Page images

tion in faith in protestant thought. We quote the following:

Some time ago Prof. Samuel Ives Curtis of the Congregational Seminary at Chicago read a paper before a ministers' meeting in that city in which he called in question the accuracy of the generally accepted interpretation of certain passages in Isaiah and other parts of the Bible, in which these passages have been taken to prefigure the coming of the Messiah. More recently Professor Curtis has published an article in The Biblical World, a periodical conducted under the auspices of Chicago University, setting forth the same views.

The Interior excerpts the following paragraph from Prof. Ives' article, with the statement that it had been “absolutely incredulous of the charge that such views were held by any school of Christian teaching," and would have “resented the imputation as a slander."

“The Jews in the times of the writers of the New Testament held erroneous views of the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. It was next to impossible for the New Testament writers to free themselves from these errors, and they did not succeed in doing so. Even if they could have done so, they had a motive against the truth. It was to their advantage to employ false premises in order to make a popular argument. They even went beyond this and employed false etymology, by which they could mislead the unlearned into the acceptance of Christ by twisting a passage out of its meaning to make it prophetic.”

The appointment of Dr. Frederick Temple as Archbishop of Canterbury is taken by a writer in The Catholic World (January) as a total surrender by the Anglican Church to the spirit of rationalism. This writer, Jesse Albert Locke, reviews Dr. Temple's views as expressed years ago in his writings, and makes from them quotations that will just now be of much interest to those who have had no opportunity to examine the writings for themselves. Mr. Locke concedes that the new archbishop is “a man conspicuous for ability and force of character,” that “there are many things about him which we must all admire”—naming especially his consistent advocacy of temperance and total abstinence, and his assault upon the possession by private persons (as private property] of the presentation to livings in the Church of England. But Mr. Locke has no words of approval for the archbishop's theology. We quote from his article as follows:

“What sort of theology has been enthroned at Canterbury?



What idea of religion does he hold and teach who now occupies what Anglicans like to call the chair of St. Augustine'? Fortunately for our inquiry Dr. Temple's views on religion are easily accessible. He was the first essayist in a volume published in 1861 and entitled “Essays and Reviews. This book was the signal for a blaze of controversy. Its authors were clergymen of the Church of England, and its teaching was the frankest, boldest rationalism, which emasculated religion of the supernatural and reduced it to a purely humanitarian basis. Orthodox, evangelical protestants—pious but illogical-were deeply shocked.

A few quotations will give an idea of what the essayist taught on some important subjects.

“Dr. Temple, in his opening essay, 'The Education of the World,' plants himself squarely on that fundamental protestant principle of which rationalism is the necessary and legitimate fruit. The ultimate basis for religion, he claims, is to be found only in that “inner voice' which should guide every man. There is nothing external which can be an authority; neither is the church. The Bible,' he says, 'in fact is hindered by its form from exercising a despotism over the human spirit. . This it does by the principle of private judgment which puts conscience between us and the Bible, making conscience the supreme interpreter, whom it may be a duty to enlighten, but whom it can never be a duty to disobey Essays and Reviews,' p. 53). Again: When conscience and the Bible appear to

" • differ, the pious Christian immediately concludes that he has not really understood the Bible.' That is, his private judgment is certainly right and the Bible must be made to conform to it! This reduces religion to the purest individualism; makes as many different religions as there are individuals to hold them. And all are equally right! Suppose this principle applied to the law of the land, each man assuming that the law had no other interpreter than his own .inner voice'!"

Mr. Locke then gives us a number of quotations from the essays of other writers in the same volume of " Essays and Reviews," and tho' the “usual statement " was found in the preface, to the effect that each essayist was reponsible for his own essay alone, Dr. Temple has, in the writer's judgment, made himself responsible for the views of these other writers by his failure to repudiate them. Some of these other essayists spoke of the doctrine of inspiration as "absurd," explained away the Messianic prophecies, characterizing as "distortion” the application of Isaiah's prophecies to the Messiah, and upheld the idea of a true national church as one that should

include all the people of the nation, who should be born into membership in the church as they are born into civil rights. “These are the views,The Catholic World writer assumes, "for which the new archbishop stands." He then proceeds to quote further from the archbishop's later writings. Refering to his Bampton lectures, 1884, Mr. Locke writes:

As to miracles, those of the Old Testament, he tells us, could never be proved. “The times are remote ; the date and authorship of the books are not established with certainty; the mixture of poetry with history is no longer capable of any sure separation into its parts' (p. 206). In the New Testament, he adds, we must admit that some unusual occurrences took place which struck the disciples and other observers as miracles, tho' they need not necessarily have been miracles in the scientific sense. For instance, the miraculous healing of the sick may be no miracle in the strictest sense at all. It may be but an instance of the power of mind over body, a power which is undeniably not yet brought within the range of science, and which nevertheless may be really within its domain' (p. 195). Our Lord's miracles of healing may have been simply the result of this power and due to a superiority in his mental power to the similar power possessed by other men. Men seem to possess this power over their own bodies and over the bodies of others in different degrees' (p. 201). Even our Lord's resurrection from the dead is reached by this destructive criticism. • Thus, for instance, it is quite possible that our Lord's resurrection may be found hereafter to be no miracle at all in the scientific sense. It foreshadows and begins the general resurrection; when that general resurrection comes we may find that it is, after all, the natural issue of physical laws always at work' (p. 196).

