing to the pro­ found ignorance of the population, it was easy to teach the people that the principal calamities that affected them were due to the prevalence of heresy. In one of the enactments of the Christian Emperor, Justinian, we find the philosophy of heresy, from the priestly point of view, stated with the most naive absurdity. The reason for killing heretics was that famines, earthquakes, and pesti- �of the Heresy Laws. 17 deprivation of civil rights in respect of contract or trusts seriously interferes with or even hampers the propaganda of heretical opinions. While, however, such a state of the law does nothing to protect orthodoxy, it does act as an encouragement to immorality, and enables a few persons, on rare occasions, to break their promise with impunity. But the portion of the law which we have now to consider does not possess this harmless character. The law, when­ ever it operates at all, works with the cruellest injustice.. The law as to the guardianship of children may be summed-up in a sentence—it sacrifices the mother to the father, and it sacrifices both father and mother to religious bigotry. The rule of law is almost inexorable that a child must be brought up in the religion of its father, even after he is dead, and when he has never expressed even the slightest wish that the widowed mother should be robbed of the care of her offspring. A Protestant widow will be compelled to bring up her infant daughter in the Roman Catholic faith, if the father was a Roman Catholic in profession merely, and was really indifferent as to the religion his children should be taught. I cannot use more forcible language to describe this law than that which was employed by V. C. Wickens in a case where he was obliged to give judgment against a mother:— “To direct that this ward shall be brought up in the Roman Catholic faith will be to create a barrier between a widowed mother and her only child; to annul the mother’s influence over her daughter on the most important of all subjects with the almost inevitable effect of weakening it on all others; to introduce a disturbing element into a union which ought to be as close, as warm, and as abso­ lute, as any known to man; and lastly, to inflict severe pain on both mother and child. But it is clear that no argument which would recognize any right in the widowed mother to bring up her child in a religion different from the father’s can be allowed to weigh with me at all. According to the law of this court a mother has no such right.” (Hawksworth v. Hawksworth, 6 L.R. Ch.). The recent Agar-Ellis case still more illustrates the strength of the father’s legal position. Even an express antenuptial promise, without which the marriage would �18 The Past and Present never have taken place, that the children should be brought up in the religion of the mother, had not, in a Court of Equity, so much as the weight of a feather to outweigh the father’s claims. So strong is the father’s power, that he cannot legally divest himself of it by such a contract as would suffice to settle ten million pounds. By the law as it stands, a man may induce a woman to marry him by promising her the enjoyment of what she may regard as a particular boon — the preparation of her infant children for eternity—and when the marriage takes place, he can cast his promise to the winds, and bring up the children in principles which, according to the mother’s belief, will assign them to everlasting torments. But the rights of the father, while strong as a band of iron to crush the mother, snap like a reed when they come into collision with the interests of orthodoxy. Charity, parental affection, the sweet influences of home—all must give way to the paramount object of stuffing the child with a particular set of theological opinions. Even eccentric, although not blasphemous, opinions on religion have been held sufficient to rob a father of his children. In giving judgment in Thomas v. Roberts (3 D.Gr. & S. 758), Lord Justice Knight Bruce, then Vice-Chancellor, is reported as distinguishing the degree of eccentricity which might not be absolutely fatal from that which in law disqualifies a man from having the custody of his own children. “ I doubt whether a man, who, having been ordained a minister of religion, as a Christian in a Christian com­ munity, has designedly and systematically given up attending any place of worship (whatever his private feelings and whatever hymns he may sing) ought in any condition of circumstances to be permitted in this country to have the guardianship or care of an English child, for whose maintenance and education there exist any other means of providing, though the child be his own. But that particular question I think it not, in the present instance, necessary to decide, and I wish to be understood as giving no opinion upon it.” “ However this may be, I apprehend that in England a man who holds the opinion that prayer—I mean prayer in the sense of entreaty and supplication to the Almighty �of the Heresy Laws. 19 —is no part of duty; who considers moreover that there is not any day of the week which ought to be observed as a Sabbath, as a day of peculiar rest, or as one of peculiar holiness, or in a manner distinct from other days, must be deemed to entertain opinions noxious to society, adverse to civilization, opposed to the usages of Christendom, contrary (in the case of prayer at least) to the express command of the New Testament, and, finally, pernicious necessarily in the highest degree to any young person unhappy enough to be imbued with them. I say in England.” This passage needs no remark, for the final limitation converts the whole reasoning into absurdity; but I may observe that the Vice-Chancellor is a good deal more straightlaced in his orthodoxy than Saint Paul. We read in Romans (xiv. 5), “ One man esteemeth one day above another ; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” 4. Refused of the Evidence of Heretics—Oaths.