*
THINº YººH
sº-ºº:
s: -º-º: |Nº|||||||IIITIIIHTITLE
| lºssº E
2:) 5015 NT, º
: E → . Arº- - - -
ſº
uniº
#||
"of the
|
#
E–C
#
J
s
PENINSUUAM AM10
- - **
Çı Rctſ tº 5 pictºº
=
:2:
:
#
=
-
f

* 5 & 7
, C (2 7
C S &
-- •



BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
THE MYTHOLOGY OF THE ARYAN NATIONS.
New Edition. Demy 8vo. 16s.
TALES OF ANCIENT GREECE. New Edition. Small
Crown 8vo. 6s.
A MANUAL OF MYTHOLOGY IN THE FORM OF .
QUESTION AND ANSWER. New Edition. Feap. 8vo. 3s.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SCIENCE OF COM -
PARATIVE MYTHOLOGY AND FOLK-LORE. Second Edition.
Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
POPULAR ROMANCES OF THE MIDDLE AGES.
Crown 8vo. 6s.
London: KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, & Co.
A GENERAL HISTORY OF GREECE. Crown 8vo.
7s. 6d.
THE GREEKS AND THE PERSIANS. (Epochs of
Ancient History.) Foap. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
THE ATHENIAN EMPIRE. (Epochs of Ancient History.)
Foap. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
THE CRUSADES. (Epochs of Modern History.) FCap. 8vo.
2s. 6d.
HISTORY OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF BRITISH
RULE IN INDIA. (English History Reading-Books.) Foap. 8vo.
2.S.
LIVES OF GREEK STATESMEN. Two vols. Feap. 8vo.
2s. 6d. each.
A BOOK OF FAMILY PRAYER, compiled chiefly from
the Devotions of Jeremy Taylor and other Divines of the Seventeenth
Century. Foap. 8vo. Is.
London : LONGMANS, GREEN, & Co.
A HISTORY OF ENGLAND AND THE ENGLISH
PEOPLE. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d.
SHORT HISTORICAL ANECDOTES. 62.
London: JOSEPH HUGHES, Pilgrim Street, Ludgate Hill.
By EDMUND C. COX, Bombay District Police.
A SHORT HISTORY OF THE BOMBAY PRESI-
DENCY. Crown 8vo. 5s.
TALES OF ANCIENT INDIA. Crown 8vo. Is. 6d.
London: W. THACKER & Coi Newgate Street.
THE LIFE
OF
JOHN WILLIAM COLENSO, D.D.


• { -- * - s - a r * ~ * - r … – -
$ - 3 -" -
:#,
&
r • .
É. *
t
s
!--
$
i
&
y’
* * f s
# •
- * *
g
# - Aº &
# jº
*
- is . .
•. e - ** -
* :*
- *
• .
# .
*
t
--- t
-- * . : . . .
l
* *-
*
|
*
*
e
*
4.
* -
#
.g.
* w
* - a *
* -º-º-r • * =sººris -, -w ºr ~ºrs - “* *-** wºº - *º-º-º-º-º- ~ * * : - * ~, ºwessa” ºw-s. -- * *- : * : * * *- - *-**


&*rș *æ#
4|
→ «»și·
*&'s
&~�-<
|-
*\ s→·！ ·
:æ*
{* ， ,«;+
· •¡ |-
| 1* *�
�
**
！#
\
�-, &
} |-











Fran- a P-To-an-Prº B- ----------

THE LIFE
OF ToT.
JOHN WILLIAM COLENSO, D.D.
j6igbop of ſºlatal.
-eč
by THº.
S I R G E OR GE wºčox, BART., M.A.
RECTOR OF SCRAYINGHAM.
Iw Two Vozviſes.
VOL. I.
3.0miſm :
W. R. I D G W A Y.
I888.
All A'ights Reserved.
Rich ARD CLAY AND SONs,
LON-DON AND BUNGAY,
PREFACE.
THE life of Bishop Colenso has been, and will be, more
momentous in its issues than perhaps any other life in the
present century. That it should be so is only the fitting
recompense of his work. From first to last he sought with
a single heart for truth and righteousness as the pearl of
great price. From first to last he was thankful that in the
Divine ordering of things he had been enabled to search
for this truth in a Church which encourages its members to
seek it resolutely and to proclaim it manfully as the first of
all duties.
My motive in undertaking to write his life has been to lay
before the world, for his words and his acts generally, a full
and complete vindication. It would be ridiculous were I to
affect ignorance of the character and purpose of the oppo-
sition shown to him by members of certain schools or parties.
This opposition was based, professedly, on the ground that he
was a traitor to the promises made at his ordination and
consecration, a rebel against the laws of the English Church,
an apostate from the faith of the Church Catholic and from
Christianity.
It is time that this contention should be brought to an
end. These charges were made by men who steadily refused
vi PA’A2A7A CE.
to avail themselves of the legal process which would have
issued in a judgement of the Supreme Court of the Church
of England; and, on behalf of the Bishop of Natal, I main-
tain that in his writings, and in his teaching generally, he
was entirely faithful to the promises which he made when he
received the ordering of deacon, of priest, and of bishop;
entirely faithful to his duty as a Christian and a member
of the Church Catholic; and, more especially, that his books
are in complete accordance not merely with the letter of the
standards of the Church of England but also with their spirit.
For every proposition of the least importance in his books a
full and decisive justification is furnished by the series of
judgements which have issued from the highest courts of
the Church of England. Englishmen do not speak of the
need of establishing their claim to rights acknowledged and
secured to them by the Great Charter; and I am in no
greater degree called upon to claim for the Bishop of Natal’s
conclusions or teaching the sanction which has been already
extended to them by the highest tribunals of the Church
of England. The charges brought in irresponsible fashion
against the Bishop of Natal have been bandied about long
enough. The Bishop's conclusions and teaching have been
brought to a legal issue in cases already decided by the
tribunals of the Church of England ; and they are, in fact,
as far removed beyond the reach of censure as are the writings
of the most illustrious and the most orthodox of the divines
of the English Church.
In so saying, I am speaking, strictly and deliberately, of
the whole of the long series of his works. No one, I dare to
say, can pretend that of the convictions or conclusions avowed
at any time by the Bishop of Natal some or any have in this
memoir been designedly withheld. My examination of his
published works is, I believe, so minute and thorough that
attentive readers of these pages will be placed on the same
AAEA, AEA CE. vii
level with those who have worked their way patiently and
laboriously through them all. But as his conclusions with
regard to the composition and growth of the Books of the
Old Testament have most roused the antagonism of tradi-
tionalists generally, it may be well to specify the most
important among them, and the most pregnant with
momentous consequences for the future.
These I believe to be the following ; and they are given,
as nearly as possible, in the Bishop's words.
(I) That only a very small portion, if any, of the Pentateuch
can have been composed or written by Moses or in the Mosaic
age.
(2) That Moses may have been the real guide of the
Israelites from Egypt to the borders of Canaan, or a personage
as shadowy and unhistorical as AEneas in the history of Rome
or our own King Arthur.
(3) That Joshua seems to be an entirely mythical character.
(4) That there are two or more different and self-disproving
accounts of the Creation, Deluge, and other events or incidents
in the Book of Genesis.
(5) That the priestly legislation of the Books of Exodus,
Leviticus, and Numbers belongs to the time of, or to a period
subsequent to, the captivity of Babylon.
(6) That the Book of Deuteronomy was composed in the
reign of Manasseh, or in that of Josiah.
(7) That the Books, so called, of the Chronicles were written
at a time later by some centuries than the Babylonish
exile.
(8) That the history of these Books of Chronicles is not,
as it professes or is supposed to be, a trustworthy narrative,
but a fictitious story, put together for a special purpose.
The holding and teaching of all these and other like
propositions are in every respect warranted, justified, and
viii AA’A2A74 CE.
covered by the judgement delivered by Dr. Lushington in the
Court of Arches; in other words, by the judgement of the
Archbishop of Canterbury—a judgement which, not having
been reversed on appeal, is law. - -
This judgement, in the case arising out of the publication
of Essays and Reviews, declares that “it is open for the
clergy to maintain that any book in the Bible is the work of
another author than him whose name it bears,”—the true
meaning of these words being, the judge adds, “that the clergy
are at liberty to reject parts of Scripture, upon their own
opinion that the narrative is inherently incredible; to disregard
precepts in Holy Writ, because they think them evidently
wrong.”
It is unnecessary, therefore, to say that by virtue of this
judgement the clergy of the Church of England have the
right to maintain the propositions already cited from the
works of the Bishop of Natal. But, in affirming this, I do
not restrict myself to the mere assertion that the teaching of
the Bishop of Natal is in full accordance with the law of the
Church of England. I assert, further, that only in men like
him the Church of England has the true supporters and friends
who can guide her safely through the troublesome times
which all must feel to be near at hand.
I claim therefore for him a genuine and hearty loyalty
for the Church of England, for which throughout his whole
life he worked and fought, under the assurance that she
has a Divine mission, to which it is impossible for us to set
bounds. For him the fact of her comprehensiveness, constantly
broadening and always more and more beneficent, was the
justification of all efforts for making it complete. It is
this comprehensiveness which won for her the enthusiastic
devotion of his friend Dean Stanley, and added strength to the
faith which carried his thoughts onward to her distant future.
This devotion and this faith, which the Bishop shared most
AAEA, AEA CE. ix
fully, had their centre in the conviction that the Church is
a living society under a living Head. Against both the Dean
and himself insinuations or charges of unfaithfulness to their
trust were lavishly thrown out. To these accusations Dean
Stanley replied by boldly insisting that his own belief was not
only in strict accordance with the legal requirements of the
National Church but also in complete harmony with its spirit,
and, what was of infinitely higher importance, with the spirit
of Him on whom its life depends. In every writing of the
Bishop of Natal we have the same firm conviction. But
although he had the deepest sense of all that is good in the
English Church, he did not idolize it. No Church can be either
infallible or faultless ; and the Church of England makes no
profession of being either the one or the other. But that the
Church of England would survive the changes in store for her,
and be the stronger for them, he had the profoundest assurance,
because he felt that she was charged with a message of living
truth.
In short, whatever may be said of the Dean may be said
not less truly of the Bishop. With his friend the Bishop
shared the conviction that “Underneath the sentiments and
usages which have accumulated round the forms of Chris-
tianity there is a class of principles, a religion as it were
behind the religion, which, however dimly expressed, has
given them whatever vitality they possess.” Both the
Bishop and the Dean felt assured that the sentiments
and usages of the great society which forms the Church of
England must, like those of other Churches, have vitality,
so far as they have any, by virtue of this religion which
underlies them all. -
Of the way in which the Bishop of Natal’s work, taken as
a whole, was received by those who felt, or declared, it to be
their duty to oppose him, I have felt myself bound to speak
with the utmost plainness. Wherever I have met with mis-
X AREATA CE.
representation or evasion, shuffling, equivocation, subterfuge,
or downright falsehood, I have not looked about for qualifying
phrases which may tend to leave on the reader's mind the
impression that a thing is not what it is. If in some instances
this plainness of speech should seem to affect the personal
character of any of his antagonists, the blame of it must lie
on the evil of the systems which those antagonists have been
resolved, at all costs of truth, honesty, and Christian love, to
uphold as absolutely faultless and perfect. The measure in
which this fatal resolution threatens to sap the very founda-
tions of morality in what is called the religious world, and
has lured into falsehood men otherwise upright and honour-
able, is appalling indeed ; and until this plague of unveracity
is arrested, it is vain to look for a healthier state of things.
Suspicion, mistrust, and a crowd of feelings of still darker
hues, are the necessary fruits of insincerity and falsehood ;
and insincerity and falsehood are sins into which men must
fall who are determined to assert that things are faultless
which are full, to say the least, of flaws. On those who have
committed themselves to such a course, and who obstinately
adhere to it, it is not for us to pronounce judgement. Of
the systems which they uphold we are bound to use words
which it shall be impossible for any to misunderstand or
misinterpret.
For the Bishop of Natal the battle with intolerance and
superstition in England was followed by a warfare not less
harassing and wearing against national wrong-doing in
Southern Africa. In the day of his unreasoning resentment
against the Bishop's critical method, Mr. Maurice had
charged him with holding “the accursed doctrine” that “God
has nothing to do with nations and politics.” By a wonderful
ordering, the man whom, because he showed that the narrative
of Exodus was not history, Mr. Maurice accused of taking
away from Englishmen all ground for looking to God
AACEAEA CAE. xi
for the destruction of tyranny, was the only Englishman
who gave up time, rest, peace—was ready to give up
everything—if he could but obtain bare justice (apart from
Christian gentleness and mercy) for injured natives or tribes
in Southern Africa.
The history of the battle which he fought on behalf of
men who had been, as he succeeded in proving, and as
the British Government allowed, grossly wronged, is given,
so far as it was possible to give it, in his own words. The
Bishop's letters to his friends form a record, complete from
every point of view, of the Zulu War with its antecedents
and consequences; but of these letters some extracts only
can be given here. It would, indeed, be impossible to do
justice to the series addressed to his friends in England, and
in particular to Mr. Chesson, without giving them all at full
length ; but enough is here laid before the reader for the
purposes of a vindication which is to justify his political not
less than his theological or religious action.
In this portion, especially, of the work, I owe a deep debt
of gratitude for aid received from the Bishop's family. This
help has been bestowed as a labour of love, and with a firm
and glad trust in the final victory of truth over falsehood
of right over wrong. The cause for which this work has
been taken in hand is the one thing for which they desire
to live ; and I am thankful that I have been spared to
accomplish a task needed for the attainment of the end
which they, and I, have most at heart, the end which
brings with it the vindication of his whole life. To his
wife and to his children these pages may, I trust, serve as
an earnest of the great reparation which will, I do not for
a moment doubt, be made by his countrymen to his work
and to his memory. - -
The Bishop of Natal was happy in having the entire con-
fidence and the unswerving devotion of every member of his
xii ARAEFA CAE.
own family. Throughout the whole of his career, from the
early Cambridge days onwards, his wife was as fearless and as
earnest in seeking and acting on the truth as he was himself,
—as ready, for instance, if need were, to abandon everything
in order to share with him the work of a Christian mission in
lands beyond the pale of civilisation,-as determined, not
merely to search for, but to speak out, the whole truth,
without regard to consequences. Of his children, the one
who left her home in Natal last year, to help me in the
preparation of the chapters relating to the dealings of the
English Government with native tribes, has been taken to
the happier home in which they who part here are reunited.
Thousands for whose welfare she shared her father's toil and
self-devotion will remember with lasting thankfulness the
name of Frances Ellen Colenso.
Of the part taken by his eldest daughter, Harriette, in the
great work of his later years no adequate description can be
given. It is enough to say that there was no sacrifice of time
or strength ever called for which she did not make joyfully,
and without the consciousness that she was making any
sacrifice at all. With wonderful patience and fortitude she
bore up against the mere physical toil of the work, heavy even
when the Bishop was at hand to guide and counsel. With
endurance even more wonderful she has persevered since his
death in the prosecution of his great task of obtaining justice
for the weak and helpless, or, where it was too late to hope
for justice, of resisting the progress of wrong, and of pro-
testing against the cynical indifference to human suffering
which has marked the dealings of the British Government,
or of some at least of its highest officials, with native
tribes. -
That I have been enabled to have my part in vindicating
his life's work in the sight of all English-speaking men, and, I
trust, of many more, is to me a matter of abiding thankfulness
AA’EAZACE. xiii
and joy. Most of all, am I thankful that I have had the
happiness of close friendship with him for more than twenty
years, and that during all these years I have been gladdened
by the consciousness of a singular harmony of thought and
method with a mind never thrown off its even balance, and of
entire accord with a heart for which truth was more precious
than life.
GEORGE W. COX.
SCRAYINGHAM RECTORY,
Pecember Io, 1887.
“YOU need boldness to risk all for God—to stand by the Truth and its
supporters against men's threatenings and the devil's wrath. . . . you
need a patient meekness to bear the galling calumnies and false surmises
with which, if you are faithful, that same Satanic working, which, if it
could, would burn your body, will assuredly assail you daily through the
pens and tongues of deceivers and deceived, who, under a semblance
of a zeal for Christ, will evermore distort your words, misrepresent your
motives, rejoice in your failings, exaggerate your errors, and seek by
every poisoned breath of slander to destroy your powers of service.”—
SERMON PREACHED AT THE CONSECRATION OF BISHOP ColeNso, St.
Andrew’s Day, 1853, by SAMUEL WILBERFORCE, Bishop of Oaford.
C O N T E N T S.
CHAPTER I.
EARLY YEARS, AND LIFE AT CAMBRIDGE AND FORNCETT . .
CHAPTER II.
TEN WEEKS IN NATAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EARLY WORK IN NATAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER IV.
“THE COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ’’ . .
CHAPTER V.
PREPARATIONS FOR THE GREAT WARFARE. 1862–63 . . . .
*
CHAPTER VI.
wORK IN ENGLAND, 1863–65. THE BATTLE . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER VII.
THE SO-CALLED TRIAL AT CAPETOWN . . . . . . . . . . .
f*AGE
5 I
75
I 28
xvi CONTENTS.
CHAPTER VIII.
PAGE
CONSEQUENCES OF THE SO-CALLED TRIAI, AT CAPETOWN . . . . 328
CHAPTER IX.
BISHOP HAROLD BROWNE AND THE ANTAGONISTS OF THE BISHOP
OF NATAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
CHAPTER X.
THE PENTATEUCH - ITS MATTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481
CHAPTER XI.
THE PENTATEUCH : ITS COMPOSITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530
CHAPTER XII.
THE PENTATEUCH : ITS GROWTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595
APPENDIX A.—Letter to Bishop Gray, August 7, 1861 . . . . . . 697
APPENDIx B.-List of Archbishops and Bishops, 1848–1870 . . . . 707
PORTRAIT, FROM A PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN IN
BY J. E. MAYALL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
THE LIFE
OF
JOHN WILLIAM COLENSO, D.D.,
LORD BISHOP OF NATAL.
CHAPTER I.
EARLY YEARS, AND LIFE AT CAMBRIDGE AND FORNCETT.
JOHN WILLIAM COLENSO was born at St. Austell, January
24, 1814.
His father, who belonged to a Cornish family, held the
office of Mineral Agent for part of the Duchy of Cornwall, an
appanage of the Prince of Wales. While his son was still a
boy, his own circumstances became seriously reduced by the
adverse results of mining operations, which were arrested, as
is not seldom the case in Cornish mines, by an irruption of the
Sea. From this time his son, struggling to complete his own
education, was weighted with the responsibility of contributing
to the support of his father and the education of his younger
brother and his two sisters. Of his mother, who died when he
was about fifteen years old, he always retained a most tender
remembrance. An intimate friend has described her as
“lovely both in mind and person.”
Of his childhood there is little to be told. His youth
brought with it a hard experience of the difficulties of life. A
VOL. I. B
f /
;’
J.”
ºf
2 LIFE OF BISHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. I.
letter written in 1830 (November 13) to an aunt throws light
on the influences of various kinds then working upon him. It
is written in an unformed style ; but it shows a keenness of
insight which points to steadiness as well as independence
of judgement.
“On serious consideration and from reflexion on what actually
transpired in my mind at the time, I cannot but agree with
you in thinking that it was the mighty Householder who
two years since planted the seed of life within me. The
devil may have mixed tares with the Spirit's wheat, but the
sower was God ; the fruit must, and, I trust, has in some
measure appeared. I have not the slightest recollection,
nor had I ever, I believe, a conception of the time when I
first thought of eternity and the danger of the soul. All I
can say is, that “whereas I was blind, now I see.’”
Turning to the subject of the ministry he expresses his
longing
“To be engaged in this awfully pleasing work. There is a
most awful grandeur in this solemn work. We are not
meddling with the things of time, with this world's trifles.
Eternity Eternity is ours; for it is by the means of the
ministry that the Holy Spirit is most generally pleased to
give His blessing. At all events, it is the members of that
sacred body who are to minister unto hungry souls their
daily bread, to fill the thirsty with the nectar of heaven, to
heal the sick, to establish the wavering. And who is
sufficient for these things 2"
But there was a choice between the ministry of the English
Church and that of Nonconformists, to whom his mother and
some other relatives belonged.
“I am now, since we have had Mr. Hockin' here, fully
convinced that a Church minister may be a man of God ;
* This exemplary man, then curate of St. Austell, was afterwards vicar
of Blackawton, and for forty-five years before his death in 1886 chaplain
of the Devon and Exeter Hospital.
1831. AAA*/ Y VEARS. 3
and his opportunities of being useful must far exceed
those of a Dissenting one. The first, and a very striking;
advantage (so, at least, it appears to me) of the Church
minister over the Independent is his actual Independence.
There are not so many bigots in the Church as there used
to be, nor have the bishops the same tyrannical power
which they used to have over the body of which they
represent the head. . . . When once the Church
minister is settled in his church, unless guilty of some
heinous dereliction of duty, he cannot be expelled.
Not so, however, with the Independent. He must preach
not what he likes, but what his congregation likes : he
must obey the voice of his flock, and in too many instances
the flock turns out a flock of wolves in sheep's clothing, as
for instance in our poor little Meeting, where all is riot and
confusion. . . . But whatever may be the advantage on
the one side or the other, I trust I am prepared to enter
whatever situation the Almighty may in His unerring
wisdom have designed for me. . . . I have as yet
abundance of time before me, comparatively speaking, for
I am not yet seventeen ; but if nothing should occur to
realise my wishes with respect to the Church, I am prepared
for the Independents. Yet in either case let me pray that
the doctrine of the Gospel may be mine, unclouded by
party principles, unobscured by the impious intrusion of
man's own ignorant wishes and baneful speculations.”
A letter to his grandmother, Mrs. Blackmore, dated
March 21, 1831, gives an account of his journey from Devon-
port to Dartmouth, there to serve as an assistant in a school
kept by Mr. Glubb, the incumbent of St. Petrox. He found
himself in a country the beauty of which gave him great
delight, in the company of men who were “very pleasant and
agreeable, and, best of all, pious characters,” and in a post
which left him about two hours of leisure daily. But even
this respite was obtained by dint of strictly economising
scraps of time from the round of school work, which began at
B 2
4. A/FE OF BISA/OA CO/CE/VSO. CHAP. I.
six a.m. (he had himself to call the boys at five o'clock) and
went on, with breaks amounting to only five and a half hours,
to eight o'clock in the evening.
Seven months later (October 26, 1831), he writes expressing
the hope that his grandmother may be able to give him
favourable news of Pentuan, the family property, and asked
whether she was “much surprised at or interested in the
fate of the Reform Bill,” which had just become law.
“We could not expect the Lords, I think, to do otherwise,
bullied as they were by such a brawling set of ragamuffins
as assembled at Liverpool, Manchester, and other places.”
The cholera was now not far from England, and the
approach of the pestilence leads to a review of his spiritual
state, in which he remarks:— # 6 ºr
“For the last two years instead of (as I thought myself re-
peatedly) being a humble and hungry follower of Jesus, I
have made a god of myself, and an idol of my own soul.”
He has found too much refreshment in “thoughts and
feelings,” “in prayers that he may feel more of his Saviour's
love, enjoy more of His presence,” while he should have
“Found his greatest happiness in serving God and in being
made holy and like Him. The former without the latter
I see to be mere enthusiasm, and not a spiritual worship of
the Lord Almighty.”
The great question of his life's work was thus already
beginning to press upon him. The consciousness of the
powers which were for him gifts from an all-wise and loving
Father pointed in one direction : the straitened circumstances
of his family seemed to point in another. If he looked in
upon himself, everything called him to a university career.
Must these hopes be dissipated, because the temporal means
of his kinsfolk were not what they had been 2 Without some
1832. AºA R/C Y VEARS. - 5
help from them he knew that those hopes could never be
realised: but he resolved at the outset that whatever they
might do for him should be recompensed to them in full.
The promise was nobly redeemed ; but the years which must
pass before he could redeem it were years of the hardest
struggle, and seldom perhaps has such a struggle been faced
and endured with so much patience, constancy, and cheerful-
ness, with so profound a sense of duty, and with a spirit so
resigned to the will of One infinitely wiser and better than
himself. But it was needful to provide for such outlay as on
any calculation must be inevitable. From his grandmother
he received an answer which held out little hope; and in a
letter to his uncle, Mr. W. P. Blackmore (February 27, 1832),
he expresses his trust that all his hopes may not be dashed
by a refusal from him, his only stay in the present moment
of difficulty.
“My object is to enter as a sizar at St. John's—which
if I can effect (and I do hope the education I have
received, and redoubled diligence through the next seven
months will enable me to do it) my expenses would be
comparatively nothing. But I do not ask you to support
me at college. Mr. Glubb, and all I can converse with on
the subject, assure me there will be no difficulty in support-
ing myself by private pupils, and a thousand other aids
which a studious man cannot help receiving, provided I can
at once establish my entrance there. Will you then—this
is my only and shall be my last request—will you in Octo-
ber next, if all things are well, advance me £2O to place
me at college For the repayment of this you shall have
my most solemn promise, whenever God shall place it in
my power—my books are worth that sum, but these I trust
it will never be necessary to apply to. . . . Whichever way
your resolution is fixed, do write me by return of post, as
nothing can be of more consequence to me than an
immediate acquaintance with it.”
6 AZFE OF BISA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. I.
The offer made by his uncle was that he would provide a
sum of £33 for his second year of residence, if his other
relations would furnish a like sum for the first year. Writing
to his grandmother, with expressions of thankfulness for
the “gleam of light” thus thrown “upon the darkness” of
the prospect before him, he says in reference to these
conditions — *
“It may be possible, may I not say probable, that I shall be
put into such a situation as not to require your assistance
the third year. At all events, believe me that no endeavours
shall be wanting on my part to support myself or raise my-
self to a station which, under God's blessing, may enable
me to provide for myself as well as for those who may
perhaps hereafter become dependent on me.
“Can you then comply with dear uncle's request, or has
the providence of God put it out of your power At
all events, please to give a speedy answer to this letter,
as in the first case I shall instantly begin a course of
reading and preparation for a foundation sizarship.
If, however, you cannot afford to comply with my wishes,
why, I believe I must resign all thoughts of an university
education. My best hours are fast fleeting—something
must shortly be done. If, therefore, all my endeavours
should prove fruitless, I shall turn my thoughts to some
other profession ; and in such case may the Lord preserve
me from despondency and despair, for I candidly confess I
am fit for nothing else but the university.”
In a subsequent letter (April 16) to his grandmother, he
enters more into the details of his probable expenditure at
the university, referring to the advice and suggestions of
Mr. Glubb, and also to the experience of Kirke White, who
declared that he knew a fellow collegian who had only £20 a
year.
Five months later (September 25) he writes again, an-
nouncing his immediate departure for Cambridge. Steam
1832. A/FE A 7T CAMER/DGE. 7
from Falmouth to London was chosen as the cheapest mode
of transit ; and the narrative of his journey shows the rigidness
of the economy to which he conscientiously and cheerfully
submitted himself. He found, however, that the sea passage
scarcely saved him money; nor, in spite of the unrelaxing
bravery with which he fought the battle, was his yearly outlay
at the first quite so small as he had hoped it might be.
Writing from St. John's (October 28, 1832) he describes the
general features of college life, speaks of his having cheerful
and pleasant rooms, and mentions his having had to pay £2
for a Greek Lexicon and a book on conic sections. There
were, further, for the first term, costs which would not come
again, and Some of which, as for furniture, he would recover
at the end of his residence.
In a letter written towards the end of his first year, he
speaks of the retrospect and the prospect as being both, on
the whole, encouraging, and expresses the hope that the out-
lay for the next year may be met in part by his share in the
half profits of two books which he had prepared for the
publishers, the one consisting of some translations from Horace,
the other of annotations on the Gospel of St. Matthew. These
were followed by a translation of Plato's Apology of Socrates.
His success in the Christmas examination had won for him
an exhibition of £2O ; success in the great midsummer
examination would, he hoped, obtain for him a Margaret
sizarship, which, being worth £60, would with his exhibition
put him “in a very comfortable situation.” His first con-
siderations are for his finances. They could not be otherwise.
But although the need of stinting himself had never led
him into meanness, the severity of the struggle could not fail
to make itself felt.
“I have hardly eat or slept for the last week, and am afraid I
am looking ‘like a winnard,' as we say, through anxiety and
fatigue.”
8 AAA'E OF BISA/OP CO/ASAVSO. CHAP. I.
To the future he looked forward in high hope; but there
were immediate expenses, the payment of which could not be
postponed. His uncle Richard, who in the meantime had
undergone the terrible loss of his eyesight, had not fulfilled
his promise ; and he begs his grandmother to see him, if it be
possible, and put the case before him. He did not write
himself, because his uncle would be obliged to ask others to
read the letter, and he particularly wished to keep everything
private. Early in the following year (January 7, 1834) he has
still to write on the same subject.
“The plain truth is that, unless he can be induced to assist
me once more, I cannot stay here; if he can, my success is
certain. And now I proceed to state my reasons for this
assertion. I took tea the other day with my kind tutor,
Mr. Hymers. It was the day I received from St. Austell
the account of T 's last vile injustice to us, by which
all our hopes appeared utterly blasted, mine certainly among
the rest ; since, had you received your due from the sale of
Pentuan, I might have hoped for a little further assistance
from you, which, of course, is now impossible. In the
course of the evening I told him that I had had an appli-
cation from a man of my year to take him as a pupil, and
asked him whether he advised me to do it. He put a most
decided veto upon it, and told me it was quite absurd for
me with the prospects I had before me of success to waste
my time, for which no money could afford me compensation.
On this I hinted that I believed I should be obliged to do
so, as I thought I should not be able to stay here without
it. Explanation, &c., of course followed, and the result
was that he forbade me positively to take pupils, told me
that, if I could pay off my present bills, he would endea-
vour that my future college expenses should be absolutely
nothing, and expressly said that I should not want while an
undergraduate, if he himself paid for me.”
Mr. Hymers was as wise as he was kind. The need of
waiting patiently for the great ordeal was manifest. A
1839. AAA’E A 7" CA MBA’//DGE. 9
--- r-, -t- -
mathematical work was added to the three from which he
already expected some profit." Through the efforts of his
grandmother the present help was provided ; and Mr.
Hymers, writing (March 14, 1835) to that lady, says
emphatically —
“I never knew a young man of greater promise, or one more
deserving the attention of his friends. He bids fair to be
no less an honour to his relations than to his college and
university.”
The great ordeal was passed with brilliant success. In 1836
he was Second Wrangler and Second Smith's Prizeman ; and
in March, 1837, he was elected Fellow of St. John's.
Two years later, on Sunday, June 9, 1839, he was admitted
to deacon's orders by the Bishop of Ely. In the same year,
Dr. Longley, then head master of Harrow, and afterwards
Archbishop, first of York, then of Canterbury, applied to the
University of Cambridge for a mathematical tutor ; and Mr.
Colenso was recommended for the post.” His sojourn at
Harrow was marked by one heavy disaster and many mis-
fortunes. A fire entirely destroyed his house, newly built and
scarcely completed, while the depressed state of the school,
which sank very low in general repute under the management
of Dr. Wordsworth, afterwards Bishop of Lincoln, left him at
* He also competed successfully three times for Hare's Exhibition ;
and also for Litherland's, at Christmas, 1833, and Dr. Reyner's in 1835.
At Christmas, 1834, he obtained the Naden Divinity Studentship, and in
November, 1835, was elected Scholar of his College. *
* During the time of his mastership he was frequently invited by the
vicar, Mr. Cunningham, to preach in Harrow Church. A colonist, Mr.
Chilton, whose acquaintance with Mr. Colenso began in 1841, says that
whenever he preached the church was crowded, not only with Churchmen
but also with Nonconformists, and that men were known to walk from
London, twelve miles, to hear him. He adds that “among the boys and
young men at the School Mr. Colenso was held in the most unbounded
esteem. With the townspeople of every class no man was a greater
favourite. He was adviser of the troubled, a friend of the destitute, and
an enemy to none.”
IO I/FE OF BISA/OP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. I.
length so heavily in debt that a change became necessary.
He returned to Cambridge at the end of 1841, and for four
years worked as tutor at St. John's College, of which he was
also Fellow. Four years later (1846) he resigned his Fellow-
ship, having married Sarah Frances Bunyon, eldest daughter
of the late Robert Bunyon, and accepted the rectory of
Forncett St. Mary, a small country village in the diocese
of Norfolk, where he gave himself to the work of his parish
and his private pupils. He had been engaged to Miss Bunyon
for three years; and by a strange coincidence her family also
had in the interval lost money heavily, and partly by mines,
so that his marriage did not relieve him of any of his pecuniary
difficulties.
TO HIS UNCLE, S. ROWSE, ESQ.
“May 29, 1839.
“You will be glad to hear that, instead of building, as I pro-
posed, I am become “Lord of the Manor” at Harrow,
i.e. have been able to take the house formerly belonging to
Lord Northwick, which has till now been in the occupation
of Mr. Phelps, one of our masters, who has realised a for-
tune there in five or six years, more than sufficient to pur-
chase the whole estate. The house is quite a mansion, with
forty-seven acres of ground attached, and Superb gardens.
I enter the 13th of August. I hope to have an opportunity
of thanking you for your kindness when I come down at
Midsummer.”
TO T. PATTINSON FERGUSON, ESQ.
“HARROW, February 4, 1840.
“At last I have secured, I hope, a really leisure hour to
devote to you. If you knew the feelings of pleasure with
which I read your letter, you would not be unwilling to
receive my plea of occupation as a valid and sincere excuse
for my not replying to it, for I could not consent to drop a
hasty line only in return for such a memorial of your friend-
ship, and such a source of real gratification to myself.
1840. J./FAZ A 7T CAMARA’//DGAE. I I
Indeed I do believe that you have decided on that course
which by the blessing of God will tend to secure both your
present and eternal happiness. I do think you have chosen
that for which your natural talents and disposition in my
Own eyes peculiarly fit you, and I pray that you and I may
yet, while life and strength are spared to us, glorify by our
labours and patience upon earth the blessed Lord and
Master to whose service it is our privilege to devote our-
Selves. Your description of your own feelings on the sub-
ject of your fitness (in point of religious knowledge and
experience) for this glorious office. I can most truly realise.
Fearful I know, by sad remembrance of days not long
elapsed in the progress of my own life, is the struggle of the
‘strong man’ to retain possession of the heart, and some-
times terrible and deadly are the falls with which he dashes
his victim to the ground. Neither you nor I can expect to
avoid this conflict—especially in our early days of religious
life; but thanks be to God, who after all will give us the
victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. May He in His
infinite mercy preserve us from presumptuously resting on
His promises of grace to the abandonment of our duties ;
but yet may we enjoy the happy privilege of looking for-
ward with humble confidence to that day when, having
led us safely, notwithstanding all our manifold infirmities,
through this wilderness, He will land us on the other side
of Jordan in the land of everlasting rest. My dear
Ferguson, from the peculiar circumstances of my past life,
this course of thought has been of late familiar to me, and
forms almost the daily bread by which I have been sup-
ported. The providence of Almighty God has showed me
troubles of late, has most justly laid on me the rod of
chastisement, because in the hour of my prosperity I forgot
Him, and sacrificed to devils." My flesh will sometimes
shrink under the burden of debt and difficulty and dis-
appointment; but I trust I am not always forgetful of the
These expressions must be taken along with those in which he
blames himself for extravagance. Of these something more will be said
presently.
I 2 AAFE OF AP/SHOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. I.
hand which has mingled honey in every cup of bitterness,
and amidst much infirmity of purpose, and alas ! still more
unworthiness of practice, can yet cling in the secret cham-
bers of my heart to the belief that He hath done and
ever will do all things well. I feel with you, however, how
very little I really know of God, how very faint a concep-
tion I have learnt to entertain of His loving-kindness and
faithfulness and majesty, how little especially, how scarcely
at all, do I realise the wondrous love which brought our
Saviour to the death of the cross for us. Nay, there are
moments when I feel almost the cloud of infidelity between
my soul's eyes and the Redeemer of the world ; and I am
sensible that with my mouth indeed I may honour Him,
with my heart's desire to do so, but with my mind I almost
deny Him. Well, in this state of ignorance, and wretched-
ness, is it not a comfort to know that there is One above
who has felt the power of temptation, who can be touched
with a feeling of our infirmities, who is exalted for the very
purpose of giving us repentance as well as remission ? Is it
not a privilege to be encouraged to lay bare our hearts
before our Heavenly Father, who knoweth our frame and
remembereth that we are but dust 2 ”
TO THE SAME.
“HARRow, March 24, 1840.
. . . “Will you come and see me soon P I am very solitary
in the midst of a crowd. . . . . My house is rated at a very
high rent. The choice is not so much between ‘this at this
rent, or not at all,” as between ‘this at any rate or ruin, and
that the consequence as much of my own extravagance and
folly" as of the calamity I have suffered under. I trust I
* The extracts from the letters relating to this period of his life are
given as indispensably necessary to enable the reader to form a true
idea of his moral and spiritual growth. Every utterance in them is
transparently sincere; but one of the most remarkable features exhibited
in them is a singular sensitiveness of conscience, and his self-accusations,
whatever they may be, must be interpreted with a strict reference to this
characteristic. Thus the supposition that he had at any time been guilty
of what is commonly known as extravagance is really nothing less than
1840. A.ZAZE A 7T CAMAER/DGE. I3
am now endeavouring to set about creeping slowly up the
face of the cliff down which I have been all but precipitated,
and have only saved myself for the present by snatching at
a stump which, if it yields, will but accelerate my fall. I
hope I see above me the points I may gain and the steps I
may take, so as by patience and exertion to reach the free
and open ground ; but I am not too sanguine, and can only
believe that all will at last be well. At any rate, I must
learn to wait patiently God’s own good time for the decision
of my future prospects; and now enough, my dear Ferguson,
of self; but your own inquiries partly provoked this egotism.
I hope, indeed, that we shall both realise in our hearts the
truth of the great Principle which seems to breathe through-
out our Scriptures that the Knowledge of God shall be
revealed to those who obey His Will. Oftentimes when one
is tempted through the absence of present distinct percep-
tion of the Love of God to us, and especially (I speak
for myself) of the wonderful loving-kindness of our Saviour,
and that astonishing mercy to us, which I cannot but
acknowledge with my head indeed, when I consider His
sufferings and death, but oh how very little feel recipro-
cated in my own heart—oftentimes, then, I find at such
moments the recollection of these promises of great com-
fort to me, and sensible value in propping up my drooping
faith. ‘If any man will do his will, he shall know of the
doctrine whether it be of God.” “He that loveth me will
keep my words, and again on the other hand, “He that
hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that
ludicrous. His life, from his very childhood onwards, had been one of
hard and rigorous self-denial, a battle with inadequate means to provide
not only for his own absolute wants, but for the help which he longed
always to give to others. His early and very intimate friend Mr. Ferguson
says on this point (September 21, 1886): “I imagine that what he called
extravagance may have been nothing more than a perfectly justifiable
expenditure in the prospect of succeeding, as he was entitled to expect he
should, at Harrow. The burning of his house, and the utter failure of the
school under Wordsworth, brought him into difficulties which were for a
long time a sore burden to him.” A life more free from all that is
commonly called extravagance can scarcely be imagined.
J4. A/FE OF BISA/OA COLEAVSO. CHAP. I.
loveth me, and he that loveth me shall be loved of my
Father, and I will love him, and manifest myself to him.’ It
can never be enthusiasm to believe that these words convey
a distinct promise of a gradual growth in grace and in
knowledge of our Lord, to those who are found waiting on
Him in patient continuance in well-doing according to their
present knowledge.”
TO THE SAME.
“HARRow, May 6, 1840.
[After asking his friend whether he would like to have, as
his first charge in holy orders, a chapelry near Twickenham,
and suggesting that he might receive some Cambridge pupils
there, he adds:—]
“I have spent two or three delightful days at a little vicarage
near Maidenhead where a clergyman's life must, if faithfully
devoted to his duties, be very happy. The vicar's garden
opens into his churchyard, and both run along the banks of
the Thames, surrounded by fine scenery. It is a spot I
love at times to contemplate, even in the sketch-book of
memory; and it would be to me a source of great enjoy-
ment and, I should hope, no small instruction amidst the
rich variety of life, and with the fresh twinkling waters at
my feet, to
“‘Talk or think of Death, and play a while
With his black locks.’
“It gives a solemn reality to the quiet labours of a pastor's
life to be brought thus habitually into a connexion with
the other world,—it may tend to banish transport and
young enthusiasm, to prevent, as Newman has it, our
enjoying to the full God's gifts of Providence, of health
and strength, and temporal happiness, by perceiving its
instability and uncertainty; but then it secures to the
Christian's mind the blessing of his Master's peace, which
consists in feeling that every change is subject to His
Gracious hand, and enables us to walk more humbly with
1840. AAFE A T CAMBA/DGE. 15
our God, in thankfulness but not in ecstasy, as those
who are daily watching for themselves the coming of their
Lord.”
TO REv. J. P. FERGUSON.
“October 7, 1840.
“Do not think, my dear friend, that silence with me has
originated in neglect. The fact is, that the state of my own
affairs is such that I cannot at all times command that
evenness and thankfulness of mind which a Christian should
ever desire to exhibit. . . . And so you are numbered
amongst the ministers of God (for I saw your ordination
in the papers). I deeply rejoice at it, and earnestly pray
that you may be led to see daily more and more the
blessedness of a life devoted to the service of the Lord.
The longer I live, the more do I become sensible of this
truth, that to enjoy the happiness of religion, it must be
deemed the one thing, the only thing needful—be admitted
into all our thoughts, to preside over all our hours of ease
and amusement as well as of exertion and actual labour in
the work of God. It is not the attention to this or that
particular duty, the abstinence from this or that indulgence,
which constitutes the following of our blessed Master's steps:
we must try to breathe the air of another world, to live upon
the hopes of God's Word, and not merely allow them a
place in our memories, while we make up the deficiency of
supply for our daily comfort from the things of time and
sense. It is a very noticeable feature of the present day,
that this is the character gaining ground in the hearts of
men as that of true piety. The entire devotedness of
heart and life is the essence of Oxford Tract Divinity, as
fresh from the original authors of that system ; but alas ! in
what a wrong direction does the impulse of their creed
hurry them l’’
To THE SAME.
- “ 1840.
“My eyes, thanks to Fraser's advice, are again restored to
their wonted power. . . . I have no longer the excuse I had
for neglecting to thank you for the very happy hours I
I6 A/FE OF BISA/OP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. I.
spent at Wollerton. The night I left you was the happiest,
I think, I have ever yet spent in my life, the happiest at
least in its consequences. It was the last night of the
old year, and not finding, as I expected (in my ignorance
that Belper was ten miles from Derby), the Strutts' car-
riage waiting for me at the station (as it would have
been perhaps in the daytime when some of the family
happened to be in the town), I was obliged to take up my
quarters in the solitary chamber of an hotel, and there I
heard the old year depart and welcomed the new one in
by the sound of the Derby bells. I thank God that I
spent that night alone. It was the close of the first year
of my life that I had by His mercy spent in His avowed
service, with how much imperfection He knows, and I know
how often He had saved mine eyes from tears and my feet
from falling. However, the thought added greatly to the
happiness and solemn joy of the evening, and I would not
have exchanged that lonely room for the merriest family
fireside that gathered round the birthday of the year.”
TO THE SAME.
“HARRow, March 25, 1841 (?).
. . . “The teetotallers may certainly produce very specious
principles on which, as foundation, to rest their claim for
union, viz. that it is the privilege at least, if not the duty,
of any Christian to sacrifice an innocent indulgence, if by so
doing he can promote his brethren's good. I do not say
that this is the vulgar notion of the matter; but it is the
argument used by the few good and devoted men who have
joined the Society. My course would be, as was suggested
by Goulburn, to point to the consequences of asceticism,
and other combinations to refuse the gifts of God, though
set on foot by excellent men and with the most laudable
self-denying designs.”
TO THE SAME.
“HARRow, April 20, 1841.
“There is a little mixture of Oxford opinions in the University,
but not formidable. Collison, of St. John's, is the principal
1841. A./FE A 7T CAMP R/ZDGE. 17
→ - r < r < *s-, * ****, ºr- - - - - -- ****
advocate of them at present. Teetotalism has some parti-
sans. Jeffreys, Senior Fellow of St. John's, and Boodle, an
excellent man who is Vicar of the new church at Barnwell,
have signed the pledge. We discussed it at Perry's rooms
the other day, and decided, I imagine, against the system ;
though I see they have arguments which go a great way
with conscientious men, not very thoughtful, nor looking
well beneath the surface, where the objections will be
found.” -
TO THE SAME.
• “HARROW, September 11, 1841.
“Your last letters have been very grateful to me, and if the
intercourse of Christian friends on earth be so pleasant,
what will it be hereafter when all hearts will be filled with
one holy desire to glorify the God of our salvation ? O my
dear friend, when our Saviour comes to visit us, will He
really find faith upon earth, find us throwing our whole souls
upon His work, and trusting fully to His faithful promise 2
Or will He find us still hampered with the entanglement of
earth-love and earth-bound desires, and, like the nations of
the world, seeking after food and raiment, ease and comfort,
in our own ways, and after our own imaginations 2 ”
TO THE SAME.
“ 1841.
“I am just in the position in which I last wrote, having been
disappointed, day after day, of the receipt of the long-
looked-for intelligence that cash had been deposited with
my bankers by the kindness of that Providential friend
[Mr. Freeth] to whom I have before now referred, as
seemingly raised up by God for my help in the time of
greatest distress. I will not, therefore, delay to com-
municate to you the main facts of the case touching
my departure from Harrow. The pecuniary difficulties
under which you heard me to be labouring were only
increasing continuously as time advanced, and at length
seemed brought to a crisis by the reduction of the number
of my boarders, and the polite negative given to my
application for renewal of a loan of £800 from my bankers.
VOL. I. C
18 I/FE OF BASHOP CO/LEAVSO. CHAP. I.
. . . Thus, then, the hour was come, and apparently without
hope of escape from the pressure of accumulated obliga-
tions, and certainly none in continuing my struggles at
Harrow.
“In this conjuncture I laid the state of my affairs before my
friend Freeth, who at once advised my resignation and
retreat to Cambridge, and most generously undertook to
advance me (or procure it for me) whatever sum I might
need to pay my way out of Harrow. That sum was £2,600
(minus £750 of furniture), and with his former loan of
362,2OO makes an amount of £4,800, which the marvellous
liberality of this one individual, bound by no tie of
relationship, and hardly of friendship before he first laid
me under obligation to him, has consented to assist me
with. It is this sum, 42,6OO, which through some delay in
his own arrangements has not yet been finally placed to my
credit, which has occasioned my continued delay.
“And now here am I, my dear friend, like a sailor on a rock
in the midst of a rolling Ocean, and, it may be, still to
be swept off by some furious tide; yet, even if it be so,
God is with us, and who shall be against us 2 . . . Mean-
while, He hath put gladness in my heart abundantly, and
I am enabled to sing again in the secret chambers of my
soul as in the days of my early youth when first the day-
spring broke upon my spirit, and I tasted the first delicious
draught of the water of life. O bless the Lord with me,
dear friend, and let us exalt His name together. You can
hardly conceive how blessed a state of things prevails here
at this time, so much pure truth preached and practised on
every side, Scholefield, Lane, Langshaw, Perry, Boodle,
Spence, and several others, besides several pious Fellows
of my own college, living and labouring as children of God
in their day and generation.”
TO THE SAME.
“HARROW, December 1, 1841.
“I believe that my connexion with Harrow will (as a resident)
close on Tuesday next; but there are so many difficulties
1842. I/FE A 7" CAMERIDGE. I9
, in making our arrangements that I can by no means at
present rely on this being the case. . . . If I leave Harrow,
it will be with some permanent sacrifice, I expect, of in-
come, during the continuance of my lease, and with a debt
of £5,000, which depends for liquidation solely on my
personal exertions at Cambridge, or wherever my steps
by God's merciful providence may be directed. However,
blessed be His holy name, His promises have been fulfilled.
He has not left me comfortless in this season of difficulty.
. . . . Believe me that I receive your little reports of your
people with great interest. Do not fail to refer to them
Occasionally, as you have need or occasion.”
TO THE SAME.
“AMarch 31, 1842.
“As you wish to know what I have been doing, or expect to do
in pecuniary matters, I will just say that God has mercifully
given me all I needed in the way of pupils, as many, indeed,
as I thought I should be justified in taking, and even more.
But if you ask me whether I have any such hope or imagi-
nation as your old friend Paul's (a similar story by the way
has more than once recurred to my own memory, in refer-
ence to a Welshman whose family estate came into his
hands mortgaged to its full value, and in effect lost to him,
and who laboured in penury and privation of every kind to
recover its possession and then died), I may say that I have
neither one nor the other—no hope, because I know that I
am in the hands of One who will order everything for good
for us, if we are enabled to leave everything in His own
hands; and, therefore, if poverty and difficulty are desirable
for His glory or our security and advancement in the know-
ledge and love of Himself, as I am sure they often or
most frequently are, it would be monstrous folly and pre-
sumption to wish it otherwise. . . . Neither have I any
thought of it as things stand at present, for my debt is
enormous, and in point of fact, with all my pupils, I shall
find, I believe, but very little surplus left towards discharge
of the capital. I cannot take with comfort, I mean religious
C 2
JL/FE OF BASA/OP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. I.
comfort, . . . . more than eight pupils, I think, for I have
decided to give them their separate hour, as most profitable
for them, and to my mind most satisfactory; and this, with
my Fellowship, &c., will raise about £800 per annum, Out
of which I have nearly £550 to pay in interest and in-
surances, to provide also for personal expenses, and then to
repay a capital debt of £6,500. But if God be for us, who
shall be against us 2 If our religion be the Truth, what
have we to fear 2 . . . . One thing I have indeed been
taught even within the last three months—nay, two within
the last six—which have inexpressibly added to the
strengthening and refreshing of my soul in the midst of this
warfare. The one was a more complete insight into the
utterly lost and helpless condition of our souls—that all is
of God who hath also wrought all our works in us, and will
still for the future have to work all in us. I thought I knew
this truth before. I should have preached it, methinks, and
taught it to others; but I had certainly never realised it in
my own heart, but was imperceptibly to myself trying to
repair and “patch up my house utterly gone to decay.” Daily
was I labouring, though I hardly perceived what I was
about, in this most unprofitable work of trying to plaster
over my faults and deficiencies, and present myself clean
and comely in the presence of my God ; but it was all in
vain. I mended this, and the repair itself disclosed more
to be repaired behind it. Day after day was the same
wearisome work to be repeated of Sweeping and garnishing
a tenement which the corruption of human nature would
quickly restore to its previous defilement and wretchedness,
dropping dank exudations from the walls, and covering the
floor with decay. . . . And now, perceiving that the whole
work of reparation was utterly out of my own power or
comprehension, but that only the Holy Spirit of God, who
had taught me to desire the renewal of my heart and sancti-
fication of my nature, could carry on and complete the
blessed work in His own time and in His own way, there,
thanks be unto God, in His hands am I content to leave
the work, entirely satisfied that, since it is His will, 0é\mua,
1843. I/FE AT CAMBRIDGE. 2 I
it is his intention, not merely His desire, that the children
of God should indeed be altogether led and sanctified by
the Spirit of God, and assured of that willingness by know-
ing that whereas once I was blind, now I see. We love
Him because He first loved us.
“The other blessing for which I desire most humbly to thank
our gracious Father, and to tell to those I love upon earth,
if perchance our hearts may rejoice together in the enjoy-
ment of one common lesson of His love, is the inestimable
privilege of prayer and secret communion with God. . . .
It is only since my residence in Cambridge that the mercy
of the Lord has opened to me more abundantly the fulness of
that blessing which is given to His children in the encourage-
ment to pray. I see in it now the secret of all growth in
grace and love and holiness—continual, frequent unfainting
prayer.” -
TO THE SAME. -
“April Io, 1843.
“I could wish indeed to see you for a while, and share with
you the thoughts of the past lines of our spiritual life, for
my own views have wonderfully changed, not in character,
I trust, but in complexion, since last I parted from you. I
had then seen nothing of religion but in the writings of the
Evangelical School, or of their opposite, the Oxford; and
while I saw in the principles of both some portions of God's
truth, I felt a want of cordial agreement with the practice
at least, and often with the teaching of either. The last
few months have brought me into contact with Coleridge
and Maurice, and I was truly rejoiced to find by your reply,
what now I might have imagined from your previous letters,
that you have also been drawing water with them from the
deep well of Truth.”
TO THE SAME.
“ST. JoHN's COLLEGE, September 14, 1843.
“What have you been reading or doing lately P My only, or
almost only, occupation (except that of my calling, and this
includes an Arithmetic for Schools, which I have just pub-
22
LIFE OF BISHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. I.
lished) has been to read the first edition of Maurice's
[Kingdom of Christ], which, especially in the first volume,
is, for its freshness and vigour, apparently far Superior to
the second, which I had previously read. O what glorious
missionary principles are there, the only ones as it seems to
me which can give real life and energy to the messenger of
Truth, who comes, not as if from the clouds above, or the
deeps beneath, but a fellowman among his brethren, all of
whom have the same Heaven above them that he has made,
and every daily mercy, rain and sunshine, life and breath
and all things, speaking to them as to all as tokens that they
have a Father there, that they are living in a world from
which the cause of disobedience has been removed, that they
too may look upward, and fear, and put their trust in the
mercy of Him that made them. . . . I dare not look
towards that hallowed work myself, for my way is, for the
present at least, effectually barred against it: and it seems
to be the will of God that I should remain at home, and fill
up my part and station here. . . . Did you read that
very beautiful note of Whytehead's, where he spoke of these
being as it were in the far chantry of some vast cathedral,
while those at home would be worshipping in the choir, but
that there was still the same roof of the Catholic Church
extended Over all 2
“I am much taken up at present with thoughts of the
fearful state of our Universities in which prevails such an
utter disregard of the statutes on which we are founded,
and not of the letter only but of the spirit and first prin-
ciples of these institutions. Surely we need a great
revival here, amidst such long continued indolence and un-
concern for the solemn duties attached to our positions. It
seems to have been an evil step of an idle and self-indulgent
age when the present tutorial system was established, and
the Fellows have generally no connexion with the youths
around them but that of mere accident and self-interest;
but, indeed, the evils are very great, when calmly considered,
of our present circumstances, and they will end, possibly, if
not corrected, in our ruin.”
1843. * IIFE A T CAMBRIDGE.
2
3
TO THE SAME.
“CAMBRIDGE,
“October 23, 1843.
“I have just had my C. Missionary Report brought me:
and when I look on its pages and appeals, how one longs
for a Missionary spirit in this University. How very un-
worthy is it of our calling and privileges that out of such a
mass of men, who yearly leave us, the attractions of home
and comfort should prevail over the summons to go forth
among the multitudes that perish,_I say not eternally—
which is in the hands of Infinite Truth and Love, but
temporally, in the loss of that light and joy and glorious
hope, which quicken by the Grace of God our own hearts.
O that some plan could be devised for stirring up under
God such a yearning for the souls of men among us
Surely among so many there must be some who are at
liberty and have power to obey the call. But parents must
learn to train up their children for missionaries from the
womb, to give them up to God's service from the first,
not for comfort and their own solace and pride, but for the
sacrifice of all earthly ties, if needful, for the service of the
Cross.”
TO W. N. RIPLEY, ESQ.
“ST. JoHN's College, CAMBRIDGE,
“AVovember 1, 1843.
