come about that the clergy and laity of England have looked so severely upon an effort (by hypothesis) well meant, and how it can be that such different views can be taken by two parties having the same facts before them.

II. In order to help us in this inquiry, it will be well, if possible, to bring under one view the several works which constitute the volume of "Essays and Reviews." I do not wish to assert any organic connexion, which the authors would themselves disallow, but only to endeavour to put in some kind of formula that general kind of mutual relationship, which certainly impresses the reader of the book with a sense of unity in plurality.

May it not be said, then, that the "Essays and Reviews," in the order in which they stand, treat of Holy Scripture as follows?

(1.) In its relation to conscience.
(2.) In its historical and prophetical

character.

(3.) With reference to its miraculous

contents.

(4.) With reference to ideological, as contrasted with literal, interpretation.

(5.) In its connexion with the conclusions of science.

(6.) With regard to the general principles of interpretation.

The numbers above refer to the "Essays and Reviews" in the order in which they stand in the volume. I omit the sixth, because it seems to be generally allowed to have had no share in producing the feeling of excitement and opposition. It will be enough for my purpose to direct attention to the six which I have numbered and described; and the most important remark suggested by the description is also, perhaps, the most obvious one—namely, that the six "Essays and Reviews," regarded in their bearing upon Holy Scripture (and this, be it observed, is the only light in which I am regarding them), do in reality stir up some of the deepest and most important questions with which theological thinkers can busy themselves. They are not new questions, of course; few questions,

comparatively speaking, are new in the present day; and even if all that is said in the volume has been said before by German neologians, which may or may not be true, still the essential importance of the questions is not diminishedrather is it proved that the questions are of a kind which will force themselves upon the attention of minds of a certain class or certain construction, and certain educational habits, and demand an answer, or at least a discussion.

No notion can be more foolish than that which some good folks seem to hold, namely, that questions of the kind alluded to would never be stirred if mischievous people, chiefly Germans, would leave them alone. Will our young barristers, will our young fellows of colleges, will our highly educated mechanics leave them alone?

True,

they may be handled injudiciously, and the profession of having handled them freely does not guarantee that the handling has been wise; it is no mark of wisdom to handle freely a delicate piece of china, or a valuable codex, or the heir-apparent of a great kingdom, when he is a baby in arms; and yet these instances will suggest that there may be things which will not bear free handling, and yet may be very valuable after all.

But, as I have suggested, there is a large class of men, and women too, in this country, who cannot and will not be content without allowing their minds to dwell upon deep questions concerning the Christian faith, the authority of Holy Scripture, and the like. Do not the authors of "Essays and Reviews" know this may they not have felt the truth of it (painfully perhaps) in their own experience may they not have thought that they could do good service to some of their brethren in difficulty by holding up to them such light as they could find?

Just look for a moment at the questions stirred by the "Essays and Reviews," according to my mode of describing them. The general subject brought before us is the manner in which we are to regard Holy Scripture:

the volume evidently hinges upon this. Now, is not this subject confessedly one of the subjects of the day? Has not the progress of science, the progress of criticism, the progress of philosophy compelled us to reopen questions which were perhaps deemed closed for ever, and to reconsider the conclusions of our forefathers, to examine what those conclusions mean, or whether in all cases they mean anything? I do not say this as though I thought that Holy Scripture had anything to fear from the progress of the human mind; I believe that in many ways that progress makes us feel our need of Holy Scripture more than we ever yet felt it; but still there are questions to be asked again, and answered again; and the true description and definition of Holy Scripture can hardly be said to have been yet given in such a manner as to leave nothing for future inquirers to do.

But to be more particular-take the question of the relation of Holy Scripture to the conscience, which is probably the feature in Dr. Temple's essay which has given it most interest for the public. Dr. Temple may or may not have put this relation upon a satisfactory footing; The may or may not have cleared away difficulties; he may or may not have written what is mischievous; but is the question an easy one to answer? can people in general put down on paper the answer to it, as they could write down their own names, or describe the condition of the weather? Have we not here, as in many cases, opposite though not contradictory truths,-the Bible claiming to be the voice of God, the conscience claiming to be the voice of God too? And is it not obviously a difficult thing to represent these two voices, both acknowledged to be genuine, in their proper relation of mutual support, and mutual subordination to each other?

Again, Dr. Williams may have dealt rashly and unwisely with the questions raised by the Bible as a record of the past, and as purporting in certain cases to contain prophecies of the future; yet no one will deny that the questions

raised in the form of a review of Bunsen's "Biblical Researches" are most important questions, and questions not easy to answer. Whether Baron Bunsen has or has not cleared up difficulties with reference to early chronology, and with reference to the meaning and interpretation of the earlier Biblical records, certainly difficulties exist-difficulties which cannot be smothered, and which become the more formidable in proportion as we adopt a narrower view of the character of the Old Testament as a collection of divine books; and, however unable many of us may feel to follow Baron Bunsen and his reviewer in their views respecting prophecy, it would be idle to deny that the subject is one of very great obscurity, and one concerning which there is no view which can be regarded as par excellence orthodox.