—The confusion of ideas that so long covered the question of admissibility of witnesses with deep darkness attests in a remarkable degree the weakness of the human under­ standing when it is swayed by strong passion. Eirst of all, our judges and writers on law have uniformily assigned, as one of the conclusive and irresistible arguments for religious persecution, that the administration of justice rests upon oaths, and oaths rest upon religion, therefore, to weaken religion is to shake the administration of justice. With more truth it might be urged that it is only the power to punish false evidence with imprisonment that prevents oaths degenerating into an unmeaning farce; for experience shows that men will habitually take oaths which they never mean to observe, as in the case of so many official oaths, when no temporal punishment is annexed to the perjury. To refuse the testimony of an unbeliever involved even a more glaring solecism. If an unbeliever dissembled or denied his opinion, the English law accepted his testimony without hesitation or scruple; but if he openly avowed his opinions, and thereby showed his conscientiousness, honesty, and courage, he was dismissed from the witness �20 The Past and Present box as unworthy of credence. At last, in the years 1869 and 1870, the grave reproach on our law was removed, and now, in England, although not in Scotland, a solemn affirmation is to be taken instead of an oath by those who were formerly disqualified from giving evidence through defect of religious belief. III.—Resteiction on Feeedom oe Discussion in Mosals. Recent events in Germany have attracted notice to a subject akin to religious heresy, namely, social or moral heresy. Under the influence of a disgraceful panic, the German Parliament has allowed itself to be­ come the author of a political inquisition. It has sanc­ tioned a law bad in principle, and still worse in respect of the authority by which it is to be carried out. Power has been given to the Executive Government to rob and maltreat all persons guilty of the heresy of Socialism, by which is understood opinions hostile to the existing social institutions, and aiming at a reconstruction of human society in respect of its deepest foundations. The teaching of experience has been ignored, for, if one thing is certain, it is that persecution of Socialist heretics will increase their power, and add to the danger of their error. It may be a gross error to say with Proudhon, for example, that property is theft, or to say, with Mr. Noyes, that the institution of the family is a relic of bar­ barism ; but surely the proper way to deal with their errors is to exhibit the fallacy of their reasoning, and not to knock them down by brute force. Just as improve­ ment in the art of government is impossible without free and unsparing discussion of proposed and actual legisla­ tion ; just as true views regarding the constitution of the universe and the destiny of man are impossible under a regime of clerical terrorism ; just as a scientific knowledge of nature is only possible in a country which freely handles even the most revered names, so progress in morals, an improvement in the conduct of mankind, can only be attained by unqualified freedom in discussing every moral question. If, in a country where polygamy is sanctioned, it is a crime to condemn polygamy, or in a �of the Heresy Laws. 21 country where monogamy is established, it is a crime to say anything against monogamy, how is it possible for mankind to change for the better? Whatever reasons exist in favour of political or religious liberty apply with equal force for freedom in the sphere of human conduct or morals. Yet it is a strange fact, and one not generally known, that so far as the law is concerned, England has the unenviable distinction of anticipating the recent fanatical legislation of Germany. Until within the last year most Englishmen supposed that to preach a moral heresy in this country was even less a crime than to doubt the infallible truth of the XXXIX. Articles. Yet, at the present moment, it is undoubtedly law that any one who publishes a book on any subject that can be comprehended in the vague designation of “ morality ” does so with a halter round his neck, for if his opinions are unpopular, or if they should happen to differ from those of twelve men picked up by chance and put in a jury box, he is liable to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour. The way in which this has come about inspires us with a pro­ found sense of the mystery of the law. The case of blasphemy helps us partially to understand it. Blasphemy, in its popular acceptation, means language insulting to the Deity; by a process of judicial interpretation it was held that it meant any opinions contrary to the generally accepted doctrines of Christianity. The word “ obscene,” one should think, had a perfectly distinct, not to say a “ pungent ” meaning; but, inasmuch as all obscenity is contrary to morality, it has been decided by a process of logic, which the students of Aristotle will find it difficult to follow, that whatever is contrary to morality is obscenity. In this way it has now been established that any publication of opinions which a jury may be pleased to regard as contrary to their