“Although you may not be making as rapid advancement in
actual study as might be possible under other circumstances,
yet your time of preparation will be profitably spent, if it
sends you up to us furnished with those habits of order, in-
dustry, and obedience, which will secure you from so much
of the danger and evil which must surround you when you
leave finally your parents' roof, and enter upon the solemn
duties of self-government. I have a great desire (one day,
I trust, to be fulfilled) of knowing personally Mr. Nottidge,
whom I have long learnt to revere, and from whom I am
sure you and I may learn many precious lessons of true
wisdom. Let us not lose the opportunities given us in our
24. AZF E OF BASA/OA COLAEAVSO. CHAP. I.
several paths of life, of profiting by the experience, and study-
ing the examples of those who have gone before us. They
are great talents committed to us, for the due improve-
ment of which we must be held responsible. I fully believe,
indeed, that there is no truth more fearfully neglected in
these days than that to whom much is given, of them shall
the more be required. We are so ready to measure ourselves
by others who have had far less of light and advantages, and,
judging our own case better than theirs, to rest satisfied
therewith. But doubtless there were none of the grosser
sins of Sodom and Gomorrah practised, openly at least, in
Chorazin and Bethsaida in the time of our Saviour, and yet
it will be more tolerable for the former in the day of God
than for the latter; and Christian England may find her
state, amidst neglected privileges and abused power and
wealth and influence, far more miserable and guilty in His
sight than that of the heathen, who have had a very little
light and have not quenched it ; and some such I daresay
you will have met with in your classical studies. And, at
any rate, when you next read Plato or Sophocles, or
even your present true-hearted writer Thucydides, bear in
mind that, wherever Truth is spoken by their lips, it cannot
be from the corrupt part of man, nor the prompting of an
evil spirit, but from the Divinity itself, which dealt with
them, stirring their spirits deeply within and giving them
glimpses of that great light which the Gospel of Christ has
poured upon our eyes. Try to get the habit of reading
the classics as the writings of brother-men, thinking and
moved just as you and I are.”
TO THE SAME.
[No date (probably the same year).]
“It is one of my greatest trials that my necessary occupations
so engross my time at present as to allow me only to write
(for the most part at least) in haste and hurry, if I write
at all, to my friends, and I therefore often am in danger of
saying too much upon subjects on which I touch, by saying
1843. I./FE A T CAMBAC/DGE. 25
too little. Such is in a measure the case with reference to
the remarks I made in my last, and to which you have
referred : and I rejoice to see that you have thought sin-
cerely, though you will doubtless have to think much more,
upon the subject in question, which in fact is simply this,
whether we should address the heathen in our missionary
capacity as, until we come to them, aliens altogether from
the Family of God—I mean, the creatures whom He has
made upon this earth, or whether we shall believe, as I am
satisfied the Scriptures teach us—as I am sure the daily
mercies poured on them as well as on ourselves should
teach us—that they too have a Father in heaven, whose
will may have suffered them to be a while in ignorance,
whilst His great mystery is going forward, but whose Love
has not cut them off from His present mercy, and from the
benefit of the promises of which we have the revealed
assurance, that they who seek the Lord shall surely find
Him. . . . . Such is the statement of the Apostle in that
wonderfully striking chapter, Rom. ii., which to me so
clearly sets forth the fact, that none of God's reasonable
creatures are left without sufficient guide of Life, but will
find that using faithfully their one small talent (small com-
pared with Ours, and yet not small perhaps in itself), they
too will share the mercies of the Most High, proclaimed to
the race of man through the coming of the Son of God, and
to be published to all the world, as soon as Christian feet
shall carry them. But then, you say, were there any such
—were they not all seeking the praise of men and not that
which cometh of God only 2 In the sense in which it may
be said that we are altogether become unprofitable by
reason of the sin and corruption mingled with our best acts,
of course I know they too will stand condemned in the
sight of a most Holy Being ; but in the sense in which we
men speak of righteousness, I think you have judged them
too severely. Examine, my dear Ripley, the real influencing
motives of men in the present day, I do not mean ungodly
and professedly worldly men, but of those who acknowledge,
and for aught we can judge to the contrary do, in sincerity
26
AAFE OF BISA/OA COLEAVSO. CHAP. I.
and in the main, desire to obey the truth, and how much
of secret self-love and love of human applause will be found
mingled with their most religious acts—yes, often intruding
its unhallowed presence into their acts of devotion and their
very secret hours of prayer before God. . . . . I dare not
with this conviction venture to charge home upon the
ancient heathen the evil which I see prevailing so ex-
tremely, and often among pious, and in many respects true
Christians of the present day. . . . . As far as I know, I
could not think so of AEschylus, Sophocles, Thucydides,
Virgil, Cicero, and many others. I do not mean that they
were never moved by vanity and love of human applause.
We know, for instance, that Cicero was very faulty in this ;
but look then at his life, at his self-sacrificing earnestness
for the public good, his pure morality, and the deeply
devotional spirit of many of his writings . . . . and then
in Christian charity let us say whether we should not in a
Christian judge this sin a failing rather than attach to it
the stamp of wilful guilt. But I will go yet further, and
say that many of the ancients (and I know not why I should
not say also of modern heathens, but that I do not know so
much of them) will stand up in the judgment with the men
of this generation and condemn them. One such example
is enough, as good as a thousand for my purpose ; and
that one shall be Socrates, who surely was not a seeker of
human applause, despised, mocked, evil-entreated, martyred
for the cause of truth, which by many questionings of heart
and communings of spirit with his unseen Creator he had
been permitted to obtain a glimpse of and with all the
zeal of a missionary, as you very truly observe, longed and
laboured to convey it to the hearts of others. But the true
missionary spirit cannot be wanting where there is any
glimpse vouchsafed of the real Truth, cannot be wanting
in kind, though its degree depends upon the earnestness
with which we carry out, by God’s grace, the knowledge
which we have already attained. . . . . Once more, I do
find great joy and refreshment of spirit in looking upon the
Greek poet and philosopher as our brother man, and there-
1845. IIFE AT CAMBRIDGE. - 27
fore sharing with us, and we with him, in all the sympathies
of our humanity; and the same I experience even in turning
to the far-off heathen, dark and benighted as they are, yet
not given over as a prey to destruction, but having still
tokens around, and voices within, which are speaking to
them of a Father in Heaven, and to us of their connexion
(we do not presume to analyse or comprehend it) with Him
who is the Head of the whole race, the Son of Man, the
Saviour of the world.”
TO THE REV. T. P. FERGUSON.
“CAMBRIDGE, December 19, 1845.
“I am now writing with my rooms littered and half emptied,
the term being ended, and myself still detained here, long
after I had expected to have left College, by the long delays
which have attended the severance of the Norfolk living.
That act, however, was completed at the last Privy Council,
and I am now in daily expectation of receiving the presen-
tation of my portion of it, St. Mary's, from Lord Effingham.
The income, as you know, is about £450 with a house to
be built-otherwise a desirable living, and from the small-
ness of population, under 3OO, well Suited for my purpose of
tuition. . . . . Having been so long in expectation of this
event, and with every reasonable ground for supposing that
it would long ago, as indeed it ought to, have been com-
pleted, you will not be surprised if I take also, should
God permit, another and much more solemn step in life very
shortly—within a week perhaps of my presentation. I
shall exceeding/y desire that you might be present on
the occasion, if you happened to be in London, and so
would the lady and her family, who (the former at least)
know you sufficiently as one of my dearest and most
valued friends.”
In this letter Mr. Colenso refers to his approaching marriage
with Miss Sarah Frances Bunyon. The following extracts
from letters addressed to her will show how completely he
28 I/FE OF BISHOP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. I.
could share with her all his thoughts, his motives, his aims and
purpose in life. They will also show, more clearly perhaps
than any letters addressed to others, the direction in which
his mind and heart were working, and the depth and fervency
of his spiritual convictions.
“St. John’s CollEGE,
r “October 25, 1842.
. . . . “I have had an application to take a pupil in Divinity, and
am half disposed to accede to it—but for my present almost
entire ignorance of all that comes under that designation,
except the English Scriptures of the Old and the Greek of
the New Testament. I am not sure, however, that I may
not be able to trace the finger of God's Providence in
this request, which comes from an eminent Christian
minister, for a gentle affectionate son, whose acquaintance
I already value; and I believe my best course will be to
tell him of my present incompetency for aught but, I would
hope, by the merciful help of God's Holy Spirit, the spiritual
study of the New Testament and the formation of mind and
temper which close intimacy of this kind would enable me,
under His blessing, to forward.
“I have had a walk to-day with my dear friend Dr. 3.
and a long and interesting talk with him, but he does not
yet know, I think, the full value of a Christian's life; and I
am ready to smile within when I hear his kind and affec-
tionate condolence with my future prospects, so dark and
cloudy and cheerless as they seem to his eyes—so destitute
of all promise of what the world deems happiness or com-
fort. Blessed be God, we have, as Hare says, “the rays of
a sun warming our hearts, and enlightening Our eyes, in the
most gloomy day of this our earthly pilgrimage'—and even
at this very hour, is my heart ready to dance with joy in the
conscious sense of innumerable blessings, which the trea-
sures of the world could neither give nor take away. Is it
not blissful beyond compare, thus to be taught to live by
faith and not by sight—to see Him that is invisible, and
know Him as our merciful Friend and loving Father—to
1843. I/FE A 7" CAMERIDGE. 29
receive the Lord Jesus Christ, as our only ever blessed Lord
and Master—to read, and read with clear eye and quickened
heart, that His zwill is our sanctification—and since it is
His will, that He will surely give His Holy Spirit
abundantly to those who ask Him.”
“ST. JoHN's College, March 5, 1843.
. . . “I have often been almost afraid to register a just
thought or worthy sentiment, to which in conversation or
reflexion I may have been led, lest, so doing, I should be
harbouring vanity and self-conceit ; not seeing all the while,
that the most corrupt form of pride and self-confidence was
that which called such thought “my own,' and did not
instantly acknowledge it, so far as it was not false and evil,
as the gift of God. In words perhaps I should have done
so ; but, in point of fact, I did not, but was always haunted
by the feeling that I had found this or that, and, blessed be
God, hating such feeling, while it still clung to me, the only
remedy I could think of was resolutely to stamp it under
foot, and with it to bless the Giver of all good and perfect
gifts, in the use of the powers of mind and enjoyment of the
faculties which He has intrusted to me, and has promised
to sanctify, strengthen, and enlighten for those who fear and
seek Him. . . .
“I now see therefore that my thoughts, my words, my
actions, so far as they are not corrupt and evil, are not
mine, but God’s ; that I must be very careful not to zvaste
them, or forget to cherish them ; that I must be thank-
ful to have received any the least of such mercies; and
humbled that pride and selfishness are still seeking to
hold back my spirit from His praise. I perceive now
wherein I erred before. I shrunk then from the abuse of
these things; I now, blessed be God, see partly how I
may use them to His glory. And I see also that the
same change must pass over the whole character of my
Christian practice. It is a much more difficult lesson per-
haps to learn to use, than not to abuse. The one may be
attained by practising a few stern resolutions—touch not,
I/FE OF AP/SHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. I.
taste not, handle not—and when the first throes of the
mutilated limb are over, there will be no more trouble
about it, though sometimes (as they say) an indistinct
feeling, as if the hand were still in its place, or a craving of
the system for its absent member, unnaturally lost to it:
but it is a work of watchfulness and industry for life to
employ those fingers rightly in the duties which become it ;
and yet we do not question which is the happier state of
the two. The parallel is obvious ; and I have too much
been accustomed to take the Stoical view of religious
truth, undisturbed, it may have been, by many severe
checks to it, through the solitary nature of my life at
Harrow, perhaps partly led to it by these circumstances.
Thanks be to God that I no longer see things thus !
. I think that you have exactly pointed to your
want, when you said that you believed it would be well for
you to be employed in the labour of active love for
others. . . . I have found it a source of unspeakable benefit
to me—at least, I think so—and seem to miss, at present,
the cheering, humanizing, satisfying, feeling for the actual
wants and sorrows of my fellow men, which my acquaint-
ance with them at Harrow was the means of fostering. . . .
We are not required, indeed, to step presumptuously into
the path of unappointed difficulty or danger, nor to trample
under foot the pleasant things of God—which He has given
to be used with thankfulness and prayer—nor to tax
our strength beyond the claims of health, and court
wantonly sickness or sorrow ; but we are to stand, with
loins girded and lights burning, as servants ready for their
Master's work—watching with quick eye, with nimble foot,
with ready heart in his service—listening in all directions
for the sound of His voice in the events of His Providence,
calling gently, in the tone which none but Love will hear,
for the presence of His Friends, for one whom He loveth,
who is sick, or in prison, or sorrowful, or needy, or suffering
—and blessed indeed is that servant whom His Lord when
He calleth shall find thus meekly waiting, and prepared
for His work.”
1843. A./FE A 7" CAMER/DGA2. 3I
In the following passages he speaks of Mr. Maurice, when
he was beginning to know him by his books alone.
1843.
. . . “How truly do I love Mauricel Daily more and more
of truth appears to me in his book.” . . .
1843.
. . . . “I have procured to-day (by purchase, after much hesi-
tation on the ground of economy, the necessity for which
limits my expenditure in all directions) Maurice's Kingdom
of Christ—and have read the first chapter of the second
volume, which I hope to peruse regularly, day by day.
. . . . “I was told to-day that one of our Fellows is a
‘Maurician.’ I am not quite sure that my informant, whose
opinions are very “high indeed, quite understood the
character he assigned him. . . . If a true Maurician, he
must have all avenues open, I should suppose, for an inquirer
after truth to reach his heart.”
“What I meant in reference to Mr. Maurice's principle was
this—that there are very very few who discern the very
great distinction between the two endeavours—to be loved,
and to love, and therefore very few who really set themselves
to labour for the grace which shall enable them to love, as
Christians. I met the other day with a poor young fellow,
who has come here for study, a weak, helpless being he
seems to be—in mind, I mean—his conversation painfully
slow and indistinct, and his ideas scarcely sufficient to
procure an intelligible reply to an ordinary question. Now
it was my duty as a Christian to love him. So far, I hope
the recollection that ‘ I am not my own did prevail over
my natural tendency to impatience that I did not exhibit
any in my own manner or language, and even strove to be
pleasant with him, and proposed to walk with him, which
brought me into continual contact with a very trying
description of character. (This is, of course, just what any
Christian would have done in similar circumstances—who
felt as such—I only mention the details for the sake of my
argument.) But all the while how bitterly was I conscious of
32 L/FE OF BISAIOP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. I.
the want of the principle of love within I did not truly
love him, because I did not deeply feel my own insignificance
and unworthiness, and the unspeakable mercies I had
myself received at His hands, who, for our sakes, became
poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich.
Well, my belief is that theoretical love requires to be
greatly modified before it becomes Christian ; and that this
will only be through the pressure of severe affliction, which
in a very short time will often draw the soul nearer to its
God and Saviour, and subdue it to his will ; or else by actual
labour and exertion, in act, in word, or else in thought and
prayer for others—by obedience of the truth, by practising
to love, before even we have learnt to take pleasure in it.
See I St. Peter i. 22.”
“ST. JoHN's College,
“ Wednesday Evening, October 25, 1843.
“The above date must long be a memorable one for Cam-
bridge. . . . Yesterday was a day of rain and storm, and we
looked ominously at each other, as we began to presage a
wet and boisterous morrow. But, thanks be to God, not so.
The air was dry this morning, and the sky hopeful, and by
and by, as the day grew, there was every assurance that
our best desires would be realised. And indeed the weather
has been exquisite—nothing could have been more charming.
We could stand for hours in the open air without the least
inconvenience or wish to go in. . . . The streets were, of
course, filled with the peasants of the neighbourhood, and
townspeople, and it was enough to fill one's eyes with tears
to look at them, and behold the blessed triumph of ‘Majesty’
in their hearts. . . . However, we, the University, were
soon gathered all within the great Court of Trinity, there
to await the Queen's arrival ; and here I had an excellent
opportunity of seeing that marvellous person, Lord Lynd-
hurst, with his keen eye, and his face full of history. At
last the hour came, and the Queen was among us. I cannot
write you a long detail of these proceedings (and I know
very well you do not much care to hear it). . . . I may
1843. AAFAE A 7" CAMPAC/DGE. 33
just say that from my office as Taxer I had a very good
position in the procession to present the address, which the
Queen received in Trinity College Hall. The enthusiasm
of the men, when Her Majesty entered the gates (the Royal
carriages are the only ones that ever do enter in this manner,
I believe) was magnificent, and evidently pleased her.
After she had gone up into the Lodge, and presented herself
at the window, we were formed around the Quadrangle, all
the members of the University, in proper order; and in due
course we advanced to the Hall, and I got a very good
position in the second or third rank to hear the Queen's and
Prince's replies to the addresses. After this the Queen went
to King's College Chapel, where we were all admitted to
the Ante-chapel (the favoured ones, not including myself, to
the Choir). In such a position, and outside the real chapel,
it was necessary and right, I trust, to consider, in some
degree, that the true worship and recognition of Majesty is
religion. This evening we have (all down to M.A.'s,
Fellows of Colleges) attended a levée at half-past nine, and
been presented in due form one by one. The Queen has
dispensed generally I believe, with “kissing hands’: but
I suppose this presentation has all the efficacy of a Court
affair, and would entitle us to be presented at a foreign
Court. Once more, let me desire to be thankful for the
blessed day we have had, so bright and beautiful; and now
we wait for the events of to-morrow. Excuse, dear , this
hasty line, and the emptiness of it, by the nature of the
Occasion.”
“Sunday Evening, AVovember 19, 1843.
. . . “What, I thought to-day, looking into Baxter's Sainz's
Rest, were these things which St. Paul saw, but could not
utter 2 The thought glanced across me for the moment (but
I have not yet considered the context), did he really refer to
the mysteries of Heaven, as I have usually imagined, or not
rather to the new views of the Divine truth which broke
in upon his soul—when, after years of a rigid and hard ser-
vice in ignorance and unbelief, the great secret burst upon
him of the Love of God, of that Love declared on every
VOL. T. D
34
JL/FE OF BISA/OP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. I.
side in every way, but specially manifested in the giving of
His Son—and was it the joy which swelled his own heart, in
the full perception of this long-hidden Wisdom, which was too
big for him to utter—which none can impart by words, but
the Spirit of God, by breathings ‘which are not uttered 'P”
“December 9, 1843.
... “Last evening I dined at Trinity Lodge with the American
Minister, Mr. Everett. The conversation turned principally
on Shakespeare, and one or two points of it were interest-
ing, though on the whole the Minister was not brilliant.
The question was whether Shakespeare intended all the
meaning which others found in his words. Everett thought
not ; that words were capable of several constructions—and
different persons would take the same in different senses
and with different effect; and told us an anecdote of
Mathews, who, when in America, gave among his theatrical
exhibitions (public or private) a speech of Grattan's, in a
saddened and mournful tone, which he himself (Everett) and
most other boys had been used to spout with great fire
and energy. Archdeacon Sharp protested against getting
double senses out of his poetry; it was not always certain
that he knew his own meaning (we had a little laugh at the
Archdeacon for this ; though, of course, he did not intend it
in its full extent); but certainly no true man, as Shakespeare,
would have had more than one meaning, and that we were
loound to search for and maintain, if we would do justice to
the poet. The Master of Trinity, Whewell, thought that
ideas were often latent in the minds of great, or even of
most, men, which they often were unable distinctly to
express, but sparkles of which glimpsed out now and then
in their writings: and it would therefore be hard to say
that those meanings which seem true and forcible, and really
drawn from Shakespeare's words, were not in an embryo or
indistinct shape present to his own mind ; and Professor
Willis confirmed this view, which I take not to be very far
from the truth, by calling attention to the fact that such is
certainly the case in scientific matters—where we find hints
1844. A./FE A T CAA/BA’//DG E. 35
among the older writers of discoveries made centuries after,
and only not made, because not distinctly realised by them-
selves. So I have given you the table-talk, and now my
pupil is coming and the clock is striking.”
“ST. John's College,
“July 9, 1844.
. . . “Arnold's Life is such a solemn book. The thought of
so much intellectual might in a moment brought low—a
voice so full of truth and tenderness silenced in the midst
of its joyful utterances—a heart so manly and ardent, in
the fulness of its warmth and affection, touched by the cold
hand of Death—is very awful, and humbling, and, would to
God it may be with me, quickening—that we do the
Master's work, not minding our own will, while it is called
to-day. Strange that the night before his death (he went
to bed healthy, to all appearances, and happy; but in the
morning two short hours of pain removed him to his rest)
he wrote in his diary: ‘I might almost say, “Vixi” (I
have lived my life), ambition is completely mortified, I
would only retire from the public eye, instead of coming
forward.’ Blessed be God, who gives us power to discern
the reality of things, the sure presence of things unseen ;
and thanks be to Him who has filled the air with melody
and covered the earth, as I see from my window, with loveli-
ness, that the strength of present evil may not prevail to
tempt our poor feeble spirits to forget that He is good—our
Father—our Everlasting Friend. Oh let us drink in, when
we can, the joy of God's Creation around us, and look
cheerfully upward in our sorrows. We are prisoners of
hope, and Our sighings will reach Him, and He will give
us of His peace at last. Think of life as a glorious
struggle for immortality, beneath the word and with the
presence of our God.”
“ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,
“July 29, 1844.
. . . “How the recollection of a parent's presence—though, like
my own dear mother, gathered with those who rest—should
D 2
36 LIFE OF BISHOP COZEWSO. CHAP. I.
hallow our solitude, and subdue our spirits in thought-
fulness and reverential fear, such as shall fulfil for us that
blessed ministry, which they were commissioned to discharge
for us, even when their bodily form is no more visibly
present with us, and help to keep our hearts in sober
thought of the spiritual world, and in the holy fear of our
Father in Heaven. It is a beautiful passage of Martineau :
“Often does the friend or parent then first live for us, when
death has withdrawn him from our eyes, and given him over
exclusively to our hearts; at least I have known a mother
among the sainted blest sway the will of a thoughtful child
far more than her living voice—brood with a kind of serene
omnipresence over his affections, and sanctify his passing
thought by the mild vigilance of her pure and loving
eye; and what better life could she have for him than
this 2'" . . . .
“ST. John’s CoI.LEGE,
“August 24, 1844.
. . . “I don't know any thought which quiets me more,
when disposed to complain of my own lot, than that of
servants—domestic, I mean—so completely (the greater and
best part of them) without hope of settlement for them-
selves in life ; without friends, to live and love with them,
except (perhaps) a Christian master and mistress; without
time at their own command, or opportunity of study—in
fact, I look on them with some feeling of pity and sympathy,
but knowing that He giveth more grace, and, doubtless,
supplies them with peace and comfort by the way. . . .
“I have detained my letter a post, in order that I may be
able to communicate by it the contents of a letter which
lay upon my table this morning from Lord Effingham, with
one beside it from your uncle Bickersteth. I have not yet
read either of them, nor shall I till the morning ; though I
have just caught a glimpse of Lady E.'s name in your
uncle's, which I opened and found within it an enclosure
of an Appendix to his book on Prophecy, certainly very
interesting as it contains some extracts from a correspon-
dence very recently laid before the House from our and
I844. LIFE AT CAMBRIDGE. 37
other Christian Governments with the Ottoman Porte, the
result of which was, after a great deal of most determined
opposition through the decisive character of the Moham-
medan Law, but after a magnificent letter from Lord
Aberdeen, strong and straightforward in requiring licence
for the profession of Christianity in the Turkish dominions—
that on the 21st of last April, an official declaration was
made that henceforward the punishment of death should
cease to be inflicted on those forsaking Islamism, the
inevitable consequence, if detected, of such a step before
this time. This your uncle justly considers a very
momentous step. . . . . f
“Lord Effingham writes to say that the severance of the
Livings is going on (your uncle says is almost completed)
and that he intends to offer me the presentation of St.
Mary's—£492 per annum without house.” .
The alternative to his acceptance of Forncett was the
Headmastership of a “College” at Putney, of which he
Wrote :-
“September 2, 1844.
& 6 is misled by the title of the College, which must be
changed, it deceives everyone. The College is not intended
to educate Civil Engineers, but to give a general practical
education, in contradistinction from the exclusively classical
and Literary [one] of Public Schools. This will certainly be
an excellent preparation for Engineering, but will serve the
purposes of any gentleman not intended for one of the
three Professions — especially for colonists. It embraces
Classics, but more decidedly Mathematics, and Practical
Science. I quite enter into 's views about the labour it
would entail—it would be immense, I know ; and though
in some respects I do feel myself qualified for the charge,
I know that I am deficient in others. . . . I propose to
go down to Forncett about the 14th, and see the place—
there may be a nice cottage to be secured in the village... I
hear that it is a pretty place—my church a nice one for its
small population of 3oo—with a thatched roof. I sometimes
38
I./FE OF BISA/OA CO/CAEAVSO, CHAP. I.
think how I shall like the quiet and solitude after all the
bustle of my life: but then Hooker and Herbert were
happy in their country cures, and by the grace of God so
may we be. It will be—I feel it—a little trial to leave my
College—as it was to leave Harrow—as it will EVER be to
leave places and persons dear to us—but God sends us
Solace for all such sorrowing, and sweetens our cup with
mercy.”
“ST. John’s College,
“September Io, 1844.
. . “I am very thankful that the decision [which he himself had
made] is on the side of the living. With all its allurements
and promises, I have great reason to bless God that I did
not accept the Putney offer, as I feel more distinctly that
the duties of the place were far less suited to my own gifts
and temper than to Mr. C––, the present Principal.
Strange that it should be the same to whom I transferred
the Moderatorship.” . . .
“ST. JoHN's College,
“Movember 3, 1844, Sunday Evening.
“You know what I think about “analysing our lives
and souls.’ I think, in the perfection of Christianity we
ought to do so—and bear to look, even upon all the evil
which we must find there—just as your theory with regard
to persons' character and conduct (and in which for a true
Christian I very much agree) is that we ought to look at
them in the light of the Truth, and not close our eyes to
what is faulty, though we may in charity cover up the fault
from others—and yet, if we agree to do this, as I think we
may and must, we can only do so with the hope, and in
God's strength, the resolution to love them no less, as Chris-
tians should love their brethren and fellowmen, for the
discovery: so I believe we must watch closely our hearts—
our motives and springs of action—and finding, as we shall,
too many of them faulty and evil, we must not therefore be
vexed and fretful—this would come of pride and self-com-
placency—nor yet cast down and discouraged : but we
1844. JC/FE A T CAMARA’//DGA2. 39
must expect to find much that is defective—much to be
corrected—we must make the discovery with humiliation
and the increased sense of our need of that cleansing blood
and sanctifying Spirit—and we must the more diligently
use the means of Grace and put ourselves in the way of
God's Gracious Influences in the path of our duties, so that
we may be purged and sanctified to His Will. ‘Keep thy
heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life.’”
“I send the Latin Sermon which was duly preached
this morning, though not without some little confusion as
to the time of delivery—from the interesting fact that (as
the Esquire Bedell informed me) everybody “ had forgotten
all about it.’ He said “everybody’ including probably the
“Esquire’ himself, the V.C. and Professor, the University
Marshal and the Bellringer—upon which last functionary
the movements of the University seem in a measure to
depend in these days of skeleton forms and withered
representatives of antique usages—for my sermon should,
I suppose, have been introductory to the labours of the
Term—a stirring up of the ‘Clerici’ and Educators of our
body to discharge faithfully their parts in the progress of it—
or some such laudable end it should have aimed at, and not
merely the keeping the five aforesaid individuals, who
composed my congregation, upon the tenterhooks of cold
and discomfort, for some I 5 minutes. I have omitted
the Clerk however, who, having a fee of 4/– depending on
the occasion, probably did recollect the little matter—and I
wonder he did not give the Sexton a remembrancer. I
omitted, with due regard to the weather and auditory, the
part included between brackets.”
. . “‘Human nature, trained in the School of Christianity
throws away as false the delineation of piety in the disguise
of Hebe, and declares that there is something higher than
happiness—that thought which is ever full of care and truth
is better far—that all true and disinterested affection, which
often is called to mourn, is better still—that the devoted
4O
M.I.A.E OF BASA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. I.
allegiance of conscience to duty and to God—which ever
has in.it more of penitence than of joy—is noblest of all.’
But I must not go on in this way filling up my sheet with
other men's words, however good and precious, though, in
truth, I have few thoughts of my own, now that I have so
little exercise of mind in writing and meditation, with
which to supply their place. I have never seen a book—I
think I may say—so full of brilliant and truthful passages
as this little work (not excepting even Maurice—as to the
former epithet) I have given you indeed but a most feeble
and unworthy idea of him—but hope to bring it with me
when I see you next—but—he is James Martineau, the
Unitarian –and every now and then, the most splendid
passages are followed by the statement of the familiar
tenets of his sect—I do earnestly hope that I can bless
God, and give Glory to Him for what He has enabled our
brother to write, and to feel moreover that the great truths
of Christianity are the very ones that are wanted to give
coherence and unity to his own, to convert the ‘sorrow' of
which he spoke so truly into rejoicing, to bring the warm,
cheering and genial rays of the Sun to shine upon the clear,
cold air, which he would have us breathe in. Alas! we
could not, and live : but now have we Christ in us—not
merely before us, or, metaphorically within us, but dwelling
in us by His Spirit, and we in Him. Macmillan (the book-
seller) named it to me, and said he was so moved by
reading it, that, though knowing nothing of the author, he
wrote to recommend to him Maurice's Kingdom of Christ
and he has since thanked him very warmly for the sugges-
tion. I think Mr. Maurice would like to read the book,
Martineau's Discourses.”
Immediately after his marriage, which took place on the 8th
of January, 1846, Mr. Colenso began his work at Forncett.
It
was not without its difficulties, arising chiefly from the
changes rendered necessary by the division of the parishes.
In a letter dated May 6, 1846, to Mr. Ferguson, he men-
1847. J./FE A T FORAWCETT. 4.I
tions, first, that till his house at Forncett could be built he
has been obliged to take a country house, distant about two
miles from his church, and speaks of the serious inconvenience
thus added to the division of work between parish and pupils,
which he had already felt to be a great drawback to his use-
fulness. Speaking, next, of the duties of sponsors in baptism,
he confesses his inability to see how a Christian man can take
that responsibility upon himself, or make the required pro-
mises for the child of parents neither of whom is a communicant,
or perhaps even a church-goer.
“It does appear to me that the Dissenters have just cause to
complain of Church baptism if it is so prostituted,—at any
rate that we, ministers, are bound to set forward the Truth
that, however charitable a work it is to bring the little ones
to Holy Baptism (thank God, we do not believe them to be
then only first taken under the love of God in Christ,
though formally taken into the Christian Covenant and
admitted to all its hopes and promises), still it is but a
mockery of God for careless parents to bring their children
to the font, or to get others to bring them, and that a
true Christian cannot become a sponsor, except on these
conditions, (I) that he shall have reasonable ground of
charitable hope that the child will be Christianly brought
up, (2) have the permission of free access to the family,
when opportunities permit, for observation and instruction
of the child, and (3) have himself a fixed and hearty
resolution by God's help to discharge his duty towards it.”
TO THE REV. T. P. FERGUSON.
“May 10, 1847.
“Should you be willing, or able, if asked, to go as Super-
intendent of the proposed mission to Borneo 2 At present
my brother-in-law is going, and I am sure will go with his
wife and two children, unless a better person than himself
offers to take his place. He is in many respects admirably
suited for the post; but you, I think, are more so, if the
42 J.M.A.E OF ENSAE/OP COZAZAVSO. CHAP. I.
Providence of God permits your own mind to look consent-
ingly upon the proposition. I take it for granted that you
know the circumstances under which this mission is sent
out. If not, and if you desire to become acquainted with
one of the most interesting narratives of our times, you
must read Keppel's account of the anti-pirate expedition to
Borneo, and of Mr. Brooke, who has in a most extraordinary
manner been placed in the Supreme authority as Rajah of a
large district of the island, and is under the most promising
auspices desiring to introduce education and the truth
among the people.
“Now should you and your wife be willing or able to go?
For myself I would joyfully go to-morrow, but that the iron
grasp of a large ‘as alienum compels me to forego the
wish : it is a sore punishment for past improvidence.” +
It was not long after this time that the earthly life of his
younger brother Thomas was cut short. Not deterred by his
other heavy obligations, Mr. Colenso had provided for this
brother's education first at Harrow, then at Cambridge, which
at his own wish was afterwards exchanged for Oxford. Of
Thomas Colenso I can speak from personal recollection as a
young man of very high promise. We were fellow-collegians,
at Oxford, and I have a pleasant memory of Our intercourse in
those our undergraduate days. All who had the privilege of
his friendship or of his acquaintance felt for him the respect
which is never accorded except where there is thorough con-
scientiousness and trustworthiness. Indeed, he was strikingly
like his elder brother, not merely in appearance, but in the
beauty of his character.
TO THE REV. T. H. STEEL.
“FORNCETT, October 19, 1849.
“I never saw my dear brother during his last illness: and this
is my greatest source of grief. He returned from Madeira
* See the note, page I3.
I849. JL/FE A 7" FOA'AWCAE 77. - 43
in June, apparently quite refreshed and revived, having had
a most pleasant ramble in Spain. After parting with his
pupil (the Duke of Buccleuch's son), he came to visit us
and spent a very happy week at Forncett, then went into
Cornwall to spend a fortnight with his Father, and returned
on his way eastward to pay another visit. He wrote me a
line, however, upon his way to say that he was detained at
Exeter by an attack of haemorrhage, of which he made so
light a matter that we entertained no serious apprehensions
about him, till his sister called to see him on her way
down, and found that he was much worse than we feared,
and, as soon as could be, carried him home to his father at
Lostwithiel. Here he seemed to rally and one day took
a walk of a mile ; but that night my sister, while writing
after all were in bed, heard him coughing a good deal, and
after waiting some time went up to see how he was, and
found him on his knees with a bason before him half full of
blood. From that time he began to sink under all the
usual signs of consumption. . . . . I was at Lostwithiel on
Monday, at noon, but too late to look upon his face again.
So that I have now only the recollection of his cheerful
calm face in life, and apparent health ; and he seems but
to have gone to some far-off land, to be absent for a season.
It does not seem that he really anticipated so speedy a
removal until the very last day. About evening he asked
the surgeon if the sound he heard in breathing was from the
discharge of tubercles, or from water in the chest. Being
told “perhaps from both causes,’ ‘Then, said he, speaking
in a loud full voice, such as he had never used in all his
illness, “there is no more hope for me in this world,” and
calling for his father and sister Sophie, he bade them
‘Good-bye,' repeating again and again ‘I am going to my
glorious rest’ After this delirium came on him for about
six hours, and then he sank into a quiet sleep from which
he never woke again, his passage into eternity being so
gentle that none could mark exactly the moment of his
last breath. Altogether we have most abundant comfort in
our bereavement. His peculiar form of illness, by the
44 J./FE OF BASA/OA CO/LEAVSO. CHAP. I.
rupture of blood-vessels, prevented his speaking much, till
those last few hours, when he spoke loudly and incessantly;
but it was plain that he was gently reposing all the while
his weary head upon the very bosom of his Lord, and SO
fell asleep in Jesus. If we wanted confirmation of that
which his whole life had been teaching us, it was to be
abundantly supplied by his private papers and journals,
which show how for many years past he had been living a
life of faith in the Son of God and hungering and thirsting
after righteousness. . . . . You have asked me to tell you
something of his last hours, and I have done it, I fear at
too great a length; but indeed it is pleasant to think and
write of him, and you, I am Sure, will permit me this
consolation. sº
“To turn now to matters of another kind. . . . Large as was
the sum I got for my Arithmetic, it is all gone, and has left
me very little better off than before. The reason is princi-
pally the neglect and mismanagement of my architect who,
though a private friend, and most fully aware of my diffi-
culties, and my desire to limit the expense of the new house
to the sum I borrowed from the Bounty, has laid upon me
an additional amount of debt to the amount (I suppose) of
about £ IOOO. Besides this, I have had serious amounts to
pay for my poor father, and now it has pleased God to take
from us him on whom I had reckoned as one who would
bear half the burden with me.”
TO THE REV. T. P. FERGUSON.
“(?) 1850.
“It always does me good to hear from you, and would do me
more good, I am Sure, to see you. If it please God, I shall
try to spend a day with you during my holidays. But I
must go into Cornwall to see my father, who is now far
advanced in years, and has of late been seriously ailing.
And if I cannot get more help for my parish than I have as
yet been able to secure, I fear my time of absence from
Forncett will be very much limited. . . . The High Church
party have (some of them) grossly maligned the character
1852. AAFE A 7" FORAWCAE 77. 45
of Mr. Gorham. I know him personally, and whenever you
think of him, put before your mind a gentleman and a true
devout Christian, of a quiet unobtrusive spirit, and a truly
amiable affectionate character, who has been driven for-
ward by the force of circumstances and the violence of his
adversary to a position of prominence and conflict, which
he would not have desired for himself and would be most
heartily glad to retire from, into the calm and holy duties
of his ministry. Such is my own impression of him. I do
not AT ALL agree with his views of Divine Truth, so far as
they are Calvinistic; but I question if he would have wished
to have been compelled to speak out his own mind so
freely. . . . I feel persuaded that he is not a man to bring
forth Calvinistic doctrines prominently in the pulpit, and I
do not doubt that his sermons are as mild and good as
those of any of his opponents. In fact he would preach
probably as Leighton did. I repeat that I have no sympathy
with his doctrinal views; but I love and esteem the man for
his meek and guileless simplicity, and I detest the malice
and spite and slander of his enemies.”
TO THE SAME.
“ February 22, 1852.
[On the serious illness of his wife.]
“Our worst forebodings are confirmed by your letter. And
yet it was plain to all, I think, that the disease had a strong
hold on your dear wife, a hold that could hardly be shaken
off. We felt to have seen her for the first and last time in
this earthly state of being. But thank God it is possible
so to realise the glorious hope which is given us as to feel
that the separations made by death are often all but
momentary, the midnight partings of friends who shall
meet in joy again to-morrow. I pray God that you may
both be sustained with this blessed consolation, or rather
that you may both be able to lean with a simple childlike
trust upon the love of God our heavenly Father manifested
to us in a thousand gifts of His mercy and goodness—above
46
I./FE OF BISA/OA' CO/LEAVSO. CHAP. I.
all by the witness of his Spirit in our hearts, teaching us
to cry Abba, father. O dear friend what a comfort at
such a time to be able to use our Saviour's prayer, to know
that He bids us say ‘Our Father, who art in heaven.’”
TO THE REV. T. H. STEEL.
* “FORNCETT, January 3, 1853.
[Speaking of the religious education of children.]
“My two boys are too small for consideration at present in
the matter of study; but the two little girls are making a
little progress, at least the elder (5%). On one point her
kowledge, I am afraid, would be considered by some de-
fective. I should like to know what your feeling and
practice is upon the point in question. She knows nothing
yet of Hell except as Hades, the place of departed spirits,
and very naturally assures us that we shall all go to it when
we die. The truth is, I cannot bring myself to set before
her little mind the terrifying doctrines, which are to be
found inculcated in some of Watts's Hymns for little children.
I think you will agree with me that to teach a child to love
its heavenly Father and to dread His displeasure, the loss
of His favour, and separation from His presence, as the
most painful of all punishments, is the true Christian way
of training it for His service here and His glory hereafter.”
TO THE REV. T. P. FERGUSON.
“April 25, 1853.
“You will wonder at not having once heard from me since
you left England. It will require all your faith in my
friendship and affection to believe that, notwithstanding,
I have been daily mindful of you, and have had you much
in my thoughts and prayers. But so it is ; and perhaps
when you have finished this note, you will be able to enter
more fully into my feelings, and acquit me of any real fault
in the matter.
“A great change has come over my circumstances and pros-
pects within the last few months. Possibly hints may have
I853. AAFAE A 7" FORAWCAE 77. 47
reached you from other quarters, but not all that has
occurred. In the first place you will rejoice to hear that by
the mercy of God I have got rid of my chain of debt. Like
Peter in the prison, my bonds have literally dropped off: I
have completed the National School Arithmetic ; and for
this, and my other remaining copyrights Longmans have
paid me down £2,400, which has enabled me to arrange for
the complete discharge of my obligations, principal and
interest, except for a payment of about 4, IOO a year during
my aged father's life time.
“In the second place I have been offered, and have accepted,
the bishopric of Natal, and I earnestly hope that, if it please
God, it may be put into your heart to go with me in some
capacity or other, you may be sure the best, and most
congenial to your wishes that I can offer. . . . There is,
I trust, a great missionary work to be set on foot there,
with decided support from Government, and I do not hesi-
tate to say, it is the noblest field ever yet opened to the
missionary labours of the Church in any part of the
world.”
Writing some weeks later, June 3, he says:–
“I want you as a friend and counsellor and supporter, for
everything. I cannot conceive of any real difference of
opinion on any point of importance existing or arising
between us. I think I know too well both your heart and
my own to fear that we should quarrel about matters of no
consequence.”
Not many weeks before his consecration, Mr. Colenso
dedicated a volume of sermons to Mr. Maurice. He did so
partly as an expression of deep friendship for the man, but
more especially as a protest against the attacks made upon
him by the Record newspaper. At this time he still thought,
as he had always thought, that the term “eternal punishment”
must mean not only the lasting and undying hatred of God
48 I/FE OF AP/SHOP CO/CEAVSO. CHAP. I.
for all sin, but a perpetual retention in that state of all who
should once be subjected to it. But he shrank with an in-
stinctive repulsion from language such as that of Augustine
and Fulgentius, and of the modern writers who like them
seemed to regard the state of the lost as a matter for
triumphant exultation.”
Thanking his friend for this dedication, Mr. Maurice at the
same time admitted frankly that he scarcely knew what to say
about it.
“If I told you that it delighted me beyond any praise I almost
ever received, I should express but half the truth. I should
convey a very inadequate expression of my own feelings of
the generosity and courage which your words manifest, and
the strength and hope which they imparted to me. But I
should also not let you see the real fear and distress which
your kindness occasioned me. When I consider the great
work to which you are called, and the troubles which must,
at all events, await you in it, I could not but tremble lest I
had been the means of causing you new and unnecessary
ones. I am afraid the English bishops—to say nothing of
the religious press—will visit upon you the offences which a
large portion of them is willing to charge upon me. And
I could have wished that you had stifled all your regard
for me rather than run this risk. Nevertheless, I do so
thoroughly and inwardly believe that courage is the quality
most needed in a bishop, and especially a missionary
bishop, that I did at the same time give hearty thanks to
God that He had bestowed such a measure of it upon you.
“You see I am very contradictory in my thoughts about your
letter. But I am most harmonious in my thoughts and
wishes about you. I am sure God is sending you forth to
a mighty work, in which you will be able wonderfully to
help those who are toiling in poor old England. . . . May
God bless you abundantly; SO prays one upon whom you
1 A few months later he published a small volume of extracts from the
writings of Mr. Maurice, with an Introduction. - -
J853. AAFE A T FORNCE 77. 49
have conferred a greater kindness than you can estimate,
for it has come to me when I needed it most.”
Mr. Maurice was perfectly right in thinking that writers
would not be lacking in the public journals to visit on the
Bishop designate of Natal the faults which they laid to the
charge of his friend. The note of warning was sounded by
the “Record,” which pronounced his sermons “singularly
deficient in the clear exposition of definitive Christian doc-
trine.” Looked at after an interval of more than thirty years
these sermons show an instinctive reluctance to the use of
party shibboleths. They point to the future growth of a
wider theology, and above all they are evidence that the
man's heart was set upon the search after truth, and that
wherever it might be revealed to him, he would acknowledge
it. He could not bring himself to believe that the falling of
the tower in Siloam implied any judgment on the character of
those who were crushed beneath its ruins.
“Modern Science,” Mr. Colenso urged in the very temperate
remarks on this article addressed to the Archbishop of
Canterbury, “teaches us that the convulsions and apparent
disorders of nature, floods and thunderstorms, whirlwinds
and earthquakes, are workings of the great Creator's skill
and wisdom for the good of His creatures, are therefore
signs of His beneficence. The Reviewer sees in them the
“consequences of man's fall, traces of the corruption which
from man's heart has overflowed upon the world around
him.’”
The Reviewer, again, wished to “uproot altogether the old
religion of the heathen mind,” and Mr. Colenso merely noted
his unwillingness to take a lesson from the great Apostle of
the Gentiles
“who, when he preached among the learned at Athens, or the
ignorant at Lystra, on both occasions used the knowledge
* Life of Maurice, ii, 186.
VOL. I. E
5O AZFA OF BISAMOA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. I.
they had already of the Truth to lead them on to higher
views, from him whom they ignorantly worshipped, up to the
True and Living God.”
There can be little doubt, rather there is none, that the
choice of Mr. Colenso for missionary work in a heathen land
was a blessing not only to the heathen to whom he was sent,
but to his countrymen, to the cause of truth, to the Church of
England, and to the Church of God. Up to this time his
moral sense and spiritual instincts lacked free play ; and, had
he remained in England, those circumstances probably would
never have arisen which were made the means of evoking the
marvellous strength of character evinced in the great battle of
his life. It was just that appeal of the honest heart which was
needed to call into action the slumbering fires. That appeal,
and his instantaneous obedience to that appeal, were sneered
at as stupid, childish, and contemptible: but the questions of
the “intelligent Zulu" became for him questions like those
which led Luther to nail his theses on the Church door at
Wittenberg, and enabled him to break with the force of a
Samson the theological and traditional withs by which he had
thus far been bound.
CHAPTER II
TEN WEEKS IN NATAL.
WE have seen that in his Cambridge and Harrow days Mr.
Colenso had turned a longing eye on the vast field of mis-
sionary work. Even while he saw no reason to hope that he
might one day be enabled to take part in it himself, he felt
that there could be no higher call than that which summoned
a man to the conflict with deadly superstition, ignorance,
terror and sin. The longing which had always filled his heart
was the longing for growth in the knowledge of God, and in
His Love, for increasing trust in a righteous Will which must
in the end be victorious over every thing that opposes it, .
which must in the end destroy death. The work of the mis-
sionary was therefore to carry to the uttermost bounds of the
earth the tidings of the all-embracing love, and to raise all
hearts to the thought of the great consummation when every
rebellious will shall have been brought into absolute har-
mony with the Divine Will. Now that he had been called to
this work himself, he rejoiced to go forth in this spirit to the
help of those who were sitting in darkness. Many things
might still be perplexing; but in all that related to the mode
in which, and the design with which, the work should be
carried on, there was no hesitation, there was not even a
shadow of doubt. Christian, heathen, Turk or Jew, all were
the objects of God's loving and Fatherly care, all were His
E 2
52 AAFE OF BISA/OP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. II.
children, though some of them might not know it, and others
might openly defy Him. He went out, therefore, to Natal,
resolved that no word falling from his lips should chill or
repel those whom he was bound to cheer and comfort. It was
not his office to inforce theories of human depravity, and of
the vindictiveness of Divine punishments. It was his duty to
tell them of One who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity,
who, though eager to receive the penitent, will by no means
clear the guilty, and whose discipline and judgement will
throughly purge away all dross, and leave only the pure
Ore.
But he was entering on a field of labour of which he had no
personal experience. Dr. Gray's supervision of this outlying
portion of his huge diocese was, necessarily, merely nominal,
and the condition of the native population had lately under-
gone so many changes, that a preliminary survey of the
country became a matter of necessity. This survey was made
immediately after his consecration, which took place on St.
Andrew's Day." He sailed from Plymouth December 15, 1853;
reached Capetown January 20, 1854; and, from the same
steamer which had brought him from England, he landed in
Natal on the 30th of January. The impressions received
during his stay in the country were given to the world in a little
volume bearing the title of Ten Weeks in Natal. A few years
later, when the Bishop had been led to examine the history
of the Pentateuch, some of his adversaries professed to dis-
cover in this book plain signs of the “shallowness,” the “ignor-
ance,” and “precocity of judgment” which, as they said, was
to lead him in the end to complete shipwreck of the faith.
To others who have read it dispassionately, it has commended
itself as one of the noblest amongst missionary records, as
1 Dr. Armstrong was at the same time consecrated Bishop of
Grahamstown. The sermon was preached by Dr. Wilberforce, Bishop
of Oxford.
1854. TEAV WEEKS ZAV AVA 7TAZ. 53
exhibiting everywhere an unwearied zeal, a large-hearted
generosity, and a very real charity for all men.
The picture which he draws from his own observation of the
country and its inhabitants is conscientiously accurate ; but
the same accuracy cannot be claimed for statements relating
to earlier Zulu history which he quotes from the accounts of
others. He had no motive for extenuating the faults, or dis-
paraging the good qualities of either white or black, and he
was resolved that justice should be done to both alike. On
mingling with them he found that the natives had many good
qualities, although they and their fathers had lived under the
rule of some very sanguinary chiefs. About thirty years
before the Bishop's visit Natal had been wasted by the Zulu
King Chaka, of whom the Bishop recounts some stories which,
if true, would give him a title to be ranked amongst the
scourges of mankind.” On the murder of Chaka his sceptre
passed to his brother Dingaan, and from him to another
brother, Panda. -
When the Bishop of Capetown visited Natal, now some six
and thirty years ago, a generation had sprung up which knew
not Chaka, and had but small knowledge of his doings.
Bishop Gray found them “humble, docile, submissive,” and
believed “that at that time almost anything might have been
done with them.” Their honesty and faithfulness were proof
against temptations, which multitudes of Englishmen would
be incapable of resisting.
“The Insurance Company, having to send cash from Maritz-
burg to Durban (52 miles), would prefer, to any other mode
of conveyance, despatching two Kafirs with it, Sewed up in
belts about their waists. They would send, with perfect
security in this way, as much as £500 for a payment of
Io.s. to each Kafir.”
* Ten Weeks in Natal, p. 224.
54
JAZE OF BISAIOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. II.
*º-ºº: - ãº-º-º:
On another occasion the Bishop of Natal says:–
“I was speaking of the faithfulness and honesty of the Kafirs,
and observing that it was not always to be matched among
Englishmen. “Well, said young Mr. Moodie, ‘you seem to
have heard a good many stories about their honesty. Now
let me tell you a tale of a different kind, in which I was
concerned with them. About six months ago I sold a man a
spade for 5s. He paid me 4s. On the spot, and promised to
bring me the Is. in the course of a day or two ; but from
that time to this I have never seen or heard anything of
my shilling.” Certainly it was a formidable accusation
against my poor dark-skinned friend, and I had nothing to
it
say on his behalf except that I did not suppose all
Kafirs were equally virtuous, and that I thought it just
possible that such a piece of villainy might find its match in
the good old mother-land. But while we were talking, there
was a half-caste servant, who was within hearing, and who
was all attention to the story. And when presently his
young master left the room, the man went out to tell him
that ‘Saul had given the Is... to ſtime a long while ago for
one of his young masters; but he did not know exactly for
whom, and had kept it in his box ever since, and there it
was now.’ Mr. Moodie was perfectly satisfied with this
man's account of the transaction. He was a well-tried
faithful servant, and no doubt had been perplexed at first
about the matter, and had, through carelessness, forgotten
all about it since. At any rate he was a half-caste—half
English—not a pure Kafir.””
But, honest and trustworthy though the natives might be,
was considered necessary to be firm and even strict in
dealing with them, and to avoid over-much familiarity. A
chief named Ngoza came to pay his respects to the Bishop.
“I happened to be dressing at the time, and was naturally
unwilling to keep any one waiting, so was making what
haste I could in donning my apparel. But I was told there
* Ten Weeks, &c., p. 122.
1854. TE/W WA: EA S ZAV AVA 7TAZ. 55
was no necessity whatever for this—that, in fact, it would
be quite the thing to keep him waiting for some time—he
would, as a matter of course, expect it—time was of no
consequence to him, and he would amuse himself, somehow
or other, in the court-yard until I came out. In due time I
stepped out to him, and there stood Ngoza, dressed neatly
enough as an European, with his attendant Kafir waiting
beside him. I said nothing (as I was advised) until he
spoke, and, in answer to a question from Mr. Green, said
that he was come to salute the ‘nkos.' ‘Sakubona,' I said :
and with all my heart would have grasped the great black
hand, and given it a brotherly shake; but my dignity would
have been essentially compromised in his own eyes by any
such proceeding. I confess it went very much against the
grain ; but the advice of all true philo-Kafirs, Mr. Shepstone
among the rest, was to the same effect, viz., that too ready
familiarity, and especially shaking hands with them upon
slight acquaintance, was not only not understood by them,
but did great mischief in making them pert and
presuming.”" - -
From the first the Bishop resolved that he would have
nothing to do with arguments appealing to mere terror; and
from the first he was anxious to correct the mischievous
impressions left by such arguments on the minds of the
natives. These natives, it must be remembered, were fairly
able to take the measure of their instructors and put a value
on their teaching.
“‘The profession of Christianity had been much hindered,’
they said, “by persons saying that the world will be burnt
up—perhaps very soon, and they will all be destroyed.
They are frightened, and would rather not hear about it,
if that is the case.’
“‘Tell them,' I said, ‘that I am come to speak to them about
their Father in heaven, who loves them, who does them
good continually, watches over, and blesses them.’
* Ten Weeks, &c., p. 45.
56 L/PE OF BISA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. If.
“What do they think of the Prayer [The Lord's prayer]
Ngoza ‘liked it, the first time he heard it.' All agreed
that the thoughts of it were excellent. ‘They thought that
there was a great deal of truth in what the missionaries
said; but it frightened them to be told such terrible things.
Some said the world would be drowned, and only a little
bit of it left for them to stand on ; and then they saw the
same people going and living wickedly.’ ‘They have under-
stood more to-night than they ever did before.’ ‘Now tell
them whose prayer it is—the Lord's prayer, for the great
God, umkulunkulu, sent His Son to become a man, and
He lived among men, and loved them, and taught them
about the love of their Father in Heaven.’ ‘Their old
women had stories something like this.’ “Say now that
He is made the Inkos’ enkulu—Great Lord—of all men.
One day I shall hope to tell them more about him, and
how He showed his great love to us all when He lived
in this world and when He died. But now He is living in
Heaven, though we cannot see Him, and He is the Lord of
us all, the ukumbani, Supreme King, whose Kingdom
ruleth over all ; and we must obey Him, and try to please
Him in all things. It is His Spirit which puts every good
thought into our hearts, and helps us to do every right
action.” They have an expressive way, I find, of speaking
of a man's two /earts. g
“They told me of the old Kafir tradition that “umkulunkulu
sent the word of life by a chameleon, and then he sent the
word of death by a lizard; but the lizard outran the chame-
leon.' They thought that “part of a man 'lived after death;
but knew nothing about judgment, till the missionaries told
them. ‘Have they not something within them, which
teaches them that, when a man has done wrong, he ought
to be punished ”’ ‘Yes; a man's heart condemns him,
when he has done wrong.” “It is reasonable, one of them
observed, “since umkulunkulu made us, takes care of us,
has given us laws, and we must all stand before Him,
that we should expect to be punished, if we have done
wrong.’
1854. TEAV WEEKS WAV AVA 7TAZ. 57
“‘If a man had led a very wicked life, and was grieved because
he had done so, what was he to do ’’
“To an earthly chief,' they said, “he would confess his fault,
and ask forgiveness.’
“Before we dismissed our company, we asked them if they
would like to use the Lord's Prayer with us, as we were
going to say Our Evening Prayers. They readily assented ;
and so we all knelt down together, and I repeated it, first
in English, and then in Kafir, while Mr. S. repeated it
after me, and the men joined in heartily. How strongly
one felt, that this was indeed a Prayer, given us by One
who knew well what was in man, who knew what words
would suit the wants, and express the heart's desires, of
/...uman beings in all conditions and circumstances, high or
low, rich or poor, educated Englishman, or wild barbarian
Kafirl . . . . I lifted up my heart in prayer for these
poor heathen. May God grant me grace and wisdom to do
His blessed work among them.”