Perhaps the essay of the late Professor Powell is the one which causes most amazement and most pain. I have no desire to defend it, though it ought to be remembered that in the Lower House of the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury a member did undertake to show that, rightly understood, the essay does not contain the poison usually supposed to be in it; if, however, this be so, it may still be urged reasonably enough that no clergyman ought to publish that which to nine hundred and ninety-nine men out of a thousand appears to contain rank infidelity. My purpose is neither to defend the essay nor to condemn it; but only to remark that, when Professor Powell engaged himself with the question of the evidences of the Christian faith, regarded as bound up with a miraculous history, he undertook to deal with a subject of the highest order of difficulty, and one the difficulty of waich every thinking man, especially every man trained in the school of mathematico-physical science, must have felt often and deeply.

The fourth essay has probably been deemed objectionable on other grounds: but, so far as the view which I am now taking of the subject is concerned, the most important feature of it is the ideological theory which it has propounded. The

writer admits that the principle may be carried to excess, but thinks that a larger basis of agreement would be established if some persons could be allowed to hold the Scriptures literally, some ideally, and neither class of interpreters say of the other that it undervalued the Sacred Writings, or questioned their proper inspiration. A very dangerous principle this, undoubtedly, and the writer seems to admit as much; and yet it cannot be said that he has gratuitously invented a dangerous new principle; some such principle is absolutely necessary in the case of a book which professedly deals with the supernatural; and for this simple reason, that the literal is of necessity limited by the natural. When I speak (for instance) of seeing an angel, it is clear that I am not speaking literally, but am using language which expresses, as nearly as the nature of language will permit, the truth which I intend to convey. Hence there must be, by the nature of the case, in some kind and degree, an ideological interpretation of Scripture; and this is so, whatever may be thought of the application of the principle by the essayist.

Similar remarks apply to the next essay. What is the relation in which Scripture stands to natural science? Many well-disposed, but unscientific, persons would uphold views on this subject which it is entirely impossible for a scientific man to receive; and they will endeavour to enforce these views as orthodox under pain of anathema: it is impossible for any one to have conversed on such subjects with average country clergymen, and not to know that this is So. Therefore the desire to reconcile Scripture and science is in itself laudable; and whether the essay of which I am now speaking be successful in this respect is (comparatively speaking) a minor matter: parts of it are probably liable to just censure, but the question which is discussed is one which deserves and needs discussion, and one of which we might well feel thankful if any person more discreet and clear-sighted than his fellows could give us a satisfactory solution.

Lastly, Professor Jowett's essay avowedly treats of one of the most important subjects in theology, and one confessedly surrounded with difficulty; and this he does with a reverential earnestness which has won the admiration of some of those who have criticized him most severely. That he has made mistakes in his essay I have no wish to deny ; that he may be wrong on some very important points is quite possible; but, however erroneous his conclusions may be, nay, even if his whole method of treating the interpretation of Scripture be fundamentally wrong, still it must be conceded, not only that he has written on an important subject with all the appearance of a man who would come at the truth if he knew how, but that he has dealt with a subject which very much requires to be dealt with in this country. For the interpretation of Scripture does in reality touch upon the general question of the character of Scripture, the character of the Bible as a unique book, the sense in which it is to be called the Word of God, the manner and nature of its inspiration and upon points of this kind it is certain that there is a school who hold views untenable in foro scientiæ, and would press them as matters of faith upon others. The intolerance of this school leads to "Confessions of Inquiring Spirits," and incites men to a chivalrous desire to free the necks of their brethren from the weight of a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear.

:

III. Now it is because the "Essays and Reviews," regarded from their favourable side, produce the impression upon my mind which I have just been endeavouring to describe, that I look with fear and apprehension at the tremendous onslaught which is being made upon them. It may be said, indeed, that it is very cheering to find that some eight or ten thousand clergymen are prepared to rush forward and assert that they have no sympathy with a book containing infidel views, written chiefly by clergymen; but who would have suspected any such sympathy? and may not a very serious evil result from this combination