notions of morality is an indictable offence. We have all great respect for English juries in their right place ; but it is hardly the right place for a jury to sit on the chair of infallibility and ape the ridiculous pretensions of the Pope of Rome. It is a subject, I think, of unqualified regret that the new Criminal Code aggravates the mischief of �22 The Past and Present recent decisions If that code should become law, the advocates of what may be considered moral heresy may say with truth, that whereas the Common Law whipped them with cords the Criminal Code lashes them Sith scorpions. IV-—Bervertino Administration- or Justice. Heresy may be struck out of the Criminal Law, it may cease to deny to the citizen his civil rights, and there is sp . re lgious antipathies to cause a miscarriage of justice. I may mention, by way of illustration, the IRBI °f Tha<?ai?gh V‘ Edwards’in the Common Pleas, in cm ?! rCtS we^e simple- Mr- Bradlaugh had hired a fieid to deliver a lecture in Devonport, as the public halls m the town had been forbidden to him. The superintendent of the police interfered to prevent the meeting, and finally arrested Mr. Bradlaugh and put him in prison. The next day, Mr. Bradlaugh was brought before the magistrates, and, as there was not even a pretence for the charge of assault trumped-up against him, he was discharged. He then brought an action against the superintendent of police for false imprisonment. The tacts were notorious, and even the prejudiced jury who tried the case could not refuse a verdict for Mr. Bradlaugh; but they gave only a farthing of damages, and so compelled him to pay his own costs. Upon that ground Mr. Bradlaugh moved in the Court of Common - ea® . a n®w as the damages were ridiculously insufficient. Lord Chief Justice Erie, in giving judgment, Finsing a new trial, expressed the somewhat strange Ï idea that it was a real blessing to a freethought lecturer to deprive him of his liberty without excuse. Upon the same ground a jury of farmers might think that a ducking m a horse pond was a real benefit to the misguided secthe ^pourers’ Union. The Chief Justice ®ai^’ d.re.are opinions which are in law a crime. . H the plaintiff wanted to use his liberty for the purpose ot disseminating opinions which were in reality of that pernicious description, and the defendant prevented him from doing that which might be a very pernicious act to those who heard him, it might be that thé jury thought �of the Heresy Laws. 23 the act of imprisonment was in reality not an injury, but, on the contrary, an act which, in its real substantial result, was beneficial to the plaintiff, and so the nominal wrong would be abundantly compensated by the small sum given.” This brief sketch of the Heresy Laws brings before us one of the most melancholy aberrations of legislation. These laws have caused prodigious suffering, but they never conferred on the human race one iota of counter­ vailing advantage. They represent a dead loss to the credit side of human happiness, and the passions which gave rise to them are an unmitigated and unredeemed evil. Black is the guilt of those who have abused their position as the guides and instructors of mankind to pl a,nt in the infant mind the seeds of unfounded and irrational hatred, and so have helped to pile up that great mountain of persecution of man’s inhumanity to man, which has made countless thousands mourn. �SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY. To provide for the delivery on Sundays in the Metropolis, and to encourage the delivery elsewhere, of Lectures on Science,—physical, intellectual, and moral,—History, Literatuie, and Art; especially in their bearing upon the impiovement and social well-being of mankind. THE SOCIETY’S LECTURES ARB DELIVERED AT ST. GEORGE’S HALL, LANGHAM PLACE, On SUNDAY Afternoons, at FOUR o’clock precisely. (Annually—from November to May). i o?YE^??YKOrrR lectures (in three series), ending 20th April, lo/y, will be given. Members £1 subscription entitles them to an annual ticket transferable (and admitting to the reserved seats), and to eight single reserved-seat tickets, available for any lecture. Tickets for each series (one for each lecture) as below,— To the Shilling- Reserved Seats—5s. 6d. To the Sixpenny Seats—2s., being at the rate of Three­ each lecture. pence For tickets, and for list of the Lectures published by the Society, apply (by letter) to the Hon. Treasurer, Wm. Henry Domville, Esq., 15, Gloucester Crescent, Hyde Park, W. Payment at the door:—One Penny;—Sixpence;—and (Reserved Seats) One Shilling. Kenny & Co., Printers, 25, Camden Road, London, N.W. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The past and present of the heresy laws : a lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society [.....]1st December, 1878 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Hunter, W.A. Sunday Lecture Society Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 23 p. ; 17 cm. Notes: Publisher's advertisements on back page. Includes Mr Lecky's views on the causes of persecution. Includes bibliographical references. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Sunday Lecture Society Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1878 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N318 Subject The topic of the resource Heresy Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The past and present of the heresy laws : a lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society [.....]1st December, 1878), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Heresy Heresy-Great Britain-Law and Legislation NSS