This narrative takes us back at once to the older story of
the mission of Augustine to the heathen subjects of AEthelbert
of Kent. But it is hard to shut our eyes to the great
relative superiority of the Kafirs in spiritual insight to the
high-priest of Godmundingham, whose liberality served only
as a decent cloak for his self-interest. The Kafir, who con-
fessed that he deserved and ought to look for the discipline
of a righteous Judge, rose to a far higher standard than that
of the Northumbrian Coifi who looked on his own religion as
of no virtue whatever, because, had it been of any worth, the
favours of the gods would have been showered down lavishly
on himself, their most devoted worshipper, whereas the portion
which had fallen to his lot was scant indeed. That Gregory
the Great really desired the good of the English tribes to
whom he had despatched Augustine and his companions as
teachers, is proved by the sound sense which marked his
* Ten Weeks, &c., p. IoI.
58 AAFE OF BISA/OA COAAAWSO. CHAP. II.
advice and suggestions to the first Archbishop of Canterbury.
That the same sound sense should be shown in the Bishop's
dealings with the Kafirs, is only what we might expect.
What was to be done with reference to their religious
celebrations 2 Foremost among these was the Feast of First
Fruits.
“This, as now observed, is a purely heathen ceremony, but
has undoubtedly a right meaning at the bottom ; and
instead of setting our face against all these practices, Our
wisdom will surely be, in accordance with the sage advice
of Gregory the Great, to adopt such as are really grounded
on truth, and restore them to their right use, or rather raise
them in the end still higher, by making them Christian
celebrations. This Feast of First Fruits is their most re-
markable annual festival, and it is a royal prerogative to
allow of its being kept. Pakade, therefore, has been obliged
to send messengers to Maritzburg for leave to celebrate it.
It would surely be a step in the right direction, if we could
get such a chief as this to allow of the Lord's Prayer being
said by a Christian missionary before the Feast begins,
after some explanation had been given to the assembled
multitude of the general meaning of such an address to the
Supreme Being; while the Chief himself and his counsellors
(with whom a longer and closer conversation might be held)
might be told the special meaning of each particular sen-
tence of the prayer. They would thus be taught gradually
to connect the idea of thankfulness and reverence to Him
who is the giver of all goodness, with their duty and habit
of coming together to celebrate the fresh returns of His
bounty. And, in utter despair of being able, for many
years to come, to reach in detail the immense body of
natives, who now inhabit this land, so as to supply each
particular kraal with the direct and constant teaching of a
Christian missionary, I cannot but hope that even in this
way we may, with the blessing of God, be enabled to make
Some breach into the stronghold of their heathenism,
more especially if, as I think may be practicable, I make a
1854. TEAV WEEKS //V AVA. TAZ. 59
point of going the circuit annually among the heathen, and
officiating myself at this Feast of First-fruits. Mr. S.
thinks it would be most desirable, for civil purposes, that a
commissioner should be present at the ceremony, and give
to it the sanction of the crown of England. With him I
might make my visitation of the heathen, as well as of the
scattered Christians, of the diocese.”"
Something was thus already done towards showing the
people that white men and black men, Englishmen and
Zulus, were all children of one common Father who had one
Law, and one Justice, the same discipline and the same
love, the same long-suffering, and the same blessed purpose
for all. This was the vital point indeed, and the Kafirs
were slow to be convinced of the Truth. “There is a com-
plete separation in these matters,” said one of the chiefs,
“between the black and the white—we cannot at all under-
stand each other.”
“Mr. Shepstone explained that I thought there was not so
great a separation as he supposed, that we believed in
unkulun Kulu (the great-great one) as well as they, and that
I was sent to tell them more about Him, what He had
done, and what He was doing for them.””
On the following day Mr. Shepstone asked the chief Pakade
what he thought of the Lord's Prayer, which had just been
recited in Kafir.
“He said we quite beat him last night with talking of the
um Kulun Kulu, and saying that we prayed to Him in
England, for he saw that there was not so great a separa-
tion after all. We were perfectly taken by surprise with
this answer ; for we had fancied that he had scarcely
noticed this observation of ours overnight. But it seems
he had, and, though he had said nothing at the time, had
* Ten Weeks, &c., p. 94. * Ib. p. 115.
6o JL/FE OF BASA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. II.
been pondering since upon it. Mr. Shepstone then explained
to him the Lord's prayer, and said that Baba Wetu (Our
Father) was umkulun Kulu, and then went through the
petitions, one by one, as before. The chief listened appa-
rently with great interest to all that was said to him, and
seemed to realize the meaning of the whole—the first fact
having been the key to unlock the rest. In answer to a
question from Mr. Shepstone, he said it would be a very
proper prayer to be used at their festival, in which, I may
remark, nothing whatever met the eye that was disgusting,
or in any way offensive to a Christian mind, except the
general barbarism of the people. . . .
“But as soon as Mr. Shepstone ended his lecture, the chief was
off again. “How do you make your gunpowder P’”
It was, however, quite possible that the name chosen to
denote the Father and Preserver of all men might convey
wrong impressions, or, it may be, leave no impression at all.
The rule followed by the Bishop was to adhere to the name
which seemed to express their highest conceptions. Visiting
Mr. Allison's mission station at Edendale, a few miles from
Maritzburg, he learnt that his people, some 500 or 600 in
number,
“were unanimous in their disapproval of the word for
God now commonly in use among the missionaries, u Tiao,
which, they said, had no meaning whatever for the Kafirs.
They used it because they found it in their Bibles, but it
was not a word of their language at all. The proper word
for God, they said, was iTongo, which meant with them a
Power of Universal Influence—a Being under whom all
around were placed. . . . All the Kafir tribes, whether on
the frontier or to the north, would understand 27 ongo, but
the latter would have no idea whatever of what was meant
by u Tiao, though the former are now used to it through the
missionaries.””
* Ten Weeks, &c., p. 117. * Ib. p. 57.
1854. 7.EAV WEEKS /W WA 7TAZ. 6I
It turned out, however, that Mr. Allison's Kafirs were
in error as to the universal comprehension of the name
“iTongo.”
“It is true that all the Kafirs of the Natal district believe in
iTongo, and amaHlose ; and it is very likely that the former
may be regarded as having the universal Zºričal influence
they spoke of, in distinction from the limited family influ-
ence of the latter. (It did not occur to me to press this
inquiry.") But these words are certainly used by them only
with reference to the spirits of the dead, not to the great
Being whom they regard as their Creator. . . . The true
words for the Deity in the Kafir language—at least in all
this part of Africa—are um Kulun Kulu, = Almighty, and
zum Velinguange, literally ‘the first comer out,’ = the First
Essence, or rather Existence. It will be seen, as my narra-
tive proceeds, that in every instance, whether in the heathen
kraal, amidst the wildest of savages, or in the presence of
the teacher, who was himself surprised at the result, my
enquiries led me invariably to the same point, namely, that
these words have been familiar to them from their child-
hood, as names for Him who created them and all things,
and as traces of a religious knowledge, which, however
originally derived, their ancestors possessed long before the
arrival of missionaries, and have handed down to the present
generation. The amount of unnecessary hindrance to the
reception of the Gospel, which must be caused by forcing
upon them an entirely new name for the Supreme Being,
without distinctly connecting it with their own two names,
will be obvious to any thoughtful mind. It must make a
kind of chasm between their old life and the new one to
which they are invited ; and it must be long before they can
become able, as it were, to bridge over the gulf, and make
out for themselves, that this strange name, which is preached
to them, is only the white man's name for the same great
Being, of whom they have heard their fathers and mothers
* Later, he continued the inquiry; the result being that the translation
now is, “O God, my (or our) God.” “Nkulunkulu, my (or our) iTongo.”
62 J./FE OF BASA/OP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. II.
speak in their childhood. . . . Fully confirming this,
Ngoza's people told the Bishop that amaTonga and Ama-
Hlose were certainly not the same as umkulun Kulu, for
they could not be till man was created ; in short, they were
departed spirits, but um Kulun Kulu made all things. “We’ve
missed the truth by very little after all, for we pray to
wnseen spirits, and you to one unseen Being.’
“‘Ala-Alukamiszwe igama-lažo-Separated (i.e. hallowed) be
Thy Wame.’ They quite understood this ; they never used
the name ‘umkulun Kulu’ without respect.”
In the kraal of the chief Langalibalele, whose name will
become prominent in the history of the Bishop's later years,
Mr. Shepstone put into the chiefs hand a spoonful of brown
sugar, which he ate with great zest. The latter then asked—
“‘How is sugar made 2' ‘It’s made by boiling.’ ‘Ah! then
you are taught that by the Velinqange.’ It should be
observed that we had not said a word to him, or his people,
on the subject of religion ; so that here we had the heathen
kafir, of his own accord, referring the wisdom, which he
saw we possessed, so superior to his own, to the Great
Source of all Wisdom. We caught, of course, at this word
‘What do you mean by um Velinqange?’ ‘He made
men—he made the mountains—he gave them names. DO
you know’ he asked ‘who gave the Tugela its name 2'
‘No.’ ‘Then it must be the Velinqange: for we do not
know who did.' We asked “Who was the um Kulun Kulu ?’
He said “He was the same.’ ‘Did they know anything
about the creation ? Had they any tradition about it?’
“No ; they only knew that He had made them ; they did
not know by what word. He had made them. Their old
men had died by wars, and they had forgotten everything.’
He said, “They only knew of uTixo since white men had
come into the country; but they knew the other names from
time immemorial.’ I begged Mr. Shepstone to tell him that
uTixo was meant by the missionaries for the same Being,
1 Ten Weeks, &c., p. 60. * Ib. p. 99.
1854. 7TEAV WEEKS ZAV AVA 7TAZ. 63
but the teachers did not know they had such good names
themselves for God, that we prayed to umkulun Kulu, and
I was sent to tell them all about Him, the things which they
and their fathers had forgotten, or never known. Mr. S.
asked if the feast of First-fruits was not a feast of Thanks-
giving. “Yes; it certainly was, but they did not know to
whom.’ At a particular moon, when the fruits are ripe, they
keep a feast for the blessings of the year; but they do not
know at all to whom—they have quite forgotten.
“Mr. Blaine had not been with us at any of our former con-
ferences with the Kafirs, and wished to press the point
further, and to make out clearly, whether they knew any-
thing of their own two names, before they saw the face of
an Englishman. So the oldest man present was asked
about it, and he replied ‘Yes : from our childhood they told
us, and they heard it from their fathers.’ “Had they ever
had a Missionary in their tribe ’ ‘Yes, Mr. Allison had
been with them. He had told them about Jehovah, and
that they were as lost sheep without a shepherd.’ ‘Had
they heard the two names before then 2' ‘Yes, long, long
before.” “And did they connect the names with Jehovah,
when they heard of Him P' ‘No, not at first ; they only
now began to think so.' . . . . A discussion now arose
between themselves as to whether the amaHlose and
amaTongo were the same as umkulun Kulu. One said he
thought they were. But he was over-ruled by the others
who said, ‘That could not be, for they were the spirits of
dead people, who came into Snakes sometimes; but
umkulun Kulu made men, and all things.’” + A
So full of consideration and tenderness were the dealings of
the Bishop with the heathen of his diocese in matters which
are generally assigned to the region of theology. Not less
judicious was his treatment of questions arising out of their
social conditions. Among the foremost of these was polygamy,
and about this his mind was soon made up.
1 Ten Weeks, &c., p. 131.
64 JLIFE OF BISA/OA' COLEAVSO. CHAP. II.
“I must confess that I feel very strongly on this point, that
the usual practice of inforcing the separation of wives from
their husbands, upon their conversion to Christianity, is
quite unwarrantable, and opposed to the plain teaching of
Our Lord. It is putting new wine into old bottles, and
placing a stumbling-block, which He has not set, directly in
the way of their receiving the Gospel. Suppose a Kafir
man, advanced in years, with three or four wives, as is
common amongst them,--who have been legally married to
him according to the practice of their land (and the Kafir
laws are very strict on this point, and Kafir wives perfectly
chaste and virtuous), have lived with him for thirty years or
more, have borne him children, and served him faithfully
and affectionately (as, undoubtedly, many of these poor
creatures do), what right have we to require this man to
cast off his wives, and cause them, in the eyes of all their
people, to commit adultery, because he becomes a Christian
What is to become of their children 2 Who is to have the
care of them 2 And what is the use of our reading to them
the Bible stories of Abraham, Israel, and David, with their
many wives 2 I have hitherto sought in vain for any
decisive Church authority on the subject. Meanwhile, it is
a matter of instant urgency in our missions, and must be
decided without delay in one way or other. I may add
that I returned to England in the Indiana, with an excellent
old Baptist missionary from Burmah, Dr. Mason ; and I
was rather surprised to learn from him that the whole body
of American missionaries in Burmah, after some difference
in opinion, in which he himself sided decidedly with the
advocates of the separation system, have in the early part
of the year 1853, at a convocation, where two delegates
attended from America, and where this point was specially
debated, come to the unanimous decision to admit in future
polygamists of old standing to communion,--but not to
offices in the Church. I must say, this appears to me the
only right and reasonable course. In the next generation,
but not in this, we may expect to get rid of the evil ; for, of
course, no convert would be allowed to become a poly-
I854. TEAV WEEKS VW WA TAZ. 65
-—mm.
gamist after baptism, or to increase the number of his
wives.” 1
Writing to Mrs. Colenso some two years later, Mr. Maurice
said on this subject:—
“That the Bishop is right in his view of polygamy, I can have
little doubt. And if so, it must be a great and useful
duty to state his conviction. It brings new thought and
experience to bear on the great subject of family life, and
the moral effect of every courageous and well-considered
announcement of difficulty, and a purpose, can scarcely be
estimated.”
The notion that Bishop Colenso ever for a moment regarded
the system of polygamy as such with the faintest favour is so
utterly and monstrously ludicrous that it is useless to waste
words upon it. The system was in his eyes simply hateful ;
but the practice of polygamy amongst the natives with whom
he had to deal involved a problem which called for immediate
solution. There were two ways of solving it, and only two.
The polygamist, who desired to profess the faith of Christ
and to receive baptism, might be called upon to put away
first all wives but one; or he might be told that he might
retain the wives whom he had already married, but that
he must not add to their number. Natives becoming con-
verts before marriage would, of course, be allowed to marry
only one wife. As to this there was not, and there never
could be, any question.
The former of these two courses the Bishop saw from the
first was “unwarranted by the Scriptures, unsanctioned by
Apostolic example or authority, condemned by common
reason and sense of right, and altogether unjustifiable.” To
make known this conviction, he addressed, in 1861, a letter to
the Archbishop of Canterbury, summing up the arguments
* Ten Weeks, &c., p. 141.
VOL. I. * F
66 AAFE OF BISAIOP COLENSO. CHAP. II.
into which he had entered at greater length five years before
in a letter to an American missionary. As he had urged
then, so still he felt convinced, that the practice of the time
when he wrote, far from tending to that extirpation of
polygamy which was so heartily to be desired, helped to
perpetuate the very evil objected to. According to the rule
then commonly inforced, a polygamist wishing for baptism
must at the outset break up his household and send adrift
women, one or more, who were thus placed at a grievous
disadvantage, even if they were not left utterly helpless"
This necessity placed “a stumbling-block in the way of
adults of the present generation,” and repelled them from all
close contact with Christian teaching. As a necessary con-
sequence, the children also were kept away from the influence
of the Christian teacher, and they too became polygamists
in their turn, and handed down the practice to their
descendants.
That any, who have thought carefully about the matter,
should dream of disputing the bishop's conclusions, seems
altogether amazing. The dismissed wives are women dis-
graced for life, and are exposed henceforth in the kraal to
the worst temptations of savage society ; and this is the
necessary result of imposing on polygamists before baptism
a restriction for which the New Testament nowhere furnishes
any authority. But for such considerations as these Bp. Gray
seemed to have not the least regard. The Journal of his
Visitation of the Diocese of Natal in 1864 gives some account
of a conversation with Mr. Allison, who had been a Wesleyan
missionary, and was then an Independent, and who informed
him
“That the late bishop [so he was pleased to speak of the
Bishop of Natal] had done infinite mischief to the Kafir
mind by his teaching. He said that, mainly in consequence
1854. TE/W WEEKS ZAV AVA 7TAZ. 67
of Dr. Colenso's views on the subject of polygamy, a young
chief and twenty-two other Christians on his station had
become polygamists; and he added that he thought that
those views had been disseminated amongst the Kafirs by
William [the Bishop's interpreter] and others.””
Bishop Gray's charge delivered during the Visitation to
which this Journal refers is full of grossly reckless assertions.
For the excitement caused by religious alarm in a superstitious
mind there may be some excuse. For the manifest falsehood
of the sentences just recited there is none. It is impossible
that declarations emphatically condemning polygamy could
be twisted into sanctions for it. Mr. Allison's words (if he
really spoke them) ascribe to the Bishop a matured approval
of polygamy, as such, for every one, and represent him as im-
pressing this approval on the minds of his Kafir school-lads.
The libel, if it really comes from him, reflects supreme dis-
grace on Mr. Allison. Does it reflect much less on Bp. Gray
for repeating it? In his letter to the American missionary
the Bishop of Natal speaks of the practice of polygamy as
an abomination. The same term must be applied to the lie
which charges him with upholding it.
Of the gratitude as well as of the honesty of the Kafirs,
the Bishop heard many stories, the evidence for which seemed
to be thoroughly trustworthy.
“There is, I hear, an old Dutch dame at Maritzburg, who has
always a good word to say for the Kafirs. In early times,
before the Dutch came into Natal, her husband was sent
forward, as one of the exploring party, to examine the land.
Near the bridge of Uys Doorns he shot some elands; and
finding there the headmen of a party of Kafirs, whose cattle
and crops had all been ravaged by Dingaan's armies, and
who were literally starving, he told them where the animals
lay, and bade them go and eat them—which they did, but
* Journal of Visitation, 1864, p. 24.
F 2
68 ZIFE OF BISHOP COLENSO. CHAP. II.
very economically, making them last a long time, until their
wants were supplied with the return of the season. In fact
they were saved from utter misery and death by this act of
kindness, and they never forgot it. But when the Dutch
emigrants came in great force to the colony, and, not being
sufficiently supplied with food for their large numbers, were
themselves at one time in much distress, while they lived in
their camp, before the town was founded, this Kafir head-
man came one day with a large bowl of mealies, and in-
quired for the Dutchman. He was directed to his tent, but
on his way was solicited to sell, and offered large payment
for his mealies. No 1 he must find his old friend, the
Dutchman, and so he did, and poured out the mealies at
the feet of his wife, refusing to receive any remuneration
for them. Nor was this all, but, every two or three days,
he came back again with a similar present, and continued
it, until the Dutch too were able to get over their difficulties,
and supply the wants of their families.”"
But it was no part of the Bishop's purpose to draw a rose-
coloured picture of the native tribes in Natal. To put their
better qualities out of sight would argue something worse
than a lack of Christian charity: to veil the darker side of
their character would be practically deception. He believed
them to be honest, to be grateful, and on the whole to be
guiltless of the sin of drunkenness. But their very condition
implied that they were not trained in habits of steady industry,
that they were not a people who could be said to seek peace
and ensue it, and that they were certainly not on the high-
road to what in Europe would be called civilisation. To the
moral defects of the European immigrants they were by no
means blind. Zulus might be seen in the streets of Maritz-
burg pointing their fingers at a drunken Englishman staggering
along the roadway; but it did not follow, unhappily, that they
were not themselves the victims of worse habits of a more
1 Ten Weeks, &c., p. 165.
1854. TEAW WEEKS VAV NATAL. 69
secret sort. The very conditions of their life involved strong
temptations to immorality. The taint of this uncleanness
must inevitably contaminate their whole society; and the
nature of the moral atmosphere in which they lived would be
revealed by the general character of their conversation among
themselves. Staying at the house of Mr. Lindley in the
magnificent Inanda country, the Bishop found that there was
no daily school for the little ones of the large community
dependent upon him.
“As with such a blooming family of children, some grown
almost to maturity, and who had already learnt, as their
excellent father told me, to speak the native tongue with
more or less fluency, for it was impossible to prevent this, it
seemed so natural that this singular gift of nature should
be improved for the glory of God and the salvation of the
poor dark Souls around them. But I found upon inquiry
that there were serious objections to allowing a free inter-
course between the white and the black children. The
conversation of the latter is said to be so impure and dis-
gusting that a Christian parent cannot dare to commit his
children to its contamination. . . . Some other of the
American missionaries, I find, agree in this principle ; others
do not, especially Mr. A. Grout, whom I presently after
visited. Doubtless, there must be need for great watchful-
ness and care in such a matter ; but I cannot help believing
that some measures might be adopted to render such in-
valuable help as the teaching of young persons available
for our natives. We should never choose to leave our
children in England exposed to the possible evil conse-
quences of teaching in a ragged school; but with proper
precaution and discipline, surely we should not fear to see
them thus employed.”"
Mr. Lindley, in short, entertained no sanguine hopes from
the results of missionary efforts among the native tribes. He
* Ten Weeks,. &c., p. 236.
7o A.IFE OF BISHOP COLENSO. CHAP. II.
thought that it would take 500 years to produce any sensible
effect upon them. Certainly the general prevalence of im-
purity—at least, in language—among young children implies
coarseness, and worse than coarseness, in those of riper years.
But the Bishop remarks that
“there were eighty souls upon the station, and certainly some
of these gave evident outward signs of very considerable
improvement. Several had built for themselves neat
cottages, as good as those of many an English settler.””
But the real point here brought before us for examination is
the character of Kafir history before the European immigra-
tion. Of written records we know that they had never had
any; and on their oral traditions they seemed themselves to
look with a pitiable uncertainty. We have seen them con-
, fessing their forgetfulness of things which in their belief had
been known to their fathers; but, although in this they may
have been wrong, it must still remain a matter of doubt, and
therefore a fitting subject for inquiry, whether their course
thus far had been upwards or downwards. Mr. Lindley
seems to think that they had been sinking deeper and deeper
into the abyss of barbarism, and he suspected that this deteri-
oration extended to the connotation of their highest terms.
Admitting that “they had the name umkulunkulu, which they
used to express the ‘creator of all things,’” he yet felt sure
that, if the Bishop asked further, he would “find they meant
by it a little worm in the reeds, a sort of caddis-worm.” It
must not be forgotten that the same fate seems to have
befallen the word uTixo, which was also said to denote a
species of mantis, called the “Hottentot's God.” 8 Regarding
this as proof rather of decay than of growth, Mr. Lindley
asked them : “If you had been told about um Kulun Kulu
* Ten Weeks, &c., p. 237. * Ib. p. 238.
* Ib. p. 57.
1854. TEN WEEKS ZW WA TAL. 71
[instead of uTixo) would you not have thought directly about
the little worm down in the reeds 2 ”
This question was received by the whole party with a
smile of respectful derision. “O no we only call it so ;
we use the same name for it ; but we do not pay any honour
to it.” (One remembers a flower, called by the name
Everlasting.)
The Bishop adds—
“I felt already so sure of the ground on which I stood that
it would not have staggered me with regard to my general
conclusion, formed from so many replies, obtained from so
many different tribes, if I had found that those now before
me had, previous to their conversion, been sunk in yet lower
degradation, and had lost yet more of the truth of their
original traditions than others of their brethren.””
The Bishop's efforts were not confined to thoughts and
plans for the welfare of the natives; but for the English
it was scarcely possible for him to do more than prepare the
way for the systematic work to be taken in hand on his return
to permanent residence in the diocese.
“I had decided to take under the care of the Church a
small number of young English orphans, of whom there
were several, I found, in the colony, in circumstances of
great distress. Some of these were children of parents
who had good connexions in England, but had emigrated
to Natal, and, having been removed by early death, had left
their children desolate and forsaken on that far-off shore.
Others had lost one of their parents, and the other was
unable, left with a large family, to provide for the whole of
her little ones. And it seemed most desirable to open at
Once an Orphan's Home, into which all such children might
be received, and brought up in the bosom of the Church,
and in the nurture and admonition of her Lord. . . . . I
* Ten Weeks, &c., p. 239.
72 - IIFE OF BISHOP_COLEAVSO. CHAP. II.
felt that such a charity would be of the greatest importance
to our mission work, not merely by endearing the Church
itself in the eyes of the people, from the interest she took in
these poor lambs of Christ's flock, but especially by enabling
us, as we may hope, out of these young orphans, to raise a
future band of missionary labourers.” "
Wholly free from any spirit of exclusiveness, he was ready
to work in harmony with all who had at heart the furtherance
of the Divine Kingdom. He had many opportunities of
observing the faithfulness and zeal of the Wesleyan ministers
at Maritzburg and Durban. The Roman Catholic bishop in
the former city he found
“a very gentlemanly Frenchman, with a benignant expression
of countenance, and an appearance of sincerity and earnest-
ness about him, which I was rejoiced to witness. He told
me that there were not yet any missionaries of his Church
among the natives; but he was about, without delay, to set
some at work. One of my last duties, before I left Durban,
was to write a short farewell note of brotherly love to him,
as I had not been able to call and take my leave of him in
Maritzburg.
“I believe that I can thus live in charity with my brethren in
Christ, who are striving to walk religiously before God, and
to bring forth fruit to their common Master, although I may
not, and certainly do not, agree with them on all points, and
some of them important points, of faith and doctrine; and
that without compromising in the least my own Church
principles. I believe the Roman Catholic is in error, in
holding as true, and mingling with the essential truth as it
is in Christ Jesus, what I hold to be the fiction of men,
unscriptural and untrue. I believe the Wesleyan to be in
error because (in direct opposition to the wishes and com-
mands of his founder) he has separated from the Church of
England, and taken upon himself ‘the priesthood also.' I
believe the Presbyterian and Independent to be in error,
* Ten Weeks, &c., p. 205.
4854. TEAV WEEKS IN AWA TAL. .73
because, as it seems to me, they set at naught the testimony
of all history, and set up their own will, on the judgement of
the leaders of their body, against the example and direct
injunction of our Lord's Apostles. But, while I have every
reason to believe that these men are all cleaving to one
Blessed Truth, of a crucified yet glorified Saviour, of a
Father who sent His own dear Son to save us, and a Spirit,
proceeding from the Father and the Son, who now lightens
our eyes and teaches our hearts—while I have reason to
believe that they are walking daily by faith in the Son of
God, and seeking, by prayer and communion with their
Lord, to grow in holiness and love, and in meetness for His
Presence in heaven—I feel that we must “receive one
another, even as Jesus Christ has received us, to the glory
of God,'—and that, as we hope to meet together hereafter
as fellow servants in His Kingdom of Glory, so we may
and must walk together in brotherhood and love by the way-
side in this life, and commune together of our Master's will,
and perchance be drawn closer to one another even here in
Him, in whom we are one.””
With these hopes and these convictions, the Bishop on his
return to England published the record of his first sojourn in
Natal, unconscious that the shortness of his story would, after
some seven years more of steady work in his diocese, be ad-
duced as evidence of carelessness and haste, and his remarks
on the religious and moral condition of the native tribes be
taken as proof that he came back, as he went, profoundly
ignorant of the first principles of missionary work, and in-
capable, therefore, of bringing any part of his task as a
missionary bishop to a successful issue. Such charges are not
the pleasantest recompense for telling the truth. Had he
begun his work ten years later, they would have taken another
shape. Were he entering upon it now, they would probably
not be brought against him at all.
* Ten Weeks, &c., p. 271.
74 A.IFE OF AP/SHOP CO/CE/VSO. CHAP. II.
The spirit in which the Bishop of Natal entered on his work
reflects that of Bishop Selwyn when he undertook the task
of ministering to Christians and heathens in New Zealand.
Both found in “Christian work the best interpreter of Christian
doctrine,” and the convictions which Dr. Selwyn expressed in
the sermon which he published under this title exercised even
a stronger power over Dr. Colenso. The former insists that
the test of necessary doctrine can be found only in the region
of practical duty.
“What is really necessary to reform the sinner, to comfort the
Sorrowful, and to guide the dying on the way to heaven,
that, and that only, is the doctrine which God calls upon
every man to receive. Thus, for instance, in our mission
work, our standard of necessary doctrine is, what we can
translate into our native language and explain to Our native
converts. This we know to be all that is really necessary
to their salvation. . . . There may be a higher heaven to
which some chosen servants of God may be raised ; there
may be unutterable words which only they can hear, visions
of glory may be opened to the view of some, which are
denied to others: but the range of necessary doctrine we
believe to be that which is attainable by all, because the
promise is to the wayfaring man, and to the simple, to the
poor, and to the blind.”
CHAPTER III.
EARLY WORK IN NATAL.
ON the 20th of May, 1855, the Bishop with his family landed.
in Natal. From this moment, says Dr. Kuenen, the friend.
of his later years, he “entered on a period of intense and
exhausting labours; ” + and no one is better qualified than Dr.
Kuenen to pronounce judgement on the work of a missionary
who really grasps the nature of his task. All men have not
the same gifts; and it is in no invidious spirit that a contrast
has been drawn between the method adopted by Bishop
Colenso and that of Bishop Gray. The latter never so much
as attempted that which the former with indomitable per-
severance achieved. It is no shame to him that he did not
attempt it. His life might have been less useful than it was
had he done so. But when Dr. Gray some eight years later
spoke of the Natal Diocese as having been brought, by the
colleague whom he once professed to love, into a state of
spiritual ruin, he was using language which betrayed not only
extreme narrowness of view but, as we shall see, a very
lamentable ingratitude.”
In his Ten Weeks in Natal the Bishop has described the
general features of the country included within the borders.
* De Onderzoeker, June 27, 1884.
*Journal of a Visitation of the Diocese of Natal in 1864, pp. 1, 4, 7,
I8, 20, 24.
76 IIFE OF BISHOP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. III.
of his large diocese, and, more particularly, of the district
round the capital city of Pietermaritzburg. About five miles
from this city lies the ground which was to furnish him a
home for the rest of his life. Here, in the house known as
Bishopstowe, or as the natives call it Ekukanyeni,” the home
of light, he gave his mind to all the duties which pressed on
him as the chief pastor of his fellow-countrymen and also as a
missionary bishop. Here also in later years he was compelled
to add to these cares the toil and anxiety of the political
struggle to which he felt called in the sacred cause of truth.
Ascending the hill along which the road winds from Maritz-
burg, the visitor, on reaching the spot where the white cross
on the roof of the Mission Chapel became visible, sees before
him a scene of great beauty. Before him rises, at a distance
of eight or ten miles, the massive Table Mountain, one of the
differences between this mountain and its namesake of Cape
Town being that its sides are clothed with vegetation more
or less dense to within a few yards of its summit, where the
red rock begins to show itself. A path towards the north end
leads to the top, which is, in fact, a farm of five or six thousand
acres, well watered and abounding in game. The difficulty of
the ascent and the ease with which such a position could be
maintained pointed it out, at times when such a danger was
regarded as not an impossibility, as a place of refuge for the
whole white population in Natal in the event of an outbreak
of the natives. t
His daughter describes Bishopstowe as standing
“upon a long sweep of hill, surmounted by other lower
rises on each side, but overtopped to the north at right
angles by a higher range into which one end of its own
* It seems likely that this name was originally suggested by the
Bishop; but the naming of the little native village, which grew up under
its wing, Esibaneni, the place of the torch, i.e. kindled at the light, was
entirely their own.
I855. AºARL W WORK ZAV AWA 7TAZ. 77
ascends. Upwards to the north, downwards to the east
and west, swept wide plantations of trees, grown by our-
selves, those to the west bounded by a sluggish stream,
white with lilies every autumn, across which a long low
bridge with heavy weeping willows led to the steep and
winding drive, bordered on either side by choice and foreign
shrubs, which brought the traveller at length to my father's
ever open doors.”
The Natal Table Mountain is really triangular.
“One only of the three sides,” Mrs. Colenso tells us, “faces
Bishopstowe, like a majestic altar, and always peaceful and
benignant, from its early morning aspect of soft deep ultra-
marine shadows wreathed with white mists, to the evening
glory of the opposite sunset in which it shines iridescent,
the crown of red rocks round its brow showing Opaline, as
if from within. The Bishop loved it from first to last, not
that he talked about it, but he would not be without it.
His study was without a fire-place, but he could never be
persuaded to change it for an equally convenient and quieter
room, because there he ‘could not see the mountain': and
the same reason met us when we wanted to put his writing-
table in what we thought a better light. It was over the
mountain that he watched the great comet stretch all across
the sky in 1882.”
This old home, rendered so dear by all the associations of
his life, is gone. Barely fifteen months after he had been
taken from his earthly toil, the house,_with all its contents,
his instruments, his books, his papers, was swept away by
a terrible fire which defied all the precautions taken in Natal
against such accidents. An intensely hot wind was blowing
from the north-west, when, about three o'clock in the after-
noon (September 3, 1884), a little herd-boy came breathless
Ruin of Zululand, vol. ii. p. x.
78 AAFE OF BISAIOP COZEAVSO. CHAP. III.
to report a great fire leaping over the shoulder of the range
immediately above Bishopstowe.
“In ten minutes' time the flames, carried before the violent
gale, flew down the long slope, leaping across the wide
burnt belt which surrounded us on every side, tearing
through the undergrowth of the long plantations, and
throwing themselves with fury upon the house. ‘A regi-
ment of soldiers could have done nothing,’ said afterwards
an intelligent English farmer present at the scene. The
buildings, composed to a great extent of wood and thatch,
were tossed up in flame like a child's cardboard house, and
the dense driving masses of Smoke prevented any chance
of saving aught from destruction except the lives of the
inmates and a few cherished articles snatched from the
study: our lives were spared, but little else. Less than one
hour sufficed for all, and, when that had passed, the gale of
wind, which had been the cause of the mischief, dropped
suddenly, and a calm and lovely evening fell upon the
blasted scene.” +
Of the site of the house thus destroyed, and of the growth
of the house itself, Mrs. Colenso writes :—
“When the Bishop first saw the place, it was one of many
grassy slopes, with a small solitary flat-topped mimosa-
tree upon it, lying before Table Mountain. In the frontis-
piece to Ten Weeks the cattle mark the future site.
And Bishopstowe was not built in a day, but grew.
First, while the Bishop returned to England, the mission
party put up a four-roomed cottage facing the Mountain, with
a row of small rooms behind it; into which, after about a
twelvemonth's stay in Pietermaritzburg, the Bishop's family
(now numbering two little sons and three daughters, the
youngest of whom was born four months after the arrival in
Natal), with numerous members of the mission party, were
at first crowded. Not half a mile off down the slope to the
south, another cottage gave accommodation to others of the
* Miss F. E. Colenso, Ruin of Zululand, vol. ii. p. xi.
1855. EARLY WORK IN WATAZ. 79
party, while a blacksmith's forge, carpenter's shop, and farm-
ing operations generally furnished plenty of work, the one
thing without which the Bishop never could believe that any
one could be happy. Those round him were not always of
his mind on this point, as, for example, on One occasion when
he had to take off his coat and lay some courses of bricks him-
'self, to prove by demonstration that the Occupation was not
degrading for a catechist! Most of the bricks used in build-
ing were made and burnt on the place. Some of the early
tree-planting, too, was done with his own hands, at the head
of the school-boys. Foundations were laid for the main
building—an extension of the original cottage front, but
raised and lightened by white wooden gables over tall
windows—and for a second wing, the building thus forming
three sides of a square. But, to begin with, there was raised,
a few yards to the right of these foundations, a little hexa-
gonal ‘tabernacle’ or summer-house of lath and plaster,
lined with rough bookshelves, with just room in the midst for
a table, two chairs, and an interpreter, and here through the
blazing summer day the Bishop worked as described by
Professor Kuenen : for many months were spent in building
the chapel, which was to serve also as school-room and
sleeping-room for the native boys. It was constructed of
native “yellow-wood, which endures almost all weathers,
the buttresses and gables being painted white. The next
task was to provide a printing-office, and better sleeping-
rooms for teachers and taught, before the study facing the
Mountain was completed in the main building: while the
large companion room, meant for a drawing-room, was not
used as such until after the return from England in 1865,
being found convenient for classes of men, for whose
instruction the Bishop would occasionally be called in from
next door. - -
“Both house and chapel were thatched, the long thatching
grass (tambootie) and the finer kind (umcele) growing
luxuriantly around, a convenience in one respect, but a
source of danger in another. Alarms and accidents from
grass fires were not wanting in those days. Half of the
8o ZIFE OF BISHOP COLENSO. CHAP. III.
farm-buildings were once burnt down. At a later terrible
time, when the very climbing plants on the verandah were
scorched, and the window-panes hot to the touch, the
Bishop came up pale and lame from a critical corner,
where, as he told us, he had found himself quite cut off by
the fire, and suffocated by the thick smoke: he was choking,
and had just time to think “I shall never write my book on
the Pentateuch l’ when—may we not say ?—as if in reply, a
breath of wind parted the smoke for a moment, and showed
him an already burnt, safe patch beyond, which he reached
with a struggle and a wrench to his ankle.”
Thirty years have now passed since nineteen young Kafir
children were brought to the new home in this smiling land-
scape by the Indunas Ngoza and Zatshuke, who placed them
in the hands of the Bishop for education. On their part it
was an act at once of great trust and of great boldness. They
had to run counter to every prejudice of their countrymen,
who were afraid that the children might be carried off to
England or compelled by main force to become Christians.
The two brave chiefs did not share this alarm. “ Do what
you like with them,” they said to the Bishop, “teach them
what you will, train them as you like ; send them to England
if you will, though we hope you will not.” Their people had
done what they could to shake their purpose ; but Ngoza's
reply was that he should like to be the last fool of his race.
Of the fortunes of the school thus set up the Bishop's letters
will furnish some account. Almost immediately after it was
opened, Ngoza fell sick. He attributed his disease to the
hatred which his surrender of the children had brought upon
him ; but later on he had his reward, when, along with many
refugee Zulu chiefs, he saw the change for the better already
effected in them.
“We shall have no more trouble now,” he said, “the people
have not a word to say. When I speak to them about the
1855–62. EARLY WORK IN WATAL. 8I
children, they are silenced. They no longer call me a
madman, as they did at first.”
The children had, indeed, fallen into good hands; and the
work thus begun in the earnest faith of the parents was not
marred by any extravagant haste to indoctrinate the children
with what are called propositions of dogmatic theology."
In the interval which passed before his next visit to
England, the Bishop had gone through an amount of work
which, as Dean Stanley told the members of the S.P.G. many
years later, would keep alive his fame as a missionary long
after his persecutors were all dead and buried. Reviewing the
Bishop's career shortly after his death, Dr. Kuenen says:–
“If we bear in mind that when he arrived in Natal he had
first to learn the Zulu language, we are astounded at what
he effected in the course of seven years. The list of
books written, and for the most part printed under his
directions by the natives, is before me. It contains a
grammar of the Zulu language, and a summary of it for
beginners ; a Zulu-English dictionary of 552 pages;
Selections and reading-books in the Zulu language ;
manuals of instruction for the natives in the English
language, in geography, history, astronomy, &c.; the trans-
lation of the books of Genesis, Exodus, Samuel, and of the
entire New Testament, into the Zulu language.
“The labour itself is not less worthy of our admiration
than the motive with which it was undertaken, and the
spirit in which it was completed. While from the outset
he felt himself drawn towards the Zulus, he now no longer
needed to work under restraint, and he freely mani-
fested the love which he bore them. They responded to it
by childlike trust and warm affection. This excellent
mutual attachment between the pupils and the teacher con-
tributed not a little to the success of his work,+specially
* See the account of Ekukanyeni in the AWatal Journal, for April, 1857.
VOL. I. s G
82 LIFE OF BISA/OP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. III.
of his translations of the Bible into their language. It was
accomplished by continual consultation with the natives, so
that there could be no fear that they would receive a wrong
impression—as is so often the case—in regard to the Bible
through errors of translation. In printing his books he
also had the help of natives, some of whom had advanced
far in their knowledge of English and in civilisation. My
enumeration of the titles of his books has shown that the
instruction in the mission schools was not limited to
doctrinal matters, but embraced the first principles of
European science.”
In short, the Bishop set to work genuinely in the spirit and
with the aims of Alfred the Great when he undertook to
instruct the English people in days in which they knew
nothing of science, nothing of philosophy, nothing of history.
Rapid progress could scarcely be looked for ; but the good
work was not allowed to flag. With the Bishop of Capetown
all this went for nothing. Seven years, to the day, had passed
from Dr. Colenso's coming to Natal in 1855 to his embarking
again for England on May 20, 1862. Before he could return,
Dr. Gray had “visited ” the Natal Diocese, and pronounced
the Bishop's work a complete failure.
“There came,” he says, “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 thereof there has been declension.”
Well might the Bishop of Natal say that these statements
involved a most unjust and cruel suppression of the truth. Of
the amount and quality of the work needed in laying the very
foundations of native education and training Bishop Gray .
had no practical experience whatever. He had made no
attempt to master any native dialect in his original undivided
1855–62. EARLY WORK Iw WAZAZ. 83
diocese ; nor had he done anything personally to acquire the
language of tribes in his diocese as subsequently reduced
in size. With his unfailing candour the Bishop of Natal
adds:–
“Very far indeed am I from 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.”
But this malignant imputation of unbelief was followed not
unnaturally by misrepresentation and slander of other kinds.
Writers in the Guardian newspaper for instance charged him
with corrupting the Scriptures in his translations; and he
contented himself with pointing out the absurdity of supposing
that he could even attempt such a folly, which any missionary
of any Church might detect.
“I am far indeed,” he says, “from supposing that my versions
are perfect. I may have missed the meaning of the
original in some places, and failed to express it satisfac-
torily in Zulu in others. . . . . But I challenge any one 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.””
In a certain sense it might be said that the Bishop's trans-
lations into Zulu were made by Zulus themselves. Taking
the Greek Testament, for instance, he would first represent in
Zulu as accurately as he could the meaning of a clause in the
original, and would then ask the native to repeat the same
in his own phraseology. Being trained gradually to under-
T 1 Remarks on the Recent Proceedings and Charge of the Bishop of
Capetown, 1864, p. 47.
G 2
84 LIFE OF BISHOP Col.F.A.So. CHAP. III.
*
stand the Bishop's purpose, the native would introduce those
nicer idioms which must distinguish the work of a native
from that of a European. No philologist could devise a surer
process ; but it must be slow. In difficult passages much
time might be spent in expressing perfectly a single verse.
Those who have gone through such labours will know what it
is ; but it was not appreciated by Bishop Gray.
In the printing of the eighteen books prepared by the
Bishop for the use of missionary students and native scholars,
great part of the work was done by a Zulu lad, one of the
nineteen first brought to him by the Indunas Ngoza and
Zatshuke for education during a period of five years only.
During this time, with the drawbacks and disappointments
which must be experienced in the management of any school,
these children got on well,—it may be said, excellently well.
Some of them were taught the business of the printer and
binder, others made Some little progress in other manual
arts; but at the end of the five years their mothers, brothers,
and sisters worried their fathers to reclaim them. The lads
themselves, not unlike English children, were eager to be
freed from the thraldom of school ; and the apparent necessity
for letting them go arose shortly before the Bishop's return to
England. But it must be remembered that the Bishop left
his diocese for a time, not, as his opponents hinted or main-
tained, only because he wished to publish a book which would
destroy the foundations of all religion, but because it was
indispensably needful to raise supplies of money and men
for extending the mission work. Under the circumstances
no alternative was left. Most of the children returned for the
present to their homes ; but his printing press was still man-
aged by one of these youths, who continued steadily at his
labour during the Bishop's absence, without any supervision,
correcting the sheets himself with the greatest accuracy, and
sending the proofs regularly each month to England.
1863. EARLY WORK IN WATAL. 85.
In truth a deep impression had been made on the minds
and hearts of many, and even at the cost of anticipating the
narrative of a later time it is well to note here what that
impression was, and to see how it gives the lie to the false
pictures of Dr. Gray. To these poor lads the Bishop was
emphatically Sobantu, the “father of the people,” or, as they
also sometimes called him, Sokululeka, “father of raising up.”
In his honesty of purpose, in the earnestness of his faith, in
the sincerity of his love, they had implicit confidence. Their
trust was to be rudely tested, not by temptations arising from
the evil companionship of their countrymen, but by denuncia-
tions of their friend by Christian slanderers and traducers.
The following extracts from letters written to Bishop Colenso
by these youths speak for themselves. They are given as
they were written, in English, even the spelling not being
altered.
“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 come here, he was
with us only one month and a 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. . . . . 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
somebody. 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.”
86 JAZE OF BISA/OP COLAEAVSO. CHAP. III.
“August 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 to Natal. . . . . I have heard that
Ngoza want to bring here his boys.” -ſº
The following is a literal translation from the original
Zulu :—
“May 29, 1864.
“My LORD,
“I rejoiced greatly to hear your letter which you sent to
William. I wish much that you would write to me also,
that I may hear clearly, whether the people are speaking
the truth, or no, about you. The other day, May IO, there
came the Bishop of Capetown along with Mr. Robertson:
they reached Ekukanyeni both together. And so Mr.
Robertson 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 has gone astray greatly;
I don't suppose that he will ever come back here.' Again
he said, ‘The bishop has come to tell the people to abandon
the teaching of Sobantu, for Sobantu has gone astray ex-
ceedingly; 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 2'
Said he, ‘When he was in England, he rebelled ; his book,
too, speaks badly.’
“I wish now to hear plainly whether, indeed, they have
spoken truth or' not, Mr. Robertson and others, to wit,
1864. AAA’ L Y WORK ZAV AVA 7TAZ. 87
that you no longer believe. But I 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.”
Like the preceding, the following is a literal translation.
It comes from the young catechist, William, a convert of the
American Mission, and it shows pretty clearly the nature of
the work done by Bishop Gray among the native flock of
the Bishop of Natal.
“May 29, 1864.
“I 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, “Sobantu has rebelled '; others say, “Sobantu goes
astray’; ’tis so continually with them all.
“But, Nkosi, see I do, I entreat, make a guess, and promise
that you will 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 made a long
discourse 1 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 2 do not you know Sobantu, that he is a man who
believes entirely in God 2’ He assented. Then said I,
“Well then, when did he begin to rebel, when he was in
England, or here 2' Said he, “At the time he left this
* Of course, by direction of Bishop Gray, who did not speak Zulu.
88 LIFE OF BISHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. III.
country he had already begun to rebel; but when he
arrived in England, he rebelled altogether.' I contradicted.
But, Nkosi, there was much 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 Nkosi-
Kazi ; salute for me to the young ladies; salute for me to
the boys; salute all those who love us together with you.
Our Father, who is over all, preserve you, deliver you from
all, grant you that the wealth of the Holy Spirit may
abound to you.”
The following lines were written by another native
catechist, who had also been disturbed by Bishop Gray's
proceedings:—
“My Lord, it was pleasant to hear your words; for we were
in a 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, ‘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.”
Of these and other little letters, the Bishop justly says that
they
“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 diffi-
I855. FARL Y WORK IW AWA 7TAZ. - 89
culties, which in English teaching are too commonly passed
over or altogether ignored.”
From the letters written by his native converts after the
cruel and demoralising interference of Bishop Gray, we have
to go back to the time of his settlement with his family in
Natal.
TO G. S. ALLNUTT, ESQ.
“MARITZBURG, July 6, 1855.
“It was high time for me to come out here. The people in
charge have gone on madly with their expenditure in my
absence. It requires a large stock of Christian patience
and fortitude to bear the discovery from day to day of large
sums of money wasted during my absence in the most
prodigal manner, spent without any authority from me, yet
in such a way that I cannot help bearing the consequences.
Imagine their having made a water-course on the Mission
farm, full two miles in length, to bring water to a paltry
cottage for the farmer and his family, the said cottage
being within about five minutes' walk of a running stream,
and having also (as Mr. Ellis believes) water close above
it. Not a single thing has been done by the Mission
farmer, whom Bishop Gray sent out, to provide food for
any of the party. Every morsel for himself and his family,
for every person and animal connected with our operations,
has still to be bought at high prices, though enormous sums
have been spent on profitless labour. The worst is that he
is utterly unfit for the business of a farmer, and I am now
Occupied in the painful process of removing him and putting
Ellis over all the farming operations. My whole occupation
since my arrival here has been that of paying debts incurred
during my absence,—a great part of them without any
necessity for their ever having been incurred, and
retrenching the expenditure of the Mission.”
His thoughts were at this time occupied necessarily in a
great degree with considerations for the temporal welfare of
-90 JAA’E OF AP/SA/OA' CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. III.
º
his people, both English and native. To the question whether
a young man might hope to earn a living in Natal as an
architect, he replies with a conditional negative. If he be
willing to be of use generally in promoting the civilisation of
the natives, the prospect might be not discouraging. Mission
schools were to be founded amongst the native kraals at the
rate of about four in each year, each to be placed in charge of
a clergyman in full orders, assisted, if possible, by a deacon
with three or four catechists, whose business it would be to
itinerate to the neighbouring kraals belonging to the chief
among whose people the school would be established. The
Bishop's purpose was to introduce among them the growth of
cotton, indigo, &c., and to get them to build themselves houses
after the European style. The chief, he thought, should have a
dwelling-place, a church, and a court-house for the administra-
tion of native justice. There was, further, the building of the
central station, the completion of which would require a sum
ranging between £5,000 and £6,000. For this there would
be need of competent advice and help, and unless some one
possessed of sufficient architectural knowledge could be found,
resort must be had to the native carpenters. Work of this
kind must be carried on in various parts of the diocese.
The task of civilising thus begun was exposed to many
hindrances and dangers. Speaking of the coming of the
Kafir children, early in 1856, he says:—
“Our great experiment is actually in progress. Last Thursday
I received at the station nineteen little Kafir boys, all the
sons of principal men, and thirteen more are promised ; and
it is quite impossible to say what the end may be. Perhaps
all may speedily come to nothing. Perhaps some “inyanza’
my get up a cry of witchcraft against us, or sickness may
break out. However, we hope for the best: and up to this
time they are as happy as possible, and several can already
read all their letters. But we sadly want the means of
1856. FAA’/ Y WORK ZAV AVA 7TAZ. 9I
amusing them. Alas! alas ! the Annabella with all my
philosophical instruments on board, struck on the bar
last week, and is gone to pieces. We fear nothing will be
saved.”
The sequel in the history of the friendship between the
Bishop and Mr. Maurice is so sad that we are tempted to dwell
on the language in which Mr. Maurice in these earlier days
speaks of the work of his friend. He says in a letter to Mrs.
Colenso, August 19, 1856:-
“Tell the Bishop, with my kindest love, that the battle he
is fighting is ours also ; nothing less than the battle whether
the devil or the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is God.
Everything is coming in England, and perhaps quicker still
in this country (Ireland), in which we are staying for a few
weeks, to that issue. Romanists and Protestants will have
to ask themselves, not whether they believe in a Pope or no
Pope, but whether they believe in a God of Truth, or a God
of Lies. Each must be tried by the answer ; and each must
have his own tree cut down, because it cumbers the ground,
if it is not found to have the good root, and not the
accursed one. . . . All you are doing for the Kafir children
and for the Zulus and your own is really fulfilling, in the
best and simplest way, that duty which comes upon us with
so many complications—the deliverance from the yoke of a
tyrant, by telling them of their true King. It seems to me
as if all civilisation and all Christianity had that same
foundation, as if devil-worship was the common enemy
which both in their diffferent ways have to struggle with.”
It is sad that such a friendship as this should have been
interrupted here (broken permanently, assuredly, it cannot
be), because Mr. Maurice refused to see that the historic sense
in the strict meaning of the term is a faculty of quite late
growth in the onward course of the world, and therefore that
* Life of F. D. Maurice, ii. 296.
92 A.IFE OF BISA/OP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. III.-
the application of modern codes of historical honesty to ages
before this faculty was developed beyond the merest germ, was
simply ridiculous. But even if there should be differences,
and these, too, wide differences, on the nature and value of
historical evidence, it was an unhappy thing for Mr. Maurice,
and an unhappy thing for the progress of religious thought in
this country, that he should insist on regarding opinions
antagonistic to his own as not merely erroneous but immoral'
and corrupting, fatal, in short, to the first principles of faith in
a living and righteous God. Coming events were not, thus:
far, casting their shadows before them. g
The following letters, relating to this time, will give some
account of his work and of the special difficulties which he had
to contend with in it. -
TO G. S. ALLNUTT, ESQ.
“March 2, 1857.
“I am cast down by the state of things at S.P.G., but
not discouraged. I doubt not the hand of God is in it;
and I wish to make no complaint, but wait patiently His.
time. Of course, our work here cannot go on vigorously
until the Society votes a grant; but meanwhile the time is.
well employed in mastering the language and preparing
educational books, which latter work keeps me a close
prisoner daily at my desk.”
TO THE SAME,
“July 7, 1857.
The rules of the S.P.G. are most inconvenient and absurd.
Instead of requiring us to give correct and complete de-
tailed accounts of how money has been spent (they can,
always cut off supplies from an improvident bishop), they
require us to say beforehand how the money will be spent,
which in a colony where things are so continually shifting:
and changing it is impossible to do. . . . It behoves the
w858. FARL W WORK IN WA TAL. 93
Society to have confidence in the bishops of the Church, and
not act upon the mean peddling system which they now
seem to have adopted. . . . I seriously believe that I shall
be driven to the Church Missionary Society for help for
this people committed to my charge. I dare not let their
best interests be wasted by the incapables of Pall Mall
without doing my best to find a remedy elsewhere.”
TO THE REV. T. P. FERGUSON.
“EKUKANYENI, July 7, 1857.
“Just now we are in a very critical position, one, I mean,
which, well improved, may be productive of incalculable
good to the future of this diocese, but, if neglected, may not
ever be regained. You will have heard that S.P.G. has
granted £1000 a year for three years to Natal. Now we
have upon the spot two clergymen and three catechists, who
will consume between them £700 of this grant. I want, if
possible, to bring out two more clergymen and one good
catechist, likely to become a clergyman, for the other £300.
Now, dear friend, will you come and help me 2 There are
no dignities to tempt you, only work, blessed work. It is
really most refreshing to see these 36 boys and half a dozen
girls, including now Panda's son, Umkungo. But I sadly
want help for the work, such help as you could give me.”
TO G. S. ALLNUTT, ESQ.
“January 13, 1858.
“S.P.G. affairs have assumed a somewhat serious form, if I
understand rightly the tenor of Mr. Hawkins's letter, a
passage of which I have had transcribed for your inspection ;
and please also to let Bishop Gray see it, if I cannot find
time, as I fear I shall not, to write to him by this mail. . . .
Bishop Gray will, I am sure, fight my battle for me, as well
as his own, in this matter. I will not trouble him about
others, for he has work enough on his hands. God help
him one of the noblest, most true-hearted, and loving
94. A./FE OF BISA/OP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. III.
men that ever lived, to be so used by a couple of
secretaries.”
The Bishop felt very keenly the part taken by the secre-
taries of the S.P.G. in reference to this grant to the Natal
diocese, and to the inclusion in that grant of a sum of £250
received thus far from the Bishop of Capetown. This sum, he
contended, was not included in the grant by the vote of the
Society; and the point was carried in his favour. But the
conditions of the grant pointed in his belief to a strange mis-
conception of the circumstances under which the work of the
diocese must be carried on. It was certain
“that a missionary to the heathen cannot be made in a day;
that it takes at least three years to make a man capable of
understanding and speaking the native tongue decently ;
and that therefore the Society must lay it down as an
axiom to expect nothing of any missionary for three years.
Instead of that they have now a certain most ridiculous
practice of limiting their grants for three years. This is
fatal to the hope of good men coming out. There is no
reason why, when dealing with missions to the Europeans,
a grant made to a place should not be revocable in three
years provided that the person employed, if a faithful
labourer, be assured that he will be continued somewhere
else upon the Society's staff, so long as the Church sup-
plies funds. As regards the heathen, the rule is absurd.”
