avoiding all such questions, appeals to the test of what he calls facts. His conception of facts seems strange, and his deductions from doubtful data remind one of Coleridge's metaphor of the pyramid standing on its apex. I cannot presume to judge of the temper, motives, or spirit with which he has entered on his work, or of the results to which he may be driven if he pursues his present course. My business here is only with the present influence on the lay mind of his alleged facts, well known as those facts (so far as they are facts) have long been to scholars, but entering little into ordinary clerical instruction, and hardly at all into current English literature, and therefore now for the first time to be appraised for what they are really worth by English piety and good sense. The attempt to fasten on Bishop Colenso all the consequences of his hastily-drawn inferences, including a charge of moral dishonesty (however provoked by his unmeasured language, and however veiled under the form of a remonstrance), is, to say the least, in the present circumstances of the English Church, premature; nor is the attempt unlikely to increase the importance attached by the unlettered to false issues arising out of data of which he offers one solution, as if no other could be probable or possible. But any one may venture to say so much as this: first, That it is contrary to all analogy to suppose that he has found at once the true solution of the difficulties he has elaborated. Secondly, That all his arithmetic and scholarship, whether they are torn to pieces or not, are secondary matters in comparison with the questions how we are to hear and receive God's word without equivocation, and how we are to rescue the Church from being proclaimed in a chronic state of siege, under attack from Science, or from placing itself in an attitude of hostility to critical inquiry properly conducted. There are two questions to which a layman may naturally at the present time ask for an answer: 1. Do not our faith in Christ, and our belief in the four Gospels as a real history, rest on grounds independent of the results of any critical inquiry into the authorship of the Pentateuch ? 2. May we not continue to read the Pentateuch as the Word of God, speaking of man and to man, without putting a forced construction on the plain meaning of the words, and without imposing fetters on the freedom of scientific or critical investigation in any matters which God has given us the power to inquire into? With these two questions I should be disposed to close my letter, having purposely abstained from all metaphysical questions, and all theories about inspiration. But I cannot help seeing, and therefore, in all honesty, I am bound to admit, that a third question, a most solemn and awful one, is oppressing the minds of those who love their Bibles, and who cling to the infallibility of the letter of Scripture as the ground of all their hopes. I will not attempt to state the general question in distinct terms, but I may mention one illustration. Those of whom I speak seem to fear that if they once allow the historical reality of the physical account of the Deluge to be called in question, they are guilty of doubting the word of Him who is Truth. Thus faith in Christ is made contingent on the proof or disproof of the existence of certain natural phenomena. Or, to put the matter in another and perhaps more correct form, certain phenomena, which undoubtedly do exist, seem not to accord with the language of the Bible. Hypotheses are suggested (involving often a variety of supposititious miracles), not with a view to give a natural explanation of the facts, but to bring them within the letter of the Bible; thus, the belief in Christ's heavenly promises is apparently made to stand or fall with the probability or improbability of the hypotheses suggested. It appears to me deplorable that such an issue as is here implied should have been raised. It is still more deplorable that it should have been countenanced, however unintentionally, by those in authority. You will best know how to disentangle the question from the mass of irrelevant matter with which it is encumbered. You will also be able to judge how far it is expedient that it should now be discussed. I must leave you to consider how far the discussion of the Law of the Church on the "Sufficiency" or "Infallibility" of Holy Scripture, or of the consequences deduced from arbitrary definitions of the terms "Word of God" and "Inspiration," will help the solution of the questions I have proposed? Living, as I do, in the country, I may be quite behindhand in my appreciation of what is going on in the minds of thoughtful men. If the questions are not put clearly, the name of the querist will neither add to their relevancy, nor to the value of your reply; so I will only say that I am, with grateful recollections of the past, and hearty hopes that your future labours may bring comfort and blessing to yourself and others, Your sincere friend, A LAYMAN. |