of such a body of clergymen, together with the bishops, in the condemnation of the book? The dangers which I apprehend are of this kind, I fear that for years to come thoughtful men will shrink from publishing their thoughts on theology for fear of being mobbed. Sir Isaac Newton was almost prevented from putting forth some of his discoveries, by the dread of the trouble. in which he was sure, as he thought, to involve himself; the pressure of critics, and of the religious press, and of the religious world, has already been terribly stringent; henceforth, we may expect that it will be more stringent than ever. Geologists have for many years been looked upon by a certain class of religious people as no better than wicked ones; henceforth there is every reason to fear that the ignorant intolerance of the class will be greater than ever. The criticism of Holy Scriptures has been a subject in which we were just beginning to breathe a freer air than formerly, but it is much to be feared that for years to come critics will be looked upon with suspicion. The tendency also of the movement is so to diminish the number of open questions, so to narrow the limits of opinion, so to define upon points which the Church has wisely left indefinite, that it is impossible not to fear lest the minds of the more thoughtful young men should revolt, and lest the ranks of the ministry should be unrecruited by candidates from this first class of intelligence and scholarship. Already we hear it asserted that the most promising Oxford youths are not seeking Holy Orders. The Bishop of Oxford bemoans it. What is likely to be the case, if the strings be drawn still tighter than at present?

It may be said that whatever mischief ensues must be set at the doors of the Essayists and Reviewers, and not at the doors of those who oppose them. This is in a certain sense true; I deplore the existence of the volume as a volume, and I wish from my heart that the bundle of sticks had been untied, so that each might have relied on its own strength; as it is, the tone of certain passages has given a tone to the whole,

and has afforded colour for the popular notion that the book is an attack upon Christianity, which undoubtedly it was not intended to be. Speaking generally, I do not think the book a wise book, and I am not at all surprised at the hubbub that it has created. But then, I think that the batteries which are being brought to bear may let fly some shot very dangerous to the cause of truth. I recommend no sparing of the book so far as reviewers and critics are concerned demolish it, if you can, O Reviewers! at all events show us the errors, and do so conscientiously, judiciously, and charitably. Mr. Cazenove's Essay on Professor Jowett is an admirable specimen of what may be done in this way. But this is a very different thing from overwhelming a book with protests, and ruridecanal meetings, and letters of archbishops and bishops, and committees of convocation, and the rest. This well-meant opposition may possibly, in its ultimate effects, be more injurious than the evil it is intended to correct; the Essays and Reviews have stirred up a blaze which possibly might have been put out by the ordinary engines, and the ordinary appliances of cold water; as it is, the crowd who have come to help and to cheer the firemen, and express their sympathy, and make themselves generally useful, may perhaps tend to keep up the blaze, may produce a panic about incendiary fires, and may do unwittingly much more mischief than they can possibly do good,-especially if the property be insured, as (thank God) we believe it in this case to be.

It is useless to give advice when people have taken their course definitively; but it may not be without its use that a voice or two should be raised even now, in opposition to the course which has been generally followed by those who have taken any part in this unhappy business. I have urged that the Essayists and Reviewers are certainly not consciously or intentionally the septem contra Christum, which they have been flippantly said to be; I should equally deprecate the notion of regarding them

as the Seven Champions of Christendom. They are neither the one nor the other; but they have honestly written a book which they have supposed to contain valuable views, and which will eventually be set at its right value by the sifting which it will assuredly receive. If any one of the clergymen has done anything for which he can be punished by Ecclesiastical law, it may possibly be right that he should be so punished; but then it is to be remarked that the present agitation does not bring about this result; rather is it like a confession that Ecclesiastical law is not available, and that Lynch law must be applied; and meanwhile eight or ten editions of a book not generally thought to be very readable or attractive have been sold in a few months. But, indeed, it may well be questioned, even taking the strongest view of the book, whether any attempt at punishment is desirable. The purity and integrity of the clergy with regard to matters of doctrine cannot be preserved by such mean's; it is a question, or rather, perhaps, it is not a question, whether it is not better to confine judicial proceedings to questions of morality, and leave it to clergymen of high character and spotless reputation to determine for themselves whether their views are or are not consistent with their position as clergymen. The experience of late years has shown that there is no lack of that spirit of manly honesty which leads men to give up their position, when they find that it is not tenable..

I feel that I have now occupied more of your columns than I have any right to claim, and therefore I will bring my letter to an end with one more remark. I have treated the "Essays and Reviews" simply in their bearing upon Holy Scripture, not because that is the only subject discussed in them, but because it is certainly in this aspect that they have chiefly become obnoxious. It is worthy of consideration, therefore, how the present state of feeling will affect other writers besides the Essayists and Reviewers. I abstain from mentioning names; but one or two notable persons have already been pointed at by the newspapers and periodicals as having committed themselves to opinions akin to those which have given so much offence, when brought out by the Essayists and Reviewers in a bold unqualified way. Is it not just within the bounds of possibility, that some, whom we delight to honour as amongst the glories and the bulwarks of the Church of England, though they may have written nothing in the unwise, offensive, irritating tone which characterises parts of this volume, may yet have propounded, and be prepared to uphold, views esteemed heterodox by a large majority of those who have joined in the condemnation of the " Essays and Reviews ?"

I am, your obedient Servant,

D. E. F. G.