TO G. S. ALLNUTT, ESQ.
“BISHOPSTOWE, April 1, 1858.
“How can I thank you sufficiently for all the trouble you
have taken for me, and for copying out that correspondence
with the Colonial Church and School Society, and for con-
ducting all those complicated financial matters ? Most
agreeably was I surprised with the latter; and, to tell you
the truth, I was getting very anxious and uneasy. . . . .
Your letter has made me quite light and happy, and I trust
thankful—thankful to Him who has raised me up such a kind
1858. AºAA’A. Y WORA (AW AVA 7TAZ. 95.
and wise friend, and thankful to yourself for all your
laborious exertions.
“Mr. Hawkins has outdone himself in his last letter by this
mail. He has got the Committee to disallow Dr. Mann's.
and Mr. Prescott's expenses out (6150), while they have
allowed their stipends as labourers, and thereby admitted
their value to the Mission. And observe I did not ask the
A 15o as a fresh grant in addition to the block sum, but
only to be allowed out of the £IOOO a year, as one of
the best ways in which I could employ it, for I need not say
such men could neither of them be picked up among the
kraals of Natal. I have written to press this point again on
the Committee; and I cannot believe that if Mr. Gell or any
friend puts the plain truth before them, they will refuse
their sanction to this, more especially as I have told them,
that, if I have to pay it, it must be taken out of the small
sum of £280 which I have still reserved of Sir G. Grey's
money, with which I hoped to build some additional
accommodation for Our poor boys, who now eat, sleep,
play, study, and worship, 37 of them besides young men,
all in one room.
“But Mr. Hawkins has gone even further than this. . . . .
When Mr. Wathen landed, seeing how very suitable persons
they were, I entertained the hope that I might secure them
for the heads of a Girls' Institute to match our Boys'. I
then hoped that the Governor, as he had often promised,
would take Dr. Callaway wholly off my hands, and that
would have set £2OO at my disposal. So I thought in that
case I should be able to allow Mr. Wathen (or if not him,
some one else) {, IOO a year as head, and £50 for the Sup-
port of ten girls. But feeling a little delicacy about absorb-
ing so much of the Society's money on this particular
station on my own responsibility (though I have not the
slightest doubt as to the expediency and ultimate necessity
of so doing), and wishing further to pay all respect and
attention to the ‘old gentleman’ at Pall Mall, I wrote to
put the matter before the Society, and to ask their leave to
reserve the £150 of their grant for that purpose, if I saw
96 IIFE OF BISHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. III.
the thing was practicable at any time. Now what do you
suppose Mr. Hawkins writes in reply 2 “The Committee
trust that they see in your proposal to reserve a portion of
the grant of £IOOO a year for a girls' school proof that the
allowance which they were able to grant last year was suffi-
cient for the present wants of the diocese '1 1 | And that
when he knows that there are I2O,OOO savages in the dis-
trict, and scarcely a teacher among them all,—when he
knows that C.M.S. spends £11,000 per ann. upon the 70,000
natives of New Zealand, in addition to what the S.P.G.,
the Wesleyans, the R. Catholics, and others spend—whereas
here all that is spent by S.P.G. is £1500 per ann., and the
other bodies are doing absolutely nothing or next to nothing.
In fact, 6.1500 will just support four stations, and at the
very least we need ten. I have written to ask the Society
to make another grant of £ IOOO a year; and if Mr. Gell
will put his shoulder to the wheel, we shall get it. But Mr.
Hawkins goes on to add, “They are, however, of opinion,
that such reservations are hardly within the meaning of the
Society's grants for present purposes.' Now what am I to
do 2 If I had (as I have) spent the whole {, IOOO, and then
asked for an additional £150, I should have had the charge
brought against me of first obtaining block sums, and then
special ones. Now that, to obviate this (and you see what
my principle has been all along, in spite of Mr. Hawkins's
letter to Mr. Gell), I propose to reserve £150 out of the
block sum for this specific purpose, I am told that this is
not to be done. What, then, is to be done 2 . . . .
“The popular style which suits so well an English audience is
not exactly that which our natives require. They want
simplicity—distinctness; and the teacher must have the
power of realising their exact condition, as entirely ignorant
of all our conventional phrases, of our ordinary knowledge,
of everything except what their savage life must teach them
by daily experience, but withal as intelligent enough, and
capable of taking in any mental food which is fit for them,
and digesting it, if it be digestible. And then it requires
patience, patience, patience, by means of which Mr. Baugh
1858. AARLY WORK /AW MA 7.4/. 97
re. -- *-*=~ * * *
** - W - -ºx -- - -
has succeeded in obtaining wonderful results in the short
time we have had him. I send you the first results of our
boys' efforts at printing, the whole being composed and
struck off by themselves with Mr. Baugh's superintendence.
Our white printer will not lend a hand to help them.
Indeed, I should not be surprised if there is some sort of
trade union here, formed to exclude the natives from being
taught any mechanical trades.”
The following letters, written during this year (1858), were
cited against the writer at the so-called Capetown trial in
1863:—
TO THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
“BISHOPSTOWE, March 2, 1858.
“I am afraid you will be grieved this mail by a communica-
tion from the Dean. Of what kind it will be, I cannot, of
course, say beforehand ; but the simple fact is that I am
directly at issue with him on the subject of our Lord's real
presence in the Holy Eucharist, and that I feel bound to
protest against the views he holds, to the utmost of my
power. . . . But these things are trifles compared with what
will cause you much greater pain, whether you agree with
my views or differ from them. May God guide, and
comfort, and keep you, in this and all the other many
trials by which I fear your path is beset.”
TO THE SAME.
“April 3, 1858.
“By this mail you will receive from me a copy of the sermons
which I have preached on the Holy Eucharist, and another,
I expect, from the Dean. What your own views are on the
subject in question I know not. . . . I am grieved that you
should be troubled in this matter, when you have so much
else to trouble you ; but unless I am judged and deposed
as a heretic, I must live and die preaching the doctrines of
these sermons in this my post of duty, and it will be
miserable to feel that every sermon I preach will sound to
VOL. I. II
98 I./FE OF BISAIOP COLENSO. CHAP. III.
the Dean as heresy. . . . I need hardly say that under such w
circumstances it will be impossible for us to work together
with any cordiality henceforward. . . . And if I am not
myself to be removed from my office, heartily glad should
I be if one of [his friends] would present him with a good
living in England.”
TO THE SAME.
“August 2, 1858.
“You will see that one of our resolutions requests me to
ascertain how this stands from the Primate. I need hardly
say that the reference was made to him rather than to your-
self, from no want of respectful sense of duty to you as
Metropolitan, but because it is considered that a question
of this nature, which was not of the nature of an appeal
from a judicial decision, but one of inquiry respecting the
principles of the Church of England, ought more properly
to be addressed to the Primate.”
These passages from letters written with the frankness of
private or unofficial correspondence were recited at the so-
called trial in Capetown by way of showing that the Bishop
of Natal had thus far recognised the Metropolitical jurisdic-
tion of the Bishop of Capetown. They certainly show a great
regard and respect for himself personally, and a readiness to
acknowledge and correct errors and mistakes, if any such had
been made ; and, doing this, they explain the language of
Bishop Cotterill, of Grahamstown, when he speaks of Bishop
Gray as fully expecting to find in Bishop Colenso a willing
instrument for the furtherance of his plans. This impression
would naturally be strengthened by some passages in a letter
from Bishop Colenso “to the clergy and laity of the united
Church of England and Ireland in the Diocese of Natal,” dated
August II, I858. In this letter, which was also cited at the
so-called trial, he mentions that Bishop Gray, declining to
pronounce an official judgement on the question raised by
º
1858. - AARZ Y WORK IN AWA TAZ. 99
Dean Green, had given an opinion to the effect that, while
the Dean's statements went far beyond the teaching of the
Church of England, those of the Bishop of Natal, or some of
them, were cast in a form which might lead to misunderstanding.
“Such,” added Bishop Colenso, “being the opinion of the
Metropolitan on this point, I conclude there must be passages
in my sermon which are liable to be thus misrepresented.”
The admission might imply an excess of deference; but it
could do nothing more. The question of authority in this
matter was put aside ; and Bishop Gray administered to
Dean Green a very wholesome rebuke for having without
cause presented his Bishop as teaching false doctrines, and
expressed his hope that as a Christian man he would express
his sorrow for the slight which he had offered to the Bishop in
his own Cathedral. The Dean had continued sitting in his
place in the choir, before the congregation, during the Holy
Communion, refusing to communicate with the Bishop, and
compelling him to go through the whole service on an
ordination Sunday alone. By this method of Jeddart justice,
Mr. Green condemned the Bishop without trial and even
without accusation, and left the proof to be found or not
found, as the case might be, afterwards.
In this matter the Dean had acted with one other clergy-
man only ; and the Bishop naturally felt that such action
struck at the root of all Church order. He wrote, therefore, to
the Bishop of Capetown, November 19, 1858, pointing out that
they had been probably led to take this course by the lan-
guage of Bishop Gray himself, who had said that “Presbyters
may for grave matters present a bishop.” Against the inter-
pretation put on this expression by these clergymen the
Bishop of Natal emphatically protested on the ground of
Church order and common propriety. This interpretation
was that a single Presbyter, or two or three, in a diocese
might present the Diocesan. The Bishop adged —
:::" ::: H 2
:
©
©
•
©
O
&
ſe
* >
IOO JLIFE OF BISA/OP COLEAVSO. CHAP. III.
“I find that the American Church, who have doubtless well
considered authorities in this matter, beyond what, with the
limited means at my command, I am able to do, have laid
it down as a rule that a bishop, or two-thirds of the clergy,
alone can present a bishop. And this precedent appears to
me to be confirmed by a sense of common propriety.”
Another letter, written in December 1858, shows how clearly
the Bishop of Natal had already discerned and laid down the
lines within which the controversy must be decided. It will
be seen, therefore, that, although the circumstances were
changed five years later, there was no change in his position,
and therefore no room for the charge that he then hit upon a
mode of resistance and escape of which before he had not
even dreamed. The letter speaks for itself.
TO THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
“ December 1, 1858.
“I hope that when the Bench of Bishops meets, they will take
into consideration the question of metropolitical jurisdiction
as well as the constitution of Church Councils. . . . So, too,
I use the word Province of the South African dioceses ; but
only in a popular way. I see clearly Canon Jenkins, and
probably the Dean, does not—but looks upon you as an
independent Metropolitan. That you would be, doubtless,
if you were Metropolitan by Church authority, and not by
Royal Patent. But it seems to me that we are really still
in a certain sense within the Province of Canterbury, by
virtue of the clause which makes your proceedings subject,
not merely to the supervision, but to the revision, of the
Primate. To take for example an instance. Suppose that
on a clergyman who had signed adherence to our present
rules of Council . . . I found it necessary, because of some
infringement of the rules, to pass a sentence of suspension,
and he appealed to you, and you (as you say you should
do) reversed my proceeding, of course I must submit to
this, as the Bishop of Exeter to the Archbishop in the case
1858. FARLY WORK IAW AVA. TAZ. 1or
of Mr. Gorham ; but I imagine that I should do right to
appeal to the Archbishop, not to reverse, but to revise, your
decision, and that, if he decided against you, you would be
bound in conscience to follow that judgement in case of any
future appeal of a similar kind. This is the way in which
our mutual relation at present presents itself to my own
mind. But it would be most desirable that the whole
matter should be settled for us by the proper authorities in
England.”
It follows that no judgement of a South African or any other
Metropolitan could be final, whether their patents were valid,
or not ; that the appeal from these Metropolitans to the
English Primate was to him not personally, but in his official
capacity; and thus that from him there lay the final appeal
to the Sovereign in Council. Although therefore points of
detail might remain unsettled, the path of procedure was
perfectly clear, and the path in South Africa was the same as
that in England, with the same precautions for the freedom of
all, and the same safeguards against merely ecclesiastical
decisions. But this administration was for Bishop Gray intoler-
able. He had already formulated to himself the constitution
of a Church with a discipline far more wide-reaching than that
which survived in the Church of England, and appealing to
theological standards which could not be imposed upon the
English clergy. When the more serious trouble came, Bishop
Gray expressed not merely surprise but astonishment at the
opposition which he then encountered; but there was really
no reason for either feeling. He had shut his eyes to the
warning ; but the warning had been given with unmistakable
clearness. *
We shall soon see the Committee of the Church Council in
collision with Dean Green. This assembly of clergy and laity
had been convened, as the Bishop was specially careful to tell
them, not as a synod nor as possessing any legislative powers,
I O2 A.IFE OF AP/SHOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. III.
but simply as a deliberative conference, summoned not for
making laws binding all members of the Church in the diocese,
but to determine whether such a synod should be called at
some future time. This Council, therefore, could bind only
himself, so far at least as this, that, without pledging himself
beforehand to adopt implicitly any advice which they might
give him, he should feel it his duty to follow any course
recommended to him by a decisive vote of the conference,
if possible, and as far as possible, in all points.
If such a legislative assembly should be hereafter convoked,
the name given to it would be a matter of no moment. It
might be known as a synod, or by any other title.
“But the real question that will be before you is simply this.
Is it desirable that at regular intervals a body similar to
this should be convened, for deliberating and deciding upon
matters properly falling within its cognisance ; that is to
say, matters of discipline and not of doctrine, which are of
consequence for the progress and welfare of the Church of
England in this diocese ? I say, matters properly falling
within its cognisance, because the power of such a synod
must evidently be limited by the fact of our connexion with
the Mother Church of England. And the limits in question
are very clearly defined in the Bill which was introduced
into the British Parliament about three years ago, by the
Archbishop of Canterbury, for the purpose of giving legal
effect and validity to the proceedings of colonial synods.”
This Bill, carried through the Lords, was lost in the lower
House, chiefly owing to the opinion that for the management
of Church affairs in the colonies statutable aid was unnecessary,
and, if unnecessary, highly inexpedient. Colonial dioceses
were now left, in matters within their cognisance, to act for
themselves. From the subjects within their range the
Authorised Version of the Scriptures, the Book of Common
Prayer, and the Articles of Religion must be excluded ; but
1858. FAA’/ P WORK IAV AVA 7.4/. IO3
they would have power to deal with differences arising between
the Bishop or clergy and the laity in any part of the diocese;
with the general questions of finance in reference to Church
work, whether among the Christian or heathen population of
the land; of the extension of Church work either among
towns or villages; of joining, where it might be practicable so
to do, the office of school teacher with the work of the
ministry; of the management of Church schools, and education
generally; of patronage, clergy discipline, the tenure of Church
property, and other like subjects. The convening of such an
assembly would relieve him as Bishop of an immense weight
of care and responsibility which he had now to bear alone, by
having to decide points of importance by his own single
judgement, assisted only by the counsel of a few of the
presbyters.
“I have longed,” he added, “for the time when the whole body
of the clergy and the laity who should come to my help
should together make their own laws, and change the
government of the Church in this diocese from an apparent
despotism under a single head, or from a state of anarchy
and confusion, to one of orderly and constitutional rule.”
There remained the question of the constitution of such an
assembly, and this in its turn involved the consideration of
parishes, the qualification of parishioners, and of candidates for
representing the laity in synod, as well as of the manner of
voting (whether in person or by voting papers). But without
waiting for the summoning of such an assembly, there was
one subject which he especially desired to commend to their
attention ; namely, the arrangement of the difference which
had arisen between himself as Bishop and the parish of Durban.
“I would here,” he said, “place myself wholly in the hands of
the conference, assured that you will consider both what is
due to my office among you, and what is due to the peace
IO4 MAAPE OF BISAOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. III.
and welfare of the parish of Durban," and, with it, of the
whole Church in this Diocese. Most thankful, indeed, shall
I be, if no other good result from this conference but the
healing of this one breach, which has been a source of grief,
* It is, perhaps, enough to say here that in this parish a good deal of
opposition had been offered to arrangements which, for the mere purpose
of securing orderly Church government and administration, seemed to the
Bishop not merely desirable but necessary. To the request that a revenue
might be raised by the letting of all the seats in the church the Bishop
had replied that he strongly objected to the pew-rent system ; that all the
members of the Church of England “have an equal right to share in the
privileges of God's House, where rich and poor should be able to meet
together in the presence of Him who is the common Maker and Father
of all.” He refused, therefore, to sanction the mortgaging of the pew-rents
in order to clear off the debt on the building ; but he expressed his readi-
ness to take the responsibility of the debt upon himself, relying “for the
return of the money which * he had “already lent, or may be required to
expend for the completion of the buildings, solely upon the voluntary
offerings of the congregation.” He had directed that Holy Baptism
should in his diocese “be always administered, as prescribed in the
Rubric, in the time of Divine Service, after the second lesson.” He had
also urged obedience to the Rubrics relating to the offertory, and ex-
pressed his conviction that the people would soon come to value the
privilege of giving, be it ever so little, according to their substance, for the
service of God, and of having their gifts “laid reverently by the minister
on the table of their Lord, and thankfully presented with a prayer for
God’s blessing upon it” (Sermon at Richmond, Natal, 1856). In this
work of Church administration he was aided by Archdeacon, afterwards
Bishop, Mackenzie. But the moderation of the Bishop's counsels failed
to satisfy a certain section of the parishioners of St. Paul's, Durban, and
their opposition took a form which threatened an outbreak of physical
violence. The Bishop therefore issued an order for the closing of the
yet unconsecrated building, until he should be assured that no such
attempts at disturbance would be made, at the same time directing the
Archdeacon to hire a room at the Bishop's charges for the celebration of
Divine Service. The party of malcontents chose to treat all this as an
offensive display of sacerdotalism, and to regard the Bishop's directions
as a virtual secession from the Church of England. Their manifesto,
April 1856, called upon their brother parishioners to “stand fast to the
truth,” and to “trample over these efforts at innovation.” The clouds
seemed for a moment to be rather dark; but the troubles gradually
passed away, without committing the Bishop to any departures from the
decent order of the Church of England.
1858. AAA’ L Y WORK ZAV AVA 7TAZ. IQ5.
#
I doubt not, to others concerned as well as myself: we shall
not then have met in vain.”
The questions of the intelligent Zulu, which furnished to
English journalists an excellent subject for merriment and
mockery, were to have serious consequences for the colony of
Natal, and for the world which lay beyond its limits. They
were to provoke the zeal of the Bishop of Capetown to the
illegal exercise of an irresponsible power, which under the
guise of making peace introduced only a long and disastrous
schism. To a certain extent the seed sown by Bishop Gray
after the so-called Capetown trial fell on congenial ground.
The elements of division had long been at work on the soil of
Natal, and they were furnished not by Protestants and Puritans,
but by those who would rather have associated themselves
with Thomas of Canterbury or Hildebrand. Among the
clergy of the Natal diocese were some who had a very hearty
admiration for the method after which Gregory VII. dealt
with the emperor at Canossa, and who had every wish, so far
as their power went, to go and do likewise. This is the
Substance of a complaint urged against Dean Green, Canon
Jenkins, and the Rev. R. Robertson in the Report of a
Committee appointed (1858) by the Church Council, of which
more will be said hereafter, to consider the general question
of their secession. So far as it affected themselves only, their
action was a matter of supreme indifference ; but it ceased to
be so from the point of view of the general interests and wel-
fare of the Church in Natal. These clergymen, it seems, had
withdrawn from the preliminary Church Conferences on pleas
which were proved to be mere pretence. Their real ground was
a resolution not to sit in any assembly which questioned or
denied their right to dictatorship and called upon them to vote
along with the laity. The Report stated it as an indubitable
fact that Dean Green looked upon himself not as a fallible
Ioff LIFE OF BISHOP COLEASO. CHAP. III.
human being, intrusted with special spiritual functions, but
as an unerring interpreter of Scripture, holding that not only
the laity but his fellow-presbyters and the bishops were bound
to receive his interpretations, and to bow to his opinions and
belief. The Dean, it seems, had expressed surprise that the
Church Conference “did not tremble when he told them that
they were acting in opposition to the Bible.” If he did so
speak, the words of the Report were not one whit too strong.
In the same Hildebrandine spirit, Dean Green, as we have seen,
had at an ordination Service refused to communicate with the
Bishop because the latter had preached a sermon 1 of which the
Dean was pleased to disapprove. His action revealed a re-
markable rule which in the Dean's judgement ought to be
followed in matters concerning himself.
“He says,” the Report tells us, “that in case of any difference
of opinion between himself and the laity of the Church, the
laity are bound to yield obedience to him, pending an
appeal to higher ecclesiastical authority, just as in case of a
difference of opinion between the clergy and the Bishop the
clergy would be bound to obey the Bishop, pending an
appeal to yet higher authority. When the case of difference
of opinion between the Bishop and himself arises, he at
once, and without hesitation, disregards the authority of the
Bishop, while he makes his appeal. He thus wishes for
unqualified and unhesitating obedience when it is himself
who is to be obeyed. When it is himself who is to be
obedient, he thinks it the more convenient, or more correct,
practice to ignore the authority of his immediate superior,
the Bishop of the diocese.”
In such case he could of course discharge in his own person
the functions of accuser, jury, and judge. Having thus exer-
cised summary jurisdiction by insulting the Bishop within the
choir of his Cathedral, Mr. Green could condescend to summon
1 One of the sermons on the Eucharist already mentioned, p. 99.
1858. ACARLY WORK ZAV AWA TAZ. Ioy
the Chapter to consider the conduct of the Bishop in putting
forth heresy. Such conduct, the Report adds, “speaks with
an emphasis that additional words could not increase.” In
the meeting held for the purpose of electing delegates for the
Church Conference, Mr. Green, although he declined to oppose
this course, yet insisted that the framers of the Constitution of
the Church Council had been guilty of altering the Consti-
tution of the Church of Christ, and “further avowed that he
held their guilt to be akin to that of those who wounded
the natural body of Christ while on earth.” The Committee,
therefore, declare summarily that while the Dean holds the
Council to be guilty of heinous sin, they on their side hold
him guilty of insubordination towards his Bishop, of arrogant
assumption towards his brother clergymen and the laity of
his Church, and of extraordinary perversion of the meaning
of Scripture.
Among the settlers in the district of Durban at this time
was a clergyman who, in the words of the Committee, “had
made himself somewhat notorious by adopting in the church
of Pinetown obsolete gorgeous-coloured vestments,” and who
had been forbidden by the Bishop to minister in his diocese
without a licence. Objecting to an order issued by the Bishop
with reference to the offertory, this clergyman informed the
Bishop that his spiritual authority lay in abeyance, and that he
purposed to continue to exercise his powers as a priest of the
Church of England. Taking courage, he then wrote to Bishop
Gray, presenting the Bishop of Natal as a schismatic, and was
informed by the Metropolitan that, if any clergyman in the
diocese of Capetown had pursued the same course, he should
have deemed it his duty, after sundry warnings, to excom-
municate him for disobedience. The clergyman thus rebuked
wrote again to Bishop Gray, telling him that he differed from
him in this matter, and that he should continue to celebrate
the Eucharist after his own fashion without giving heed either
Io3 I/FE OF BISA/OP COLEAVSO. CHAP. III.
to him or to the Bishop of Natal. This clergyman, the
Committee add, Dean Green took into his confidence, and
made him his adviser and counsellor.
The conduct of these four “priests,” as they loved to style
themselves, becomes important as a sign not merely of
division but of anarchy, which should have warned Bishop
Gray of the dangerous nature of the materials with which he
had to deal. In his own subsequent proceedings against the
Bishop of Natal he might have these and other such men on
his side ; but any successor in his metropolitical see who should
follow a Puritan or Protestant model would be resisted by
them with fully as much pertinacity as that with which he
felt himself bound to withstand Bishop Colenso. The schism
effected by Dean Green and his supporters in 1858 was a token
of the temper to be exhibited later on in the so-called Church
of South Africa.
TO G. S. ALLNUTT, ESQ.
“BISHOPSTOWE, June 15, 1858.
“The Governor (Mr. Scott) has made a grant of £300 to this
Institution, which I hope he will allow me to use for build-
ing purposes. But there is no cordiality whatever on his
part towards us—no generosity. I am sure that he would
not have given a penny if he could have helped it. He did
hold back as long as he could, months after he had
promised £200 a year to Mr. Allison ; and at last was
compelled by force of circumstances—our work staring him
and everybody in the face in such a way that it could not
be passed over—to grant something ; and he has given as
little as he could. For when he gives £200 to Mr. Allison,
A 200 to Dr. Callaway, and £2OO to Mr. Pearse, neither of
whom has a single native to maintain (so that the whole
A 200 can be used for teachers), and neither of whom stands
in any need of buildings to accommodate 4o or 50 children,
as we do, it is plain that £300 to us is by no means a
proportional grant. Nay, the last two have not even begun
1858. EARLY WORK IAW AWA 7TAZ. Io9
their work; . . . . and Our work is well advanced, and
tested already by its fruits. We have four good printers,
and four young carpenters, and eight or ten agriculturists;
and besides all this we have, in addition to all our boys and
girls, a station work going on here quite as important as
at either of the other two stations,—I mean, a work among
adults, which we carry on here, as well as Our educational
proceedings. So that to have been just, the Governor should
have given us £300 per ann. for our schools (which will just
pay the expenses of the living and clothing of the children),
and £2OO (as he has given to the rest) for Our station, for
obtaining Industrial Teachers; and then for building our
Normal Institution, the only one in the colony, and which
will train teachers, I trust, for the whole land, he should
have given £500. As I have said, all that I can hope is
that he will allow his £300 to be spent in buildings. I may
thank Mr. Shepstone for getting this grant. I have ex-
plained how matters stand to Bishop Gray, and, as far as I
can, to Sir George Grey. If the former has any influence
with our present Colonial Secretary, and if our Church con-
troversies here do not stand in the way, I dare say our
Governor may get a hint from head-quarters; and I feel
sure he will if Sir G. Grey gets to England, and his voice is
heard in Downing Street. The change of Mr. Pine for Mr.
Scott is the old story of King Stork and King Log. We
must try to realise that one Ruler is over all, and work on
patiently and thankfully with what He gives us. But the
trial is to see precious time running away, and opportunities
wasted which may never be recovered. Our own natives
could now be reached everywhere, and the Zulu nation is
quite open to us; but nothing can be done with spirit as
regards either.”
TO THE SAME.
“July 3, 1858.
“Every month makes some important change in our circum-
stances here, and gets me, I dare Say, at S.P.G. the character
most undeserved, of changing my plans continually, as if it
I IO JL/ATE OF BASA/OA COLAEAVSO. CHAP. III.
were possible that matters could be conducted in such a
land as this, where everything is rough and raw, with the
order and certainty attainable in older colonies. . . . . At
this moment Mr. Scott has got himself, I imagine, into a
terrible difficulty. He has been giving away land by whole-
sale in the most unwise and wasteful manner. Nothing
could have been more rash and prodigal than his proceeding,
by which every third-rate person in the colony was enabled
to pick up a valuable piece of land. The result is that all
the choice land in the colony, except that which is to be
found in the reserves set apart for the natives ten years ago,
is given away for nothing, before an emigrant lands. Now
the emigrants are coming fast ; and one ship has just come,
and with it also, by the same mail, a very stringent order
from the Secretary of State that he is to give away no more
land, but to sell at an upset price of 4/– per acre. This will
be a most unfortunate thing for the new comers and the
many who are making preparations to come. And all this
has arisen from the Governor's rash and hasty measures
taken to please the populace; and without waiting, it would
seem, to see whether they would be approved by the Home
Government, he has committed himself to bring out these
emigrants. Some few voices were raised at the time in the
colony against the proceeding. But, naturally enough,
they were soon hushed, while every one was looking after his
own grant, and scrambling to get a good slice of the
colonial cake. But now will come the difficulty, and I fear
there will be great discontent and disappointment. As to
the colony itself, it is almost ruined by these large and
wasteful grants, in the hands of persons . . . . who are
utterly unable to deal with them profitably. But I foresee
what the Governor will look to for his escape. The poor
natives will be made to suffer; and the lands reserved for
them, which the Europeans have for some time been covet-
ing, will be taken away from them, unless Dr. Hodgkin
and other good friends of the Aborigines at home look well
after the matter. They have plundered the natives of
AIO,OOO a year in taxes, have done nothing whatever, year
1858. , EA R/L Y WOA’A WAV AVA 7TA/L. III
after year, to educate and improve them, and now make
their very ignorance and barbarism the excuse for motives
to plunder them of their lands also.
“Our Governor unhappily, though a most good-natured, is
one of the weakest of men. He has, from the very first, as
Dr. Mann tells me, had a very strong prejudice against our
work as being “unpractical'; and I am not sure that, on
his first arrival, the Doctor himself, either from the
Governor's talk or his own inexperience, did not share in,
and perhaps assist the prejudice. The fact is the Governor
came to the colony about eight months after we began
Our work with the young Savages, when, thank God, we had
made considerable progress with them, but yet things were
necessarily in the rough about us. . . . The Governor came,
but he never made a single inquiry as to what we were
doing or had done. He saw a little oasis in the midst of
the wilderness of heathen barbarism. And he seems to
have taken for granted that it was the most easy thing in
the world to effect what we had done,—that, in fact, we had
done nothing, we were not practical. The Governor's
notion of ‘practical’ seems to be confined to the idea of
raising cotton, and such-like out-of-doors occupations,
which may make a native a better machine for the purposes
of his European masters, but not a better or a nobler man.
It so happened that during that very year we had gathered
a good cotton crop, and our boys had been worked daily in
that employment. But the season was over when the
Governor came. He saw nothing of the labour, and as he
cared not to hear or learn any of our proceedings, he went
away from the station as wise and as prejudiced as he
came. . . . To my surprise, a few months after, I found
that he intended to set up Institutions of his own all over
the land, taking for granted that what we had done (by
patience and hard labour, and ‘practical skill’) he could do,
and far more. He tried his hand at an abortive experiment
on Zwart-Kop, and spent £600 or £700 most uselessly. The
whole thing came to the ground and has been utterly
abandoned, and was certainly one of the most absurd
II 2 A.JAZZ OF BISA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. III.
attempts at “practical working’ that I ever heard of. . . .
But I feel it to be due, partly to myself, but above all to
Mr. Baugh, who really deserves the credit of almost all that
has been done here—to let my friends know at all events,
whatever the Governor may think or say, that our present
state of efficiency in what Mr. Scott calls ‘industrial
pursuits’ is but the simple consequence of adhering steadily
to the course we have all along from the very first been
pursuing, gaining a step wherever we could, pushing on
from one point to another as opportunities enabled us,
adding one occupation to another as soon as we had the
means of doing so effectually, and so as not to break down
and be a laughing-stock at the very outset. . . . I have
long thought that I should like to speak out my mind to
you and any other dear friends at home on this point.
And I feel it to be due to Mr. Baugh, as well as to myself,
to say distinctly that our present industrial doings, and the
success which by God’s blessing has already attended them,
are not in the least degree due to any stimulus or assistance
we have lately received (except in sewing), but to the steady
developement of the plans we have all along been pursuing,
as far as circumstances allowed.”
TO THE REV. F. D. MAURICE.
“BISHOPSTowe, December 7, 1858.
“My DEAR FRIEND,
“I have just received the copy of your sermon on the
Eucharist, which I have been so long and so anxiously
expecting, because I have heard from your sister, and my
clergy and laity have heard from the Bishop of Capetown,
and through a private letter which the Dean has communi-
cated, that you dissent from the views expressed in my two
published sermons, and have in that sermon embodied your
own views in distinction from them. I have read the
sermon, I need not tell you, with the deepest interest ; and
time being precious to both of us, and the subject of vital
consequence, I will not beat about the bush for words to
58. EARLY WORK IAW WATA L. II.3
express what my impressions are on reading it, but come
at once to the point. My conviction, then, is confirmed
that you have never actually read my sermons (having, I am
quite sure, plenty of other work to do), but have been con-
tent with hearing from your sister, or from Bishop Gray,
some extracts from them, coupled with the interpretations
which they from their point of view might very likely put
upon the whole. I say this because, from beginning to end
with the exception of two short expressions, one at the
beginning and one at the end, in which you seem to set
forth the thesis and the sum of the discourse, I do not find
a single sentence with which I do not heartily agree, nor
any view expressed with regard to the Eucharist and our
Lord’s presence in it which differs from that which in far
feebler words I have tried to set forth in my sermons. I
must conclude, therefore, that the two passages I refer to
must be interpreted by the intermediate context, and that
though I do not think I should use either of them myself
without some modification, yet in reality they mean no
more than I myself should try to utter in my own way.
The first of these passages is that where you say, ‘Can we .
say that the Presence of our Lord, which is promised in the
Eucharist, is a presence of a different kind from that which
a faithful Christian may expect in ordinary prayer 2' And
you go on to condemn a negative reply. If you really do
mean that there is a difference in kind in our Lord's presence
at the Eucharist, so that then, and then only, ‘ can there be
a communication to believing souls of our Lord's manhood
—for this is what my Dean asserts—and that this difference
in Åind is caused by the presence of the priest, which is
after all the point which lies at the bottom of the whole
question, then I must admit that there is a serious difference
between your views and mine. Otherwise I have said, as
you have, that “we eat the flesh and drink the blood of the
Son of Man, when we approach in humble faith the holy
Eucharist, in order that so we may be able more vividly to
realise His presence at all times, and may eat Him, and
live by Him habitually and constantly.' I have said that
VOL. I. I
II4 I./FE OF BISAIOP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. III.
“it is the appointed means for keeping us in mind of the real
presence of our Lord with us at all times.’
“The other passage in your sermon is where you say that
‘this Sacrament transcends all other modes of intercourse,'
and proceed to assume that those who think with me,
‘place it on the same level with them, forgetting that it is
the specially Christian ordinance, whereas I have said, “We
must hold that the highest and holiest form of worship, in
which we can eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son
of Man, is when we partake of the one bread and the one
cup as members of one body in Him,” in addition to such
words as I have quoted before. But would you say that a
missionary deacon, because he lives far away among the
heathen, and has no priest at hand, cannot partake of the
same kind of spiritual food as his more favoured brother
living in town, or that a pious Christian who lives 20 or
30 miles away from town in this land, and thinks it moré
profitable to himself and his family to hold family worship
at home on Sunday than to ride into town in a broiling
Sun or pouring rain to partake of the Holy Eucharist, was
therefore debarred from any share in the same Æind of
spiritual food which the priest alone can offer him P For
this, I repeat, is the real point at issue in the conflict which
I am engaged in. The Dean has distinctly put in words a
statement of his belief that “in the tzwo Sacraments there is
a communication (if by believing we are able to receive it)
from Our Lord's manhood to us’ (I do not quite like the
expression, but it is his own—I mean the ‘Lord's man-
hood'); ‘but in the ordinary assemblies there is not a
Communication to all believing souls of our Lord's man-
hood.’ And I distinctly assert that if there be in the Lord's
Supper a ‘communication of our Lord's manhood,' or
whatever may be the mystical blessing expressed by eating
His body and drinking His blood, we have no Scriptural
warrant for saying that the same kind of blessing is not
given in other modes of communion with Him who is our
hope, however needful it may be in order to receive that
blessing fitly at all times, that we should obey Our Lord's
1858. AARLY WORK IAV AVA 7TAZ. II 5
command with respect to the Holy Eucharist, as He shall
give us the call and opportunity.
“P.S.—I have also read the Sermon on Confession. And here
again the question arises, What do you understand by
Priest ? Do you mean an episcopally ordained minister
with the apostolical Succession only 2 or would you say (as
I certainly should) that the absolution which came from the
lips of a ‘discreet and learned ’ old Dissenting minister,
with the experience of age and the ripe savour of a tried
and faithful Christian life about him, was just as valid to
the sin-burthened conscience as that which might be pro-
nounced by some young Curate full of his notions of priestly
authority ?”
TO G. S. ALLNUTT, ESQ.
“December 7, 1858.
“. . . . We have not much news to communicate by this
mail, being principally interested with the desperate struggle
now going on between our Lieutenant-Governor and his
Legislative Council. The latter have refused to do any
business unless the £5,000 reserved upon the Civil List for
native purposes (out of which we get 4,300 for this Institu-
tion) shall be left in their hands instead of the Governor's.
I do not much fear the result, even if they do get possession
of it, as I think, however other Mission Stations may fall
short of the requirements, our work here is sufficiently
‘practical' and successful to obtain their approval and
support. But this dispute between the Executive and
Legislative Powers is a serious interruption of the welfare
of the colony. Our educational affairs especially must all
remain in the background for the present.
“I am at present, and have been for some time past, very
closely engaged with the Zulu grammar, which has now
reached the most difficult part, and requires very close
attention.”
I 2
II6 AAFE OF BISA/OP COLENSO. CHAP. III.
TO THE SAME.
“February 5, 1859.
“We have had by this mail a very kind conciliatory letter
from Bishop Gray. His tone is completely changed, and I
think his letter will do more to heal our divisions than any
severity could have done.”
The following letter, addressed to his brother-in-law, gives
the Bishop's thoughts and judgement with reference to the
mission undertaken by Archdeacon Mackenzie. The Bishop
of Capetown had proposed to the Archdeacon that he should
serve as a missionary Bishop, to be placed under the see of
Capetown.
To C. J. BUNYON, ESQ.
“BISHOPSTOWE, May 9, 1859.
“. . . The real hitch about the Zulu bishopric has, I believe,
been all along the difficulty I have felt in recommending a
man who has shown in many instances so great a want of
judgement, and who within the last month has been visiting
Mr. Crompton, an open and avowed rebel, who, having
no license, administers both sacraments in his own chapel
within a few yards of the Parish Church which he never
enters, the altar decked up with all the frippery of ritualism
and lighted up with candles at mid-day, and who loses no
opportunity of abusing his Bishop and showing an utter
contempt for my authority. When the Zulu bishopric was
first mooted, I warmly recommended Mackenzie, whose
many excellent points no one could more heartily recognise
than myself. But then broke out our dissensions, and he
has ever since followed the Dean through the mud, wherever
he dragged him. I was obliged to say that I could not
now maintain my first recommendation of him, and must
wait to see him acquire a little more experience before I
could say that he was fit for such a difficult post as that of
Bishop to the Zulus. After a while I saw that, perhaps, he
might be sent for a time as a missionary presbyter, meaning,
* The clergyman mentioned already, p. Ioy.
1859. AARL Y WORK ZAV AVA 7TAZ. I 17
of course, that he should be sent by me and be under my
direction. For, as you are aware, we are here in the closest
relations with the Zulus. . . I have always regarded them
as an outlying portion of my diocese to be taken in hand
on the first opportunity, and, as you know, have made all
my arrangements to be able to go among them. Now I
feel very much the putting of this mission, if it is carried
Out, under the see of Capetown, to be very undesirable ;
and I would much rather have Mackenzie made Bishop at
Once of the Zulus, though retaining as strongly as ever my
distrust of his judgement. He may do better among the
heathen than among the white or a mixed population. . .
However, if he is to go under the see of Capetown on this
mission, or, indeed, if he is to go at all, (as now, it would
seem, he must, having been so formally asked and being
willing,) he will ultimately be made Bishop, and may as
well be made so at once. One of his sisters, Alice, is now
staying with us, and is, in every way, an admirable, first-rate
missionary. Now so greatly do I object to the notion of
his being directed from Capetown, or my acting as mere
deputy for Capetown in the matter . . . that I have written
to say that I prefer to withdraw my objections to his being
consecrated, and recommend him as earnest, devout, and
energetic (saying nothing of his judgement). You will hear
what course affairs take at S.P.G. But what I want to put
you on the guard about is this, not to let him come out as
an S.P.G. missionary, to work in the Zulu country under the
See of Capetown. It is a piece of ecclesiastical theory, but
a practical absurdity. If he comes out as Bishop with
S.P.G. money, well and good. I shall be rejoiced to give
him all the help and counsel I can, and he will be then,
properly, under the Metropolitan as the other suffragans
are. But if he comes out as S.P.G. missionary, then I can-
not but hope that the Society will think it right, as I have
so often called their attention to Zulu matters, to place him
under me ; and, in fact, there is no reason why the Church
represented by the Archbishop and bench of Bishops (I
suppose) should not request me to regard the Zulu country
II.8 I/FE OF BISAIOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. III.
as an archdeaconry attached to my See, until a Bishop is
appointed.”
The Bishop's patience was again tested this year (July 1859)
by the misconduct and ingratitude of a man named Ryder,
who had served not only as a builder, but also as a general
overseer at the Station for nearly two years. From the first
this man had shown, with some good qualities, not a little
peculiarity of manner, which after a time seemed to point to
serious lack of principle. It was not without reluctance that
the Bishop parted with prepossessions in his favour for a
judgement less severe than that which others were disposed to
pass upon him. The story is one of no special interest now,
and it may therefore be enough to say that during the last
few months of his employment the man seemed to cast off all
restraint, and resorted to the law courts for damages against
the Bishop who had been faulty, if faulty at all, only in
showing him far too much kindness. He had steeped himself in
perjury, having sworn, for instance, that he had made 70,000
raw bricks when the total was 37,750 ; that he had bought
forty loads [of wood] to burn them when he had bought twenty-
two. But the judge was a popularity hunter; with him the
Bishop as a clergyman must be wrong in a matter of business;
and in spite of Ryder's contradictions, he obtained from the
jury a verdict for a sum which the Bishop could ill afford
to lose, and for which the plaintiff had not a shadow of
rightful claim.
TO THE REV. F. HOSE, RECTOR OF DUNSTABLE.
“BISHOPSTowe, July 4, 1859.
“I was rejoiced to see your handwriting by the last mail, as
a reminder of the past, and a pledge that I am not altogether
forgotten by some of my old friends in England. You do
not mention the present or future name of the lady about
1859. AzA R/C Y WORK ZAV AVA. TAZ. II9
4.
&
whom you write. But I shall gladly show her any attention
in my power when I get to know of her arrival in the
colony. I fear, however, it is but little I can do to show an
interest in her welfare. My rule is to visit the white popula-
tion, or rather the Small centres of white population, once a
year. But my time is principally occupied with work for
the heathen. This is at present, I fancy, the only diocese
where the work of preparing grammars, dictionaries, and
translations must necessarily fall upon the Bishop. Our
work began here with the foundation of the See; and though
other Christian bodies—as usual—preceded us into the field,
they had done very little indeed towards laying down the
language for other teachers, or preparing books for the use
of the natives. Our Church of England missions are far in
advance in this diocese in each of these respects. And now,
it may be, our Church is about to stretch out her hands for
a wider grasp, and to embrace the Zulu people, and the
tribes of the Sovereignty and of Kaffraria within her direct
influence.”
TO THE REV. T. P. FERGUSON.
“BISHOPSTOWE, August 9, 1859.
The great drawback here is that the country is already
saturated with a corruption of Christianity, and the natives
have acquired such a view of the character of God and of
the Gospel as keeps them back from desiring to have a
much closer acquaintance with it. This they have obtained,
partly from the example they have constantly before them
in the lives of unfaithful Christians—partly from the mis-
taken teaching of the missionaries. ‘God said, Let them be
destroyed : the Son rose up and said, Let them be saved,
let me die in their place.’ When such a sentence as this
is found in an elementary Catechism of the most influential
missionary body in the colony (besides our own) as the
watchword of Christian teaching instead of St. John's
‘Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He first
loved us, and sent His Son,’ &c., how hard, and impossible,
I 20 IIFE OF BISAMOP COLE/VSO. CHAP. IIT.
humanly speaking, it must be to convey to these converts
a true idea of the Gospel, and how must the idea they have
received be still for them distorted in its transmission to
others P’’
TO C. J. BUNYON, ESQ.
“BISHOPSTowe, Wovember 8, 1859.
“Your letter reached me outspanned for breakfast, a few hours
from Panda's chief kraal, which I had left the previous
evening, after a very pleasant and successful interview with
the Zulu King. I had already visited his son Keshwayo,
and hope that I have established happy relations with both.
Panda has given us a most desirable site for a mission
station. . . . You will have gathered from my letters that
it was no part of my own original purpose to go myself as
Bishop to the Zulu country at this moment. I did and do
contemplate the going there ultimately if the Church calls
me to the task. But I do not think the country is quite
ripe at the moment for that step being taken. Until the
succession is settled—which may be soon or may be delayed
a year or two, -I think the Mission work in Zululand can
better be overlooked by a Bishop here than by one on the
spot. A resident missionary would, I think, be in no
danger; but a resident Bishop of our Church would be,
unless the father can be brought to recognise Keshwayo as
the future ruler. . . . . I shall, however, do nothing rashly
in the matter of the Zulu bishopric. My present feeling is,
and my dear wife's also, that I ought to go, if called ; and
if I ought, I hope I shall be found willing to go, and so will
Frances, from no mere blind enthusiasm for black people,
but from a simple conviction that we are in this world just
to do the Master's work, wherever He or His Providence
may see fit to place us, and for no other purpose whatever.”
TO THE SAME.
“BISHOPSTOwe, January 5, 1860.
“I daresay that Archdeacon Mackenzie's having accepted (I
suppose) the headship of the Zambesi Mission will have set
1860. EARLY WORK ZAV NATAZ. I2:I
-. --rr---ºr-z = - - -
at rest some of his friends' complaints of which you speak.
But, in case of its being necessary for you at any time to
defend my character in the matter, I will just set down a
few facts respecting it:-
“(I) It is wholly untrue that he went to England expecting
to be made Bishop of the Zulus or to go at all to the Zulus.
He knew perfectly well that I was going to offer myself,
weeks before he left Natal, and might have stopped here
altogether, if he had pleased.
“(2) It is equally incorrect to say, as perhaps some may say,
that he went home to be made Bishop of Natal in my place.
He himself told the Bishop of Oxford and Bishop of Cape-
town that I wished this, and then wrote to me to say that
he began to think he had not correctly stated what I said
about the matter, which was true enough, for all I said
was that I felt sure the Bishop of Capetown would nominate
him, if I vacated the See (and that would only be if the
funds were forthcoming for the Zulu country, which as yet
they are not), but that I did not at all know what the
Archbishop of Canterbury might say to it.
“(3) Then why did he go home at all 2 Partly because of
the act of the Bishop of Capetown, in writing to offer him
the Zulu mission, telling him (what he had not told me)
that it would be placed under himself as Metropolitan,—
and partly because of Mackenzie's own want (as I think) of
proper feeling towards myself, in that, while he heard me
stating my very strong objections to that proposal,—so
strong, as I told him, that I should use all the influence in
my power to prevent its being carried out, -he was still
determined to accept the offer of the Metropolitan and set
my wishes at naught. Upon this, rather than have a
collision with the Bishop of Capetown, which I certainly
should have had, if his proposal had been carried out, -
having only the time from IO p.m. on Sunday night till
8 a.m. the next morning, to hear for the first time of the
proposal, and decide what advice to give or what steps to
take in consequence,—I said he had much better go, as he
was determined to go under the Bishop of Capetown, and
I 22 JAAPE OF BISA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. III.
be made Bishop, than go as missionary. But within a week
or so, having had time to deliberate and take counsel with
my wife upon the whole matter, I communicated to him my
decision to offer myself for the Zulu work, with which he
expressed himself, and I cannot doubt sincerely, to be
altogether satisfied,—I might say, deleg/ated.
“(4) But if I said anything definite to him, as to the direct
purpose of his going home, it was that the best thing that
could be done would be to send him to the Zambesi, which
has actually come to pass, I suppose.”
TO FRED. D. DYSTER, M.D.
“BISHOPSTOwe, Feòruary 8th, 1860.
“I have long had your letter by me, intending to reply to it,
but wishing to be able to say something definite concerning
my own future movements, as I am sure you will take an
interest in our work, and may be able in some way to
forward it. With respect to the Polygamy question, all
my experience has deepened and confirmed the convictions
I have already expressed in print, that a most grievous
error has been committed all along by Our Missionary
Societies in the course they have been hitherto adopting
with regard to native converts who have had more than one
wife at the time of their receiving the word of life in the
Gospel. Lately I have had the pleasure of meeting a very
able missionary of the Rhenish Society from the S. W.
coast of Africa among the Damaras, who told me that they
constantly acted on the principle I have advocated, and
that the best man of his flock, the most devout and
spiritually-minded, a constant reader of the Gospel and
most humble, earnest inquirer after truth, and a regular
Communicant, was also a polygamist. He told me also
that the whole Lutheran Church acts on this principle, and
especially that the missions which a section of that body
are now vigorously prosecuting in the Zulu country will be
conducted upon it. This last is very important with refer-
ence to us and our proceedings. You will probably ere
1860. AAA’/L Y WORK ZAV AVA 7TA Z. I23
this have met with paragraphs in English papers stating
that I had resigned the see of Natal and was about to
proceed to the Zulu country. This is not exactly true. I
have not yet resigned this see ; but I have offered, and,
with my wife's full approval and hearty consent, am now
prepared to do so, if the Church at home desires it ; and I
am now in monthly expectation of a definite reply from the
S.P.G. upon the subject. I expect that the proposal will
be accepted, and arrangements made for carrying on a
vigorous mission work among the Zulus. My past ex-
perience and the acquaintance I have been able to gain
with the language, and the body of Christian natives whom
I should hope to take with me, are all advantages which I
could not transfer to another, and they have led me to
conclude that it is my duty to offer myself for this work
instead of merely sending a missionary. It may be
necessary that I should come to England to raise funds for
this purpose, as it would be idle for me to sacrifice my
present post of usefulness without the means of putting the
experience I have gained into present action. In that case
I may hope to see you some day at Tenby. Could you do
anything meanwhile to secure a few friends who would take
a kind interest in the work and stretch a hand to help, in
case I have to make a call upon the Church for aid in the
matter? And can you come yourself to help us, with your
medical skill, which would be invaluable—indispensable, in
fact 2 We must have a medical man of ability, both for
the sake of the Zulu people and the mission party. Now,
Captain and Mrs. Barton tell me that your health is not strong
in England, and that you have been at the Cape in con-
sequence. Our climate, whether we remain here in Natal
or go into the Zulu country, is far better suited than the
Cape, I imagine, for persons with delicate lungs. . . . .
What a glorious work it would be for a really earnest warm-
hearted medical man to devote himself to establishing a
Hospital and raising up a medical school in connexion with
our mission work, either in Zululand or Natall Your
deafness, of which Mrs. Barton tells me, would be of no
I24 JLIFE OF BISHOP CO/LA2AVSO. CHAP. III.
consequence. We could talk and interpret for you ; and
the first thing I should ask would be that you would put
me and the other missionaries through a simple course of
medicine, for our own profit and our people's. Please think
this matter over. I hope Mrs. Dyster will throw in a word
to help you to—shall I say ?—the right decision. But God
will guide you and us to do right, I trust, whatever we
decide on.”
The history of the Bishop's life in Natal shows the impar-
tiality of his devotion to the interests alike of the Europeans
and the natives. The latter, from their ignorance and their
helplessness, called more especially for his protection; but he
rejoiced to think that their welfare must be promoted by the
progress of English civilisation in the colony, if only the
powers created by this civilisation were rightly and conscien-
tiously used. When he spoke, June 26, 1860, at the banquet
which celebrated the opening of the first portion of the Natal
railway, he asked leave to be allowed to regard the event
chiefly from a missionary point of view.
“I have had an opportunity,” he said, “of hearing some re-
marks of intelligent natives upon what they have witnessed
this morning, and it may interest you, perhaps, to hear of
what kind they are. One who possesses a wagon, and
seems to be of a practical turn of mind, is of opinion that
if these steam horses are multiplied in the land, they will
very much interfere with his wagon business. Another
says, “Since they can do these things, why, if their hearts
were bad towards us, they could tread us down under their
feet !’ And a third wonders that, if we can effect all this,
we cannot also conquer death. We cannot conquer death
in the sense in which the native meant it. But we can tell
them of the Lord of Life ; we can remember to connect our
country's glory and greatness with her duty and her
mission to be, more than any other nation, the messenger
of God's mercy to all the ends of the earth; we can remem-
1861. AAA*/ Y WORK ZAV AVA 7TAZ. I25
ber that we have come to this land not merely as English-
men, but as English Christians, and that the Great King,
who has given us such power by land and by Sea, who has
given to us our great empire, our commercial spirit, our
genius for colonisation, has given also into our hands the
Book of Eternal Life, and bidden us go forth in His name
and teach His Truth to all nations, more especially to those
whom He has placed under our sway. We must seek to
Christianise as well as to civilise the natives round us.
The two works must go on together, or each will be a
failure.”
TO G. S. ALLNUTT, ESQ.
“February 4, 1861.
“I have returned safely and happily from Capetown, where
the consecration [of Bishop Mackenzie for the Zambesi
Mission] took place on January I. We had a conference
also of Bishops, which will lead, I suspect, to some dis-
cussions in England. The Bishop of Grahamstown was not
present, but came after I had left Capetown. He and I are
agreed in direct opposition to the Metropolitan (and, I sus-
pect, S. Oxon), who insists upon it that Bishop Mackenzie
is one of his suffragans. We entirely deny it, and we
suppose our statements will become public. We refer also
the question of Polygamy to Convocation for consideration.
My views are more decided than ever, supported as I now
find myself to be by strong Missionary authorities, such as
I had not any idea of when I began the controversy.
Bishop Mackenzie came up with me in H.M.S. Lyon, Captain
Oldfield, to Natal. . . . He went on to the Zambesi last
Tuesday. The larger portion of his party went on by the
Sidon about a month ago; and the only fear is that they
have been exposed to the deadly malaria of the delta while
waiting for his arrival. He was kept behind by the un-
fortunate necessity of having to wait for the arrival of three
bishops to consecrate him at Capetown. I was there first:
ten days before any other bishop. Then the Bishop of St.
Helena arrived on Christmas Day, having been brought in
I26 I./FE OF BISHOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. III.
a vessel which was chartered for the purpose at an expense
of £250 to the Mission. In short, the hobby of having the
Consecration at Capetown, which was to bear out the notion
of the “South African Church’ sending out the mission to
the Zambesi, has been a very costly one, and I think the
experiment will not soon be repeated.”
TO THE SAME.
“March 5, 1861.
‘Sir G. Grey seems to have now given up all idea of coming
up here, and I am very much inclined to think all his plans
for the Zulu country will go to the wall. . . . Mr. Scott,
our Governor, has just returned to us with flying colours.
I have not yet seen him, but probably shall to-morrow
and learn what his plans are, and how far I can throw
myself into them.”
Five months later, August 2, 1861, he writes to Mr. Allnutt
to say that he has secured passages to England for his family
and himself on board a small sailing vessel, which would leave
Natal for London in March or April, 1862. A month later
he tells his friend that he will soon receive a copy of his
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.
“I fully expect that it will be violently attacked by High
Church and Low. I am not sure that Mr. Maurice will
agree with all of it. But this is not a time to care for
things of this kind. I fully believe that a terrible crisis is
at hand for the Church of England, and have tried to do
my part to help some to stand firmly, when many props
upon which they have been hitherto relying shall be felt to
give way under them. The Bishops of Capetown and
Grahamstown are both strongly opposed to me, and very
probably will take some public action in the matter. How-
ever, as I now hope to be in England in the spring, I shall
be able to defend myself in person, if necessary.
“I think that our Institution may be considered as drawing
I86.I. FAA’ſ Y WORK IAW WA 7TA/C. 127
to an end for the present. At the time of the Zulu Panici
... all our boys were scattered to their homes. It would
have been, no doubt, possible to have recovered them, and
indeed Mr. Shepstone had given the requisite orders for that
purpose. But then several weeks elapsed, and they were
getting settled at home. And unfortunately the health of
our master, Mr. James, had given way completely. . .
Under these circumstances, as I have no other teacher
whatever, but the young ladies of my household and Miss
Mackenzie, and we are going so soon to leave the colony,
Mr. Shepstone and I agree that it would not be wise to
require the boys to come back. . . Let us hope that the
education which they have received will not be lost upon
them in after life.”