“If we ask, What, then, can be the object of miracles ? Dr. Temple has his answer ready. If these events, tho' not really miraculous, have 'served their purpose, if they have arrested attention which would not otherwise have been arrested, if they have compelled belief,' then they have accomplished their true end. In other words, they were pious frauds' impressing a people naturally credulous and easily deceived, as the best way of conveying ethical truth to them. The protestant tradition persists in giving to the Society of Jesus the possession of The end justifies the means' as a principle of conduct, but Dr. Temple goes farther still and carries the charge back from His faithful servants to the great Master Himself!"



For these views of the new archbishop, says Mr. Locke, the Anglican Church must be held responsible, since it has twice passed in review of them and refused to condemn either him or them, and has now received him as its head.

In a paraphrase on the Book of Jonah, Dr. Lyman Abbott of Plymouth Church, Brooklyn, resumes:

“This is, in brief, the story of Jonah. Such scholars as Ewald and Driver regard it as fiction, not because of the miracle of the great fish. That is not a greater miracle than others, not so great as some. But, in the whole scope and spirit and structure of the story, this book reads to these scholars like a product, not merely of imagination, but of Oriental imagination, not merely like a satire but almost like a caricature. Out. side of ecclesiastical circles this story invariably produces a smile. Might not this suggest that it was intended by the author to produce a smile? That he wrote it to smite with ridicule that narrowness of spirit, that religious provincialism, which is more amenable to ridicule than to any other weapon? That the prophet of Jehovah should think to escape from his God by fleeing from the province of Palestine is the first point in this satire ; that he who would not preach to pagans is compelled to mingle his prayer with pagans is a second satire; that pagan sailors should do their utmost to save a prophet of Jehovah from the consequence of his own misdoing is a third satire; that he should be angry with the Lord because the Lord is gracious to Nineveh is a fourth satire; that he should care for his gourd and himself, and not for Nineveh and its thousands of inhabitants, is a fifth satire. And over against this picture of ecclesiastical narrowness is set the portrayal of God —who saves the sailors, saves Jonah, saves Nineveh, and compels even this provincial prophet to declare of Him that He is 'a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest him of the evil.'”

Rev. Samuel Eliot, of the First Unitarian Church of Brooklyn, criticizes Dr. Abbott from a different standpoint. He personally agrees with Dr. Abbott, and honors him for his insight and candor, but does not think he is justified, as a Congregational minister, in an effort to overthrow doctrines for which Congregationalism has always stood. He says:

I can not help thinking that straightforward methods demand that the men of the liberal orthodoxy no longer remain within the orthodox church. They are in a false position, opening the gates of the citadel to all forms of new thought, while apparently defending it. Having really broken with the old tradition, they ought to be brave enough to break also with the old associations. A position outside of the orthodoxy to which they still outwardly conform would vastly increase their power for good, improve their reputation for honesty, and make them worthier champions of the truth that makes men free. I think that unconscions insincerity in church connections is one of the most serious perils of the Christian Church. The pressing need of our time is absolute intellectual honesty that uses no ambiguous phrases, that makes no mental reservations, but dares to think freely and to speak openly. Having frankly outgrown the dogmas of the old theology, is my dear friend and neighbor, Dr. Abbott, justified in remaining within an organization which still nominally supports the declarations of the ancient creeds? I have not the slightest sympathy with bigotry or heresy-hunting. Old-fashioned orthodoxy seems to me a monster intellectual error, but this modern liberal orthodoxy may contain a moral error. Therefore I believe that the ministers of the Manhattan Association are honorable and consistent in the action taken by them at their meeting yesterday.

The religious journals are having some amusement at the expense of the secular press over the serious treatment given by the latter to the report of Dr. James M. Buckley's “heresy." At a recent meeting of the Methodist preachers in and around New York city, Dr. Buckley (editor of The Christian Advocate), in discussing a paper read by Dr. Curtis, took occasion to say that there were not four men in the room who believed in the infallibility of the English version of the Scriptures. The statement being challenged, he called for a vote; but the meeting adjourned without its being taken.

Prof. Charles A. Briggs, D. D., whose inaugural address a few years ago, when installed in the chair which he still fills in the Union Theological Seminary, had such an important bearing on the affairs both of the Seminary and the Presbyterian Church, handles the Old Testament with at least as much freedom as that displayed by Dr. Lyman Abbott in his recent course of sermons. Professor Briggs writes in the latest number of The North American Review on “Works of the Imagination in the Old Testament," and six pages of the article are devoted to the book of Jonah, the conclusions reached being almost, if not quite, identical with those for which Dr. Abbott has been so severely criticised in the last few weeks.

Professor Briggs begins his article as follows:

“It is not so much the supernatural power in the miracle that troubles us as the character of the miracle. There is in it,

« PreviousContinue »