* The Bishop refers to a scare caused by the rumour of an intended
invasion of the colony by the Zulus. The alarm was described by Sir
Theo. Shepstone in 1871 as a serious one, “which turned out to
have no real foundation.” One alleged object of the supposed attack
was the murder of the refugee prince Umkungo, and Bishopstowe, where
he was at school, was considered a point of special danger. “For some
time,” writes Mrs. Colenso, “the Bishop stood out against all sugges-
tions that he himself should leave the station. At last, on the personal
representations of the Governor, he consented to bring his family into
town next day. In the dead of night, however, William [the well-known
convert] knocked breathless at the door to say that the Dutch owner
of the farm beyond Bishopstowe had just passed in flight to the town
with all his belongings, saying that a Zulu force was already on our side
of Table Mountain. This seemed serious, the word was passed quickly
but silently round, and in a few minutes the whole valley was astir and
making for the town. William, who had sent on his wife and babies on
the first alarm, only joined the party when more than half way to town,
having delayed, as he certainly believed at the risk of his life, to inspan
his wagon, because, he said, he knew that the “little one,” the Bishop's
youngest daughter, could not walk so far, and the “Inkosi himself was
not strong’” (the Bishop was suffering from a sprain). Very clear evi-
dence of the groundlessness of the general panic was afforded in a letter
which the Bishop received the next day from the Zulu country, and in
which it was stated that the Zulus, so far from intending hostilities, were
themselves apprehensive of an invasion from Natal.
CHAPTER IV.
“THE COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.”
THE publication of the Commentary referred to in the
letter of September, 1861, to Mr. Allnutt, preceded by not very
much more than a year the appearance of the first part of the
Bishop's Critical Examination of the Pentateuch. Both works
pointed to a condition of thought not much in harmony with
the teaching of what, for lack of a better term, must be called
the traditional schools of Christendom ; and it was not likely
that the members of these schools would care to consider the
one apart from the other. A perusal of the so-called Cape-
town trial of 1863 may leave the impression that, if the
volume on the Pentateuch roused a keener feeling of indigna-
tion for the disturbance of ground regarded as inviolable, the
Commentary on the Romans awakened a deeper resentment
for the rude upsetting of convictions held to be beyond reach
of all hostile argument. By far the larger portion of the
speeches of the accusers is taken up with the scrutiny and
censure of the latter work, which is denounced as virtually
leaving scarcely a single distinctively Christian doctrine
unassailed, and as practically rejecting most of them.
One fallacy running through the whole of these speeches is
the notion that their comments on particular doctrines carry
with them somehow the weight of authoritative statements, and
that their statements of doctrine are such as must be binding
--ºr- ~p →
~~~rzº-ºr-
I861. “ TAZE COMMENTARY ON 7THE ROMAWS.” 129
of necessity on every clergyman of the Church of England.
With an uneasy feeling that the ground here was unsafe be-
neath their feet, they betray their anxiety to draw out that
which they are pleased to speak of as the doctrine of the
Church of England with a clearness which shall render further
misconception impossible, and bring it into a condition not
unlike that of the laws of the Medes and Persians. With
such a state of mind the Bishop of Natal had no sympathy
whatever. With him there could be no growth without
thought, and no thought without growth; and when once he
felt that the search for truth called on him to follow out a
certain track, he was not one who would be deterred from
taking this course by any denunciations of men who insisted
that the whole truth had been discovered already. He
would have admitted, and he did admit, that some of the
opinions held by him in past years had been modified; but
he insisted not less strenuously that the whole Christian
world, nay, the whole family of mankind, are all undergoing a
training, and that even the most rigid of Sacerdotal systems
may, and indeed must, mark only a stage in the religious
education of the world. With him theological terms and
phrases were valuable only as pointing to eternal realities;
and the outward sign was in every case separable from the
inward gift.
But the Bishop of Capetown was altogether mistaken when
he spoke of what he called Dr. Colenso's revolt against the
faith of Christendom as the result of the extreme Calvinism
in which he had been trained. He was wrong as to the fact.
Dr. Colenso's earlier letters show that he lived in an atmo-
sphere which may be compared to that of the “Clapham
Sect”; but there is no evidence that he at any time held
those notions of election and reprobation which are, perhaps
not unjustly, regarded as the distinctive features of the
theology of Calvin. Looking at One of his own children in
VOL. I. K
I3O IIFE OF BISAHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. IV.
the innocence of her infancy, he asked a friend how any one
looking on a babe could be a Calvinist; and the mind set free
to work on the thought of the Divine Love as embracing all
children, as such, began to work its way onwards into happier
and more serene conditions. But he never supposed that his
Commentary on the Romans, any more than any other of his
works, was weapon-proof; and it is more than possible that
he would have modified or even withdrawn some propositions
on which he lays considerable stress, in obedience to the
pleadings even of his Capetown accusers, provided that these
had assured to him at starting the full measure of justice to
which every Englishman in England was, and is, beyond all
question entitled, and which there he would certainly receive.
No one was more ready than himself to allow that the same
truth will be expressed by different men in different ages in a
very different way, and therefore that the language of such a
writer as St. Paul on such subjects as sacrifice, redemption,
justification, should not be put forth as the only legitimate
expression of belief on those subjects. In later years he felt this
more forcibly: and most assuredly there never has been a time
in which it has been more needful for those who wrap them-
selves up in a traditional orthodoxy to face the fact that the
religious thought of the age does not adapt itself readily to
much of the phraseology current in the early centuries of the
Christian era. But his great contention was that when St. Paul
was using language from which many at the present time turn
with something like a feeling of repulsion, the Apostle was
seeking to convey a meaning the very opposite to that which
he is often supposed to express, and that to those whom he
addressed he succeeded in conveying that meaning.
In short, the Epistle to the Romans was for him a living
book, the utterance of a living man dealing with actual con-
ditions of thought differing indefinitely from our own, and
seeking to lay bare errors which might be fatal, and to remove
1861. ** 7 A/E COMMEAVTARY ON 7THE A*OMAAVS.” I31
perplexities which must be stumbling-blocks, if they could
not be swept away. From first to last, therefore, his task
might bring him into collision with the prepossessions of
parties or schools which fancied themselves in possession of
all truth ; and in fact it did so. The very introduction to the
book brought on him vehement charges of heresy, because he
presumed to ask who and what the people might be whom
St. Paul was addressing. In the eyes of the Capetown
accusers there could be no question at all ; and so long as
they refrained from forcing their opinion on others, they were
perfectly free so to think. For them it was absolutely certain
that St. Paul was writing to men whose creed was much the
same as that of the Nicene Council, and who might be
described as taking much the same view of things with
the Bishop of Capetown. But the Bishop of Natal refused
altogether the restraints of such swaddling bands. The
propositions so vehemently put forth at the Capetown trial go
far towards depriving the Epistle of all force and meaning ;
and in England every clergyman is perfectly free to Say SO.
It will be a terrible and monstrous thing if this liberty should
be restrained in Southern Africa, and if any changes should
occur to render the introduction of such restrictions possible
in England. *
In truth, the condition of those to whom St. Paul wrote at
Rome is of the first importance, if we wish to understand his
letter. That this letter was sent before he himself set foot in
Rome no one, of course, will doubt; and if we give any credit
to the narratives of the Acts of the Apostles, it is not less
certain, as the Bishop says, that when he reached the Eternal
City, a Christian Church, in any precise sense of the words,
had no existence there. There were heathen, and there were
believers. The latter had heard of the teaching of Jesus, and felt
no decided antagonism towards it, and no prejudice against the
Apostle when he styled himself His bondman. The Christian
FC 2
I 32 AZFE OF BISAIOP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. IV.
leaven was working in the Jewish society at Rome; but it
had not yet resolved itself into a force opposed to ordinary
Jewish tradition. As in the Epistle, so later when he appears
among them in person, he addresses himself directly to Jews,
and tells them that he has come on an errand which concerns
“the hope of Israel.” By them in turn he is requested to say
what he thinks, because they know that the party which laid
special claim to Christian discipleship was a sect everywhere
spoken against. “In other words, they had evidently no
knowledge of a Christian Church existing in their very midst
at Rome.” Undoubtedly in St. Paul's eyes they were all
“called ones of Jesus Christ”; but it does not follow that
all who are called obey the calling, and at the same time we
need not suppose that any purposely or deliberately made
light of it. In a certain sense he could address all as Jews,
and all as Christians, and have intercourse with them on the
same footing of friendship as with Aquila and Priscilla at
Corinth. These were Jews, but Jews seemingly
“with a strong tendency to Christianity, which St. Paul him-
self, by his long and close intercourse with them, was the
means under God of fostering into a downright, earnest,
genuine profession of the Christian faith.”
But the language of the greater part of the Epistle is itself
conclusive. It
“assumes in the reader a very familiar acquaintance with
Jewish history, and Jewish practices, and Jewish modes of .
thought, such as no mere ordinary convert from heathenism,
especially at a time when there were only manuscripts, and
the books of the Old Testament were not in every one's
hands, could possibly have possessed. St. Paul passes
rapidly from one point to another, as if sure of carrying
his readers along with him, without stopping for a moment
to explain more clearly to the Roman mind any one of his
1861. “THE COMMENTARY ON THE ROMAWS” 133.
allusions. The Jew’s “resting in the Law,’ his making his
boast in God, his confidence in circumcision, the story of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in some of its minuter details,
the destruction of Pharaoh, extracts from the Psalms and
the Prophets, all these are brought in when the arguments
require it, without any doubt seeming to cross his mind as
to the possibility of his illustrations being unintelligible,
and his reasoning failing to take effect, because of any want
of acquaintance, on the part of those to whom he wrote,
with the main facts of Jewish history.” "
At once, then, a flood of light is thrown on the argument
and purpose of the letter. The condition of thought here
treated of may seem unreal or extravagant to us; and in
truth, with all the faults of which we may be conscious or
guilty, it is not easy for Englishmen generally to throw them-
selves into the temper of a Pharisee of the Pharisees. If we
had not before us the Calvinistic theology, we might find it
hard to convince ourselves that the theories of particular
election and partial salvation could be entertained by any ;
that any could look on themselves as having an indefeasible
title to mercies and blessings denied to others, and calmly
look forward to their own beatification at the cost of the
rejection and ruin of all mankind beside. We read of satis-
faction in work done, rather than of striving after a life of
love, of a supercilious contempt of those who were not within
their own charmed circle of covenant and privilege; and we
are tempted to think that we are looking on an imaginary
picture rather than on a sad reality. The abominations of
Genevan theology may surely serve to dispel such a delusion,
and in any case the very existence of the Epistle to the
Romans is proof that St. Paul had to deal with such a state
of feeling, unless we suppose that his description is altogether
of his own devising.
* Commentary, p. 2.
I34 A./FE OF AP/SA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. IV.
But the title-page of the Bishop's work stated especially
that the Epistle was here explained from a missionary point
of view ; ; and in many quarters the announcement was re-
ceived with a sneer as being little better than a pretence or a
mockery. The book, it was averred, contained no instruction
for a missionary, and would only fill his head with heresies
destructive to every article of the Christian faith. It is
enough to say that no one who looks through even half the
volume with moderate care can fail to see that the instruction
of missionaries was uppermost in his thought. He looked on
them as messengers to those who were sitting in darkness and
the shadow of death, and the question which he had to answer
was, What is the message with which they were charged 2
Without moving a step in the inquiry, he was quite sure that
the message must be one of good tidings—in very truth, a
gospel, and that if it were not such, it must in the long run
fail. He did not mean to deny that appeals to men's fears
and pictures of arbitrary retribution might make an impres-
sion for a time, or that a message of good though in Some
degree perverted or abused might yet work in some measure
for the welfare of mankind.
Of this the history of Christianity furnished abundant proof.
But he held that far more than this was needed, if the grace
of God was not to be hindered. It was indispensable that
the whole counsel of God should be made known, and he
believed that this counsel was nowhere more vividly set forth
than in the Epistle to the Romans. This Epistle dealt the
death-blow to all notions of covenant and privilege, to every
theory which substituted anything in the place of that one
thing with which alone the righteous Father and Judge of
men could be satisfied. It maintained that His justice, His
mercy, and His love were alike unchangeable and unfailing ;
that His Will was absolutely righteous, and that it must work
to produce righteousness, in all beings endowed with a capacity
1861. “ THE COMME/WZTAA' P OAV ZAZ FOMAAVS.” I 35
for righteousness. It excluded further all unworthy thoughts
of God, all notions which ascribed to Him either partiality
or vindictiveness, and still more all those dreadful ideas
which led men to suppose that evil would be left to itself in
any part of the Creation by a deliberate exercise of His
Will.
It would have been difficult, therefore, for him to select
a task bearing more directly on the work to which he had
given himself; and it had filled his thoughts from the time of
his consecration. Nay, before his consecration his letters to
Mr. Ferguson and other friends show that even then his mind
had long been working in this direction. There are still some
surviving of those who accompanied him to the Cape at the
end of 1853, and these will remember how he read with them
this Epistle with the express purpose of showing how its
general drift and teaching had been misapprehended, and how
St. Paul's language had been perverted into a sanction for
theological formulae from which he would have shrunk with
horror. But he held that its true meaning could be seized
only by bearing strictly in mind the temper and condition of
those whom St. Paul was addressing. These were, above
all things, convinced that God was a respecter of persons, and
that he was pledged to have special respect to the descendants
of Abraham after the flesh ; and the effort of the Apostle
from first to last was to convince them that no delusion could
be more thorough and more fatal. The very key-words of the
whole letter were heard, the Bishop maintained, in the first
chapter, when he declared that the power of God was unto
salvation to every one who believed ; the three points involved
in this assertion being : (i) that Salvation is wholly of God,
wrought by His power, bestowed by his love, of His own free
grace in the Gospel, and therefore to be meekly and thankfully
received as His gift, not arrogantly claimed as a matter of
right; (ii) that it is meant for Jew and Gentile alike, for all
136 AAA’E OF APASA/OA' CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. IV.
that believe; (iii.) that it is to be received by faith alone, by
simply taking God at His word, not to be sought by a round
of ceremonial observances or acts of legal obedience." The
Gospel then was the setting forth of the righteousness of God,
that is, the righteousness or state of righteousness, which God
gives graciously to man, as He gave to Abraham when He
called him righteous who himself was unrighteous, when He
counted his faith to him for righteousness.”
But all have sinned, and all are daily sinning, and come
short of God's glory; and all are, on the other hand, made
righteous, justified freely by the grace of God.
“In former days,” he asserts, “the Jews were all ‘made
righteous, treated as righteous, though many of them in-
dividually were unfaithful. They were all embraced in
God's favour, and dealt with as children, not for any works
of righteousness which they had done, nor for any virtue
which they possessed in themselves as descendants of
Abraham, but because of God's free grace.” ”
But the gift is now bestowed upon all who
“will be content to be righteous in His sight, not for any
worthiness of their own, or any peculiar claim they may
fancy themselves to have upon His favour, but simply be-
cause He is graciously pleased to call them righteous, to
account them as righteous creatures, for the sake of His
own dear Son, whom He has given to be their Head and
King.” +
It is obvious that for those who do not take the Pharisaic
position these arguments and appeals lose their direct force.
But St. Paul was writing to those who did intrench them-
selves within these barriers; and to them his words came
with irresistible power. Where the man is bowed down
* Commentary, p. 33. * Ib. p. 36.
* Ib. p. 85. * Ib. p. 245.
186 I. “THE COMMENTARY ON 7"HE ROMA WS.” I37
- * * ~~~~ *- ~~~~~ r *-
simply with the sense of sin, where he despairs of his power
of growth in goodness, where the thought of covenant or
privilege never enters his mind, where his one prayer is that
he may be set free from the evil within him, the pleadings
of St. Paul to these Christianising Jews must be, to say the
least, superfluous. To many at the present day they may
seem unintelligible. In such there is a strong impulse to say
that they have no wish to be counted or to be reckoned to be
anything but what they are, that they have no desire to be
labelled as good when they are not good; and this feeling,
there is no doubt, is a natural reaction against the language of
theologians like Martin Luther. Emphatic protests have been
made against the notions \
“that the scheme of salvation should be one of names and
understandings ; that we should be said to be just, said to
have a righteousness, said to please God, said to earn a
reward, said to be saved by works ; that the great disease
of our nature should remain unstaunched ; that Adam's
old sinfulness should so pervade the regenerate that they
can do nothing in itself good and acceptable, even when it
is sprinkled with Christ's blood.”"
But even thus the seeming verbalism is not entirely ex-
cluded. The counting or reckoning is said to apply to that
state or time which has preceded conversion, and with
reference to this state we are told that
“God treats us as ºf that had not been which has been ; that
is, by a merciful economy or representation, He says of us,
as to the past, what in fact is otherwise: ”—
the formal statement assuming this shape, that
“our formal justification is not a mere declaration of a past
fact, or a testimony to what is present, or an announcement
of what is to come, . . . . but it is the cause of that being
which before was not, and henceforth is.””
* Newman, Lectures on Justification, p. 62. 2 Jö. p. 86.
138 I./FE OF BASA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. IV.
It is not easy for those who do not care to entangle them-
Selves in theological technicalities to see how this language
differs from that of St. Paul. It does not, probably, differ at
all; but, if so, the same harmony must be claimed for the
words of the Bishop of Natal. Here also there is the distinct
assertion that God looks on all men as His children, though
they may be disobedient, and that the work of His Spirit is
to make them so in truth. But in the Bishop, as in St. Paul,
there is the further faith that it is His will to cast out the
evil from all, and that that which He wills He is able to
accomplish.
Nor is this all. In all these arguments the purpose of St.
Paul was to throw down, to cast to the winds, all confidence
resting in and grounded on what he called the works of the
law. This word “law " is not the only one which St. Paul,
with other writers in the New Testament, uses in more than
One definite sense. The same remark applies to death, life,
and other terms. But it is specially necessary to note the
mode by which the law, which he regards as a burden con-
vincing men of sin, was received. Moses is the mediator, the
One by whom it is promulgated to the Israelites: it comes to
him through angels of whom he seems to speak as the prin-
cipalities and powers of the Kosmos; and hence that which is
received from them is a bondage to which he deplores that
the Galatians should allow themselves to be subjected." It
would seem that he has these beings in his mind when he
warns the Galatians against himself or an angel who should
dare to preach any other Gospel than that which had been
preached to them.” When, therefore, he speaks of the in-
tolerable yoke, he is speaking not of the living and life-giving
1 Gal. iv. 3,8. There can be little doubt that the word orrotxeia is here
used in the sense which it bears in modern Greek. Cf. Eph. iii. Io,
vi. I2 ; Col. i. I3, I4.
2 Gal. i. 8.
I861. tº 7THE COMMENTARY ON THE ROMAWS.” I39.
law in which the Psalmists found their joy, and rest, and
peace, but of the organised Mosaic law—the system of rites,
ordinances, ceremonies, Outward offerings—the most potent
engine ever invented for the oppression of the human spirit.
It is this law, the curse of which is said to pass on Jesus
Christ; 1 it is the wrath of this law, from which the Apostle
tells the Thessalonians” that Jesus is delivering them,-not
the wrath of God, for he insists in the same letter that the
appointment of God is not to wrath, but to the deliverance
which shall make them sound and strong.” All his writings,
in short, point to the one conclusion that the shattering of
this yoke, and the dispersion of the monstrous errors which
had grown up under its shadow, were the objects nearest to
his heart; and this, of itself, would be enough to show that
the Epistle to the Romans could not really be animated by
the terrible spirit of modern Calvinism.
This spirit, the Bishop insists, is conspicuously absent from
all those passages which are regarded as its strongholds.
Among the foremost of these is the sentence in which St.
Paul speaks of the potter's power of forming vessels for
honour and dishonour. Shall the clay say to him that is
fashioning it, what makest thou ? was a question put long ago
by Isaiah ; and the question points to clay still soft under the
potter's hand, which can be moulded afresh. “May not the
Heavenly Father,” the Bishop adds, as drawing out the meaning
of St. Paul,
“deal with the Jewish nation as He sees fit, fashioning it first,
if He sees good, into the shape of a vessel designed for high
and honourable use in his service,and then if He sees that
the vessel is marred in the making, and will not answer His
purpose, unmaking it with a stroke of His hand, and out
of the self-same lump making another vessel, for dishonour,
* Gal. iii. I3. * I Th. i. Io. * I Th. v. 9.
14O AAFE OF BISAMOA CO/LEAVSO. CHAP. IV.
for some lower use, which shall answer His purpose still,
and be used in His service, though in another less honour-
able way ?”"
That this is the true meaning of the passage he is assured
by the words of Jeremiah, who speaks of the potter as making
another vessel out of the same lump of clay from which he
had shaped one that had been marred under the process.”
“So then,” he adds, “the Great Potter, when a vessel is
marred in His hand in the making, when He sees that a
people, or a Church, or an individual, will not answer to the
end for which He fashioned it, will make it into another
vessel for His use, as it seemeth good to Him to make it.
He will not cast it away, but re-fashion it, to serve for a
lower and less honourable use in His Kingdom. “And so,
says the Apostle, “may it now be with you. You were
fashioned, indeed, to be a vessel unto honour ; Israel was
to be the light, and Jerusalem the joy, of the whole earth.
But the Potter may see that you have become marred in
His hand in the making. He may even now be fashioning
you into another vessel, a vessel still for His own use, but
for a lower purpose, that even by the loss of those high
privileges which you have hitherto enjoyed, by being de-
prived of that glory for which He designed you, and
portions of which have already been vouchsafed to you,
you may serve His great ends, as a witness and a warning
to others until the time of mercy shall come again for you,
and the clay be once more taken in the Father's hand, and
fashioned anew at His will.”
He thus regards it as “indisputable” that St. Paul is not
arguing that the Potter has power to make out of the same
lump, at the same time, two vessels, at His own arbitrary will, one
for honour, and the other for dishonour (so as to support the
* Commentary, p. 240. * Jeremiah xviii. 3–6.
I86 I. ** 7TPIE COMMENTARY ON 7THE ROMA WS.” I4I
Calvinistic view). The idea of such arbitrary action was for
him rather unmeaning than merely repulsive. It is absurd, as
well as abominable, to ascribe to God anything which Savours
of chance or caprice; and when St. Paul declares that God
has mercy on those on whom He wills to have mercy, while
whom He wills He hardens, he insists that this blessing or
this judgement goes forth “not by any mere arbitrary pro-
ceeding but by an unerring law of righteousness.”
“Where He sees a faithful humble soul, following the light
already given, . . . . there He wills to pour out His mercy.
And where on the other hand He sees, as He alone can see,
that there is a root of evil within the heart, . . . there He
wills to pour out His judgement. And what will the mercy
be 2 Increase of grace to those that are in grace, the
softening and subduing, the cleansing and purifying, of the
heart, while it grows in the tempers which become the
children of God. And what will the judgement be 2 The
loss of that grace already received, the hardening and
deadening of the heart, which is the natural and necessary
consequence of indulged evil, just as the growth in grace
is the natural and necessary consequence of obedience.””
But if it is needful to note carefully the passages in which
St. Paul uses the word law, there is even more need to watch
his use of the terms life and death, and especially so when he
speaks of the life and death of Christ. Some passages in the
Commentary, in which the Bishop dwells on this subject, were
objected to in the so-called Capetown trial for reasons which
it is not altogether easy to understand ; but although these
objections are worth nothing, it must probably be admitted
that his language might be more exact. Thus, of that event,
or incident, which we call the death of the body, he speaks as
being to Christians “no longer a token of the curse lying
heavily upon us,” and “ no longer a woe inflicted on us by
* Commentary, p. 241. * Ib. p. 238.
I42 JAZE OF AP/SA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. IV.
the tyrant sin.” But from first to last, in the Old Testament
and the New, there is not a word to warrant the Supposition
that it was such a curse, or was even caused or introduced by
sin at all; and most certainly we have no other authority for
so thinking. There is absolutely no room for the inference that
the physical constitution of man has been changed, and that
the machine which now wears out was made at the outset
capable of resisting all wear and tear. All the evidence at
our command shows that wherever on this planet there has
been physical life, there has been that which we call physical
death. Death, then, is a term which may have for us three
meanings. It may denote: (1) the change or incident which
involves or brings about the dissolution of the outward and
palpable form—a change of which, in Bishop Butler's words,
we know nothing beyond some of its phenomena ; (2) the
consequences of disobedience, the death which is the wages of
sin, the death of sin; (3) the death to sin, the total rejection,
the absolute renunciation of all sin, of the very principle of
disobedience and selfishness.
It is of the utmost importance to keep these distinctions
clearly before us, because, if they are lost, a mist is thrown not
only over the Pauline Epistles generally, but over almost every
other portion of the New Testament. It is the second death
(the death of sin, the death which comes of disobedience) which,
in St. Paul's words, has passed upon all men, because all have
sinned. It is this death of which he says that all die in
Adam : it is the death to sin, the absolute rejection of all sin,
of which he says that in Christ all shall be made alive. But
this death, in full strictness of meaning, none that have sinned
can die. It is the work only of One who is absolutely sinless:
it is the death of the Eternal Son. It is the death which He
died once for all," because it is an eternal renunciation of all
disobedience. His whole life, therefore, is this death, and this
* @qamaš, Rom. vi. Io.
I861. “ THE COMMEAV7.4 R Y ON 7"HE ROMAAWS.” I43
death is also His life. We may speak of the consummation
of His sacrifice, of His sanctification (or making holy) of
Himself on Calvary; but we cannot speak of this His death
as belonging only to the closing scene of His earthly ministry,
because, if He did not till then die to sin, then up to that time
He must have been under the influence of it. The statement
is, indeed, self-contradictory; but if we bear in mind that the
death to sin is in all strictness the death of Christ alone, and
that, because He dies this death, we are also partakers of it in
the measure in which we offer ourselves, as a reasonable, holy,
and lively sacrifice, to God, the language of St. Paul will become
to us, as a whole, luminously clear. We shall, indeed, utterly
mistake his meaning, and do him a great wrong, if we regard
him as oppressed by any other death than the death of sin,
or as rejoicing in anything but that death to sin which is the
full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction
for the sins of the whole Kosmos. This death to sin is the
life of Christ: it is His resurrection. In that He died, He
died unto sin once for all ; in that He liveth, He liveth unto
God. So reckon ye yourselves to be dead unto sin, but alive
unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
When, however, we look to the Bishop's language on the
subject of the death of Christ, the use made of it by his
accusers at Capetown becomes indeed amazing. The only
real objection to his language is that it employs terms not all
of which seem accurately defined. Thus he says:–
“Though all men are redeemed and belong . . . to Christ,
and are even now under His care and government, though
they may not yet be blessed to know His Name, yet to us,
Christians, the Apostle says, God set forth His Son as a
propitiation through faith in His blood. We are privileged
to know the great mystery of Godliness, to know in what
way, through the wisdom of God, we have been redeemed
from the power of evil, to look at Christ Jesus through faith
I 44 JL/FE OF BISA/OP CO/CENSO. CHAP. IV.
in His blood, and behold in Him the propitiation for our
sins, the object which makes us, the whole human race, of
which He is the Head, acceptable to God.” 1
So again, Summing up the Apostle's argument, he adds:–
“You see, after all, God is righteous. He is faithful in respect
of His promises made of old to you and to your race. He
has now, by the setting forth of His Son, explained what
His dealings of old with you meant, how He then regarded
you as righteous, called you righteous, not for any merits
of your own, or your forefathers, but for His own mercy's
sake, in Him in whom He loved you, and not you only but
all mankind, from before the foundation of the world. It
was in His Son, the second Head of the family of man, in
due time to be revealed, that He loved you then, and not for
anything in your forefathers. All the righteousness which
He gave to them, He gave through Him. All the goodness
which He saw in them, He saw through Him, from whom
alone it came to them, in whom it existed pure and
perfect and undefiled with the consequences of the Fall.” ”
If we ask here what is meant by blood and blood-shedding,
we do not learn much by turning to the passage from
Dr. Vaughan, quoted by the Bishop, that the death of Christ
was the central and completive act of the whole work of
redemption, because the words do not show in what sense the
term death is here used. It is to be regretted, perhaps, that
the word should ever be used without explanation, for the
meaning commonly attached to it resolves itself into a
revolting superstition. Dean Stanley's language leaves no
room for misapprehension ; and on this language it is quite
impossible to lay too great a stress.
‘Looking at the Bible only,” he says, “and taking the Bible
as a whole, . . . we cannot go far astray in adopting the
* Commentary, p. 91. * Ib. p. 94.
1861. “THE COMMENTARY ON THE ROMAWS.” I45
only definition of the blood of Christ which has come down
to us from primitive times. It is contained in one of the
three undisputed, or at any rate least disputed, Epistles of
Ignatius of Antioch. ‘The blood of Christ, he said, ‘is love
or charity.' With this unquestionably agrees the language
of the New Testament as to the essential characteristic of
God and of Christ. Love, unselfish love, is there spoken of
again and again as the fundamental essence of the highest
life of God ; and it is also evident on the face of the
Gospels that it is the fundamental motive and character-
istic of the life and death of Christ. It is this love stronger
than death, this love manifesting itself in death, this love
willing to spend itself for others, that is the blood of the
life in which God is well pleased. Not the pain or torture
of the cross—for that was alike odious to God and useless
to man—but the love, the self-devotion, the generosity, the
magnanimity, the forgiveness, the toleration, the compassion,
of which that blood was the expression, and of which that
life and death were the fulfilment. “Non sanguine sed
pietate placatur Deus' is the maxim of more than one of
the Fathers. ‘What is the blood of Christ P’ asked
Livingstone of his own solitary Soul in the last moments of
his African wanderings. “It is Himself. It is the inherent
and everlasting mercy of God made apparent to human
eyes and ears.’ The charity of God to man, the charity of
men to one another with all its endless consequences, if it
be not this, what is it 2 . . . It is, therefore, not only from
Calvary, but from Bethlehem and Nazareth and Capernaum
—not only from the crucifixion but from all His acts of
mercy, and words of wisdom—that the ‘blood of Christ’
derives its moral significance.”
It is true that Ignatius gives the explanation of the phrase
“blood of Christ” which is cited by Dean Stanley. The fact
is in the highest degree significant, and it is of vital import-
ance. It shows that the true spiritual tradition still survived
* Christian Institutions, ch. vi. p. I 19, ed. I.
VOL. I. L
I46 AZFE OF BISAOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. IV.
in the fossilising process which was going on, and that the
work of St. Paul had not yet come to naught." For, in
truth, a vast gulf separates most of the thought and language
of Ignatius from the thought and language of St. Paul's letter
to the Romans. The former seems to find a special comfort
in the fancy that “the ruler of this world was deceived by
the virginity of Mary, and her childhood, and in like manner
also by the death of the Lord.” Here we have the very
petrifaction of the spiritual life, a state of thought in
which forms of words become everything, and the mind can
lay hold of nothing except through sensuous signs. It is
from such a man as this that we have in these words on the
blood of Christ the tokens of the presence of a quickening
Spirit; and if this were all that we had received from him,
this alone might have intitled him to the lasting gratitude
of Christendom. The question answered by Ignatius, and
asked again, and again answered, by Livingstone, will be
asked now with greater frequency than ever, in proportion as
men come to feel that such phrases may point to spiritual
realities or may be reduced to the state of mere symbols. On
these words the whole Sacramental system, as it is called, is
made to rest; but for those who wish to preserve their moral
balance all that is needed is to mark the parallelism or
equation in the language of the fourth Gospel with the
language of the General Epistle which bears the name of
John.
Without going into questions relating to the origin or
choice of these symbols, we have specially to note their
equivalents in language which addresses itself not to the
outward senses but directly to the heart of men. It is plain
matter of fact that in the fourth Gospel the idea of food as
indispensable for the maintenance of life leads to a discourse
on bread as such a support, and this in its turn to a further
* See, further, Edinburgh Review, July 1886, p. 135, &c.
1861. “THE COMMENTARY ON THE ROMAWS.” I47
discourse on flesh and blood as symbols of the closest union
with the Source of all life, the conclusion in reference to
nourishment being that “except ye eat the flesh of the Son of
man and drink his blood ye have no life in you,” and with
reference to union, “he that eateth my flesh and drinketh
my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him.” For these phrases
we have three equations in the General Epistle of St. John,
the first being that “he that keepeth His commandment
dwelleth in Him and He in him ; ” the second that “whoso
shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in
him and he in God ; ” the third that “he that dwelleth in
love dwelleth in God and God in him.” Thus we have the
keeping of the commandments, the confession of Jesus, and
the dwelling in love, set forth as precise equivalents to the
eating of the flesh and the drinking of the blood of Christ;
and a full light is thus thrown on what we may speak of as
the sacrificial language of St. Paul in his Epistles to the
Romans or to other Churches. We may, perhaps, regret that
this key was not systematically applied to it by the Bishop of
Natal; but we must remember that the application of this
key is extremely disliked, and even the existence of the key
denied, by adherents whether of the extreme sacerdotal or of
the Calvinistic schools, while the non-theological mind is too
apt to think that the interpretation put on these terms by
members of these schools must be right.
The Bishop, however, had in his Commentary on the Epistle
to the Romans a special work to do : and this work was the
insisting that the benefits received from and through Christ
were benefits received for all the world. The Divine work
was a work for the extinction of sin, not merely for its
punishment; and any theories or doctrines which represented
God as resting content with the infliction of penalties must
be resolutely encountered and put down. He argues, it is
true, from the language of hope to the reality of the great
L 2
148 A/FE OF BISAIOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. IV.
consummation ; but he does so because the language of St.
Paul in the Epistle to the Romans seemed to him to point
rather to hope than to assurance. We may, perhaps, see reason
for thinking that the Bishop's words might have been stronger
than they were ; but that they are not stronger is no matter
for regret. What he said has opened the way for greater
clearness of thought and speech, and rendered the tyranny of
the Westminster Confession and of all other like utterances
impossible for the future. For him, as for St. Paul, the
earnest longing of the creature pointed to the final manifes-
tation of the sons of God ; and if the creature was now
subjected to wretchedness or vanity, it was because God
Himself had subjected it to this wretchedness in hope “that
the creature itself shall be set free from the bondage of
corruption into the glorious freedom of the children of God.”
Indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, these assuredly
will be upon every Soul of man that works out evil ; but can
we say, the Bishop asks, with these words of St. Paul before us,
“ that such chastisement, however severe, may not be remedial,
may not be intended to work out the hope under which the
whole race has been subjected to vanity ? . . . . Is there
not ground from this text as well as others for trusting that
in some way unknown to us the whole race shall indeed be
made to share this hope at last 2 * *
Some, perhaps, may see here the influence of old associations
assigning weight to the Sanction of special texts; but such
remarks are not here to the point. We are concerned with
the working and growth of the Bishop's own mind ; and the
account which he gives of this growth forms one of the most
interesting chapters in the history of his life. He now dis-
tinctly clung to and rejoiced in the hope, or, rather, confident
expectation, expressed by St. Paul. But
* Commentary, p. 196.
1861. “THE COMMENTARY ON 7THE ROMAAVS.” I49
“there was a time,” he says, “when I thought and wrote other-
wise. Some years ago—in the year 1853—I published a
small volume of Village Sermons, which I dedicated to a
dear and honoured friend, the Rev. F. D. Maurice, and
which was violently attacked in consequence of this dedi-
cation," by those who had previously assailed Mr. Maurice's
teaching, as containing what seemed to them erroneous
statements of doctrine, and, particularly, as expressing
agreement with Mr. Maurice's views on the subject of
Eternal Punishment. I was able to show, by quotations
from my little book itself, that these charges were untrue,
and that I had given offence, partly by stating larger views
of the Redeeming Love of God in Christ Jesus than the
reviewer of my sermons himself thought it fit to hold
(though views held by such men as Barrow and Macknight),
but chiefly by expressing my cordial sympathy with Mr.
Maurice in his noble and blessed labours. . . . Accord-
ingly in the preface to the second edition of his Theological
Essays, Mr. Maurice spoke of me as ‘having proved by my
sermons that I believed in the endlessness of future punish-
ments.’ I did believe in that dogma at the time I wrote
and printed those sermons, as far as that can be called
belief which, in fact, was no more than acquiescence, in
common, I imagine, with very many of my brother clergy,
in the ordinary statements of the subject, without having
ever deeply studied the question, probably with a shrinking
dread of examining, and without having even ventured
formally to write or preach a sermon upon the subject, and
pursue it, in thought and word, to all its consequences
There are many who, as I did myself in those days, woulc
assert the dogma as part of their ‘Creed, and now and
then, in a single sentence of a sermon, utter a few words in
accordance with it, but who have never set themselves
down to face the question and deliver their own souls upon
it to their flocks, fully and unreservedly. For my own part,
I admit, I acquiesced in it, seeing some reasons for assuming
it to be true, knowing that the mass of my clerical brethren
1 See 47.
I 50 AAFE OF BISHOP CO/CAE WSO. CHAP. IV.
assented to it with myself, and contenting myself with
making some reference to it, now and then, in my minis-
trations, without caring to dwell deliberately upon it and
considering what might be urged against it.
“The controversy which arose about Mr. Maurice's Essays
and my own little volume of Sermons, brought the whole
subject closely before me. And for the last seven years I
have carefully studied it, with an earnest desire to know
the truth of God upon the matter, and with an humble
prayer for the guidance and teaching of the Holy Spirit in
the search for it. I now declare that I can no longer
maintain, or give utterance to, the doctrine of the endless-
ness of future punishments, that I dare not dogmatise at
all on the matter, that I can only lay my hand upon my
mouth and leave it in the hands of the righteous and
merciful Judge. But I see that the word eternal does not
mean endless, and for such reasons as the following I enter-
tain the ‘hidden hope” that there are remedial processes,
when this life is ended, of which at present we know
nothing, but which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will
administer, as He in His wisdom shall see to be good.”"
The time may not be far distant when most or all of these
reasons may seem trite or superfluous. Some of them may
seem so already, as they seemed in later years to the Bishop
himself. Religious thought has made great strides within
the last thirty years. But it is by no means unnecessary yet
to retrace the path along which thinkers like Maurice and
Colenso travelled. The old superstition, though weakened
and circumscribed in its teaching, has not been conquered ;
and we have still to do battle in many quarters with notions
which more than all others are barriers in the way of the
Divine working. His reasons, then, were (1) that Christians
generally believe in some remedial process after death, a small
section only of the Church universal contending that the
hour of dissolution from the mortal body fixes the condition
* Commentary, p. 198.
I861. ** 7AHE COMMENTARY ON 7TPIE ROMAAWS.” I5I
of the man for ever and ever ; (2) that the warning of the
few and the many stripes for different degrees of guilt points
in the same direction, for, if these words mean anything at all,
they must imply gradations of punishment, and there can be
no gradations of endless, infinite, irremediable woe.
“Can the punishment in any sense be spoken of as one of
few stripes where the unutterably dreadful doom is still
assigned of endless banishment from the Presence of God
and all beautiful and blessed things into the outer darkness
among all accursed things, where not one single ray of
Divine Mercy can ever enter 2 It seems impossible. The
very essence of such perdition is utterly, and for ever and
ever, to lose sight of the Blessed Face of God. If it be
certain that never, never, in the infinite endless ages to
come shall one ray of Divine Light shine upon the gloom
in which the condemned soul is plunged, how can such
a state be described as one of ‘few stripes, however differ-
ing from that of another soul, by the pangs of bodily pain
being less acute, or even (if it be conceivable) the anguish
of mind being less intense 2"
But (3) the drawing of a sharp line between all those who
shall be admitted to endless blessedness and all who shall be
consigned to endless woe is really inconceivable. The shades
of difference discriminating the moral character of men are
infinite, all the good having some evil in them, and the evil
always seeds of good.
“Our God and Father, blessed be His Name, can take account
of all, and will do so, and judge with righteous judgement
accordingly. But where can the line be drawn between the
two classes, when the nearest members of the one touch so
closely upon those of the other 2 In point of fact, how many
thoughtful clergy of the Church of England have ever de-
liberately taught, in plain out-spoken terms, this doctrine 2
How many of the more intelligent laity or clergy do really
in their heart of hearts, believe it?”
I 52 IIFE OF BISAIOP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. IV.
There is (4) the further question whether stripes are not
needed
“even for many of those who yet, as we humbly trust, shall
be suffered to enter into life, whom, at all events, it would
be a fearful and horrible thing to suppose consigned to
everlasting misery. Are there not many Christians to be
met with daily in the common intercourse of life, persons
whom, in the main, we must believe to be sincere in their
profession, yet whose weak and imperfect characters often
betray them into faults which are unworthy of the Name
they bear 2 Do not these seem to need some cleansing
process after death, to purify their souls from sin, not the
sin in their nature only, but sin too often allowed and
indulged in the life 2 . . . . We have no difficulty, then, in
admitting the idea of a remedial process for some after
death. But, surely, the most saintly character, when viewed
in the light of God's holiness, will have manifold imper-
fections, spots, and stains which he himself will rejoice to
have purged away, though it be by ‘stripes,'—by stripes not
given in anger and displeasure, but in tenderest love and
wisdom, by Him who dealeth with us as with sons 2 ”"
Further, (5), all analogy teaches us to expect that there will
be growth in the world to come as well as in this.
“We cannot suppose that the spirit of an infant, or young
child, will remain always in the undeveloped state in which
death found it ; nor have we any ground whatever to think
that it will, suddenly and in a moment, expand at once in
all its powers, to the full perfection of which it is capable.
Scripture does not inform us on the subject ; analogy is
wholly against any such supposition. In all nature there is
no instance of such a sudden start into fulness of life, of
such a break of continuity as this would be. And would it
not in fact contradict the very idea of life itself, if there
were to be no such growth and progress.””
* Commentary, pp. 201, 202. * Ib. p. 205.
1861. “ 7A/E COMMENTAR V ON THE ROMANS.” I53.
But (6) this growth, which we feel sure must await some,
furnishes a ground for believing that it will go on in all ; and
(7) we must not forget that this belief attests the utterance of
the Divine Voice in our hearts.
“Because we are not brute creatures, but made in the image
of our God and Father, . . . because we have that within us
which bears relation to the perfect Righteousness and Truth
and Love which is in God, therefore it is that we recognise
and rejoice in the full revelation of those perfections in our
Lord's own life, and the fainter emanations from the same
blessed Source of Light, which we see in the better acts of
our fellow man, or which we may be enabled to manifest
even in our own . . . By that light the sayings and doings
of good men, the acts of the Church, the proceedings and
decisions of her Fathers and Councils, the writings of
Prophets and Apostles, the words recorded to have been
uttered by our Blessed Lord Himself, must all be tried.
‘We must try the spirits whether they are of God.' If we
are required on the supposed authority of the Church or of
St. Peter or St. Paul to believe that which contradicts the
law of righteousness and truth and love which God with the
finger of His Spirit has written upon our hearts, we are
sure that there must be error somewhere. . . The voice of
that inner witness is closer to him than any that can reach
him from without, and ought to reign supreme in his whole
being. . . We may be certain, then, that any interpretation
of Scripture which contradicts that sense of right which God
Himself, our Father, has given us, to be a witness of His
own perfect excellences, must be set aside, as having no
right to crush down, as with an iron heel, into silence the
indignant remonstrance of our whole spiritual being. And
it cannot be denied that there is such a remonstrance . . .
against the dogma, as usually understood, of endless punish-
ment. This dogma makes no distinctions between those
who have done things worthy of many stripes and those
who have done things worthy of few, between the profligate
sensualist and the ill-trained child. . . I need hardly say
I 54. I./FE OF BISA/OA COLEAVSO. CHAP. IV.
|--
that the whole Epistle to the Romans is one of the strongest
possible protests against such a notion.” +
On this point the Bishop cites from his Ten Weeks in
Natal,” the words of a missionary who, having enunciated
this doctrine to a heathen child, is asked by her where her
parents have gone, and on saying that their destiny was the
dark place, hears her despairing cry, “Why did they not come
and tell us this before ?” He cites, as still more horrible and
as little short of blasphemy, the following prayer printed
for the use of a missionary institution of the Church of
England :—
“O Eternal God, Creator of all things, mercifully remember
that the souls of unbelievers are the work of Thy hands,
and that they are created in Thy resemblance. Behold, O
Lord, how hell is filled with them to the dishonour of Thy
Holy Name. Remember that Jesus Christ, Thy Son, for
their salvation, suffered a most cruel death. Permit not, we
beseech Thee, that He should be despised by the heathen
around us. Vouchsafe to be propitiated by the prayers of
Thy flock, Thy most holy Spouse, and call to mind thine
own compassion.”
“As I have done before,” the Bishop adds, “so do I now set
forward these passages, to enter, in the name of God's
Truth and God’s Love, my most Solemn protest against
them, as utterly contrary to the whole spirit of the Gospel,
. and operating with the most injurious and deadening
effect on those who teach and on those who are taught.”
Yet further, (8), the persistent language of the Old Testament
and the New on the subject of punishment calls for explana-
tion ; and by this dogma of endless and irremediable woe for
all who undergo any condemnation it is either nullified or
converted into nonsense. What meaning is left for the words
that even Sodom and Gomorrha shall be dealt with more
* Commentary, p. 211.
* Pp. 252, 253. Commentary on Romans, p. 2 II. See also pp. 55, 56.
1861. “THE COMMENTARY ON 7"HE ROMAAWS.” I55
lightly than some others ? or for the promise, given emphati-
cally by Ezekiel, xvi. 53, 55, that the captivity of Sodom and
her daughters shall be brought back 2 What force is there in
the imagery of the refining fire, of the fire trying every man's
work and separating the dross from the pure ore, of the
worker who shall be saved, made sound or whole, though
with loss, because his rotten work, in the guise of wood,
hay, stubble, shall be consumed 2
But (9) on the other hand the retort may be made, Are
there not other passages, which plainly imply that the wicked
shall “go into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his
angels, to the place where their worm dies not, and the fire
is not quenched ”
“Certainly there are,” the Bishop answers; “only let it be
remembered that the word ‘endless’ is not a proper repre-
sentation of the word “eternal’ or “everlasting’—not because
it says too much, but because it says too little. “Ever-
lasting’ implies life, permanence, unchangeableness ; ‘end-
less’ is a mere empty negative and explains nothing but
that the object is without an end. We can speak of the
Everlasting God and of the Living God, instead of saying
the Eternal God: but we feel at once how empty is the
formula, if we speak of the Endless, or the Deathless, Being.
Surely, there is an Eternal, or Everlasting, Fire—under-
standing the word ‘Fire,’ of course, not literally, but as a
figure, to represent the Divine Anger and Displeasure—
which always has been burning, and ever will be burning,
with a living, permanent, unchangeable flame against all
manner of evil, so long as there is evil to be destroyed by
it. While evil rules in a man, he must be subject to that
displeasure, because the master is, whose slave the man is,
whose service he has chosen. It is so in this life, and the
man is conscious of it at times, though at others he may
beguile away, by occupation, business, or pleasure, the
burning sense of that displeasure. But the time will Surely
come when, either in this life, it may be, or in the life to
I 56 JLIFE OF BASHOP CO/CEAVSO. CHAP. IV.
come, it will be revealed fully,–that Divine Anger, that
Eternal Fire, which is burning against sin, against all
wilful, allowed evil.” 1
The notion that any can be free of, or can shake off, the
duty of examining this subject and sifting it thoroughly, is
absurd. We can scarcely say that it is less the duty of every
one in this country than of those who leave it in order to
teach the heathen. But the Bishop of Natal could not but
feel that it was in a special degree incumbent on himself.
“Such questions as these have been brought again and again
before my mind in the intimate converse which I have had, as
a missionary, with Christian converts and heathens. To teach
the truths of our holy religion to intelligent adult natives, who
have the simplicity of children, but, withal, the earnestness and
thoughtfulness of men—to whom these things are new and
startling, whose minds are not prepared by long familiarity
to acquiesce in, if not receive, them—is a sifting process
for the opinions of any teacher who feels the deep moral
obligation of answering truly, and faithfully, and unre-
servedly, his fellow-man looking up to him for light and
guidance, and asking, ‘Are you sure of this P’ ‘Do you
know this to be true ** “Do you really believe that ' The
state of everlasting torment, after death, of all impenitent
sinners and unbelievers, including the whole heathen world,
as many teach, is naturally so amazing and overwhelming
an object of contemplation to them, and one so prominently
put forward in the case of those who have been under
certain missionary training, that it quite shuts out the
cardinal doctrines of the Gospel, the Fatherly relation to
us of the Faithful Creator. The conscience, healthy, though
but imperfectly enlightened, does not answer to such de-
nunciations of indiscriminate wrath, and cannot, therefore,
appreciate what is represented as Redeeming Love, offering
a way of escape. Hence missionaries often complain bit-
terly of the hardness of heart of the heathen, and say that
* Commentary, p. 215.
I S61. “THE COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.” I 57
it is impossible to awaken them to a sense of sin. Yet,
without such consciousness of sin in the hearer, the threats
of Divine vengeance can produce no feeling but aversion
and a determinate unbelief. These are questions which
deserve to be seriously pondered.”"
The Bishop might have added that, where there is the
consciousness of sin in the heathen, these threats must first
pervert and then deaden the moral sense, or, at the least,
render poor and infertile soil from which otherwise a rich
harvest might have been looked for. But on reviewing the
general ground taken by him on this subject, we may safely
say that never was a protest delivered against an oppressive
and crushing dogma more carefully weighed, more sober,
more moderate in tone and temper than this of the Bishop of
Natal. Some who may have a wider acquaintance with the
popular literature relating to this doctrine may regard his
criticism as not sufficiently searching, and his judgement as, on
the whole, too lenient; and undoubtedly there are aspects in
which the words of some who propound this dogma call for
treatment altogether more severe. In any shape or form the
doctrine is utterly revolting; but the method of setting it
forth has been often, and may be even now, characterized by
a wilful perversion, malignity, and falsehood, which in the
interests of public morality and decency must be grappled
with and put down. There are certain classes of theologians
or preachers who delight in pictorial descriptions of hell and
its physical tortures. These descriptions fall into two classes,
the One exhibiting conditions of solitary imprisonment, the
other depicting an infinite multitude of sinners left to herd
with each other and to sink perpetually lower and lower in
the abyss of brutality and sin. The foulness of both these
classes of pictures can be realised only by adducing one or two
examples of each.
* Commentary, p. 218.
I58 AZFE OF AP/SHOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. IV-
The Jesuit Pinamonti wrote a treatise which he entitled
Pſell opened to Christians. This treatise has been translated,
or adapted, for the use of the English public by the Rev. J.
Furniss, also a member of the Society of Jesus, and is put
forth, permissu superiorum, under the title of The Sight of
Hell, as a work specially intended “for children and young
persons.” The price, being only one penny, brings it within
the reach of all. In this tract the ideas of Pinamonti are
worked out systematically and presented in a schedular or cate-
chetical form. To the question, “Where is Hell ?” the answer
is “ that it is in the middle of the earth.” “How far is it to
Hell ?”—“Just four thousand miles,” the assertion proving, it
may be, the sincerity and candour with which members of the
Roman Church can receive the conclusions of astronomical
science. The staunchest Copernican cannot deny that a dis-
tance of 4,000 miles intervenes between the outer crust of the
earth and its centre; but as the measurement holds good from
all parts of the crust, the hell here threatened becomes a
mathematical point. The point, however, is boundless, and
has ample room for all sinners that ever have lived or ever
will live. “It is red hot.” “Fire on earth gives light: it is
not so in hell : in hell the fire is dark.” For each sinner there
is a special dungeon. The third dungeon is described as
having a red-hot floor. On it stands a girl.
“She looks about sixteen years old. Her feet are bare; she
has neither shoes nor stockings.”
The door opens, and she falls down asking for mercy.
“‘O that in this endless eternity of years I might forget the
pain only for a single moment.’ ‘Never shall you leave
this red-hot floor,’ is the devil's answer. ‘Is it so 2° the girl
says, with a sigh that seems to break her heart. ‘Then at
least let somebody go to my little brothers and sisters and
tell them not to do the bad things that I did.’ The devil
1861. “ Z.HE COMME/WTA R Y ON THE ROMANS.” I 59.
answers again : ‘Your little brothers and sisters have the
priests to tell them these, things. If they will not listen to
the priests, neither would they listen if somebody should go.
to them from the dead.’”
The fourth dungeon is the boiling kettle.
“Listen There is a sound like that of a kettle boiling. Is
it really a kettle which is boiling 2 No. Then what is it?
Hear what it is. The blood is boiling in the scalded veins
of that boy; the brain is boiling and bubbling in his head;
the marrow is boiling in his bones.”
The fifth dungeon is the “red-hot oven,” in which is “a little
child.” -
“Hear how it screams to come out. See how it turns and
twists itself about in the fire. It beats its head against the
roof of the oven; it stamps its little feet on the floor of the
oven. To this child God was very good. Very likely God
saw that this child would get worse and worse, and would
never repent ; and so it would have to be punished much
more in hell. So God in His mercy called it out of the
world in its early childhood.”
It would not be easy to speak in words too severe of this
farrago of abominable and blasphemous trash; but if we
could realise the wretched terror and torture inflicted even by
the more ordinary teachings about hell on the minds of the
young and the sensitive, we could not fail to perceive that
such teachers are committing the most serious of offences
against the best interests of the nation. It is enough to say
that they sit down to their desks with the deliberate intention
of telling lies, in order to terrify children into goodness. That
many are driven into reckless defiance, and others into mad-
ness, is a sad and stern fact ; and thus these writers inflict
injuries to which the crimes of murderers are as nothing.
But there is yet one degree further of cool malignity, which
16o AZFE OF BASA/OA' CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. IV.
can be reached in these descriptions; and it has been reached
by Protestant writers or preachers, or by Catholics who are
not in the Communion of Rome. The pictures of the Jesuits
are horrible and blasphemous. But at least the punishment
of sinners is confined to the sinners, and we are not told that
they are allowed or compelled to heap sin on sin in a con-
tinually increasing measure. The pictures drawn by preachers
of the Church of England depict a society from which all
restraints are removed, but in which the weakest retain the
better qualities which had marked them during their sojourn
upon earth. This Society Dr. Pusey described for the benefit
of the University of Oxford in the following terms:–
“Gather in your mind all which is most loathsome, most revolt-
ing, the most treacherous, malicious, coarse, brutal, inventive,
fiendish cruelty, unsoftened by any remains of human feeling;
conceive the fierce, fiery eyes of hate, spite, frenzied rage ever
fixed on thee, glaring on thee, looking thee through and
through with hate, sleepless in their horrible gaze. Hear
those yells of blasphemous concentrated hate as they echo
along the lurid vaults of hell, everyone hating everyone,”
with more to the same purpose." Dr. Pusey's words are cited
from a published sermon. I must cite some passages from
an unpublished sermon by a very eminent Prelate, and I do
so without scruple, because I heard it myself and write from
the notes which I made at the time, and, further, because these
passages illustrate the astounding ideas of justice which leave
the performances even of the Jesuits Furniss and Pinamonti
in the shade. The sermon from which I quote was addressed
to boys and girls at their Confirmation, and it dealt with the
future lot of those sinners on whom the world would be disposed
to look favourably. The poet, the statesman, the orator, the
scholar and philosopher, the moralist, the disobedient child,
1 Everlasting Punishment. A sermon preached before the University
of Oxford, on the Twenty-first Sunday after Trinity, 1864.
1861. “THE COMMENTARY ON THE ROMAWs.” I61
the careless youth, were each in turn described as standing
before the judgement seat, and deceiving themselves still until
the delusion was dispelled for ever by the words which bade
them depart into the lake of fire.
“What,” he asked, “will it be for the scholar to hear this, the
man of refined and elegant mind, who nauseates every-
thing coarse, mean, and vulgar, who has kept aloof from
everything that may annoy or vex him, and hated every-
thing that was distasteful to him P Henceforth his lot is
cast with all that is utterly execrable. The most degraded
wretch on earth has still something human left about him ;
but now he must dwell for ever among beings on whose
horrible passions no check or restraint shall ever be placed.
“How, again, is it with many of whom the world thinks well,
who are rich and well-to-do, sober and respectable, benevo-
lent and kind 2 Dives is sick, and his neighbours are sorry,
because he has been a good neighbour to them, polite and
hospitable, and ever ready to interchange with them the
amenities of life. Dives is sick, and his brothers are sorry,
because he has been a kind brother to them, and now they
must lose his care and assistance and see him no more.
Soon all is over. The body lies in state. His friends come
together and attend it to the tomb, and then place the
recording tablet stating him to be a very paragon of human
virtues. For some months they speak of their poor neigh-
bour, how he would have enjoyed their present gaiety, how
they miss him at his accustomed seat, until at length he is
forgotten. And while all this is going on upon the earth,
where is Dives himself Suffering in torments because in
his lifetime he had received his good things.”
For the more special benefit of the young candidates for
Confirmation was the picture of the school-girl cut off at the
age of thirteen or fourteen. In her short life on earth she
had not seldom played truant from School, had told some
lies, had been obstinate and disobedient. Now she had to
bid farewell to heaven and to hope, to her parents, her
brothers, and sisters. What was her agony of grief, that she
VOL. I. M
I62 JAZE OF BASF/OP CO/CEAWSO. CHAP. IV.
*-º-º-º:
should never again look on their kind and gentle faces, never
hear their well-known voices ! All their acts of love return to
her again,_all the old familiar scenes, remembered with a
regret which no words can describe, with a gnawing Sorrow
which no imagination can realise. She must leave for ever
that which she now knew so well how to value, and be for
ever without the love for which she had so unutterable a
yearning. She must dwell henceforth among beings on whom
there is no restraint, and her senses must be assailed with all
that is utterly abominable. The worst of men are there, with
every spark of human feeling extinguished, without any law
to moderate the fury of their desperate rage. To complete
the picture, the lost angels were mingled with this awful
multitude, in torment themselves and the instruments of
torturing others. They stood round their human victims,
exulting in their misery, and increasing perpetually the sting
of their abiding anguish. The bodies of men as well as
their souls were subjected to their fearful sway and had to
suffer all that cruelty inconceivable could suggest.
“The drunkard they seized and tortured by the instrument of
his intemperance; the lustful man by the instrument of
his lust; the tyrant by the instrument of his tyranny.”
In order to understand fairly the ground taken by the
Bishop of Natal, we have to mark the conclusions or axioms
involved in these elaborate pictures of the region of the
doomed. These are (1) that all mankind are divided into
two classes at the moment of what we call death; (2) that
hell is the abode of nothing that is not utterly abominable;
(3) that it is a chaos of unrestrained passions; (4) that all the
inhabitants are mingled together, so that any one may attack
another whenever it pleases him to do so; and (5) that all, of
whom we should be disposed to judge most leniently, retain
their better characteristics. This last axiom seems hardly to
harmonise with the rest; but we may ask, as the Bishop of
1861. “THE COMMAEAVTARY ON THE ROMAWS.” 163
Natal asked, how, if these things are so, each man is to be
rewarded according to his works. The brutal murderer and
the bloodthirsty despot remain what they were ; their cruelty
is not lessened, their physical force is not abated. The
philosopher and moralist, the man of learning and elegant
tastes, the child who has died almost in infancy, remain also
what they were ; and all, murderers, philosophers, and
children, are hurled together into an everlasting chaos. The
strong can choose out victims who cannot resist them ; the
weak can put none to torment in their turn, and, according to
the supposition, they can have no wish to torment any one.
The school-girl may be oppressed by Caesar Borgia; Shelley,
Hume, or Gibbon may find himself assailed by Jonathan
Wild or Colonel Blood. We thus see (1) that the punish-
ment is wholly unequal, unless all have committed the same
amount of sin, and are equally steeped in guilt (and the very
sting of the torture lies in the fact that they are not), or unless
all become equally fiendish (which it is asserted that they
do not); (2) in either case the less guilty are the greater
sufferers, the sensitive and refined, the benevolent and
bonourable man being trampled on by furious beings, who will
lead an endless carnival of violence; and (3) these will scarcely
be punished at all,—remorse of conscience they may with
whatever success put aside, and on their passions there is to
be, by the hypothesis, no check whatever ; further (4) by
this hypothesis evil is to increase and multiply for ever, and
(5) the Divine wrath against sin is put wholly out of sight. It
represents the lost as preying on each other; but it pictures
none of them as brought face to face with the anger of God
against all sin. In other words, the sentence of an infinitely
perfect Judge has nothing whatever moral about it. It is a
mere physical banishment, where sinners may, or may not,
feel the sense of an irreparable loss. The degree to which
they feel it has no reference to any action of God in their
hearts, but is determined wholly by their temper and habits
M 2
164 A.IFE OF BISA/OP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. IV.
on earth. In comparison with the sensitive moralist the
ruffian will feel none; and, in short, the Divine hatred for sin
will never be brought home to him.
In truth, all these inferences or axioms are born from the
deadly habit of “ lying for God,” or, to express it more charit-
ably, of doing evil that good may come. The hearts of those
whom God has not made Sad are saddened with an unspeak-
able misery, and torture is meted out to those who un-
questionably do not deserve it." Still more, everything is
made to give place to a radically false idea which associates
punishment for sin with time. They who maintain that all
sinners suffer endless torment do so on the ground that end-
less torment alone can be an adequate recompense for any
sin. It is no matter of surprise, therefore, that their opponents
should believe in a deliverance from the Eternal Fire after it
has been endured for a sufficient time. Fixed penalties have
no necessary tendency to produce a change of character.
To return to the Bishop of Natal, it is true, as he
writes, - -
“that human laws, which aim more at prevention of crime
than amendment of the offender, do mete out in this way,
beforehand, a certain measure of punishment for a certain
offence. The man who covets his neighbour's property
1 See two sermons on “The Revelation of God the Probation of Man,”
preached before the University of Oxford, by Samuel, Lord Bishop of
Oxford, 1861. In one of these he speaks of a young man of great pro-
mise, of much simplicity of character and excellence of life, as dying in
darkness and despair because he had indulged doubt, these doubts being
whether the sun and moon stood still at Joshua's bidding. I need hardly
add that the sermon of an eminent Prelate from which I have already
given passages was a sermon preached by Bishop Wilberforce. It is
only fair to say that in his work on Universalism (London, 1887), p. 116,
the Rev. Thomas Allin mentions the name of Bishop Wilberforce among
those who in the English Church have avowed, or leaned towards, the
“larger hope.” This fact, which in any case must belong to quite his
latest years, is not mentioned in the Life of Bishop Wilberforce; but
Archdeacon Farrar states that it rests on high authority. The tidings
must be received with a feeling of thankfulness.
I86 I. * 7 AE COMMEAW7A R Y ON 7TP/AE A*OMAAVS.” 165
may, if he like, obtain it dishonestly, at a certain definite
expense. He knows that he may possibly escape altogether;
or, at the worst, he can only suffer this or that pre-arranged
penalty, after suffering which he may remain (so far as the
effect of the punishment itself is concerned, and unless other
influences act upon him) as bad and as base a villain as
before. But God's punishments are those of a Father . . .
We have no ground to suppose that a wicked man will at
length be released from the pit of woe, when he has suffered
pain enough for his sins, when he has suffered time enough,
“a certain time appointed by God's justice.’ But we have
ground to trust and believe that a man in whose heart there
is still Divine Life, in whom there lingers still one single
spark of better feeling, the gift of God's Spirit, the token of
a Father's still continuing love, will at length be saved not
from suffering but from sin.” "
There are, in truth, two aspects of the great question of
moral evil. There is, first, its existence in men ; and next, the
purpose with respect to it in the Divine Mind. This purpose
must be its extinction, unless it be His design to make terms
at some future time with what may remain unconquered and
unextinguished. On the former the Bishop of Natal employs,
as he understands St. Paul to employ, the language of hope ;
the latter alternative the popular or traditional theology, of
which we have been speaking, practically affirms. It admits in
words that the final cause of the Divine government of the
world is the victory of righteousness over sin; but the picture
drawn of this victory represents it as a frightful failure.
According to all theories which regard the condition of men
at the accidental moment of their death as final, the immense
majority of the whole human race of all times and countries,
all wicked heathen, all wicked Christians, all children who die
with faults not repented of—according to some, all children
dying unbaptized—all mere moralists, all men of indifferent
or negative character, depart into a realm where lawlessness
Commentary, p. 263.
I66 I/FE OF BASHOP COLAEAVSO. CHAP. IV
reigns supreme, and from which all external check has been
deliberately withdrawn. It is, in truth, a region, not in which
evil is conquered, but from which God has retreated. It is the
triumph of Ahriman, who may henceforth exult in the endless
aggrandisement of sin. St. Paul would have rejected with
loathing the thought that the victory of God means nothing
more than this ; and it is certain that no man in his senses would
ever speak thus of any earthly king who had lost nineteen-
twentieths of his kingdom, over which he had been obliged to
abandon all control. The failure even in a single instance
to overcome evil by good is really the defeat of the
Righteous Will. We might give the earthly king all the
credit which a qualified success deserves. We might say that
he had put bounds to rebellion, and prevented the rebels from
harming those who had not joined them ; but it would be
an absurd mockery to say that he had overthrown his enemies
and recovered all his ancient power and his rightful realm.
Of the Divine Ruler we should be compelled to say that
His Will was not victorious while even a solitary soul re-
mained under the bondage of evil. To the mind of St. Paul
such pictures of mutilated empire never presented them-
selves. For him Christ was exalted as King over all ;
and He must reign until He has put all enemies under
his feet, not multitudes of individual men, in whom the
evil is suffered to continue unabated or endowed with in-
creasing venom, but all rule, all authority, all power, all the
principles of self-will, disobedience, rebellion, everything which
in any way opposes itself to the Spirit of righteousness and
love. The final conquest and extinction of this opposing
power or principle is the destruction of the last enemy which
he calls death, not the accident to which we give that name,
but that state which alone with St. Paul deserved to be called
death. The former was a change of material particles or
elements, if so we are to speak of them,--a change, of which
to cite again Bishop Butler's words, we know nothing beyond
1861. “THE COMMENTARY ON THE ROMAAVS.” 167
some of its phenomena. The latter is the real death, which
is the burden of the warnings of all prophets and righteous
men under the Old Covenant or the New. It is the death
between which and life Moses is represented as calling on the
people to choose. It is the condition of those who are dead
in trespasses and sins. It is the death which is the wages of
sin, the death of which alone St. Paul speaks when he says
that, as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all,—all
without exception,-be made alive. On this subject he speaks
with no uncertain utterance. As to the complete and final ex-
tinction of every power or principle antagonistic to the principle
or Spirit of Righteousness and Truth he has not a shadow of
doubt. Sorrow, sickness, pain, suffering, the dissolution of the
frame which we call the body, all these are accidents, which
St. Paul describes as part of the Divine discipline, to which
God Himself has subjected “the creature * in hope.
“These pains,” the Bishop of Natal adds, drawing out the
meaning of the Apostle, “though they may not know it,
are, in truth, birth-fangs, which . . . . are tending to
a better state of things hereafter.” "
We are apt to look on this wretchedness, or vanity, for so
St. Paul terms it, as the necessary consequence of sin and SO
having its origin in sin only. We have not the faintest
warrant for any such supposition. It is a purely arbitrary
assumption.” These sufferings, and the accident called death,
* Commentary, p. 219.
* Yet it is an assumption, which all who will insist on regarding the
constitution of mortal creatures in a changing world as having been intro-
duced by the sin of some of these creatures must always be tempted to
make. They are right in thinking that on this hypothesis something
more than the accident called death has to be accounted for. Tempests,
earthquakes, the poison of serpents, the fangs of beasts of prey, are all in
a certain sense evils, are evils in the same sense perhaps in which that
which we call physical death is an evil. If the latter is the result of
Adam's sin, so also must be the former. The topic is generally evaded
or slurred over; and he is a bold man who will follow Milton's example
in making Eve's transgression the cause of a declination in the earth’s
axis. The attempt is, however, sometimes made. I have heard the same
168 AAFE OF BASA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. IV.
which for all we know may end them altogether, have nothing
to do with the death of sin from which we pray to be raised
to the life of righteousness; and the conquering of this, the
only real death, will be the ending or consummation of the
work of the Eternal Son, who will then hand over to the
Father the power intrusted to Him, that God may be the
All-in-all.
Whatever else these words may mean, they mean at least
this, that nowhere shall any room be left for the unrestrained
exercise and multiplication of sin, that everywhere it shall be
hunted out and put down, and shall finally be extinguished in
the creation which it has marred. It means that Divine
righteousness can never make terms with sin or allow it any-
where to hold its own. To assert that God can so make terms
is to assert that the Divine Nature is to undergo a change, for
it is asserted that He is now at war with all sin, whereas the
time will come when He will admit that His Will is not
adequate to the accomplishment of the consummation which
He had desired to bring about."
distinguished prelate, of one of whose sermons I have already spoken,
inform his hearers that thorns and talons had no place in the world
before the fall of man, that the rose and the acacia had no spinae, the lion
and the tiger no claws, that the several stages which ended in the con-
summation of human rebellion were marked by the beginning and growth
or increase of irritation in the bark of the tree and the paw of the beast :
that when the woman resolved on her sin, the spinae and the claws pro-
truded from the coating of the plant and the flesh of the brute which, as
Soon as the sin was accomplished, became to its own amazement and
against its will a beast of prey. The picture was drawn out with all
the fulness of detail which marked this eminent prelate's oratory, and
which, in this instance, gave emphasis to the conclusion, “Such, my
brethren, was the effect of human transgression on the animal and vege-
table worlds.” It is hard to believe that a speaker in the present day
could draw such a picture without some consciousness of its falsity.
The offence here lies in the extravagance with which the hypothesis
is worked out; but the fallacy underlies, of necessity, all the notions
which connect with moral disobedience and sin the effects of the changes
and chances of this mortal life.
* Of theories of conditional immortality and of the annihilation of
those who after some definite term may remain impenitent, all that we
1886. “THE COMMENTARY ON THE ROMAAWS.” 169
But if He wills to conquer sin, what power shall be able to
withstand Him in the end ? It is not, in this age only that
men have found it difficult or impossible to believe in the
impotence of the Divine Will for subduing finally the dis-
obedience of every enemy. The difficulty or impossibility of
believing this led Scotus Erigena to affirm the final restoration
of the devil himself, and to cite Origen and others in support
of this assertion." The words of St. Paul admit of neither
need say is that they do not differ in principle from the extremest decla-
rations of Augustinian Calvinism. It is unnecessary to give the names
of writers who have propounded such theories. The idea of annihilation
(whatever that may be) involves the Divine defeat quite as much as the
idea of the endless torturing of beings left to themselves in some portion
of the universe. It is virtually the assertion that God, unable to make a
bad man good, can only put him out of being. Of the possibility of such
extinction we know nothing ; but we implicitly deny the fact when we
assert that the Divine Will must in the end be absolutely victorious.
* There is, indeed, no room for doubt that the horrible theology of
undying vindictiveness has come like a nightmare on Christendom, and
that the greatest thinkers and holiest men in the Church Catholic have
lived in a joyful assurance of the complete extinction of sin. From
Clement of Alexandria we have the declaration that “all things have
been appointed by the Lord for the salvation of all both in general and in
particular”; that “necessary discipline by the goodness of the great over-
seeing Judge compels even those who have entirely despaired to repent”;
and that “all things are arranged with a view to the salvation of the
universe by the Lord of the Universe.” Gregory of Nyssa speaks of
Christ as “both freeing mankind from their wickedness and healing the
very inventor of wickedness (the devil),” and with an outburst of joy
declares that “when in the lengthened circuits of time the evil now
blended with and implanted in them has been taken away, when the
restoration to their ancient state of those who now lie in wickedness shall
have taken place, there shall be with one voice thanksgiving from the
whole creation.” Elsewhere he declares, “It is needful that at some time
evil shall be removed utterly and entirely from the realm of existence.
For since by its very nature evil cannot exist apart from free choice, when
free choice becomes in the power of God, shall not evil advance to utter
abolition, so that no receptacle for it shall be left?” Again, “At some
time the nature of evil shall pass to extinction, being fully and completely
removed from the realm of existence, and Divine unmixed goodness shall
embrace in itself every rational nature; nothing that has been made by
God falling away from the Kingdom of God.” And again, “When every
created being is at harmony with itself, and every tongue shall confess
17o I/FE OF BISHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. IV.
modification nor exception. The reign of Christ will last until
every opposing principle has been utterly extinguished. His
salvation, then, is not partial. It cannot be so; for all theories
of partial salvation imply, of necessity, a compromise with sin.
This compromise with sin is inconceivable; and with this
inconceivability all such theories fall to the ground.
The Bishop of Natal’s conclusions might have been put
more decisively had he thus fixed his mind on the Consum-
mation of the Divine Work in the conquest and extinction of
evil. In other words, he might have advanced somewhat
further ; but the actual work accomplished by him was great
indeed. He moved with no faltering step. He refused to
allow himself to be entangled with any theological inconsist-
encies and contradictions ; and the result was a vindication of
the Divine Love and Righteousness, the meaning of which
could neither be wrested nor put out of sight. This was the
great purpose which he set before himself in his Commentary
on the Epistle to the Romans. It is not surprising, therefore,
that this little book roused the deepest “theological hatred"
in the minds of his accusers at the so-called “trial” in
Capetown.
that Jesus Christ is Lord, when every creature shall have been made one
body, then shall the body of Christ be subject to the Father. . . . Now,
the body of Christ, as I have often said, is the whole of humanity. . . .
When then all who once were God’s enemies shall have been made His
footstool (because they shall receive in themselves the Divine imprint),
when death shall have been destroyed in the subjection of all, which is
not servile humility but immortality and blessedness, Christ is said, by
St. Paul, to be made subject to God.” With equal assurance Theodoret
declares “that in the future life, when corruption is at an end and im-
mortality granted, there is no place for suffering, but it being totally
removed, no form of sin remains at work. So shall God be all in all—all
things being out of danger of falling, and converted to Him.”
In short, the traditional notions on the subject of future punishment
may be regarded as virtually a modern heresy, to be beaten down and
summarily cast aside. For super-abundant evidence of this fact I may
refer to Mr. Atkin's work on Universalism, already mentioned, p. 164.
CHAPTER V.
PREPARATIONS FOR THE GREAT WARFARE.
1862-63.
WE have seen that the necessity of raising funds must
in any case have taken the Bishop to England at this time:
but the uncertainty as to the results which might follow the
publication of his criticisms on the Pentateuch rendered it
unwise to leave his family in Natal. Speaking of their
departure, Mrs. Colenso says that
“they packed all their most valued possessions and set out
with the feeling that quite possibly they were bidding a last
farewell to a much-loved home and people. Archdeacon and
Mrs. Grubb (Miss Alice Mackenzie) remained in charge of
the Mission, the sadness of the parting being deepened by
the arrival, two days before, of the news of the death of .
Bishop Mackenzie. After a farewell service in the little
wooden chapel, the journey down to Durban was accom-
plished by ox-waggon, in the same patriarchal fashion as
the journey up seven years ago, and lasting for three days.
Part of the ‘trek’ was by night, when the Bishop beguiled
the weariness of the little party with talk about the stars
and with stories of the wanderings of Ulysses. Passage by
sailing-vessel rather than by the then monthly mail steamer
was chosen for economy's sake. It was an interesting
voyage. The Medusa, though small, was a capital sailer,
Outstripping every vessel we fell in with.’
172 A/FE OF BASA/OP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. V.
It cannot be said that the Bishop found himself in quiet
waters when the ten weeks' voyage came to an end. Bishop
Gray had preceded him to England, and, as the sequel will
show, had in concert with some of his brother-Bishops deter-
mined on a line of action which, it was hoped, would end in
his complete discomfiture. The Bishop of Natal was wholly
in the wrong. He must be made to confess himself in the
wrong, and, if possible, to eat his own words. But while he
had thus to parry the manoeuvres of not very ingenuous
opponents, he had at the same time to undergo the harder
struggle between duty and personal affection. If he was met
by resistance, either active or passive, in some quarters from
which he might have looked for sympathy if not for support
and encouragement, this disappointment was as nothing
compared with the forfeiture of old and precious friendship.
Almost from the moment of his landing it became manifest
that he must prepare himself for the great warfare ; and
as this warfare was solely and wholly in the cause of truth, he
was ready, rather than be untrue to that cause, to yield
up, if need be, even the good opinion of dear friends. All
that he could do was to see that the breach of friendship
should not come from himself; and to this resolution he was
persistently faithful.
The terror felt at this time by the several parties which
professed to regard the raising of any questions as to the
date, authorship, and historical value of any books of the
Old Testament as an onslaught on the very principles of
Christianity and even of all religion, is curiously shown in
Bishop Gray's Charge to the Diocese of Natal, delivered in
I864. In this charge the one over-mastering desire by which
he acknowledges himself to have been actuated in reference
to Bishop Colenso’s criticisms on the Pentateuch was not to
prove their falsity, but to prevent their publication. There
are some, perhaps many, who lose their tempers in discussions
1862. PREPARATIONS FOR THE GREAT WARFARE. 173
on the antiquity of Our Iliad and Odyssey, and regard as a
terrible heresy, or even as a sign of moral obliquity, the asser-
tion of the manifest fact that they were not known in their
present form in the days of Perikles. But this agitation is as
nothing to the scare of those who feel, or profess to feel, that
everything, their peace of mind here and their highest hopes
hereafter, must give way beneath them, if it should turn out
that Moses had nothing to do with the composition of the
book of Genesis. Accordingly, the Bishop of Capetown was
anxious, not to insure a fair examination, but to prevent all
scrutiny whatsoever. His Charge I gives the story of his
doings in a passage, of which almost every sentence bristles
with assumptions and misrepresentations.
“Upon the appearance,” Bishop Gray tells us, “ of his first
work, assailing the faith through his Commentary [on the
Romans], I wrote a letter, earnestly intreating him 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 the cor-
respondence 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 sanction the death
of the well-beloved Bishop Mackenzie compelled me to
proceed to England.” I then received the concurrence of
the Bishops, generally, in the course which I had pursued ;
and on the arrival of your late Bishop * shortly after me in
England, I communicated their views to him. At the same
time I intreated 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
1 P. 27.
* Bishop Gray must have started by the first steamer after getting this
news. He therefore reached England some weeks before the Bishop of
Natal in his little sailing vessel.
* It suited Bishop Gray's purpose to use this form.
#74 AZFA2 OF BISA/OP CO/LEAVSO. CHAP. V.
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.
Two years before the delivery of this Charge, the Bishop of
Natal had told Bishop Gray that the rough draft of the book
had been printed, not for circulation in the colony, but solely
that it might be submitted to the judgement of valued friends
in England. One charge is thus rebutted; and after the denial
given to it by Bishop Colenso, Bishop Gray ought to have
been ashamed to repeat it. There remained the other charge,
that Bishop Colenso rushed impetuously into publication,
without caring for the advice of those eminent scholars on
the English Bench who might have lightened or removed his
difficulties. This charge is disposed of, or rather turned
against the accuser, by the following narrative of the Bishop
of Natal. *
“Within a few days after my arrival in England, I received a
letter from the Bishop of Oxford. . . . In this letter the
Bishop said, with reference to some points in my Com-
mentary on the Romans, ‘On 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
1. By whom was it so reputed P Bishop Gray admits that the book
was not published at the time to which he refers. He must, therefore,
have formed his opinion on mere hearsay or on information received by
breach of confidence.
1862. PREPARATIONS FOR THE GREAT WARFARE. 175
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 for free brotherly
converse. . . . If you would come to me to give a day or
two to such a consultation, you would find a warm greet-
ing, 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 ap-
peared to me, in short, that, instead of being invited to a
friendly conference, I was about practically to be ‘con-
1 The Bishop of Natal was quite right. The nature of the scheme
taken in hand is revealed by the Bishop of Oxford himself. Writing to
Bishop Gray, June Ist, 1862, before the arrival of the Bishop of Natal, he
says: “We have now held two episcopal meetings on the Bishop of Natal’s
case. . . . We met on Friday—a large number. . . . The Bishop of Win-
chester had your letter to Natal and his answer communicated to the
Archbishop, and offered to read them. London objected. The book
[The Commentary on the Romans] was all we had to do with. I replied.
St. David's backed me, and after tedious discussion your letter was read.
The Bishop of London (Tait) declared it to be an absolute perversion
of the whole book: a tissue of misrepresentations, &c. I responded,
and Salisbury, that it was a clear, loving, fair, and most considerate
statement of his errors. . . . Another discussion again settled for reading,
and it was read through.
“Then came a long discussion as to our course. I suggested that on
his landing we should open personal communication with him. . . . that
zve had read his book . . . . and invited its suppression ; and, failing that,
agreed to request him not to officiate in our dioceses until the matter had
been legally examined. . . . St. David's seemed to fear that such a
Common action had too much the appearance of a synodical condemnation
without a hearing. . . . London was strong against action as action, “was
not prepared to say,’ &c. The old story. “Did not know that it was
beyond the teaching of Mr. Maurice. . . . If he did this, must he not
forbid the Bishop of Brechin,’ &c.”—Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. iii.
Pp. II.4, II 5.
In short, a trap was laid for the Bishop of Natal before he had landed,
in England; and he was then left to believe, it would seem, that no trap
had been laid at all.
176 IIFE OF BISA/OP CO LEAVSO. - CHAP. V.
vened' by him, as Metropolitan, before a bench of bishops,
for my offences. And that I was not wrong in this sup-
position is shown by the fact, that the Bishop of Capetown
did not correct my own view of the matter, as expressed to
him in my letters, copied below, and that he still says, in
the extract cited from his charge, ‘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.’
“This language may be compared with the expressions of the
Bishop of Oxford, ‘free discussion 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 jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan, I thought it my duty to reply to the Bishop
of Oxford and to the Bishop of Capetown, as follows:—
“TO THE BISHOP OF OXFORD.
“‘August 9, 1862.
“‘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, 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, gene-
rally 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 compatible
with a conscientious adherence to the Articles and Formu-
laries 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.
“‘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.’
1862. PREPARATIONS FOR THE GREAT WARFARE. 177
“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 happy to meet any of
my brother Bishops singly, and discuss with him any portion
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 re-
sults. 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 dis-
cussing calmly and dispassionately with me the points in
question. I trust that I duly reverence 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, I 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:–
“‘August 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] which you have pub-
lished. 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
VOL. I. * N
178 AAFE OF BISA/OP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. V.
for those who were able to do so to meet you and endeavour
to convince you that you were in error.
“If by God's blessing they should succeed in this, it might
lead to your withdrawing a book which so many think
unsound, and render all other proceedings 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 assertion of juris-
diction 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 towards 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
August 20, 1862.
“‘I am very sorry 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 published 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 certain other Bishops
for their opinions." These Bishops, without pretending to sit
1 In other words, the whole plan of action had been preconcerted
before the arrival of the Bishop of Natal in England, and the trap had
been laid accordingly.
1862. PREPARATIONS FOR THE GREAT WARFARE. 179
in judgement upon the work, do, nevertheless, very generally
[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 in their
dioceses. You may be able at an interview to explain
much that shocks the mind of others; or they may, if they
should meet you, be able to convince you that you 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 where 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 P
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 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 I
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
* When, and by what authority, and by what instrument, have the
Bishops of the several English dioceses been constituted “guardians of
the faith of the Church of England” ”
*. IN 2
18o AZAZE OF BASA/OP COLE/VSO. CHAP. V.
in them lies to recover one who is . . . . [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
yourself right, 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 considering that the views which I have expressed
* The case was therefore prejudged by the system of Jeddart justice.
* The conceivable possibility that these Christian-minded counsellors
might find themselves mistaken and the Bishop of Natal right is not
taken into consideration at all. In other words, the infallibility of the
would-be advisers is taken for granted; and their infallibility, it is to be
supposed, is to rest on the infallibility of the Church of England, which
disclaims this infallibility for herself and denies it to all other Churches.
1862. ARE PAA'A TYOAVS FOR 7THE GAZEA 7' W.A.A.A.A.A.A. 181
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 Scriptural doctrine of the Atonement, and the
subject of Eternal Punishment, my mind has progressed
with advancing age, experience, inquiry, 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.
“‘Of course, I am aware that the recent judgement of Dr.
Lushington [in Essays and Reviews] brings me under
condemnation on certain points." But you cannot surely
believe that that judgement 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 absolutely plain. If, however, it should
be confirmed on these points, it will then be the duty of
myself, and a multitude of other clergymen who have held
and taught views like my own, to decide on Our future
COUI1 Se.
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, are in any way condemned by the
Articles and formularies of the Church, and having already
&
&
(
1 This is very doubtful, even on the supposition that these points were
law. But they have been set aside on appeal; and the inquiry, therefore,
is superfluous.
182 * JAA’E OF BISA/OP COLEAVSO. CHAP. V.
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
Iſle.
“‘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 towards a brother
whom he wishes to “recover,'—would be willing to meet and
discuss with me any of the questions I 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 Claughton had joined in
the condemnation 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 grief 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 September 17, 1862 –
“‘I think I ought to tell you that the dear good Bishop of
St. Asaph has expressed a readiness to discuss your
views with you, if you choose to visit him with a view
to that purpose, and that, although I have 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
1862. PREPARATIONS FOR THE GREAT WARFARE. 183
course the latter portion 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 hardly felt that with
a Prelate of his advanced years a discussion upon my Come-
mentary would be likely to lead to any practical result, and
I had no reason to suppose that he had studied at all the
criticism of the Pentateuch. To the Bishop of St. David's
[Thirlwall], whom I myself mentioned to Bishop Gray, and
whose learning might, indeed, have been profitably con-
Sulted by us, my proposal, as his lordship has informed me,
was never in any way communicated. The 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 or other, for my book on the Romans, which,
though containing, as I maintain, no single statement at
variance with the Articles and formularies, 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 recognised the jurisdiction of
the Metropolitan.”
Had the Bishop under these circumstances accepted the
invitation, he would either have betrayed a wonderful sim-
plicity in running his head into the noose prepared for him,
Or, if he saw the snare, would have grossly failed in his duty.
Possibly the Bishop of Oxford, in acting on this ingeniously
arranged plan, may have counted on the Bishop of Natal’s
simplicity and earnestness as likely to blind him to the
motive and the purpose which prompted it. The attitude
of the Bishop of Capetown in this singular correspond-
ence is significant of his whole bearing through all the
incidents of the coming year. From first to last it is that
184 AAFE OF AP/SHOP COZEWSO. CHAP. V.
of the infallible ecclesiastic towards one whom he calls a
brother, but who, come what may, must be proved to be in
the wrong. Had there been, in anything that he said or
wrote, the faintest admission that he himself might possibly
turn out to be mistaken, the case would have been altered.
But any such admission is implicitly held to be equivalent to
a rejection of all faith in God. He and the Bishops who
were acting with him had resolved on taking “the most
Christian course,” and this course imposed on them simply
the duty of striving to convince the Bishop of Natal that he
was “in error.”
Six years later the Bishop of Oxford felt himself called
upon to say something in reply to Lord Houghton, who in
the House of Lords had expressed the opinion that the
Bishop of Natal had not been met generally with feelings of
kindness and brotherly friendship. The fact, he declared, was
as diametrically opposite to Lord Houghton's statement as
it could possibly be.
“Dr. Colenso had received private remonstrances, brotherly
counsel, the tenderest and kindest counsel, from his seniors
at home; and such counsel had led him only to Some new
outbreak of violence.”
If these words meant anything, they meant that Bishop
Colenso had repeatedly received kind remonstrances from
his episcopal brethren at home, to all of which he had
turned a deaf ear. What these kind remonstrances and
tender counsels were, we have seen in part already. The
next step of the majority of the Bishops, after the publication
of Dr. Colenso's first volume, was to send him a circular
letter calling upon him to resign his see ; and to this he
returned a reply, together with the following letter to the
Archbishop of Canterbury:-
1863. PREPARATIONS FOR THE GREAT WARFARE. 185
- “March 5, 1863.
“My LORD ARCHBISHOP,
“I beg to inclose my reply to the address which has been
forwarded to me by your Grace from the Archbishops and
Bishops of the Church of England.
“I share very deeply in your Grace's expression of regret that
your first act of intercourse with me should have been of this
character. And I am painfully sensible of the fact that
ever since my landing in this country—with the exception
of one letter from the Bishop of Oxford more than six
months ago, and a message from the Bishop of Capetown
to the effect that the Bishop of St. Asaph had expressed a
readiness to discuss my views (upon the Romans) with me,
if I chose to visit him for that purpose—not a single ex-
pression of sympathy or brotherly kindness has reached
me from any one of my spiritual brethren in England or
Ireland, though it was well known that I was suffering
under great mental trial and perplexity.
“I am, &c., -
“J. W. NATAL.”
On the same day, at his wish, “expressed through a mutual
friend,” he had an interview with the Bishop of London; but,
although he felt Dr. Tait's courtesy and kindness, the latter
offered nothing in the form of either advice or remonstrance.
To the preceding letter, however, he received from the Arch-
bishop the following reply:-
“LAMBETH PALACE, March 6, 1863.
“My LORD,
“I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your answer to the
address of the Bishops, which I will cause to be forwarded
to all the subscribers to that address.
“In reference to your remark that since your landing not a
single expression of sympathy or brotherly kindness from
any of your episcopal brethren had reached you, I feel it due
to myself to observe that I believed that the Bishop of
I 86 JC/FAZ OF BISA/OP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. V.
Capetown had intimated to you my willingness to hold an
amicable conference with you on the painful subject of your
publications; but I understood that you declined all such
intercourse.
“Then I must in Christian candour and sincerity state that I
did feel that the tone and spirit of your writings, irrespective
of the matter, were such as rather to repel than invite
friendly intercourse. .
“I can with the greatest truth assure you that I feel very
deeply for what I must consider your very unhappy posi-
tion ; and it will be my constant prayer that you may have
grace to perceive the peril in which you stand, and retrace
your steps before it be too late.
“I am, my Lord,
“Your faithful friend and brother in Christ,
“C. T. CANTUAR.”
Like Bishop Gray, Archbishop Longley addresses Dr.
Colenso as a man who has been not merely accused but tried
and condemned. There is not the faintest hinting that, even
if he were condemned in his archi-episcopal Court of Arches,
the judgement might be reversed by the highest Court of
Appeal. The reckless assurances of his present peril and his
future vain regret are proofs, at least, of complete lack of
the judicial sense. To this letter the Bishop sent the following
3.11SWCI :—
“March Io, 1863.
“MY LORD ARCHBISHOP,
“I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your Grace's reply to
my former letter. I am sorry that the Bishop of Capetown
did not in any way intimate to me your Grace’s ‘willing-
ness to hold an amicable conference with me on the subject
of [my] publications.' I should at once have gladly availed
myself of such an intimation ; nor have I ever given him
any reason for saying that I ‘declined all such intercourse.’
On the contrary, I wrote to him on August 27 to say that
1863. PREPARATIONS FOR THE GREAT WARFARE. 187
“I should 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 believed to be the truth, or from a feeling
of charity towards a brother whom he wished to recover—
would be willing to meet and discuss with me any of the
questions raised in my Commentary.' But the Bishop of
Capetown was anxious to bring me before a number of
Bishops, in other words, to ‘convene’ me, and to that,
and that only, I objected. Your Grace will perceive that
the above was written two months before my Part I. on the
Pentateuch was published. And I had been in England
nearly three months before I had published anything to
which I can suppose your Grace to refer when you say that
‘the tone and spirit of [my] writings were such as rather to
repel than to invite friendly intercourse.’ I shall very much
regret if there is anything in my First Part to which such
language can justly apply. I cannot doubt that I might
have profited much by friendly counsel from some, at least,
of my episcopal brethren, if any such had been offered.
And on this account alone I must especially regret the
complete state of isolation in which I have been left by
them upon returning to my native land after some years of
labour in the missionary field.
“Your Grace speaks of my ‘unhappy position.’ Conscious
that I am striving by God's help to do my duty as a
servant of the Truth, I cannot deem my position ‘unhappy,'
however at times my faith and hope and patience may be
tried. Rather, I bless God for the peace which He has
granted me inwardly, while the roar of tongues has been
raging without. *
“And I pray that He may grant me grace to correct any
faults which may be justly held to disfigure my writings,
and to be steadfast to the end, striving ever to speak the
truth in love.
“I am, my Lord Archbishop,
“Your Grace's very faithful and obedient servant,
“J. W. NATAL.”
I88 AAFE OF BISAIOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. V.
Writing on September 1, 1868, the Bishop says:–
“From that time to this not a single word of ‘sympathy,’
‘brotherly counsel,' or “private remonstrance' of any kind
has reached me from any one of my seniors at home. I am
not now complaining of this. I only state the fact.”
Among the friends to whom the Bishop soon after his
landing in England submitted the rough draft of his first
criticisms on the Pentateuch was Mr. Maurice, to whom, at a
time when the voices of the “religious world” were loudly
raised against him, the Bishop had dedicated the little volume
of Sermons preached at Forncett." To his amazement, instead
of counsel or comfort, he received from this honoured friend
little more than denunciation. The correspondence which
ensued has unhappily been imperfectly preserved ; but enough
remains to show the part taken by both in this momentous
discussion. In Mr. Maurice's letters there may be (I venture
to say that there is) much to regret: in those of the Bishop.
there is not one word for which either apology or excuse can
be needed.
TO THE REV. F. D. MAURICE.
“6, CRESCENT, BLACKFRIARS,
“September 4, 1862.
“My DEAR FRIEND,
I need hardly say that your letter has seriously distressed
me. I am pained, in the first place, to think that you
should suppose I could be guilty of so much ingratitude
and insolence as to suggest that you were clinging to
orthodox views merely because they were orthodox. Such
a thought could never have entered my mind, or been
expressed by my pen. I am pained also—very much
pained—by your references to those blessed ones who have
been taken to their rest. I have a mother, and a sister,
and a brother, who, like your dear sister, my most true
and honoured friend, have died in the belief of those
* See p. 47.
1862. PREPARATIONS FOR THE GREAT WARFAAEE. 189
matters, which I myself believed, till God has led me in his
Providence to believe otherwise. Can you suppose that
I have not daily and hourly beloved forms such as these
before my eyes—that I should pursue the path I am now
taking, if I did not think and most entirely believe that
they from their higher places look down and breathe their
blessing upon my work, while struggling here on earth—
(amidst much infirmity and every kind of temptation to
give up the struggle and be content to lie)—to be true
to the Living God and His truth 2 The reproaches which
you have, I am sure in haste, uttered with reference to the
dear departed, and the employment of my native boy, lose
all their sting with me, except as coming from you, if I
believe that in this book I am doing that which your sister
would have me to do, which I was really sent to Natal to
do, which our Church itself, that protests against all manner
of lies, would have me do, to my life's end.
“In point of fact, such a book as this is, by the recent
judgement, strictly within the licence given to a clergyman
of the Church of England. You say that I shall be carried
on beyond my present views. I admit that that is possible.
But I call on such as yourself to help to stay me and
a multitude of others, not by denouncing a few hasty ex-
pressions, such as ‘fiction' (a word which obviously was
ill-chosen, and does not properly express my meaning),
‘reasoning person,’ &c. (all of which I shall do my best to
expunge from my book, and I thank you sincerely for
correction of this fault), but by seriously examining into
the truth of the main argument. Is it true, or is it not
true, that the Pentateuch in a number of places distinctly
maintains that there were 600,000 warriors in the wilderness,
yet in other places distinctly shows that there could not
have been a hundredth part of that number 2
“But, my dear friend, you write as if I had no fear of God,
no faith or living hope, no desire, however weak, to serve
Him. God only knows how unworthy I am to be called
His servant, much more His child ; and yet I trust in His
mercy. But others there are whom you yourself would
I90 A./FAZ OF EASA/OA COALEAVSO. CHAP. V.
regard with more charitable thoughts, and who do not
shrink, as you have done, from the views which I have
expressed. I do not think you would class Dr. Davidson
with the band of impious unbelievers. I breakfasted yes-
terday with Canon Stanley, and had much interesting talk
with him upon the matters discussed in my book. Why
should you say that they, or that even I, undervalue the
Bible, because we do not adopt the same views as yourself
with respect to its historical value and the age and manner
of its composition ? Your remarks will certainly lead me
to insert a few passages to save me from such miscon-
struction as you have put upon some of my expressions.
I told you that the book was a mere first proof, and had
many faults which would be removed before it was pub-
lished. But your argument seems mainly to be based on
these defects in my style. You do not so much as touch
one point in the reasoning.
“I am afraid that it would be useless for me to come to you
at this time. Please excuse me now. I shall yet hope to
see you when you return to London. Meanwhile, may God
have us both in His holy keeping.
“Ever yours affectionately,
“J. W. NATAL.
“P.S.—I have again perused and considered your letter ; and
while most heartily thanking you for your great kindness in
writing it, I am constrained to say that the more I consider
it, the more I feel your words—very many of them—to be
harsh and unjust. You have only a fraction of my book.
You do not know what I should say of the Bible itself
before I close the argument.”
TO THE SAME.
“6, CRESCENT, BLACKFRIARS,
“September 5, 1862.
“I must say a few words more in reference to that part of
your letter in which you speak of Ewald and Bleek. With
reference to the former, Dr. W. Bleek, when he sent me his
1862. PREPARATIONS FOR THE GREAT WARFARE. 191
father's posthumous work, wrote, ‘You will see that your
estimate of Ewald pretty nearly agrees with my father's',
as you would also find if you read Bleek's last work.
Ewald, in fact, is far wilder in his hypotheses and far
more rash in his conclusions than I should wish to be.
It is not because he is too conservative that I cannot agree
with him, but just for the very contrary. Nevertheless, I
had long ago struck out from my book every word that
might give unnecessary pain to a great and good man,
though I do not at all doubt that what I have said of him,
supported as it is by Bleek's calm judgment, is perfectly
true. tº tº ſº
“With regard to the native boy, it is right perhaps that I
should say that the Natal Government granted me £300
per annum, without any reference to religion, strictly for
industrial purposes, that I had to find industrial employ-
ment for my printing boy, that I gave him what he very
much needed and the Government desired, practice in
printing from English copy, under my own surveillance, by
which he is now fitted to take work in an English printing-
office,—and that I was glad of the opportunity of so doing,
and having matter, which you deem so dangerous, privately
printed by one who could not understand what he composed,
instead of by an English printer.”
TO THE SAME,
“LONDON, September 6, 1862.
“I said, on p. 159 [of the proof], ‘It seems impossible that any
reasoning person, “if he only considers the facts which have
already been laid before him, . . . .’ &c.
“I do not believe that you have considered these facts. All
your expressions imply that you have merely glanced at
the matter, and not really weighed the force of any of my
arguments. It is not that I doubt the exactness of the
number 600,000 that I cannot receive the Pentateuch as
historical, or teach others to do so. And, of course, I
could retort—if that were seemly from me to one whom I
192 A./FE OF BASA/OA' COZAZAVSO. CHAP. V.
- ++,---- - - --------------> --
shall ever revere—that those who will not look at the plain
facts of the case, will employ no argument of reason, but
simple denunciation, to check a work which may be, and I
verily believe is, from God, the God of Truth, may themselves
one day deeply regret the course which they have taken.
“Stanley has seen my book with all its faults, and so have
others, whose piety and charity you would respect ; and yet
not one of them has taken that view either of the facts of
the case, or of my duty under the circumstances, which you
have done. Is it not possible that you may be mistaken in
your judgement 2 I will quote a few words from a letter
which I have this moment received from Stanley. You will
see that he does not think it necessary to condemn either
my purpose or my work as you do. “I have written this
abruptly ſhe says] ‘ and critically. But do not suppose
me insensible either to the vast labour or the painful efforts
which this work must have cost you. . It is my full con-
sciousness of this which renders me so anxious that no in-
discretion of eapression or exaggeration of argument should
lead off the public scent from your real meaning and
intention.’
“But it is useless in your present frame of mind to argue
upon the matter. May the great Being, whom we both
desire to serve, be our guide and grant us mercifully His
blessing.”
TO THE SAME.
“LONDON, September 8, 1862.
“MY DEAR FRIEND,
“I think you will feel upon consideration that there is not a
shadow of real ground for reproach * against me with refer-
ence to the Mission Press, when you are made aware of
the following facts:—
(1) The printing of my books does not cost the Mission
Fund one penny, unless it be supposed that the iron press
itself has been worn by use. It would have been more
injured by rust if it had not been used.
1 In a later letter Mr. Maurice withdrew this reproach.
1862. PREPARATIONS FOR THE GREAT WARFARE. 193
“(2) Half was printed at my own expense by a town printer.
“(3) The rest was printed with means given me by the Govern-
ment for the express purpose of training native youths in
industrial work of any kind, without any reference to religion.
“(4) I had taught my boy to print well from Zulu MS. ; but
I had no Zulu MS. in hand to give him.
“(5) To carry out the Governor's wishes and make him useful
to the colony at large, with a view to which the Govern-
ment money was given, it was necessary that he should be
able to print from English MS.—which he had never yet
attempted to do.
“(6) I taught him to do this by giving him my MS., the only
means I had of employing him at all.
“(7) As, though knowing a little English, he was utterly
unable to follow the argument of my book or understand its
real meaning, it was as good employment as I could have
found for him, and has, in fact, made a man of him.
“(8) In employing him about what you would consider the
most deadly part of my book, I did what I could to pre-
vent any injury being done through the employment of
Europeans.
“(9) These few copies were printed not for general circulation,
nor for sale, but to be laid before Heads of the Church and
others eminent for piety and ability, who might prevent
altogether, perhaps, the publication of the work.
“(Io) Lastly, a friend writes, as it seems to me, very justly :
“If you are right, you are not less, but more, orthodox than
Hengstenberg, than Paley, than myself.”
“I believe that in the main I am right. Not one, at least, of
my other friends, whom I have consulted (though they have
given me many kind and judicious hints, and have urged
me to modify some of the strong expressions of my rough
draft) have expressed a single doubt as to the general
correctness of the argument in my book, or as to my duty
to ‘act, as you say, ‘upon the Truth which I see, even
though it does involve a very great sacrifice of my own
will.’ My own will would have me to be a paltry sneaking
coward who, seeing the truth, would for the sake of avoiding
VOL. I. O
194 JAAPE OF AP/SA/OP CO/LEAVSO. CHAP. V.
reproach and calumny of every kind, and bitter Censures
from one at least of my most revered and valued friends—
for the sake of living comfortably and quietly, in honour and
comparative wealth—consent to ‘suppress’ that truth which
I see so plainly, and leave brave good men like Davidson
and others.to bear all alone the burden and heat of the day.
May the good Spirit of God not leave me to myself at any
moment for this: but your letters are a sore temptation—
at least, they would be, did I not perceive that you appeal
only to my feelings and my pride, not to my reason.
“P.S.—According to your reasoning, I myself have committed
a crime in spending my time in writing such a book, since,
according to your view, I was not ‘sent out,'—the Colonial
Bishoprics Fund was not “meant’—for such purposes. I,
indeed, think differently. I believe that I was sent out to
speak the truth, that our Protestant Church will have us
speak the truth at all cost, and will not in her principles—
however, for the moment, she may seem by the letter of the
law to do otherwise—countenance any kind of lie, whether
by perversion or suppression of the truth. But see how the
very same argument might be turned by an enemy—not
certainly by a friend—against yourself. Many of the
doctrines which you preach—though, as you believe, and as
I believe, in accordance with the spirit of the Church of
England, however seemingly at variance with the latter—
are certainly not considered by the mass of our fellow-
Churchmen, and by the judge administering the law of the
Church, as being in accordance with her teaching. You and
I were not ‘sent, it might be said, to preach such doctrines:
we have no right to eat the bread of the Church, while we
teach counter to her teaching. Of course, we do not believe
that we are doing wrong; but the great body of the
Church, undoubtedly, does condemn us. And I suppose
there would be found quite as many ready to support my
view on the Pentateuch, including men of unquestionable
piety and ability, as there are who would agree with the
views which you and I have expressed on the subject of
Eternal Punishment. Certainly, till Lushington's judgement
1862. PREPARATIONS FOR THE GREAT WARFARE. 195
was delivered, I did feel a great difficulty about the words
in the Ordination Service of Deacons. The judgement, and
Stephen's reasoning, have removed that difficulty. I see
that we cannot mean to express “unfeigned belief’ in the
historical veracity of the story of the Exodus any more than
in the historical veracity of Job or the Song of Solomon.
The passages in my preface, which refer to that Ordination
answer, of course, are now without point. And, indeed, the
whole preface requires, I find, to be remodelled, now that I
know the present state of feeling in England. But what
you appear to me to have done is to have rushed at once to
conclusions, as a necessary consequence of my view of the
Pentateuch, which do not at all follow from it necessarily,
and to which I certainly at present do not intend to com-
mit myself. As I have said before, most truly glad and
rejoiced should I be, if the whole fabric of my book
should be swept away by true and powerful reasoning ;
and then all the conclusions, which may seem to you to
follow from it, and some of which, perhaps, may really
follow from it, would be swept away also.”
The Bishop, no doubt, was absolutely sincere in wishing
that his arguments and conclusions should be decisively re-
futed and convincingly proved to be worthless and untenable.
But he seems to have forgotten for the moment, or perhaps
he had not yet come to see, that, if such should be the case,
an enormous power would be given to the system of popular
tradition which upholds the fetish-worship of bibliolaters.
TO THE REV. F. D. MAURICE.
“FOWEy, September 11, 1862.
“I most certainly believe with you that the Jehovah, the I
AM, is the ground of all that is true and good, in individuals
and nations." I believe also that the name was revealed
from above to man,—whether to Samuel or to some one
else. We differ on this point only, as it seems to me, in
this, that I do not think it necessary to believe that it was
* See Life of F. D. Maurice, ii. p. 510.
O 2
196 LIFE OF BISAIOP COZEWSO. CHAP. V.
revealed to Moses at the bush in the way described in
Exodus iii., and that my critical examination of the story
of the Exodus has convinced me that it is not historically
true. But supposing it to be true (as I conjecture, and am not
far from believing) that it was first revealed to the inner
consciousness of Samuel and by him communicated in
Exodus iii., it does not at all follow in my own judgement, and
in that of others whom I have consulted, that Samuel must
have been a liar and deceiver. I grant that the use of the
word ‘fiction, as it is commonly understood, might imply
this ; but I did not intend to imply it, and used the word,
as the best I could think of, to imply ‘not real,’ ‘not
historically true.” One of my friends writes, objecting to
the word, and adding, “Many traditionary facts must be
imbedded in the annalist's conglomerate ; and it will not
do to beg the question of the annalist's honesty by the use
of any word implying fraud. Perhaps an imagination of an
exalted order was at work; and the annalist may have had
no more consciousness of wrong or historical deception
than Homer had, or the early Roman annalists.'
“I am sorry that any of my expressions have been such as to
leave you under the impression that I thought con-
temptuously or arrogantly of those whose views and
conclusions do not agree with my own. By such ex-
pressions I have not done justice to myself; but if I know
myself, I have no such feelings. For Hengstenberg's works,
certainly, I do feel something like contempt, for his argu-
ments are often dishonest—I can use no milder term, and
that with a prodigious affectation of honesty and censure of
others as suppressing the truth from interested motives.
But I have no such sentiments with regard to any one else
whose opinions conflict with my own. And I shall en-
deavour to mend my faulty language. I am sure that your
words are those of a friend, and faithfully meant. I receive
them as such.
“Believe me to be,
“Ever yours affectionately,
“J. W. NATAL.”
1862. PREPARATIONS FOR THE GREAT WARFAAE. 197
It is not easy to understand how a man like Mr. Maurice
could read such a series of letters as those which were
addressed to him by the Bishop of Natal in the memorable
September of 1862 without pausing to think that his own
view of the matter might perhaps be not the only one which
might legitimately be held. But it can scarcely be said that
on this subject Mr. Maurice deliberated at all. The friends
met, it seems, early in September ; and Mr. Maurice, we are
told, gave expression to his thoughts in the form, “Well, I
think that the consciences of Englishmen will be very strongly
impressed with the feeling that you ought to resign your
bishopric.” Such is the report of Colonel Maurice in his
father's Life," and there is, unhappily, not the least ground
for questioning its perfect accuracy. Colonel Maurice is
undoubtedly right in saying that his father
“drew a very wide distinction between the duty of paying
respect to men's consciences, to the sense of right and
wrong developed by genuine care and thought upon a
question, and the absolute duty of disregarding mere
opinions, the things that men glibly repeat after their
fugleman.” g
But inasmuch as the Bishop of Natal had been impelled to
his task solely by regard to the instruction offered to the
poor, the ignorant, the helpless, the perplexed, we might
suppose that the consciences of Englishmen would rather be
impressed with the need of reform in a system which could
be upheld only by falsehood. If the mere questioning of
historical statements in the Pentateuch was held to damage
the Church of England, then her whole system must surely
demand a very searching scrutiny. Allowing, or rather
assuming, as Colonel Maurice admits, that Mr. Maurice's
position was unassailable, and therefore that at least to him
* Vol. ii. p. 422.
198 J.A.E OF AP/SAIOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. V.
the unfairness of such an appeal as he had made ought to be
clear, the Bishop replied that there were many who said that
he had no business to retain his living. The fact spoke for
itself. This language had been for years applied to men of
all parties. It was a weapon thrown recklessly in every
direction. The religious press and those who paraded a
cynical secularism had denounced the wickedness of Dr.
Pusey or Mr. Newman or other Tractarian leaders for not
finding their proper home in the Roman Church. There had
been broad hints that the Christianity of Dean Stanley or
even of Dean Milman was not such as to justify them in the
retention of their deaneries or even of their position as clergy-
men in the English Church. But on hearing the Bishop's
words Mr. Maurice instantly jumped to the conclusion that
the charges of mercenariness and dishonesty were being urged
against himself in particular, and he answered therefore that
if any supposed him to profess belief in the Church's creeds
and in the Bible for the sake of the money which he got from
his chapel, such a scandal called for his immediate resignation.
He wrote, accordingly, to Mr. Llewellyn Davies, in a strain
which showed that there was very little chance of sober
reflexion on the matters with which he was professing
to deal.
“The pain which Colenso's book has caused me,” he says, “is
more than I can tell you. I used nearly your own words,
‘It is the most purely negative criticism I ever read,” in
writing to him. Our correspondence has been frequent,
but perfectly unavailing. He seems to imagine himself
a great critic and discoverer; and I am afraid he has met
with an encouragement which will do him unspeakable
mischief. He says I have only appealed to his pride in
my argument. I fancy I wounded his pride' even more
* We might be pardoned for thinking that Mr. Maurice was talking at
random. The Bishop had no pride to wound; he was shocked at such
vehemence from one whom he had always revered and loved.
-*.
1862. PRE PARATIONS FOR THE GREAT WARFARE. 199
than I ought. I appealed to his love of truth. I asked
him whether he did not think Samuel must have been a
horrid scoundrel if he forged a story about the I AM
speaking to Moses, and to my unspeakable surprise and
terror he said, ‘No : many good men had done such
things. He might not mean more than Milton meant.”
He even threw out the notion that the Pentateuch might
be a poem ; and when I said that to a person who had ever
asked himself what a poem is the notion was simply
ridiculous, he showed that his idea of poetry was that
it is something which is not historical. And his idea of
history is that it is a branch of arithmetic. I agree with
you that it is very difficult to say to what point of disbelief
he may go; but it seems to me just as likely, with his
tolerance of pious frauds, that he may end in Romanism
and accept everything.”.”
We shall find a while later the Bishop's accusers at Capetown
expressing themselves in language even more absurd and
extravagant than this. It is enough here to say that neither
they nor Mr. Maurice were in the least aware how absolutely
void of all effect such language is on the minds of those who
have honestly worked in any branch of human history. For
such students it soon becomes luminously clear that negative
conclusions must of necessity be additions to our positive
knowledge; that there are many subjects which admit of none
but purely negative criticism ; and that the honesty of
chroniclers or other writers must be measured by the cir-
cumstances of the age in which they lived. No story is
forged, unless it is put together with the purpose of cheating
and deceiving ; and the Jews are not the only people amongst
whom the practice of putting forth books under the names of
thinkers whose reputation might secure them some attention
was very general, if not universal. There is scarcely one
illustrious Greek writer whose sanction has not been claimed
* Life of F. D. Maurice, vol. ii. p. 423.
2OO JLJAZE OF BISAIOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. W.
for a mass of pseudonymous literature. This literature was
not designed to be a pious fraud, and hence it never carried
with it the reputation for falsehood. Even if we take the
supposition that the book of the law found in the time of
Josiah was a book recently composed, we have no more
warrant for applying to the writer or writers of it any more
than to John Bunyan the charge of wilful and deliberate
lying.
The question is so important that it becomes necessary to
notice more at length the expressions used by Mr. Maurice in
reference to it.
“You know, of course,” he writes to Mr. Clark, “this business
of Colenso. You know how he had identified himself with
me, and how great a struggle it must be to me to disclaim
him, especially when he is putting himself to great risk.
Yet I think him so utterly wrong that I must do it at all
risks to him or to me. How to do it, and yet not to put
myself entirely in the wrong with respect to him, and so to
injure the cause of God far more than myself, has been a
subject of earnest thought with me. It has obliged me to
consider my whole position at Vere Street. I had long
perceived that that was put in jeopardy by the recent
decisions in Heath's case and in Wilson's case. I had
prepared myself for a prosecution, and had determined that
when it came I would not go into the court, but would
rather retire. To plead by help of an ingenious counsel
for permission to do what I feel I must do to fulfil my ordi-
nation vows seemed to me mischievous. But I had meant
to wait till the blow came. Now I see very clearly that I
ought to anticipate it. If I give up Vere Street, stating
my reason for doing so very fully in a letter to my congre-
gation, I can distinguish my position from that of all who
wish to diminish the authority of the Scripture. I can show
that my only offence is that of adhering too literally to the
words of the Prayer-Book and Articles.”
1862. PRE PARATIONS FOR THE GREAT WARFAA’E. 201
-— —---------- ºr- - - - * x-x. ºr=s* ~w
Mr. Maurice was absolutely sincere; and he felt not a
shadow of doubt of his own ability to trace the literal mean-
ing of the formularies or Articles of the Church of England;
but we shall find that there is not a single argument urged by
him, or a single expression cited in support of his conclusions,
to which the accusers of the Bishop of Natal at Capetown
have not ascribed quite another sense. Mr. Maurice, for instance,
laid great stress on the withdrawal of the Article on the sub-
ject of the endless torturing of the impenitent. To Bishop
Gray and his partisans this fact furnished the most conclusive
evidence that the dogma was held and imposed as indubitable
by the Church of England as by the Church Catholic in all
ages. It was not likely, therefore, that on the purely eccle-
siastical or sacerdotal mind his resignation of Vere Street
Chapel would produce any impression whatever. Neverthe-
less, he had no hesitation in taking this step.
“Colenso's act,” he wrote to Mr. Kingsley (October 1862),
“though it clinched my resolution . . . . only showed me
what would have been best at all events. My mind has
been nearly racked this vacation at the thought that the
whole family life of England must go to wreck if there is
not some witness that the Father of all is not a destroyer.
At the same time I have faith and hope, at times most
cheering and invigorating, that some of our scientific men
and our secularists, if they could be spoken to as husbands
and fathers, not as schoolmen, might pass from atheism to
the most cordial belief. Arguments about a Creator will
fall dead upon them. A message from a Father may rouse
them to life.” 1
Writing to his friend Arthur Stanley (October, 1862), he
speaks of himself as lying open to the suspicion that while he
partly talked of the Old Testament as the guide to all moral
and political wisdom, he partly looked upon it, with Colenso,
as a book of fictions and forgeries.
* Life, vol. ii. p. 428.
2O2 AZAZAZ OA’ A3/SA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. V.
“The coincidence of the appearance of Colenso's book with
the re-hearing of Wilson's case has determined the time of
my retirement from Vere Street.”"
Mr. Maurice was, happily, brought to see that there was no
reason for this step ; and he did not resign. Dr. Stanley
begged him, as a strong personal favour, to postpone his
decision until Dr. Lushington's recent Judgment in the
Williams-Wilson case had been reviewed by the Privy
Council; and more particularly Mr. Bunyon, the Bishop's
brother-in-law, had insisted that if he resigned
“as a protest against Dr. Colenso's book, it would be taking
an unfair advantage of Dr. Colenso's having come to him
as a friend and having put the proofs into his hand. . . .
You are prepared to betray him by having an engine of
attack to be issued simultaneously with his book. . . . I
think this involves a question of honour.””
This letter, Colonel Maurice adds,
“was written under a feeling that such a remonstrance was
the Only means that would stop my father from taking a
step which many friends had intreated Mr. Bunyon to do all
that he could to prevent. The strong wording was designed
to produce the effect which it actually did produce upon a
man sensitive to the last degree on the point of honour.
Mr. Bunyon had interposed with great reluctance and as a
last resource, from attachment to my father, and regret that
his brother-in-law should have been the occasion for such
action. The blow fell with the effect of a complete surprise
upon my father. His action had been largely determined
by his dislike to the position of having to oppose an un-
popular man, whilst he was thoroughly convinced that it
was his bounden duty to oppose the Bishop. The sugges-
tion that his proposed conduct looked a little cowardly, a
little like taking the side of the strong against the weak,
and altogether unfair, was intolerable to him. It was just
* Life, vol. ii. p. 429. * Iº. vol. ii. p. 433.
1862. PREPARATIONS FOR THE GREAT WARFARE. 203
that against which he had struggled all his life. . . . He gave
way at once. He wrote a letter of pained and indignant
protestation to Mr. Bunyon, saying that he did not think
that any one who knew him would attribute such motives
to him. He wrote to the Bishop of Natal to say that
he would not at all events act before the book appeared.”
In a letter to Dr. Stanley he admitted that he had not at
first seen his way to do more than say that he would suspend
all his doings for a while, but that he soon perceived that he
had been “about to injure Colenso’’ when he fancied he was
only injuring himself.
“Then it became clear to me that people did—as you said
they would—utterly mistake my meaning and suppose me
to be leaving the Church. This being clear, I had no
alternative but to say, ‘I have been utterly wrong, my
friends altogether right.' I said so to my congregation last
Sunday. It was humiliating, but it was a plain duty. . . I
must have been most wilful, but I could not see it till the
Bishop of Natal complained of the injustice done to him.”
In the same spirit Mr. Maurice wrote to a son then an
undergraduate at Oxford —
“From the moment that I saw that I should not be making
a declaration of principles at my own cost, but be casting
another stone at him, I knew that I must be wrong. Then
I gradually perceived from the comments in the papers and
from private letters that my whole meaning had been
mistaken, that I was supposed to be discontented with the
Church, when I wished to assert my devotion to it most
strongly. Therefore I had nothing to do but to retreat and
confess my error. I did so last Sunday before my congre-
gation. I cannot call it eating the leek, except that, being
a Welshman by origin, I am bound to like leeks. But it
was a humiliation, however much I might rejoice to feel
myself once again the minister of a most kind and friendly
people.”1 -
* Life, vol. ii. p. 435.
2O4. A.JPE OF BISA/OP COLE/VSO. CHAP. V.
With those who have a true faith in the living God of
perfect righteousness and perfect love, time cannot fail to deal
gently in bringing out into clearest relief the unity which
underlies all their superficial differences. In their treatment
of the books of the Old Testament as records of events and
incidents, the Bishop of Natal differed from Mr. Maurice as
widely as one man could well differ from another. But,
although Mr. Maurice might suppose it to be otherwise, in
their conceptions of the Divine government and work there
was a complete and unbroken harmony. Some who may
suppose that they are holding the balance of judgement in-
differently between both may think that, if in their faith with
regard to the eternal world there was this agreement, it was
unfortunate that the Bishop of Natal should have raised a
controversy of no importance. But we shall find, when we
come to deal with the so-called Capetown trial, that the
debate was one of no mean significance; nor can it be for-
gotten that it was not a debate of the Bishop of Natal’s
raising. There are other errors in Christendom besides those
against which Mr. Maurice maintained a persistent warfare;
and among the most mischievous and certainly the most
.0ppressive of these other errors is the fetishism which treats
a book or a collection of books as an image which “fell down
from Jupiter.” The criticisms which the Bishop of Natal
directed against this idolatry only strengthened him in
convictions which none could express more forcibly than
Mr. Maurice.
“Punishment, the Bible teaches me,” said Mr. Maurice, “is
always God’s protest against sin, His instrument for per-
suading men to turn from sin to righteousness. If punish-
ment is to endure for ever, it is a witness that there are
always persons on whom God's discipline is acting to raise
them out of sin. Modern theology—Dr. Pusey's theology
—teaches that God sentences men to sin, to go on sinning
1864. PREPARATIONS FOR THE GREAT WARFARE. 205
more and more, for ever. I hold that that is to say that He
is not punishing, that He gives over punishing. I stand to
the letter-the ipsissima verba of Christ. They translate
them into other and directly opposite words.””
They were translated into directly opposite words by the
accusers of the Bishop of Natal at Capetown ; and their con-
demnation of the error imputed to Mr. Maurice was perhaps
not a whit less sweeping than their condemnation of the
heresy of Dr. Colenso.
We may go a step further, and say that the temporary
separation must be laid wholly at Mr. Maurice's door. He
had a full right—nay, he was bound—to proclaim that the
whole purpose and course of the Divine work in the world has
been and is to convince men of the absolute and unswerving
justice of God, and of a love which is stronger than death—
“the eternal death from which they cry to be delivered, the
torment of the worm in their conscience, the misery of being
left alone with themselves.””
But he took up untenable ground when he implied, or
rather affirmed, that the multitude of books (biblia) which
we speak of as the Bible, instead of as the Bibles, contains
nothing that is not inconsistent with the truths which to Mr.
Maurice and the Bishop of Natal were dearer than life itself.
The result was that he had to treat as antagonists men whom,
if he would but have altered his forms of expression, he would
have seen to be wholly on his side.
In September, 1864, Sir Edward Strachey, the life-long
and devoted friend of Mr. Maurice, invited him to meet
the Bishop at his house.
“Your purpose,” Mr. Maurice answered, “is most kind, and
your way of putting it kinder still. I will answer with
* Life, vol. ii. p. 473. * Ib. vol. ii. p. 476.
2O6 JC/ATE OF BISA/OP COLEAVSO. CHAP. V.
the frankness you desired. There has been an estrangement
between Colenso and me since he came to England. I
think that the Bible is the great deliverer from ecclesiastical
bondage, the great protector for human freedom. That is
the maxim I have always tried to maintain when he took
up exactly the opposite maxim, when he treated the Bible
as itself the instrument of our slavery, and seemed to think
that to throw it off would be the great step to emancipation.
I felt that he was giving up the ground to the Bishop of
Oxford and Dr. Pusey. I saw nothing before us but that
fanaticism against criticism, that effort to bind a human
tyranny upon us, which these last few years have developed.
. . . If I identified myself with those who were called
liberal thinkers, who seemed to be, and in many aspects
were, pleading for the rights of the clergy and the rights of
conscience, I must have abandoned my own position, a
position difficult enough to maintain, full of sorrow, involving
an isolation from all parties, but, as I think, necessary for
the good of all parties. To make Colenso understand why
I do this—that I am not a traitor to freedom, and friendship
also—is impossible at present.”"
In this passage there is nothing said of the Bible with
which the Bishop of Natal would have hesitated to express
his agreement. These books are, or may be, great deliverers
from ecclesiastical bondage, great protectors for human freedom.
Luther found them to be so ; but the extent of the deliverance
depends on the spirit in which they are applied. Against
the system of Latin Christendom, Luther found in them a
potent engine of war; and just because he took, or professed to
take, his stand on the litera scripta of words on which criticism
only of a certain kind—that is, his own interpretation—was to
be brought to bear, he made it the bulwark of a bondage
quite as severe as that against which he had himself rebelled.
1 Life, vol. ii. p. 486. Mr. Maurice concludes this letter with the fol-
lowing words, “I have met the Bishop several times, and there is, I hope,
not the least unkindness between us.”
1864. PREPARATIONS FOR THE GREAT WARFARE. 207
But to say that the Bishop of Natal treated, or spoke of, the
Bible itself as the instrument of our slavery, is to say simply
that which is not true. He never meant this, and he never
said it. The Bible had by many been made a fetish ; and
Mr. Maurice seemed to speak as though the superstition
which had made it a fetish should not be assailed and put
down. Had the Bishop, moreover, been really giving up the
ground to Dr. Wilberforce or Dr. Pusey, it is strange that they
should not recognise or admit their obligation for his good
service. This mistake (and lapse of time seems to exhibit it
more and more as an absurd mistake) runs through all that
Mr. Maurice has to say on the subject.
“I had felt a stronger interest,” he writes to a clergyman in
South Africa, “ in Colenso's diocese and mission than in any
other. He and his wife were old friends of mine. He had
behaved very generously to me. When he avowed his
sympathy with my refusal to speak of three-score years and
ten as the limit of God's education of man, I was ready to
follow him in any conflicts into which he might enter.
When he set himself at war with the Jewish economy, I was
utterly struck down.” "
But the Bishop had never done, never thought of doing,
anything of the kind. What he had sought was to find out,
so far as it might be possible to do so, what this economy was.
The life of the Old Testament was, he knew, the life of “the
prophets which had been since the world began,” and he knew
also that to this life the main body of the people with their
rulers, ecclesiastical and civil, had been always more or less
vehemently opposed. Far, therefore, from setting himself at
war with the life of the Old Testament, the Bishop was anxious
only to bring it into clearer light. But if Mr. Maurice once
took it into his head that any thinker or writer applied the
* Life, vol. ii. p. 490.
2O8 AAA’E OF BISA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHA P. W.
laws of human evidence to realities of another order, the
conviction remained immovable. The suggestion that the
prophecies of Balaam, for instance, are, to say the least, post-
Davidic, implied in his opinion want of faith in the Divine
government of the world. Any one who presumes to offer such
a suggestion has been dabbling in the school of Niebuhr ; and
the school of Niebuhr maintains, it seems, that
“God has nothing to do with nations and politics. They are
to be left to such men as Metternich and Louis Napoleon.
Accursed doctrine; part of that Atheism of our religious
world which nothing but a baptism of the Spirit and of fire
can deliver us from.””
We shall have to recur to this subject elsewhere. For the
present it is enough to say that Mr. Maurice, using the simplest
and most familiar words, seems to pass here beyond the range
of ordinary human comprehension. The most diligent students
of Niebuhr will look with amazement at a charge for which
they will discern in all his writings not even the shadow of a
foundation. They will remember that, while he insisted on
the need of historical evidence for historical facts, he asserted
for himself, and for other students who had attained to his
own experience, the possession of a divining power which
enabled him to recover facts for which historical testimony
was really lacking. But they will remember also that his
History of Rome is indeed not a denial of the truth that God
has something to do with nations and politics, but a passionate
and most vehement assertion of it, from the beginning of the
work to its close. It is singular that in his assertion of this
truth the language of Niebuhr is not unlike that of Mr.
Maurice. But the unbelief, which the latter finds in Niebuhr
he finds also in the Bishop of Natal.
* Life, vol. ii. p. 51O.
1862. PREPARATIONS FOR THE GREAT WARFARE. 209
“This unbelief about nations, Colenso, I apprehend, shares
with his opponents. It comes out equally in both. And it
should be observed that Colenso has not the least studied
under Niebuhr. He belongs, if he has investigated such
questions at all, to the later and merely negative school of
Sir G. C. Lewis.”
To this also we must recur hereafter, now noting only that
not a line can be cited from the Bishop's writings which lends
the faintest colour to the suspicion that he limited the action
of the Divine government to individual men. So far as such
a notion could have been intelligible to him, he would have
shrunk from it with horror; but it resolves itself seemingly
into something like nonsense. Mr. Maurice, indeed, knew not
what he was saying.
The fact is that the denunciation of unbelief, of want of
faith and want of love, was with Mr. Maurice a potent instru-
ment of war; and he used his weapons somewhat recklessly.
He never more sadly misused them than when he imputed to
the Bishop of Natal the idea that nations do not come within
the scope of the Divine discipline. Mr. Maurice did not live
to witness it himself; but, had he been spared, he would have
seen the singleness of devotion with which the man whom he
charged with this unbelief gave himself up to the task of
bringing home to his countrymen a long series of acts of
national injustice and wrong. Mr. Maurice, however, can
scarcely have failed to know that long before his return to
England in 1861 the Bishop had won from the Kafir and
Zulu people the title of Sobantu, and that this title ex-
pressed emphatically the gratitude not of individuals, but
of races.
Only three more letters are forthcoming from the corre-
spondence with Mr. Maurice at this time. The two last are
given with the address and the final subscription,-sad proof
of the havoc wrought on a friendship of many years by an
VOL. I. P
2 IO I/FE OF BISHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. V.
obstinate refusal to examine or even to look at the evidence
for alleged facts.
TO THE REV. F. D. MAURICE.
“WINNINGTON HALL, Northwich,
“October 14, 1862.
“In one of your letters you said that you would send me back
the copy of my book, which you had, by post next day.
It has never reached me ; and perhaps you may have for-
gotten to send it. I am shortly about to publish the First
Part of my book, containing only a small portion of the
matter brought together in that volume, and wish, therefore,
to recall the copies of my ‘first impressions ' which are in
the hands of my friends. . . .
“I send you a copy of the introductory chapter, as it now
stands; or, rather, I have cancelled this chapter also in
order to introduce a few verbal corrections.
“I have thought it right to state that you are in no way com-
mitted to the views expressed in this book ; that, in fact,
“in making and publishing such investigations as these, I
am acting neither with your advice nor with your approval.’
“P.S.—I think, upon the whole, it will be better not to send
the introductory chapter. I shall send you the whole
book when published.”
TO THE SAME.
“PENDYFFRIN, CONway,
“July 25, 1863.
“MY DEAR MR. MAURICE,
“I did not mean to ‘mock you.' Every word of my letter
was written in sincerity, with an unfeigned desire to express
the most kind and respectful feelings towards you. I had
been told that you thought that I resented your former ex-
pressions. I thought it might show to you that your
estimate of the worthlessness of my labours in a critical
point of view was not altogether justified by the reception
which they have met with from one, at least, of the most
1863. PREPARATIONS FOR THE GREAT WARFARE. 211
eminent Continental scholars. But I wished at the same
time to convey to you as plainly as I could an intimation
that on my side, at all events, there were no such feelings
of resentment as (I was told) you imagined to exist. I am
sorry that I happen to have failed, though I cannot think
that my language deserved the last sentence in your letter.
“I am, my dear Mr. Maurice,
“Faithfully yours,
“J. W. NATAL.”
TO THE SAME.
“23 SUSSEX PLACE, August 17, 1863.
“MY DEAR MR. MAURICE,
“Let me write one line to acknowledge the receipt of your
last kind note, and to thank you sincerely for it. I am
sorry that I have pained you and other good men by any-
thing that I have written or published. But I am confident
with you that our God and Father will make all these
things—these strivings after truth, these feeble efforts of
His children to know and to serve Him better—turn at
last effectually to His own glory and our good.
“Yours very truly,
“J. W. NATAL.”
P 2
CHAPTER VI.
WORK IN ENGLAND, 1863–65. THE BATTLE.
IN spite of all that may be said from any one of the many
points of view taken by those who would not have quiet things
disturbed, the publication of the Bishop's work on the Penta-
teuch marks a stage in the progress of religious thought in
England. By all who had any vested interests in inaction
the work was received at the time with jeers; and these jeers
were repeated on every possible opportunity during the
remainder of his life, and were renewed with scarcely less
asperity after his death. The fascination of ribaldry must
indeed be strong for writers who could affect to feel regret
that Dr. Colenso was not allowed to end his days in the
recesses of Norfolk, to which wandering Zulus were not likely
to penetrate with suggestions of arithmetical difficulties
known by all theological students to be stale with the age
of centuries. Such writers might feel a solid satisfaction
in relating
“how, in a fashion which moved, and reasonably so, the
laughter of the profane and the contempt of the robuster
orthodox, the newly-appointed Bishop went to convert and
was converted himself.”
The egregious folly of cynicism was seldom more extrava-
gantly shown than in a sentence which affirms that the mockers
1863–65. WORK IN ENGLAND–THE BATTLE. 213
began to laugh and gibe some six or seven years before any
cause for laughter or mockery was given. But it was a
bolder thing to say, more than twenty years after the book
appeared, that
“though many men, and some of them men of the highest
honour, if not of the most exalted intellect, might have
written the too famous Pentateuch and Book of Joshua, no
man of delicate honour could have attempted to hold the
office of bishop in the Church of England one day after
writing it, or even one hour after definitely forming the
opinions which it was written to expound.” +
This is just the point at issue, and the challenge shall be
forthwith taken up and dealt with. But the nature of these
opinions must be first of all defined. If they are held to be
notions about the general estimate of the authority of the
collection of writings called “the Bible” as a whole, then it
must be said at once that these were not the opinions which
the Bishop was desirous of maintaining. His purpose was to
examine the first six books in this large collection ; and the
conclusions which he reached were that these books contained,
with some historical matter, a large amount which cannot be
considered historical at all, and more particularly that they
contained an elaborate account of an extremely minute and
highly wrought ecclesiastical legislation put together many
centuries after the time to which they professed to relate.
The Bishop would have been basely deserting his post, he
would have been doing an irreparable wrong to the coming
generations, had he foreclosed the debate by declaring that
such conclusions might not lawfully be maintained by any
clergyman of the Church of England.
* The reference for this extract is designedly withheld. I do not
purpose to honour with mention the source of these vile falsehoods. But
the reference has been kept, and is producible if it should be needed.
2I4. JL/FE OF BISAOA' CO LEAVSO. CHAP. VI.
It is childish to say that he was in any way called on to
heed the great mass of so-called criticism with which he was
assailed. His Commentary on the Romans had been attacked
in some quarters with violent abuse and scurrilous invective.
These onslaughts deserve no notice, and have now little
interest except as instances of the readiness with which writers
coming forward as champions of traditionalism resort to the
potent weapons of falsehood. One of these in the London
Quarterly Review (1862), affected to regard it as a dire offence
that the Bishop, after returning to England in 1854, should
presume to express any opinion on anything connected with
his diocese after so short a stay as ten weeks” only; and then
avows his surprise that
“a ruler in the Church of God and a Bishop pledged to uphold
the teaching of the Church of England ”
should be able
“in so short a time to arrive at a definite opinion in favour of
polygamy, and to promulgate it, along with his censure
upon those who had upheld the doctrine in which both he
and they had been brought up.”
The italics are those of the writer, and the statement so
emphasized is a lie.” The falsehood renders it unnecessary to
give further heed to any of his remarks.
In the same fashion some Familiar Dialogues set forth
under the title Is the Bible true Pº start with the assertion
that the Bishop's work on the Pentateuch
“insists on the absolute untruth of all the first five books of
the Bible.” -
This statement also is a lie.
Such criticisms are pre-eminently dishonourable. But not
a little of such unfairness is roused still in some minds after
1 See 73. * See p. 67. * Seeley, 1863.
1863–65. WORK IN ENGLAND–THE BATTLE. 2I 5
*.
the lapse of a quarter of a century, whenever the name of
Colenso is mentioned. The word sat in Sanskrit, denoting
truth, means simply that zwhich is. If a man feels that he has
reached conclusions which rest on this foundation, he may
well dispense with the encouragement or the applause of his
fellows. Of such a one Professor Max Müller asserts:
“Whoever has once stood alone, surrounded by noisy assertions
and overshadowed by the clamour of those who ought to
know better, and perhaps did know better—call him
Galileo, or Darwin, or Colenso, or Stanley, or any other
name—he knows what a real delight it is to feel in his
heart of hearts, This is true, this is, this is sat, whatever
daily, weekly, or quarterly papers, whatever Bishops, Arch-
bishops, or Popes may say to the contrary.”
This sentence would probably have been allowed to pass
unchallenged, but for the recurrence of one name in it. But,
this name being introduced, an Edinburgh Reviewer found
himself constrained to remark:—
“Certainly, if it be true. But does the mere presence of
opposition prove it such P Or does it follow because
Galileo was so beaten down by ignorant fanaticism, and the
reasoning of Darwin for a time opposed by those who, in
ignorance of its meaning, dreaded what they regarded as
its consequences, that the criticism of Colenso was not
exceedingly poor, and the reading of Stanley, in spite of
his genius, sometimes discursive, and his conclusions some-
times illogical ?”"
This is a sample of the fashion in which anonymous
journalists, among other champions of traditionalism, shelve
a subject with which they have no intention to deal. But the
article from which these words are taken illustrates further
the fatal temper of mind which has made so much missionary
work abortive and against which the Bishop of Natal fought
* Edinburgh Review, April 1884, p. 473.
216 AAFE OF BISAOP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. VI.
most earnestly. The Rig Veda, like the Pentateuch, contains
the literature of a time earlier probably by a millennium (it
may be more) than the Christian era. It contains much that
is pure, beautiful, and touching; it contains certainly some
matter to which these epithets could not possibly be applied.
But it is the contention of the Reviewer that in this respect
there is no comparison between the Rig Veda and the
Pentateuch or the Old Testament generally. In the latter
the growth is in his judgement always upward; in the former
it is uniformly downwards, and he denies absolutely that in
the Old Testament we have
“in juxtaposition with that which is pure and elevated about
God and man the false, silly, and repulsive elements which
we shall find in such abundance in the Rig Veda.”
He professes to be so shocked and horrified with the soliloquy
of Indra after drinking the Soma juice that he refuses, as he
says, to Sully his page by quoting any part of it; and yet the
most dreadful part of this soliloquy is in the following words:—
“The draughts which I have drunk impel me like violent
blasts: I have quaffed the Soma. |
The hymn of my worshippers has hastened to me, as a cow
to her beloved calf: -I have quaffed the Soma.
I turn the hymn round about my heart, as a carpenter a
beam : I have quaffed the Soma. . . . .
Let me smite the earth rapidly hither and thither : I have
quaffed the Soma. -
One half of me is in the sky, and I have drawn the other
down : I have quaffed the Soma.
I am majestic, elevated in the heavens: I have quaffed the
Soma.
I go prepared as a minister, a bearer of oblations to the
gods: I have quaffed the Soma.”
* Muir, Sanskrit Texts, vol. v. p. 91.
1863–65. DVOAA WAV EAVGZA WD–THE BATTLE. 217
Without troubling themselves to analyse the many meanings
which the word Soma assumes in the Rig Veda, such writers
as these look only with contempt on hymns which speak of
Soma as, like Varuna, forgiving the penitent or punishing the
guilty, and see nothing but degradation in the prayer—
“Be gracious, Soma, Rig, for Our Salvation.
Be well assured then that we are thine.
Against us rise both wrath and cunning, Soma :
O leave us not in power of the foe; ”
or in the intreaty—
“This Soma, drawn into my inside, I invoke as quite near ;
Whatever sin we have committed may he graciously
forgive it.”
Yet these prayers are not without points even of close like-
ness to the Eucharistic language of Christendom or the Triden-
tine phraseology in reference to the Real Presence; and the
“jargon of the inebriated divinities of India’’ suggests a parallel
with the expressions which speak of Jehovah awaking out of
sleep and smiting his enemies in the hinder parts like a giant
refreshed with wine. Nor can the poor Vedic worshipper be
well blamed for his superstitious dreams about the power of the
Soma over Indra, if Jehovah after smelling the Sweet savour
of Noah's burnt-offering promises that he will not again curse
the ground for man's sake. The Reviewer was probably not
a missionary; but the missionary who enters on his work
with such prejudices, and who condemns the Rig Veda for
juxtaposition of pure and gross matter, as though this juxta-
position might not be charged on the old Hebrew Scriptures,
will find that he is using a weapon which will recoil upon
himself, and will, at least, multiply precisely those difficulties
which the Bishop of Natal set to work from the first to sweep
away.
2 I8 AZFE OF BISAMOP COLAEAVSO. CHAP. VI.
It may be well perhaps to take notice of one or two more
samples of the many sorts of comments evoked by the Bishop's
volume five-and-twenty years ago. Appearing without any
date, probably in 1863 or 1864, a volume, intitled The Bible
Žn the Workshop, and professing to make short work of the
Bishop's criticisms on the Pentateuch, was put forth, as the
title-page averred, by two working men, “a Jew and a Gentile.”
Towards the end of the book the two writers relieve their
consciences, it would seem, by thus addressing the Bishop :-
“When you are lying upon your death-bed and your past life
is passing in rapid review before you, it may be some small
satisfaction to you to know that at least two (the Jew writer
and the Gentile writer) of the class to whom your book is
calculated to be most dangerous, after careful examination
are convinced of its utter groundlessness and folly.”
Speaking again as we, in their twenty-third chapter as every-
where else, the Jew workman and the Gentile workman
declare that
“we believe that our Lord never uttered a single word that
was not strictly true in every sense of the word.”
The two broadly hint and broadly state that the Bishop is an
apostate from Christianity; but what has the Jew workman,
if he retains at all any distinctively Jewish faith, to do with
Christianity ? how, being a Jew, can he speak of Jesus Christ
as his Lord and Master P and if he has abandoned the faith
of his fathers, how can he call himself a Jew P. The whole
thing looks like a fraud on the public ; and if the title-page
only be taken into account it is nothing less than a fraud.
But the advertisement informs us that
“every word has been written by one workman, with the
advice and assistance of the other in all matters concerning
Jewish customs and the Hebrew language.”
1863–65. WORK IN ENGLAND–THE BATTLE. 219
By this statement a falsehood of one kind is got rid of by
introducing a falsehood of another kind. To say the least,
the Jew workman, by giving his authority, whatever its weight
might be, to a work which fights for a very narrow form of
Christian traditionalism, seems to have fairly crossed the
borders of apostasy to his own faith. A fight so carried on is
not legitimate warfare. .
Not much more creditable than this was the method
resorted to by Dr. Kay," who denounced the Bishop of Natal
as applying to the Pentateuch a disintegration theory, which
rests on the principles of “religious unbelief” and “historical
Pyrrhonism.”
“The question of the authenticity of the book was evidently
decided,” he said, “ long before the critical analysis was set
on foot. The muster-roll of phrases has no more real office
to fulfil than had the senate of Tiberius or the jury of Judge
Jeffreys. Unbelief, the spirit that refuses to recognise
any (!!) Divine intervention in the world's history, had
already settled the matter.
** If Genesis be an authentic document, then it is certain that
there is an objective basis for religious faith. God has
communed with men. Preparation is thus made for the
future introduction of Christianity. The Gospel has its
roots buried deep in the world's history, for its seed was
laid in the Protevangelium, Gen. iii. I5. To get rid of this
book of Genesis, then, is a necessary preliminary for any
assault on Christianity.”
With equal assurance Dr. Kay adds,
“Admit the authenticity of the Pentateuch, and all is solved.
Deny it, and all is impenetrably dark. One of the most
conspicuous facts of history, namely, the existence of a purer
religion for fourteen centuries among a people not less prone
than the rest of the world to a sensual idolatry, has no
* Crisis Huffſeldiana, Parker, 1865. * Ib. pp. 60, 61.
22O I./FE OF BISA/OA COZEAVSO. CHAP. VI.
explanation. Other miracles, which affected the physical
world for brief intervals of time, may be got rid of: this
enduring miracle in the sphere of spiritual life cannot.” "
Dr. Kay's fact was a mere delusion ; and from it we may
pass to the thoughts and words of more sober-minded and
careful critics and students. In truth the Bishop of Natal
was giving a marvellous impulse to thought in England. But
he was not perhaps fully aware that the two currents of belief
and feeling which were manifesting themselves in this country
might be traced, within the limits and beyond the borders of
his own South African diocese, in communities not belonging
to the Church of England. These were the Presbyterian and
Calvinistic societies, the peace of which had been disturbed by
controversies on the personality of the devil, on the duty or the
wickedness of inquiry, on the power of man to will what he
will be, on the arbitrary selection of some as chosen vessels
before their birth, all others being rejected. The direction in
which the current was flowing, was shown in the election of Mr.
Burgers, a “renowned heretic,” as President of the Transvaak.
On this subject some remarks by the Rev. Henry Rawlings
deserve to be noted.
“The story of Colenso's career, as commonly told, does not,”
he thinks, “throw any special light upon religious progress
in South Africa, because the conflict between the Progressive
and the Conservative parties here took its origin from other
sources, notably Dutch Liberal theology, and received its
stamp from the peculiar circumstances of the colony. Of
course, I do not mean to say that Colenso did not exercise
great influence here. Undoubtedly he did, as he did every-
where, even in Holland itself, and amongst the most learned
and liberal professors there. But the point is that he did
not impart the original impulse here, nor did he give to
* Crisis Hupfeldiana, p. 93.
1863–65. WORK ZAV ZAVGLAAWD–THE BA 7'7"ZAZ. 22 I
the struggle its characteristic nature. He only reinforced
(powerfully, it may be) tendencies already manifested.
“When I learnt in the beginning of 1862 that Colenso was
occupied with a work upon the Pentateuch, I sent him the
then published first part of Professor Kuenen's now famous
work upon the Old Testament. He replied on April 1,
‘I thank you most sincerely for sending me Kuenen's book,
which will be of the greatest use to me. It has compelled
me in the first place to read Dutch, and I shall now be able
to appreciate De Ondergoeker better than I could. But I
have now read the first 186 pages of the book, those which
concern the Pentateuch, with deep interest, and fully under-
stand what you say about the value of it.' And he related
in the preface to Part I. of his own work on the Pentateuch
that, when he was occupied in Natal in preparing it for the
press, he was still unacquainted with all other foreign works
on the Old Testament, except those of Ewald and Kurtz, of
which the first was somewhat liberal and the second wholly
and entirely orthodox ; and that after becoming acquainted
with other works, and especially that of Kuenen, which he
calls a work of singular merit, he had to modify his own in
some respects. -
“On my advice he visited Holland in September 1863, and
wrote to me on October 5 of that year:—‘I have just
returned from a delightful visit to Leiden. I discussed with
Professor Kuenen at full length every point of difficulty in
the criticism of the Pentateuch. The contrast between the
reception which I met with from really learned Hebrew and
Biblical scholars at Leiden, and that which has been my lot
in England from an unlearned and prejudiced clergy is
very striking, and not a little humiliating to an Englishman.
I saw most of the notabilities of Leiden,_among the rest,
Professor Scholten, Professor Van Hengel, Professor Rau-
wenhof, &c. . . . When I visited Germany, Professor Hup-
feld was unfortunately out on his vacation tour.’
“Later Kuenen visited the Bishop in England, and there arose
between them a friendship which had very important fruits
for theological science. . . . The readers of De Ondergoeker
222 AZAZE OF BISAMOP COLE/VSO. CHAP. VI.
know how much is now made of Dutch theology in Eng-
land, and I trust that it will be clear from the foregoing
that the first cause of this must be sought chiefly in
Colenso's work, and at the same time that there was every
chance that Colenso would have remained still for a long
time unacquainted with Holland's theological work, if the
existence of two languages in South Africa had not been
the means of making him conversant with the theological
literary work of Holland.”
When he left Natal, he did not intend to be absent from
his diocese for more than eighteen months or two years at
furthest. He was detained in England for a much longer
time ; but, indefatigable in his work, he availed himself of
delays caused by his opponents, not by himself, to do what he
could towards making English readers acquainted with the
Biblical criticism of the Continent, and especially of that
country in Europe with which, in the days of Erasmus, England
was more closely connected than with any other. The inter-
ruptions caused by the so-called trial at Capetown and its
Consequences prevented his settling down, during the later
portion of his stay in England, with any prospect of being
able to complete the Fifth Part of his work before returning
to his diocese. He therefore resolved, by translating Professor
Kuenen's criticisms on the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua,
to show how nearly the results attained by a great Continental
Scholar going independently over the same ground with him-
self corresponded with his own. Of the book, generally, he
spoke as “a splendid instance of clear and scholarly criticism";
and undoubtedly it is so. But its extreme brevity and its
marvellous compression of matter detract from its fitness for
popular use ; and probably for English minds Professor
Kuenen's method must be less attractive than that of the
Bishop, which places the evidence for each statement before
the reader, and leaves to him the responsibility of forming his
1863–65. WORK ZAV EAVGLAAWD–7 HE BA 7'7"ZE. 223.
own judgement. It is scarcely necessary to say that Professor
Kuenen regarded the Bishop's main position as established
beyond a shadow of doubt. This position rested on the
composite character of the Pentateuch, and affirmed it. If
these books are the production of different writers, then only
a portion of them can be the work of Moses, and it becomes
possible that no part of it may be such. In comparison with
this all other considerations have a subordinate interest. The
field of inquiry is thrown open to all workers; and the deter-
mination of the time at which the several books were written
must depend wholly on the evidence. In the method of
making this search the scholars of the Continent exhibited a
remarkable amount of agreement; and, with the exception of
the small minority who still strove to maintain the old tradi-
tional notion, they all held that the book of Deuteronomy
was the work of a writer living under the later kings of
Judah. . The time of this writer might be fixed in the reign
of Manasseh ; or the composition of the book might be
ascribed to that of Josiah. This was a matter of quite
secondary importance as compared with the great fact that
it was written some seven or eight centuries after the Mosaic
age. But between the Bishop's conclusions and those of
Professor Kuenen it can scarcely be said that there was any
substantial difference. Such points of divergence as there
may have been are reserved for notice in our survey of the
Bishop's examination of the Pentateuch.
Nor does this translation of Kuenen's book make up all the
work accomplished by the Bishop before he left England to
return to his diocese. Almost on the eve of his departure
he published, with elaborate notes by himself, the translation
of a treatise by Dr. Oort on the worship of Baalim in Israel,
based on Dr. Dozy's volume on the Israelites at Mecca. The
subject had for him a deep interest, as indeed it must have for
all who really wish to ascertain the true course of religious
224. JL/AEAE OF BASA/OP CO/CEAVSO. CHAP. VI.
developement both in Judah and in Israel. What was the
origin, and what was the character, of the religion which
Mahomet set himself either to reform or to root up 2 By
whom and when was the sanctuary at Mecca established 2
and what relation, if any, was there between the worship in
this sanctuary and that of the temples of Gibeon, Gilgal, or
Jerusalem P Dr. Dozy's researches led him to the conclusion
that
“din Ibrahim, the old religion in Arabia . . . was a remainder
of the religion of the Simeonites, who had founded the
sanctuary,”
and that
“the great festival of Islam was originally an Israelitish feast.”
If this be so, then, the Bishop remarks,
“we have here given us a new source of help towards the
knowledge of the religious condition of Israel about the
time when the tribe of Simeon emigrated.”
With the question of the time of this emigration the Bishop
dealt in the first appendix to his Fifth Part, his conclusion
being that a small body of the Simeonites emigrated shortly
before the death of Saul, the greater migration occurring at
some time during David's reign.” The fact of the connexion
between Mecca and the Simeonites seems to be accurately
ascertained ; and in the fact itself there is nothing surprising.
It is simply the relationship exhibited in the genealogy which
makes Isaac and Ishmael brethren.
“In fact,” the Bishop remarks, “the religion of the Israelites
in Palestine and that of the Simeonites at Mecca are as
twin sisters, who, parted in youth from one another, have
experienced heaven-wide differences of education, so that in
* Part V., Critical Analysis of Genesis, p. 269.
1863–65. WORK IN ENGLAND–THE BATTLE. 225
their old age they do not at all resemble each other, while
they have both of them merely slight reminiscences of that
which has made them what they are.””
But this calm examination of facts and of the evidence for
them carried weight only amongst the few who had no other
object than to ascertain the truth. The effect of the earlier
parts of the Bishop's work on the Pentateuch in this country
was to open wide the flood-gates of theological strife and
animosity. In almost every quarter in which his criticisms
were rejected, they were rejected with a vehemence which
showed that the feeling of resentment had been deeply
stirred. In many quarters they were denounced with a
bitterness and ferocity which revealed how far the iron had
entered into their soul. But high above all other sounds rose
the cry of anger and indignation at the method which the
Bishop had chosen to 'employ in the execution of his task.
He had laid violent hands on the sacred ark of the popular
belief. He had sedulously instilled doubts into the minds of
the ill-informed and the half-educated. He was like a critic
who could do nothing more than point out the flaws of a
beautiful picture or the petty blemishes of a splendid build-
ing. He had exhibited in some portions of sacred books diffi-
culties, which would or might be found to extend through
every other part of them. He had shown a cynical careless-
ness for the consequences of his destructive arguments, if not
a malignant eagerness to bring about a collapse of all belief.
The precautions which more exact or more charitable thinkers
would feel themselves bound to take he had refused to take.
He might have been content to mark the beneficent working
of Christianity, and have convinced himself that any imper-
fections in that work were more than compensated by the vast
benefits bestowed by the Church upon mankind. He might
* Worship of Baalim, p. 4.
VOL. I. Q
226 IIFE OF BISA/OA CO/CAE AWSO. CHAP. VI.
have followed the advice given by Horace to some would-be
poets, and have left his manuscript in his desk for nine years.
If he had not the patience to do this, he might have gone
back to the good old fashion, and might, as Dr. Donaldson
had done with his Jashar, have clothed his thoughts with the
decent covering of a foreign tongue. Why could he not write
in Latin P and, still more, why should he write at all He
had not come to the conclusion that there is no God or that
Christianity is a delusion ; and if he had not done so, why
should he lead people on a path which must bring them to that
conclusion ? What need was there of showing that some of the
positions occupied by Christian teachers or thinkers were
untenable, some of their claims and beliefs groundless, and
some of the weapons employed by them against opponents
illegitimate 2 g
No single sentence can return an answer to this string of
questions. Some of them might come from men who, con-
scious of the faults of popular methods, were doing their best
in other ways to remove them. Others might be asked by
men who were resolved to maintain a system which they
regarded as perfect, and to inforce their shibboleth on all.
Opponents such as these could deserve no mercy. But the
best mode of dealing with the Old Testament, as with any
other book, might remain, nevertheless, an open question.
The thought of England had not been stagnant during the
quarter of a century which preceded the publication of the
Bishop's book. Many an old superstition had been exploded,
many narrow and exclusive notions had been got rid of, many
falsehoods exposed and much real progress made, without
causing any wide-spread disquietude or creating an alarm
which might be easily intensified into panic. Such good
service had been done by many writers, by none perhaps more
successfully than by Dr. Stanley.
There are more ways than one of doing the same thing ;
1863–65. WOAA WAV EAVGZA/VD–THE BA 7"T/CAE. 227
and of this no one was more aware than Dr. Stanley, who
frankly confessed that he preferred his own method of dealing
with the Bible to that of Bishop Colenso. In his candid and
generous speech on “The South African Controversy in its
relations to the Church of England,” 4 he draws a sharp
contrast between the two methods.
“His peculiar style of criticism,” he said, “is not such as com-
mends itself to me, nor is his mode of approaching the
Sacred Volume that which is consonant to my tastes and
feelings. . . . . My endeavour has been, in the first
instance, to get whatever there is of good, whatever there is
of elevation, whatever there is of religious instruction, what-
ever there is of experience, whatever there is of the counsel
of God, whatever there is of knowledge of the heart of man,
whatever there is of the grace of poetry, whatever there is
of historical truth, whatever there is that is true, honest,
lovely, of good report, of virtue, and of praise in the
highest degree, as they exist nowhere else in the same
degree, in the Sacred Scripture. . . . That I think is the
best way of approaching the Bible.”
Of the beauty of this method, and of the great benefits to
be derived from it, there can be no question. But it has this
marked characteristic, that it does its destructive work with-
out calling attention to it; that it generally keeps the
process out of sight ; and that its destructive effects may be
more far-reaching than those of more direct assault. Dr.
Stanley saw, for instance, how marvellously Samson differs
from all other Jews before or after him : so in a few sentences
he speaks of his love of practical jokes and his frolicsome and
irregular exploits, thus leaving the impression that a per-
sonage so utterly unlike his countrymen in all his essential
features must be an importation from the traditions of
Some other tribe or nation. So, again, to give point to the
* Oxford and London, James Parker and Co., 1867.
Q 2
228 Z/FE OF BISA/OB CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. VI.
ceaseless remonstrances and denunciations of the prophets, he
remarks that the national religion of the Jews down to the
Babylonish captivity was the sensual and bloody idolatry of
the Ashera, or “grove,” and that the prophets were an insig-
nificantly small minority of earnest and pure-minded men
who carried on a vain fight against these abominations.
Nothing could be more true; but the implication is that the
history of the books of the Pentateuch, of the Kings, and,
immeasurably more, of the Chronicles, is inexact and un-
trustworthy. If the religion of the whole nation was of
this sort in the days of Hezekiah and Josiah, then the whole
system of the Levitical law, if it was ever carried out at all,
must belong to a still later age. That this should be the
condition of a people who had heard in the wilderness the
magnificent discourses of the book of Deuteronomy, was
inconceivable; and in this case, these discourses must have
been put together in some later centuries. Dr. Stanley's
method, therefore, although it may seem to give only, or
chiefly, positive results, is yet to a high degree negative. It
is none the worse on this account; and it might be pleasanter
to confine ourselves to it altogether, were there not other
enemies to be fought with, other barriers to be surmounted, other
stumbling-blocks to be moved out of the way. Dr. Stanley's
method, always (perhaps) more inviting, is also fully justified,
so long as it is addressed to those who are capable of
appreciating it. To those who lack the historical faculty, his
words might come with a pleasant sound, but they would
produce on them no great impression. To those who might
be perplexed and distressed by the seeming fact that an
infallible book displayed some mistakes, blunders, inconsis-
tencies, and contradictions, his method would seem much
like an evasion or slurring over of difficulties, would seem, in
short, not altogether ingenuous. But Dr. Stanley was far too
earnest a lover of the truth to allow the notion to get abroad
1863–65. WORK ZAV FAWGZAAWD–7 HAE BA 7'7"LA2. 229
that he condemned the work of the Bishop of Natal. His
own mode of dealing with the Bible was, he knew, not the
only mode.
“Although Dr. Colenso's mode may not commend itself to
me as the best, it may do so to other minds; and there-
fore I could never bring myself to condemn any mode . . . .
however different from mine it may be, supposing always
that it is a bona fide honest attempt to ascertain what is
the nature of the Sacred Books, and to draw instruction
from them. . . . . He has thought it his duty to endeavour
to ascertain, as far as possible, the dates and authors of
those several books, and that by a minute and laborious
analysis, which has hardly ever been surpassed by any
divine of the Church of England.”
But it was not for Dr. Stanley's hearers or readers that the
Bishop of Natal was writing. Was there, or was there not,
throughout the English Church, a state of feeling about the
letter of the Bible, the expression of which looked much
like an admission of fetish-worship 2 Was there, or was
there not, a self-contradictory teaching with regard to the
value and authority of sacred books, which could only be-
wilder, mislead, and corrupt 2 Were not thousands mentally
and morally weakened by the abject superstition which
treated appearances of error as in no way impairing their
infallibility ? If it was so, how could this deadly disease
be arrested by Dr. Stanley's method 2 The disease was, in
truth, raging.
“The Bible,” Mr. Burgon had said, “is none other than the
voice of Him that sitteth upon the throne. Every book of
it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every word of it,
every syllable of it (where are we to stop?), every letter of
it, is the direct utterance of the Most High. The Bible is
none other than the Word of God, not some part of it more
* Inspiration and Interpretation, p. 89.
230 AAFE OF AZSAOA) CO/CEAVSO. CHAP. VI.
Some part of it less, but all alike, the utterance of Him who
sitteth upon the throne, absolute, faultless, unerring,
Supreme.”
Yet the same writer, who could give expression to what is
either frantic folly or mere blasphemy," could advise young
students to
“approach the volume of Holy Scripture with the same can-
dour and the same unprejudiced spirit with which you
would approach any other famous book of high antiquity.
Study it with, at least, the same attention. Give, at least
equal heed to all its statements. . . . . Above all, beware
of playing tricks with its plain language. . . . Be truthful,
and unprejudiced, and honest, and consistent, and logical,
and exact throughout, in your work of interpretation.”
But this freedom from prejudice, this honesty, this truthfulness,
must bring them to Mr. Burgon's conclusions, must leave them
convinced that every sentence, every letter of the Bible is as
absolute, faultless, unerring, supreme as He whose direct and
immediate work it is. Thus we have a pretence of freedom
with the reality of an abject slavery. It was more than
Superstition ; it was mere madness. Were there none who
would feel it their duty to arrest its progress 2 Of the nature
and extent of the disease there could be no question. Mr.
Garbett had declared that
“in all consistent reason we must accept the whole of the
inspired autographs, or reject the whole as from end to
end unauthoritative and worthless ; ”
and in a manual on Verbal Inspiration, Dr. Baylee, the prin-
cipal of one of the most important theological colleges in the
kingdom, had laid it down that
“every word, every syllable, every letter [of the Bible] is just
* If the Bible be the Word of God (the Church of England has never
said that it is so), would Dean Burgon apply to the Bible the phrases in
which the first chapter of the Fourth Gospel speaks of the Divine Word?
1863–65. WORK IAW E/WG/CAAWD–7 HE BATTLE. 231
what it would be, had God spoken from heaven without any
human intervention." . . . Every scientific statement is
infallibly accurate, all its history and narratives of every
kind are without any inaccuracy. The words and phrases
have a grammatical and philological accuracy such as is
possessed by no human composition.”
These utterances are not much more than an echo of Dean
Burgon's words, and indeed are not worthy of attention,
except as evidence of the extent to which these absurdities
were gravely maintained at the time when the Bishop of
Natal came to do battle with this gross superstition. The
character and incidents of the fight will best be described in
the Bishop's letters.
“TO JOHN MERRIFIELD, ESQ.. (a friend from boyhood).
“KENSINGTON, Wovember 29, 1862.
“MY DEAR OLD FRIEND,
“I was rejoiced to get your first letter, just as I was starting
for Cheshire. I took it with me, meaning to answer it, but
brought it back unanswered, and now have received the
second. I thank you most sincerely for both, and for all
the words of encouragement which you have sent me.
Thank God, I am not at all troubled by the storm which
rages around me. Perhaps my colonial experience has
helped me in this respect. To tell you the truth, it is such
a joyous thing to feel the solid rock under one's feet, that
I have to guard against being too regardless of the feelings
of others. They cannot see what I see plainly as the
sun in the sky. And I must allow for the bitterness, and
even anguish of spirit which many good people will feel
certainly at first, while they think that I am only taking
1 The words look much like nonsense. If they have any meaning, they
affirm that there are not, and that there cannot be, any corruptions of the
text in the Old Testament or the New. With many writers the allegation
of corruptions in the text is a favourite plea for evading difficulties.
232 JLIFE OF BISA/OP COLEAVSO. CHAP. VI.
away from them all the light of their life. I do not intend
to answer any anonymous writers. I had a particular
reason for writing one letter to the Telegraph, and perhaps
I had better not have written it. Happily, I have several
good men at hand to help me in replying to adversaries.
I cannot but hope that the cause of Truth is gaining ground
daily.”
To his friend Mr. Shepstone, in Natal, he writes:–
“September 4, 1862.
“We have now been a month in England, and you may
suppose that I am by this time deep in my work, the
magnitude and importance of which increases daily in the
estimation of others as well as myself. . . . It is true that
Lushington's recent judgement would bring me under sen-
tence in two points. . . . But I think I may say that no
sensible person in England supposes that judgement will be
maintained. . . . It is the most inconsistent and unfortunate
judgement that has ever been given. Professor Grote, of
Cambridge, a first-rate man, writing from the orthodox
point of view in a most temperate manner, has expressed
the alarm which he and all other intelligent clergymen must
feel at having one, if not two, new articles made for them
besides the thirty-nine, by a mere stroke of the pen in a
lawyer's study, for so it really is. The judgement does
more than all the Convocation could do by months of dis-
cussion ; and, as Professor Grote says, lays the clergy under
a yoke the tyranny of which is quite insufferable. Strangely
enough, however, the very same judgement allows me free
licence to publish my new book without fear of coming
under Church censure. You may now discuss the authen-
ticity of Genesis and criticise it as much as you please;
only you must be able to say that you ‘believe in all the
canonical Scriptures, meaning only thereby that you be-
lieve that all things necessary to salvation are contained
in the Bible, and that to that extent it has the direct
* See Ten Weeks in Natal, throughout.
1863–65. WORK IN ENGLAND–THE BATTLE. 233
sanction of the Almighty. This, of course, any one could
say, who believes that the fear, and faith, and love of God
are taught in the Bible, and that, so far as the words of man
teach such Divine truths, the writer's heart must have been
taught by the Spirit of God to utter them. Now whatever
the judgement has given is ground gained for ever. This
part will not be appealed against, and therefore it practically
stands as henceforward the law of the English Church.
. My belief is that a strong effort will be made next
session of Parliament to procure the repeal of the Act of
Uniformity.”
TO TH. SHEPSTONE, ESQ.
“6 CRESCENT, BLACKFRIARs,
“October 2, 1862.
. . . . “I had a very pleasing letter from Magema by this
mail. . . . It is quite refreshing to receive such a letter from
him, in which he expresses most heartily his deep sense of
all the kindness he has received from us and his determina-
tion to be my child for the rest of his life. I long to come
back to you all, and I am not without hope that I shall.”
TO THE SAME.
“LONDON, Wovember 4, 1862.
. . . . “Last Wednesday the book, Part I., was published. . . .
It is not yet a week from the day of publication, and the
fourth edition is in the press, though the second will only
be ready for delivery to-day. This fourth edition will
complete IO,OOO copies.”
TO THE SAME.
“SUSSEX PLACE, KENSINGTON,
“December 29, 1862.
. . . . “I am printing Part II., which I hope will be ready
before the meeting of Convocation, when no doubt, a grand
discussion will take place. I am in very good heart upon
the whole matter, am still Bishop of Natal, and as far
234. AZAZE OF AZS HOP CO/CAE/VSO. CHAP. VI.
g
as I can see at present, am likely to remain SO. I shall
certainly, as at present advised, not resign ; and it seems to
be exceedingly doubtful if they can eject me under any
circumstances. However, time will show, and I am pre-
pared for anything. One thing I am resolved on, to go
steadily forward with my book, whatever may be the con-
sequences. The movement, however, is begun which will
end,' I cannot doubt, in a revolution of the English Church.
. . . The attempt is made, of course, in every way possible
to vilify me, and decry my book. A certain Mr. McCaul,
son of Dr. McCaul, Divinity Professor at King's College,
London, has written to the Record and gives out that he
has picked a hole in my scholarship. Fortunately I have
received very interesting letters from some of the first
scholars in England and Europe, which are all that I need
desire. . . . I have also a very favourable letter from Pro-
fessor Hupfeld, of Halle, one of the most eminent German
critics. . . . It is hopeless to do anything until I can arouse
the laity ; and thank God, I am reaching them, I hope,
effectually. . . . I see no reason to suppose that I shall not
return to Natal, as Bishop, with full power to make any
reform, not compulsory of course, but when desired by
congregations, as may be needed. . . . I do not mean that
by that time the law will be altered by Parliament, for it
will be a long and slow work to change thoroughly the laws
of the Church in England. But the work will have begun,
and the very best thing to help it forward would be to see
the reformation actually in progress, as I hope it may be,
in Natal.”
“TO THE REv. A. W. L. RIVETT (one of the clergy of his
diocese).
“KENSINGTON, January 4, 1863.
“I have now published another book, of which, of course,
some tidings will reach you. I have sent some copies for
* There can be no doubt that the Bishop did not reckon upon this end
as likely to come in his own time. His words will remain true, if the
movement should go on for a century.
1863–65. WORK I/V AEAVGZA/VD–THE BA 7'7"LE. 235.
sale to the care of Mr. Foster by mail-steamer. Perhaps
you can aid him in the matter. But I have not made
presents of the book to any of the clergy (except my
commissary), as I do not wish to press my opinions upon
any of them, otherwise I should send a copy to you. Should
you hear it said that I am about to resign my see, you are
at liberty to contradict it. I have no present intention to
do anything of the kind ; but I intend to fight the battle of
liberty of thought and speech for the clergy.”
“TO TH. SHEPSTONE, ESQ.
“23 SUSSEX PLACE, January 26, 1863.
“It is impossible not to see that the reformation now begun
will be of the deepest and most extreme character. The
men of science and literature are almost in a body with me.
I have seen a great deal of Sir Charles Lyell. . . . He is
about sixty-five years old, I should think; a very pleasing,
intelligent, venerable man, in a green and active old age.
And he too has just completed, and in a few days will
publish, a work on the antiquity of the human race which
will entirely support my views and utterly upset the
orthodox view of the degradation of man. . . . I have just
come from a very interesting visit to an old gentleman
(foreign translator at the Foreign Office), Mr. Norris, who
seems to know every language under the Sun. . . . He
showed me a very curious MS. of the Vei language. This
is the language of a lost African people. And it seems that
a native of that country went once to visit one of our
settlements, and there saw an English book. He caught
the idea of an alphabet at once, went home, and made a
syllabarium for himself, i.e. characters to represent not
mere letters, but elementary syllables. . . . Accordingly,
here was a long MS. written by himself in these characters.
It told the tale of a journey made by a native into the
interior, and introduced an old story which, Mr. Norris says,
occurs almost identically the same in an old Cornish legend.
It is to this effect. A man went to serve a master for wages.
236 A./FE OF A/SAIOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. VI.
. . . At the end of his time the master gave him his choice,
to be paid in money or in advice. He chose the latter,
and worked on, till he had received three pieces of advice,
and no money. Then he went home, taking a cake which
his master had given him to eat with his wife, in the middle
of which they found all the money. As to the three pieces
of advice, he applied them on three several occasions, and
saved his life in consequence.”"
TO THE SAME.
“SUSSEx PLACE, March 2, 1863.
. . . “The day after I was turned out of S.P.G. [from the
list of Vice-Presidents] I was admitted into the Athenaeum
—by invitation from the Committee. The Governor will
know that this is a great victory, as it is the stronghold of
the dignified ecclesiastics. Dean Trench violently opposed
my admission ; but the Committee carried me in by 9 to 3.
. . . . “All sorts of lying paragraphs are inserted in the
journals by way of damaging my position,-one that my
new book was lying a dead weight on the shelves of the
publishers. Ans. Nearly 8,000 copies sold in three weeks.
Another that nothing is known of my intentions, but the
Bishop of Capetown will administer my diocese till I have
made up my mind. Ans. I fully intend to return to my
diocese as soon as I have done the work for which I came
to England. . . . .
“On Saturday I received a round robin from the Archbishop
and Bishops except Hereford (Hampden). . . . . My answer
is in preparation and will be calm and decisive. I tell them
that I have no intention of resigning ; that the ‘scandal’
they complain of is not caused by me, but by those who
maintain a state of things in the Church opposed to the
plainest results of modern science. The fact is that these
‘round robins’ have become ridiculous, through their famous
attempts in that line upon the Essays and Reviews and
* This story appears also in an Irish tale, under the title of “John
Carson’s Wages.”
1863-65. WORK IN EAVGZAND–THE BATTLE. 237
Sabbath questions. There is not a man among them ; but
they are obliged to flock together, like sheep running through
a gate, when one leads the way.”
TO SIR CHARLES LYELL.
“KENSINGTON, February 27, 1863.
“The Record thinks that you will be much offended by my
introduction to the Athenaeum. You will be amused with
their leader in Friday's paper. Though such a friend, it
seems, to their principles, I believe that you do not take in,
as I do, that respectable journal.”
TO THE SAME.
“KENSINGTON, March 6, 1863.
“I had an hour's talk with the Bishop of London [Tait] by
appointment on Wednesday last, about which I will talk
to you on Wednesday next, if I have not the pleasure of
meeting you before. He then spoke of your book as lying
on the table, and seemed to think that it was quite possible
to hold both it and the Bible story as true in some sense.”
TO TH. SHEPSTONE, ESQ.
“SUSSEX PLACE, April 5, 1863.
“The Bishops . . . . are one by one forbidding me to preach
and minister in their dioceses, &c., as if I cared for that
when my books enter into so many houses, and are wel-
comed, thank God, by so many hearts, and when, if I had a
desire to preach, God’s great House is ever open to me;
and the Bishop of London is an example to me of the
propriety of open-air preaching. No doubt I shall manage
to address my old Norfolk parishioners in this way before I
leave England, if the embargo is not taken off.”
TO THE SAME.
“May 1, 1863.
. . . “The change has been decidedly in my favour since I
last wrote, owing to the line of conduct which the Bishops
238 LIFE OF BISHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. VI.
have adopted . . . viz. to anathematize instead of answering
me. This does not satisfy the English mind, and I have
numerous letters in consequence from clergy as well as laity.
However, my next book will bring matters to a crisis. I
am hard at work upon it, and have it more than half
printed. . . . . Canon Stanley has just printed a letter to
the Bishop of London, urging the abolition of subscription
to the Articles and Liturgy, which implies more than it
says—viz. that the Bishop of London is not averse to some
such measure. . . . .
“What Bishop Gray is going to do in my case is at present
quite unknown to us here in England. . . . . Now, as I am
entirely protected by Lushington's judgement for what I
have said about the Pentateuch, and as I shall be able to
show in my next preface that I am equally supported, in
regard to the suggestions which I have made about our
Lord's ignorance of matters of human science, by some of
the highest authorities in our Church, I do not believe that
he can do anything. . . . .
“In one word, I am as strong, and cheerful, and full of hope
aS eVer. . . . . The ‘Church Union' has had a meeting,
where they have seriously discussed the following question:
‘Whereas Bishop Colenso's Part I. was full of errors in
Hebrew, and Part II. shows a masterly acquaintance with
the language, ought we not to apply to him to know by
whom he has been assisted 2’ The fact is that the errors in
Part I. are all mythical. They took it for granted that I
could not possibly know Hebrew, and find to their surprise
that I know more about it than they imagined. . . . There
are only two trivial errors, of not the slightest consequence
to the argument, but mere oversights from following the
English version without referring to the originals, one in
Part I., the other in Part II., which have been brought to
light by the most hawk-eyed criticism ; for I need not tell
you that every line has been greedily searched for some-
thing to throw at me by way of reproach. I am, therefore,
quite at ease on this point.”
1863–65. WORK IW EAVGZAAWD–THE BATTLE. 239
To TH. SHEPSTONE, ESQ.
“SUSSEx PLACE, June 2, 1863.
. . . . “I think you will see that the Convocation have done
the very best thing they could for me. . . . If this is all the
heresy they can find after nine days' searching by the most
eminent divines of England, it will follow that my position
is considerably stronger than even I myself had imagined.
You are quite right about the necessity of my doing the
work completely here. . . .
“You will see that the Bishop of London (Tait) does not act
with the other Bishops. They, headed by the Bishop of
Oxford, have cut me dead. But I met him in Pall Mall a
few days ago, where he was walking arm-in-arm with another
Bishop, and I was going to pass him with a salutation.
But he made a point of shaking me heartily by the hand,
and stopping to ask me some friendly question—the other
standing mute all the while. I could not see who it was :
perhaps he did not know me. . . . A friend told me that
after the debate, on Lord Ebury's motion (for abolishing
Subscription) he had heard Lord Derby say to the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, “Another such debate, and the
question of Subscription will be settled.' It is felt that
Subscription is doomed since the late division. . . .
“Speaking generally the cozwardice of men in England is
something amazing. The truth will prevail, I doubt not ;
but it is painful to me how little love of truth there is
among those from whom one hoped most. I see that the
Metropolitan is going to take some measure against me.
And it is plain from his reply to his clergy that what I have
all along believed is true, viz., that the “letters of inhibition’
were part of a concerted scheme, planned by the Bishop of
Oxford and others,' by which they hoped to get up ‘public
opinion’ against me. In this, however, they have signally
failed. The only effect of these letters has been to enlist a
great deal more of public opinion on my side. . . . An old
* We have for this the admission of the Bishop of Oxford himself,
See p. I75, note.
24O AAFE OF APISA/OA COLEAVSO. CHAP. VI.
gentleman writes to me that he has just seen Professor
Hitzig, of Heidelberg, probably the best Hebraist in Europe,
who said to him: ‘Your Bishops are making themselves the
laughter of all Europe. Every Hebraist knows that the
animal mentioned in Leviticus is really the hare. The
word is derived from the Arabic, and has the same meaning
in both languages. Every physicist knows that it does not
chew the cud. But most of all is it ridiculous to assume
that there are no physical errors in the Pentateuch.’ My
/hare has been running a pretty round since I last wrote,
and done excellent service to the cause of truth, the matter
being perfectly within the grasp of every old hunting squire.
The following epigram has been going the round of the
Clubs, and may amuse you :
“‘The Bishops all have sworn to shed their blood,
To prove 'tis true the Hare doth chew the cud ;
O Bishops, Doctors, and Divines, beware
Weak is the faith that hangs upon a Hair l’”
TO TH. SHEPSTONE, ESQ.
“SUSSEX PLACE, June 24, 1863.
. . . “I think you will see by the papers of this mail that
my hopes have been fulfilled, and my Part III. has put
me (as Dean Milman says in a private letter which I saw)
‘on much higher ground.’ In reality, there is no difference
whatever in the “level.’ He says that whereas before I was
only destructive, now I am constructive ; and I dare say
that others will say the same. And if they choose to say
So, they are welcome for my part to do so.
“It is their best way, I suppose, of getting out of the difficulty
into which their own mistake of the nature of my work has
carried them. Nothing, however, could have happened
more favourably for my purpose than the course which has
been followed under the advice (I doubt not) of the Bishop
of Oxford. It is evident that they have entirely mis-
apprehended the whole nature of my undertaking. They
took it for granted that a mere “arithmetician’ would know
1863–65. WORK WW EAVGZA/VD.— 7 HE BA 777A2. 24I
nothing of Hebrew criticism—and the contents of my first
volume confirmed them in this, as it contained chiefly
arithmetical arguments, although one at all acquainted with
the subject would have perceived glimpses of another kind
of criticism in the midst of my calculations.
“I have now finished about half my work, and hope at the
end of twelve months to have completed it. Then, as far
as I can now See, I shall prepare to leave for Natal, and the
sight of the Zulu handwriting which reached me from
William, Magema, and Umkungo this morning, makes me
feel quite a longing to be back again among them.
“Part III. was published last Thursday, 4,OOO copies, and
already the second edition of 1,500 is in the press. The
two former parts are also selling steadily. A gentleman
was introduced to me at the Athenaeum two or three days
ago, who told me that he had just come from Rome, and
the book was producing an immense sensation all over the
Continent. At Rome he went into a Jesuit's room, and
found him deep in the study of it. He then went to the
room of another Jesuit, and found him similarly engaged.
Manning has been preaching at Rome about it, and of
course the Romish Church triumphs at the perplexities of
Protestantism, and calls on every one to come and put him-
self under the direction of the infallible Church, which can
do without the Bible. . . . Of course I am brought into
daily connexion with all the great men of science, who are
warmly with me. . . .
“I was invited by the head master of Harrow to the speeches,
with Mrs. Colenso, last Thursday. . . . It is usual for the
school to take note of their friends, when they come out of
the recitations, by calling out their names for cheers. And
it may show how the tide has turned to mention (though I
would only do it to a friend such as you) that the lads gave
me a hearty double set of cheers, in presence of my arch-
opponents, Dr. Wordsworth and Dean Trench. . . .
“Please #eep up the heaſts of my poor people at Bishop-
stowe.”
WOL. I. R
242 AAFE OF BISHOP CO/AFAWSO. CHAP. VI.
TO THE SAME.
“SUSSEx PLACE, July 23, 1863.
“My third preface has produced great effect, and almost
silenced my adversaries. Indeed, not a word is now said
about my leaving the Church. It is felt that, if I am to go,
then Dean Milman, Canon Stanley, and a host of our most
distinguished men, must go also. . . .
“I think that your document leaves you full authority to
act for me. If you have not already had occasion to
interfere, I now request you to take such steps as may be
necessary to carry on the operations at Bishopstowe, the
printing of Kafir books, and the preaching at St. Mary's
(which, being unconsecrated, is merely a building erected
on ground for which I am trustee, and you, therefore, acting
trustee). . . . Do not let the Dean take possession of my
trust property. Better that places should remain vacant
till my return, which I shall hasten as much as possible.”
TO THE SAME.
“SUSSEx PLACE, August 26, 1863.
. . . “I send by this mail a copy of Mr. Wilson's address to
the Privy Council, which I think you will pronounce to be
a most masterly document. It is generally understood
that they, Wilson and Williams, will completely reverse the
unfavourable part of Lushington's judgement; and of course
the favourable part stands good as ever. Wilson's argu-
ments completely cover my own case. It would be
ridiculous for the Bishop of Capetown to pass any
judgement on me, if Wilson succeeds.' . . .
“Magema has written to me a capital English letter” this time,
saying that he will have finished the New Testament and
* This would have been strictly true, if Bishop Gray proposed to exer-
cise a jurisdiction which would be recognised by English courts. So soon
as he took to what he deemed spiritual processes and spiritual sentences,
he could act in defiance of the English courts. These proceedings were
a nullity in English law, and from a nullity there can be no appeal on the
merits of a case. * See pp. 85–88.
1863–65. WORK Z/V EAVG LA WD–THE BA TTLE. 243
other printing which I gave him to do, by April or May
1864, and he is anxious that I should know it, that I may
provide more, as he does not wish to leave the station
Bravo! I am thinking of having some of Callaway's
productions printed, though he does not deserve it.”
“To SIR CHARLEs LyELL.
“KENSINGTON, September 13, 1863.
“I have had a very pleasant trip, and have returned strength-
ened in mind and body after my intercourse with some of
the best critics of Europe. It would be amusing, were it
not humiliating, to see what view they take of the state of
Biblical criticism in England, more especially among those
who sit on the episcopal bench.”
“TO TH. SHEPSTONE, ESQ.
“SUSSEX PLACE, October 18, 1863.
“Archdeacon Denison, I hear, has just, in his monthly peri-
odical The Church and State Review, accused the Bishop
of London and Professor Stanley of rank infidelity, and
says that the former is not fit to be a Bishop ! So I am in
good Company.” . . .
TO THE SAME.
“SUSSEX PLACE, January 5, 1864.
. . . “You will see that Stanley, whom the Record and
Archdeacon Denison consider a more dangerous heretic
than myself, is to be the new Dean of Westminster, not-
withstanding Wordsworth's furious fulminations. Behold
the consistency of these men. . . . Dr. Wordsworth, the
great stickler for Church order, can publish this libellous
attack upon the ecclesiastical character of his intended
superior; but there he stops short. He neither charges him
with his offences before a court of law, nor resigns his own
office.
“What would be thought of a major in the army, who, on
hearing that some one was appointed to be colonel of his
- R 2
244 AAFE OF AP/SHOP CO/CEAVSO. CHAP. VI •
regiment, published immediately a pamphlet charging him
with cowardly or disloyal conduct 2 Would he not be
bound either to bring those charges before a court-martial,
or to quit the army himself? . . .
“I hear from Bleek that the rumour at the Cape is that I am
to be suspended, and the Bishop to go up to Natal and act
for me. Of course, I cannot prevent his doing what the
patent allows him to do, viz. to go up in person, and while
present personally, assume my spiritual powers. But as to
temporalities, I would not give way for a moment. Do not
therefore, as I am sure you will not, part with any of the
documents in your possession should he demand them.”
Litigation is commonly a costly process, and the steps
which the Bishop was compelled to take in order to test the
pretensions of the so-called judgement of the Metropolitan
of Capetown were likely to involve him in expenses which
he could not meet from his personal resources. His friends
accordingly resolved to raise a Defence Fund, to which
reference is made in the following letter:—
TO TH. SHEPSTONE, ESQ.
“SUSSEX PLACE, February 2, 1864.
“The first donation came on Saturday from a gentleman in
Yorkshire, a layman, quite a stranger to me, £150, with a
promise of ‘five times as much or more, if needed, and an
earnest exhortation to maintain my ground to the utmost,
‘which is of more consequence at present than the con-
tinuation of your work.’ The second was £50 from a
Beneficed Clergyman’ who is unwilling to give his name
because he lives in a focus of Orthodoxy; but this is his
first subscription.” . . . .
“February 5.
“I copy a passage from a letter from a clergyman this
moment received: he is a master at one of our great
schools. “I have spoken of the Defence Fund to several
of the masters, all of whom intend to subscribe. Whether
1863–65. WORK IN ENGLAND–THE BA TTLE. 245
they will give their names or not depends on the course
adopted by the masters of other public schools, Rugby,
Eton, Marlborough, &c. I have talked . . . to the head
master of , and he thinks it is yet uncertain whether
they will subscribe anonymously or openly. There can be
no question that the latter is the more honourable course,
and I shall use whatever influence I have to get it
adopted.’
“I don’t think that he will succeed. But even a row of
‘anonymous’ clergy will tell a tale.”
To THE REV. T. P. FERGUSON.
“KENSINGTON, February 26, 1864.
“I am quite sure that your thoughts in the matter of the
Defence Fund are only good and kind towards me, and
that you have done what you felt to be right. And I do
not wish to put any force upon your own sense of duty in
the matter. There is one point, however, and indeed a
principal point, in your letter, on which in justice to myself
I must give you some information. You speak of my
‘clergy’ being adverse to me, and of my inability to advise
or direct them. And you have in mind, I suppose, a pro-
test from eight of my clergy, addressed to me about a twelve-
month ago, calling upon me to resign my see, &c. You
must remember first under what circumstances that docu-
ment was forwarded. The “Bishops' Manifesto' had just
reached the colony, and it is by no means improbable that
the protest itself was suggested by a letter from the
chaplain of some English Bishop to Archdeacon Grubb.
It was composed at a time when the Bishop of St. David's
had not thrown his shield around me, and the Convocation
was expected to grind me to powder. Above all, it was
written before the Privy Council had, by its recent
judgement, completely legalised my present position.”
The Bishop goes on to examine the list of names. Two
only were those of University men, one of these being
246 M.IFE OF BISA/OB CO LEAVSO. CHAP. VI
Archdeacon Grubb, who, knowing that the Bishop was going
to England to publish his work on the Pentateuch, accepted
the office of commissary during his absence without hesitation,
and discharged it until he was frightened by the uproar from
England. His signature almost of necessity carried those of
the rest, and of these, one, Tönnesen, publicly expressed his
regret for having signed it.
“You may have heard that I have received a warm address
of sympathy from a large body of the laity of Durban, and
that a counter address, which was prepared, has not been
sent, because, as I suppose, it was not sufficiently signed.
Thus you may get a general idea of the state of things in
the diocese, and as Mr. Shepstone says (previously to the
results of my last volume, with Perowne's admission and
Thirlwall's judgement of Convocation, and previous of
course to the recent judgement) it only needs me to gain
the day in England to have all right in Natal sufficiently
for all practical purposes.”
TO MISS COBBE.
“23 SUSSEx PLACE, February 29, 1864.
“I heartily thank you for your little books. . . . I can
say no more than that your words speak to my heart
throughout, and that I truly rejoice in the work which you
are enabled from above to do, and which, God be praised,
you are doing. What my own future course may be, is
still uncertain, though I think I see before me the path
of duty becoming more clear daily. . . . . Should the de-
cision as to jurisdiction be in my favour, as we have every
reason to expect, then I shall be in a position to return to
Africa free of all ecclesiastical shackles, except the vows
made at my consecration. . . . . The late judgement of
the Privy Council has made a wonderful gap in the fence
which protected the old superstition. ‘Take away our hot
plates and pincers, and where are we?’ say the dogmatists.
The Saturday Review compares the said “fence, which the
1863–65. WORK IN ENGLAND–THE BATTLE. 247
orthodox deemed a stone wall, to a mere paling with wide
intervals between the pales, so that any clergyman may
now go in and out and find pasture for himself and his
flock, if only he will take care not to run his head against
one of the pales, add, until the said pale has become
sufficiently rotten to give way at the least push.”
To THE REv. G. W. Cox.
“KENSINGTON, March 4, 1864.
“Bishop Cotterill will, I think, be mistaken as to my clergy.
The best of them has just written to say that he “has now
been reading my third volume, and is sorry that he signed
the protest.” Another writes to me month after month in
the most dutiful manner, and a third refused to sign any-
thing, and sent his duty to me. Of course I shall have
a fight dº l'outrance with Dean Green, backed by Bishop
Gray and Archdeacon Fearne. But they can do nothing.
. . . . You remember that Denison intimated some eight
months ago his willingness to “bury’ me with the due
honours of the Church Service, as I was not excommuni-
cated. He seems anxious to hurry the ceremony, as he
writes upon ‘the late Bishop of Natal’ though, even on his
own principle, I cannot be ‘dead' ecclesiastically till the
Cape mail leaves England to-morrow evening, which might
take my retractation, and he cannot be sure that it won’t go
out and be presented to Bishop Gray on April 17.”
$2.
TO THE REV. T. P. FERGUSON.
“March 4, 1864.
“Thanks for your note and for all your love.
“But I do not think that your comparison of a Bishop with a
General at all holds good.
“In the first place, if a commanding officer becomes unpopular
with his officers, e.g. Colonel C–, it may be because his
officers are bad ; and the remedy may be to remove them to
other regiments, as in his case has, I believe, been done.
The soldiers, you remember, liked him ; and the laity have
248 JL/FE OF BASHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. VI.
addressed me. But at all events, if the Colonel is removed,
he is allowed to retire on half-pay, or sell out. What am I
to do? . . . . But this after all is only a secondary question.
Did St. Paul retire from the oversight of the Galatians,
when they ‘so soon removed from him to another gospel 'P
Or did he think it necessary to consider whether the clergy
of the Galatian churches, who preached that other gospel,
would like his supervision or not? “Do I seek to please
men 2 For, if I yet pleased men, I should not be the
servant of Christ.’
“As soon as the ‘law ' deposes me, of course, my office is
at an end, and I must bear the consequences of speaking
what I believe to be the truth. But till then, it seems to
me to be my duty to proclaim the truth, as I see it, though
all the clergy and laity of England and Natal were banded
against me, and though all possible annoyance and insult
might be my lot for so doing ; unless, indeed, I have lost all
faith in the power of Truth to prevail at last over all oppo-
sition.” -
TO TH. SHEPSTONE, ESQ.
“March 29, 1864.
. . . “First let me quiet your anxieties by saying that all is
going well with us at present, and as well as we could pos-
sibly desire, and that I am now seriously expecting that we
shall sail for Natal in the fall of this year.
“The Privy Council judgement [on the Essays and Reviews
case] has been delivered, and is of infinite importance. On
every point appealed against the judgement of the court
below has been reversed. . . . The decision goes very far
beyond what we had any of us anticipated or hoped for, in
all essential points. . . . I need not say that it sweeps away
at a stroke the whole farrago of the Bishop of Capetown's
judgement. On the very point of ‘endless punishment, on
which the three Cape Bishops were so positive, the three
English Bishops are agreed in the very opposite direction.
And on every single point of the nine (on which they have
condemned me) which has been under discussion in the
1863–65. WORK IW EAWGZAAWD–THE BATTLE. 249
English courts, either in the Gorham judgement, or Lush-
ington's, or this last of the Privy Council, I am justified, and
they are condemned.”
TO THE SAME.
“SUSSEx PLACE, April 4, 1864.
“The greatest news of the last month is the ‘Declaration’
pushed forwards with the utmost vigour by the joint efforts
of the Tractarian and Recordite parties. In the face of
the judgement of the Privy Council, between 9,000 and
IO,Ooo clergy have declared that the Church of England
holds that every part of the Bible is the Word of God,
and that the punishments of the other world are everlast-
ing. Happily, only about half of the English clergy have
been got to sign it; and though, of course, a great many of
the non-declarants may have withheld their names for
various reasons, and not because they differ from the decla-
ration itself, yet it is plain, I think, that the liberal party in
the clergy is considerably stronger than we ourselves had
imagined, and it will, I doubt not, increase daily.”
TO THE SAME.
“SUSSEX PLACE, June 6, 1864.
. . . “We have not yet got the list of Dr. Pusey and his
II,000 virgins. But the Record says that almost all the
Irish clergy have signed the declaration. If so, it is
unfortunate for its importance, as the Irish Church stands
very low in public estimation in England. Perhaps its
clergy may be 5,OOO ; take these away, and then deduct the
curates under the screw from their rectors, the deacons,
and the literates, and how many will remain of the genuine,
intelligent, English clergy P’’
TO THE SAME.
“SUSSEX PLACE, July 3, 1864.
“It appears from the Bishop of London's statement in Con-
vocation that the whole number of clergy in England and
25O JLIFE OF BASA/OA COLEAVSO. CHAP. VI.
Ireland is 24,805, of which Io,906, not one-half, have signed
the famous declaration. The signers among the English
clergy were only 9,675, out of 22,509; and 8 only of the
30 Deans, 9 out of 40 Oxford Professors, and not one of
the 29 Cambridge Professors, have signed it. . . .
“I have now Professor Kuenen staying with me for a week,
and of course we are discussing the Pentateuch at every
available moment. Though he differs in detail from some
of my views, I see no reason as yet to modify any of them.
“I came out of the Athenaeum the other day, and saw at the
door my old college friend, Bishop Ellicott, of Gloucester
and Bristol, with whom we had all stayed a night at his
deanery in Exeter, shortly after landing, upon which occa-
sion I discussed with him all the principal parts of my
work on the Pentateuch. Though not agreeing with all my
views, yet he made no serious objection to them. But as
soon as he got upon the bench, he issued a bull of inhibi-
tion as long and unmeaning as any of them. There he now
was (on horseback) at the door of the Athenaeum. . . . On
seeing me he nodded, and I went up and shook hands with
him, upon which he said, ‘Upon my word ' you don't seem
much the worse for all the storms and tempests that have
gone over you !” So there you have the last report of my
health at this moment.”
TO MISS F. P. COBBE.
“23 SUSSEx PLACE, May 12, 1864.
“Your refreshing note reached me yesterday, and came like a
single drop to sweeten a whole cup full of bitterness, which
I found awaiting me, as the result of the post, during a
two days’ absence. . . . . . You wish to know what
I am doing. I post the ‘Letter to the Laity, which will
give you some idea of the present state of things. . . . I
quite feel that if life and strength are spared, my work must
be done eventually in England, and your letter is not the
only one which has put before me strongly my duty to
remain here. But I think that I must return for a time at
1863–65. WORK IN ENGLAND–THE BATTLE. 25I
all events, if only to set things in order, and take a final
leave of my friends and my poor native flock. Whatever
I may have to write, as I pursue the work which God in
His Providence has laid upon me, I have as yet written
nothing which deserves the treatment which I have received
at the hands of the Bishop of Capetown. And I think that
the cause of truth itself requires that I should assert this
by maintaining my ground in the face of his excommuni-
cations. If he had waited quietly for the decision of the
authorities at home—not shrinking from what he felt to be
his own duty in the matter, but yet acting openly, fairly,
and temperately, abiding calmly the result of my appeal,
and prepared to submit himself to the judgement of the
Privy Council if adverse to himself, as well as to carry out
his ‘sentence’ if confirmed—I might have seen it best to
retire at once from the conflict, as soon as the appeal was
decided, though it would have cost me a Sore pang to give
up thus my work in Natal. But now, after the violent
course which Bishop Gray has taken and still intends to
pursue, . . . I feel bound to go out, if I go alone, and
stand my ground before him—supposing that the Privy
Council gives a decision in my favour. Last night I had
an intimation from the Colonial Secretary to the effect
that my case is to go before the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council—but ‘in its most general form, i.e., I suppose,
they will only discuss the question of jurisdiction. My
course will be determined pretty nearly by the form which
the decision takes. If it should be adverse to me, on the
score of jurisdiction, . . . then I should perhaps appeal
to the Court of Arches or Privy Council on the question of
‘merits, if such appeal is allowed; and if this appeal were
decided for me, I should probably then go out for two or
three years—long enough to assert my rights, and to com-
plete my work on the Pentateuch. The decision of the
Privy Council may, however, be given in such a form as to
put me into the hands of the Bishop, in which case I should
certainly not go out again, or only for a few months, just to
wind up my affairs. But whenever I do return finally to
252 J.IFE OF BISHOP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. VI.
England, what am I to do 2 Indeed I know not ; and I
can only trust that some work will be found, by which I
may earn a living for my family. Criticism alone will not
do this: and my books will exclude me from almost every
situation which I might feel myself competent to fill. What
“respectable' person could be expected to vote for the ex-
Bishop, heretic, infidel, and renegade 2 Or, if some few had
the courage to do so, how many would not? This would
be nothing if one were beginning life, or were alone in the
world; but, as things are, I must confess the worldly pros-
pect in the future is very blank and cheerless ; nor do I at
present see my way at all through the gloom. I do not
wish to leave the National Church and become a sectarian.
Yet within the Church, when I shall have once resigned my
see, I know of no post that I could be allowed to fill. Well,
time will show what is to be done, and God's good Providence
is over all.
“I am not writing at present, though a great part of my fifth
volume is written. But I have been reading a number of
German works, full of learning and information, though
utterly unknown to English divines. The more I study the
Subject, the less reason I see for withdrawing my foot from
any of the positions which I have taken in my different
volumes. In particular, as to the later origin of the name
Jehovah, I had no idea what very strong confirmation of
this opinion is given by the records of the Phoenician religion.
Many English readers will be astonished, I think, when
they have the facts to which I refer laid plainly before
them. . . . . I am well pleased that my books are on
the bookshelves of your host. I wish that they were more
worthy of the perusal of a learned foreigner. But things
which are new and strange to us in England have been
long familiar to German scholars. You probably see the
Victoria Magazine, where, in this month's number, the
editor takes you to task for your judgement of Mr. Maurice.
Not a word of sympathy has reached me from that quarter
since you left England. Father Newman is now giving a
most interesting account of the Tractarian movement in a
1863–65. WORK IN EAVGLAND–THE BATTLE, 253
sº
series of pamphlets which he calls an “Apology’ for his
life.
“Yesterday the famous declaration was presented; but only
four Bishops with the Archbishops were present at its
reception, viz. Bangor, St. Asaph, Gloucester, and Wor-
cester. It has been signed by about half the clergy; and
it will be curious to know by what class of the clergy it has
been chiefly signed.”
TO THE REV. A. W. L. RIVETT.
“KENSINGTON, June 6, 1864.
“I am afraid that you and others of the clergy will have been
much perplexed by the proceedings of the Bishop of Cape-
town, and I am sorry on all accounts that he did not wait
quietly for the legal decision of the questions at issue. You
will see by the Times of May 25 that I dined as Bishop
of Natal with the Colonial Ministers on Her Majesty's
birthday—a fact which shows that the Government at
home does not recognise the validity of the sentence of
deposition, according to which I ceased to be Bishop of
Natal on April 16. My petition is to come before the
Privy Council at its next meeting, either this week or next,
and then it will be decided what course the affair is likely
to take. If the matter is referred to the Judicial Committee,
time must then be allowed for the Bishop of Capetown to
appear by his counsel, and I shall not be able to leave
England till the end of the year. "But the Privy Council
may decide at once, or may decline to interfere at this
stage ; and in either of these cases I shall hope to sail for
Natal as soon as I can complete my preparations for the
voyage.
“I am very glad to find that your health bears up under the
heavy work you have had, and also that you have paid off
the debt upon the church. It does you great credit to have
managed this work so well.
“You will see from the above that by the next mail I hope to
be able to speak more definitely of my plans. The delays
of the law are tedious: still it is better to wait quietly and
254 A./FE OF BISA/OA COLEAVSO. CHAP. VI.
patiently, until my ground is made sure for me by an
authoritative legal decision, if that can be obtained, than
to take rash and hasty steps such as those which the
Metropolitan appears to be taking.
“I should strongly advise you and others of the clergy, who
may be perplexed between the injunctions of the Bishop of
Capetown not to obey me as Bishop, and your sense of duty
to the oath which you have taken of obedience to your
Bishop, who is still recognised as such by the Queen's
Government, and by the law of the land, to write person-
ally to Mr. Hawkins, Secretary of the S.P.G., and put the
case before him, and ask his advice and direction as to
what the Society wishes you to do under the circumstances,
seeing that, by the instructions to their missionaries, they
expressly require you to be subject to your Bishop. But
do not write before the September mail, as the Committee
does not meet till October, and therefore your letter, if
arriving sooner, might be lost sight of.”
It is scarcely necessary to do more than notice in passing
the incidents which took place at Claybrook in September
1864. It was the old story. The incumbent had invited the
Bishop to preach for his village school; and the Bishop of
the diocese anticipated him by an inhibition. Instead of
preaching, the Bishop published his sermon (to which it
would be hard indeed for any one to offer any objections), and
addressed the people later in the day in the school-room,
until the pressure of the crowd made it needful to end his
speech in the open air. It was but a few weeks before these
Occurrences that Mr. Briarly, a Yorkshire clergyman, addressed
the Archbishop of York with reference to a book intitled
The Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuch considered in connexion
with Parts II. and III. of Bishop Colenso’s “Critical Examination
of the Pentateuch.” This work was announced as “By a Layman,”
but it was dedicated “by permission ” to the Archbishop ; and
although in a work so dedicated the person receiving the
1863–65. WORK IN ENGLAND–THE BATTLE. 255.
dedication cannot fairly be considered responsible for minute
and subordinate details, still it would follow that he approved
its main arguments and conclusions. The Archbishop may
have done more : he must, if he had read the book, at least
have done this. But the “Layman * in this book had ex-
pressed himself thus:—
“It must be confessed that the results we have thus arrived at
do differ very materially from the views commonly held.
The pre-Mosaic origin of large portions of Genesis; the
existence of two records of the Exodus, one, certainly,
therefore, non-Mosaic; the incorporation of narratives of
foreign origin ; the numerous additions and occasional
alterations made by a later writer after the Conquest,
—these are facts very strangely at variance with the
notions generally entertained. Facts they are, however—
not mere theoretic fancies or unfounded assumptions; and
in accordance with them we must frame our final view of
the true origin of the Pentateuch. Much of it is certainly
non-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.”
A hundred other admissions of a similar kind might be
cited ; but one is as valuable as a multitude. Any one of
them makes the whole criticism of the Pentateuch, and there-
fore of all the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, an open
question. In the words of the “Layman,” the result to be
aimed at is a “final view,” which may be right or which may
be wrong ; but every one of the admissions swept utterly away
traditional theories for disputing which the Bishop of Natal
had been covered with the foulest abuse by clergymen and
others who are usually supposed to be gentlemen. If twenty
or thirty chapters of the Pentateuch are non-Mosaic, any
number more may be in the same predicament. If there be
mis-statements, or errors of any kind, in two or three passages
256 A./FE OF BISHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. VI.
there may be any number, serious or slight, in others also,
The “Layman” beyond doubt was justified in avowing these
conclusions: he was bound to do so. But the Archbishop
was not a whit less bound to avow the sanction for these
conclusions implied in the fact of the dedication. Yet how
did the Archbishop act Mr. Briarly put together many of
these admissions, and then wrote to Archbishop Thomson,
asking him whether he allowed these statements to go forth
with the authority of his name, and whether he felt the
importance of these admissions in their bearing on the present
controversy. To this letter the Archbishop returned no
answer, and a month later Mr. Briarly printed his letter with
the “Layman's " admissions, and circulated it amongst
“members of the United Church of England and Ireland,”
with the remark that he could only suppose that the
Archbishop took on himself the responsibility of these
statements, -
“and that we must now make up our minds to admit the
‘composite character’ of the Pentateuch, and the ‘non-
Mosaic’ origin of considerable portions of it, for attempting
to demonstrate which the Bishop of Natal has incurred so
much, and, as it appears, so much undeserved obloquy.”
The subsequent withdrawal of the dedication cannot affect
the fact of its having appeared with the first editions. The
Archbishop may not have read the book; but in this case
must not the conclusion be that he regarded the subject as
one of no great consequence 2
TO TH. SHEPSTONE, ESQ.
“SUSSEX PLACE, September 2, 1864.
. . . “I am going to the British Association at Bath on the
13th inst.”
1863–65. WORK ZW EWGZAND–THE BA 7'7"LE. 257
4-
TO THE SAME.
“October 3, 1864.
. . “From Claybrook [where Dr. Jeune, Bishop of Peter-
borough, had the impertinence to send him a lawyer bearing
an inhibition] I went straight to Bath . . . My reception, as
you will see, in this thoroughly evangelical city, was remark-
able. But particularly so was the fact of the Dean of
Hereford coming bravely forward on the platform in the
theatre, in sight of the whole vast assembly, to shake me
cordially by the hand. . . . When Sir Charles Lyell at one
point of his address spoke of our being unable to get the
chill of traditionary beliefs out of our bones, he was stopped
for some minutes by repeated peals of applause; and so was
I, when I got up to propose Livingstone's health after the
dinner. This was not planned beforehand, but had only
been thought of a minute or two before. . . . I know that
you will like to hear all these little details, and won't think
me egotistical in relating them, for they show how the wind
is blowing here in England.”
It was, indeed, only to inform his friend that he noticed
these details at all. What occurred at Bath and at Harrow
was known generally, and was the subject of common conver-
sation ; but these incidents had their significance as serving to
show what impression had been produced by the work thus
far done, and his distant friends might, therefore, reasonably
expect to hear about them from himself.
TO JOHN MERRIFIELD, ESQ.
“KENSINGTON, October 18, 1864.
“I have in the press a complete criticism of the Pentateuch and
Book of Joshua, a translation by me from the Dutch of
Professor Kuenen, with notes of my own showing the points
of agreement with my criticisms as far as published, and
the unimportant particulars in which I differ from him. It
is a masterly work, this of Kuenen, and may be, I hope, a
VOL. I. S
258 A/FE OF AZSAIOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. VI.
text-book for the younger clergy; and at any rate it will
serve as a stop-gap until I can complete the whole of my
own work. It would not be prudent in me perhaps, nor
indeed, would it be possible, to bring out the rest of my
own book, though I have a deal of it in MS. I shall do my
best to let the Privy Council come to their decision, without
rousing any more hostility than is necessary until that
decision is given.
“As to my future course, much will depend on the nature of
that decision. But I must run down some day to Brighton
and have a talk with you, the only old friend whom I can
consult about this matter.”
TO TH. SHEPSTONE, ESQ.
“23 SUSSEx PLACE, December 9, 1864.
“Bishop Gray puts into print a statement of the Dean [Green]
that he believed I had received £500 from S.P.C.K. for a
grammar school at Maritzburg, the fact being that I had
only asked for such a grant, and for the present the Society
declined to make it, the colony not being sufficiently ad-
vanced. But there it stands, insinuating that I have had
the money and misapplied it. Now the Bishop might have
had the fairness and courtesy to write and ask me first
privately to give an account of this sum, and the other
sums which I have received, before he rushed into print in
this way.”
TO THE SAME.
“SUSSEX PLACE, January 6, 1865.
. . . “My case has been duly heard, and took up four days
of the judges' time. . . . . It is universally recognised by
the English press that some of the gravest constitutional
questions are raised by this case. . . . . It is doubtful, at
present, in what form the decision will be given, whether
they will say that Bishop Gray has no jurisdiction, . . . or,
which seems more probable, will allow his jurisdiction, but
with an appeal to the Crown. This is all that we really
1863–65. WORK IN ENGLAND–THE BATTLE. . 259
contend for, and this Sir Hugh Cairns has allowed in
plain words, for which I fancy Bishop Gray will not thank
him.”
TO THE SAME.
“SUSSEx PLACE, March 9, 1865.
. . . . “I breakfasted a few days ago with Mr. Chichester
Fortescue, Under-Secretary for the Colonies. . . . . We got
upon the subject of the education of the natives, and I
started the idea of devoting the £5,000 in Natal to the
establishment of Government schools with all the great
tribes, having heard from Mr. Scott that he was himself
inclined to take steps in this direction. Mr. Fortescue
listened with the deepest interest, and I feel sure that, as
far as he is concerned, the idea will not be allowed to drop.
I told him that I am bound to fight out the ecclesiastical
question ; but when I have gained the victory, as com-
pletely as the case will allow, I would gladly exchange the
Bishop's throne for the chair of Inspector of Native Educa-
tion in Natal, if they could allow me enough to live upon.
. . . . Mr. Fortescue took the matter in entirely, and I am
persuaded that, if it rested with him alone, it would be done.
. . . . I cannot help thinking that a great deal might be
done for the improvement of the natives by a system of
Government schools, without dogmatic teaching, though, of
course, elementary religious truth would not be excluded
from them. And I need hardly say that to be engaged in
such work would be the realisation of my most cherished
wishes in going to Natal at all in the first instance.”
Towards the close of the year 1864, the pretensions of the
Bishop of Capetown came before the Sovereign in Council.
In dealing with the questions submitted to it, the Judicial
Committee laid down certain positions which still remain
law. But a tribunal which lays down principles may be mis-
taken as to the circumstances of the case to which those
principles are to be applied. It may be taken as certain
“that in a colony having legislative institutions there was no
S 2
26o . J./FE OF AP/SAOA) CO/CAEAVSO, CHAP. VI.
power in the Crown by virtue of its prerogative (independent
of statute) to establish a metropolitan see or province, or to
create an ecclesiastical corporation whose status, rights, and
authority the colony will be required to recognise;”
also
“that there was no consensual jurisdiction, for it was not
competent for the one Bishop to give or the other to exercise
any such jurisdiction.”
The first consequence of this ruling would be, as the decision
of the Judicial Committee, delivered March 20, 1865, declared
it to be,
“that the proceedings taken by the Bishop of Capetown, and
the judgement and sentence pronounced by him against the
Bishop of Natal are null and void in law.”
There was, and there is, no question that at the time when
the metropolitical diocese of Capetown was created, the
colony of the Cape of Good Hope possessed “legislative
institutions.” But the Judicial Committee made one mistake
as to fact, or perhaps two mistakes. They treated the colony
of Natal as an integral part of the colony of the Cape of Good
Hope, or looked on both as possessed of the same “legislative
institutions.” This was not the case. At the time when the
bishopric of Natal was created, and the title of Metropolitan
was conferred on the Bishop of the newly formed diocese of
Capetown, Natal was, to all intents and purposes, a Crown
Colony." The Crown, therefore, had full power to create an
ecclesiastical corporation in that colony, “whose status, rights,
and authority the colony would be required to recognise ; ”
but without an Act of the legislature of the Cape of Good
Hope it had not the power of conferring Metropolitan or
any other powers on the Bishop of the re-made diocese of
Capetown.
* In a measure it is so still
1863-65. WORK IN ENGLAND–THE BATTLE. 261
Legally, then, the proceedings of the Bishop of Capetown
and his judgement were worthless. Spiritually, it was con-
tended by himself, and by his supporters, that they were valid;
and the inference insisted on was that, if he had no jurisdiction,
and if his judgement was in law a nullity, no appeal could lie
to the Queen in Council. This plea was summarily set aside
by the Judicial Committee, which held
“ that under 25 Hen. VIII., c. 19, an appeal would lie.”
But it was the fault of the Bishop of Capetown and his
adherents that the appeal was made simply against his exer-
cise of jurisdiction. It was impossible to carry an appeal to
the Crown on the merits of the case, unless both parties were
agreed that it should be so carried. The coercive jurisdiction
might be appealed against, but not the detailed charges with
reference to which that professed or pretended jurisdiction
had been exercised. Under no circumstances, however, would
the Bishop of Capetown hear of an appeal to what he spoke
of as a purely secular tribunal. The way to an examination
of the case on its merits was absolutely barred. Neither the
Judicial Committee nor any other court could waste its time
in debating the details of charges brought by a so-called
tribunal which was asserted to have no legal existence. But
if the charges had been brought honestly and in good faith,
as they might have been brought, as against a Bishop or an
incumbent in England, the right of appeal to the Crown being
admitted, then the nullity of the metropolitical court, and the
legal invalidity of its sentence, would have been no bar to a
settlement of the case on its merits. The appeal and the
scrutiny would have followed in due course, and the Scan-
dalous divisions introduced by the setting up of the so-called
Church of South Africa, would all have been avoided. To
get rid of what he called the yoke of a secular court, the
Bishop of Capetown set up a schismatical body ; and its
262 AZFA2 OF AP/SAIOP CO/CEAVSO. CHAP. VI.
Schism is none the less a fact because it has continued to
exist for more than twenty years.
It becomes, therefore, unnecessary to examine the language
of the letters patent creating the new diocese of Capetown in
December 1853. But even if the validity of these letters were
conceded, there can still be no doubt as to the meaning of
the clause which declares that, if any party shall conceive
himself aggrieved by any judgement, decree, or sentence of
the Bishop of Capetown, it shall be lawful for him to appeal
to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Bishop Gray, as of favour,
condescended to allow in this particular instance an appeal
to the Archbishop of Canterbury in person. The appeal
indicated in the letters patent was to the Archbishop in his
judicial capacity, from whom an appeal would of necessity lie
to the Crown.
The attempt made by Bishop Gray to draw a distinction
between ecclesiastical and spiritual authority was summarily
disallowed. It was determined that
“pastoral or spiritual authority may be incidental to the office
of Bishop ; but all jurisdiction in the Church, where it can
be lawfully conferred, must proceed from the Crown, and
be exercised as the law directs; and suspension or privation
of office are matters of coercive legal jurisdiction, and not
of mere spiritual authority.”
The plea of consensual jurisdiction might seem to carry
greater weight. With this plea the Judicial Committee dealt
as follows:—
“There is nothing on which such an argument can be
attempted to be put, unless it be the oath of canonical
obedience taken by the Bishop of Natal to Dr. Gray as
Metropolitan.
“The argument must be that, both parties being aware that
the Bishop of Capetown has no jurisdiction or legal
1863–65. WORK IN EAWGZA/VD–THE BA TTLE. 263
authority as Metropolitan, the appellant agreed to give it
to him by voluntary submission. But, even if the parties
intended to enter into any such agreement (of which, how-
ever, we find no trace), it was not legally competent to the
Bishop of Natal to give, or to the Bishop of Capetown to
accept or exercise, any such jurisdiction.
“There remains one point to be considered. It was contended
before us that, if the Bishop of Capetown had no jurisdiction,
his judgement was a nullity, and that no appeal could lie
from a nullity to Her Majesty in Council.
“But that is by no means the consequence of holding that the
respondent had no jurisdiction. The Bishop of Capetown,
acting under the authority which the Queen's letters
patent purported to give, asserts that he has held a court
of justice, and that with certain legal forms he has pro-
nounced a judicial sentence; and that by such sentence he
has deposed the Bishop of Natal from his office of Bishop,
and deprived him of his see. He also asserts that, the
sentence having been published in the diocese of Natal, the
clergy and inhabitants of the diocese are thereby deprived
of all episcopal superintendence. Whether these proceed-
ings have the effect which is attributed to them by the
Bishop of Capetown, is a question of the greatest import-
ance, and one which we feel bound to decide. We have
already shown that there was no power to confer any
jurisdiction on the respondent as Metropolitan. The
attempt to give appellate jurisdiction to the Archbishop
of Canterbury is equally invalid.
“This important question can be decided only by the Sove-
reign as Head of the Established Church, and depositary
of the ultimate appellate jurisdiction. . . .
“ Unless a controversy, such as that which is presented by
this appeal and petition, falls to be determined by the
ultimate jurisdiction of the Crown, it is plain that there
would be a denial of justice, and no remedy for great public
inconvenience and mischief.”
264 IIFE OF BISAIOP CO/CE/VSO. CHAP. VI.
TO TH. SHEPSTONE, ESQ.
- - “23 SUSSEx PLACE, April Io, 1865.
“Doubtless before this the news of the ‘decision 'will have
reached Natal, and you will agree with me, I think, in
considering that we have gained a complete victory. The
Tractarians (Dr. Pusey, &c.) try to make out that they have
got as much out of it as I; that, if Bishop Gray has lost
his power, I have lost mine; that the Church of South
Africa is free, &c. These gratulations are, in reality, only
pretences to hide their discomfiture. As they do not mean
to give up their posts and incomes within the good old
Church of England, it was, of course, necessary to make out
that the decision was just what they wanted. But every
day shows more and more clearly the importance of it to
our cause, and the devastation which it brings to theirs.
The whole edifice which they have been so carefully piling
up for years has toppled all at once to the ground. Of
course, the Long judgement prepared us to find that we had
no “coercive jurisdiction' by patent over our clergy, but
only that which their contracts under their licences have
given us. But, as I have not the least wish to exercise any
such jurisdiction, . . . . this part of the decision, however
destructive it may be to Bishop Gray's notions of authority,
is perfectly acceptable to me. It is not, indeed, certain that
it does apply to Natal, for the question would still have to
be decided, if any case of discipline arose, whether Natal
had representative institutions when it had merely a nominee
Legislative Council. However, I am never likely to raise
the question, and so we will consider all coercive jurisdic-
tion by patent-right gone. But what then 2 The patent
is perfectly valid, as ever, to give title, position, protection,
independence, and (which is of most importance perhaps)
to constitute me a lay-corporation for holding lands in trust
for the English Church, and transmitting them to my
successors. . . . Thus there can be no Bishop of the Church
of England in the colony but myself; and no one can hold
land for the English Church but myself. If any like to join
1863–65. WORK IN EAVGZAND–THE BATTLE. 265
the Church of South Africa, of course they may do so, as
they might have done all along.
“But Bishop Gray has no power whatever to interfere in any
of the affairs of the Church of England in Natal,—not even,
I suspect, as holding lands in trust for it, for a very curious
case arises out of the recent decision. . . . By his old
patent the Bishop of Capetown was a lay-corporation, and,
as such, had lands granted to him in Natal in trust for the
English Church. What became of these lands when that
corporation was destroyed by the cancelling of his former
patent? With whom was the trust vested during the
fifteen days when there was no Bishop of Capetown, and
no patent constituting the office 2 Lawyers tell me that
by English law the property in that case would return to
the donor, and be held by him in trust for the object in
question. But who was the donor Not the Queen
in England, but the Queen in Natal, represented by the
Governor and Executive Council, and the Queen had
no power, by a stroke of her pen in the new patent, to
re-grant those lands in trust to the new Bishop of Cape-
town. He should have applied to the Colonial Government.
If so, the cathedral and other lands, supposed to be held
by Bishop Gray in Natal on trust, are really held by
the Government, and would, I suppose, on application be
re-granted to me, in accordance with the decision of the
Privy Council.”
TO THE SAME.
“SUSSEx PLACE, May 9, 1865.
. . . . “The Colonial Bishoprics Fund Committee, con-
sisting mainly, I believe, of the Archbishops and Bishops,
have decided, it seems, to do what honourable laymen,
I imagine, would not have thought of doing, viz. to
withhold my income until they are compelled to pay it.
I have just heard . . . . that they are doing this without
any expectation of finally succeeding in their attempt, but
only to cause annoyance, and especially delay in my return
to Natal. They expect (my friend says) to be able to keep
266 A/FE OF BISHOP COLE/VSO. CHAP. VI.
me here till perhaps Christmas. . . . And this private
information is fully confirmed up to the present by the
course they have taken. First, they gained a fortnight by
the pretext that they had not had a meeting, though they
were all in London at the time of the decision. Then they
merely referred me to their solicitors. . . . We go to the
solicitors, and offer to lay a case with them before Council,
if they are in any doubt as to any legal question. The
solicitors reply that they know nothing at all about the
matter, have not read any of the documents, &c., &c., but
as soon as we file our bill they will take advice. We
are therefore obliged to file a bill in Chancery, and my
solicitors yesterday requested them to receive service of the
same. They reply that they have no instructions to receive
service; whereupon my agents have told them that, if they
do not consent to receive service to-morrow, they shall
regard their proceedings as frivolous and vexatious, and go
down and serve upon the two Archbishops themselves, who
are made defendants. When the bill is served, they have
a month by law before they need say what course they will
take. Some think that they will knock under, seeing that
they have not a shadow of ground on which to stand. But
I am by no means sure of this. . . . For the present I
adhere to my purpose of leaving England about the end of
July. For my friends are not idle, and are, I believe, going
to raise a sum which is to be used for my income while this
law-suit is pending, and then to be left at my disposal.”
TO THE SAME.
“SUSSEX PLACE, July 9, 1865.
“As I anticipated, the attempt to crush me by stopping my
income has resulted in a miserable failure. Thus far the
“fund' has amounted to about £3,000 without any publica-
tion of it. . . . In fact, it has been quite a triumph for the
party of progress. . . .
“The hopes of my first preface have been actually fulfilled,
even before the time I gave for it. I said in five years, and
1863–65. WORK IW EWGLAND–THE BATTLE. 267
behold in three the terms of Subscription for clergy have
been already relaxed. We are now only required to say
that “we assent to the Articles and Liturgy’ (assent in
what sense, for what reason, whether as a temporary
arrangement, a compromise, &c., is left perfectly open),
and that we ‘believe its doctrine generally to be agreeable
to Holy Scripture, without, therefore, being true in itself
or in any of its details. But more of these things when
we meet.” -
TO THE SAME.
“SUSSEX PLACE, August 9, 1865.
“We hope by this day week to be going down the Channel,
the Verulam being fixed to sail on the 15th. . . . So, please
God, we hope to reach Natal some time about the end of
October or beginning of November. . . . If you cannot be
at Durban when we arrive, I should like to have a line
from you awaiting me there, just to tell me how things
stand. . . . My desire and my duty will be to be as patient
| and quiet as possible, to act simply when required to main-
tain my own rights, without taking any notice of mere
insults, anathemas, &c., &c. . . .
“ Up to this moment the council and trustees of the Colonial
Bishoprics Fund have not given any reply to my case in
Chancery, though we filed it more than three months ago.
They have three times asked for more time. My lawyers
say that there can be no reason that will bear the light of
day. I must believe that the whole proceeding is a mere
piece of manoeuvring on the part of the Bishop of Oxford,
&c., to gain time for Bishop Gray, and especially to see
what effect can be produced on the clergy and laity of
Matal by working upon their minds with the statement
that my income was stopped, and letting the report go out
mail after mail, while I should be unable to contradict it or
to counteract it by showing that it was stopped for no just
ground whatever. In England, through the “fund,’ this
object has utterly failed. I only hope that the laity of
Natal have been sufficiently alive to the craft of the High
268 A/FE OF BASA/OP COZAZAVSO. CHAP. VI.
Church party, and sufficiently awake to the consequences
to themselves, should the schemes of that party be allowed
to triumph.”
TO JOHN MERRIFIELD, ESQ.
“KENSINGTON, August 12, 1865.
‘I duly received both your kind letters, and now, having just
packed my books, &c., sit down to write just one line of
farewell. Most heartily do I thank you and all my friends
for the help you have given in the time of need. (You will
be glad to hear that the Bishop of London's chaplain has
signed the Fund,-of course with the Bishop's permission.)
I am going, please God, to fight out the battle for liberty
of thought and speech within the Church of England at
Natal. But many things lead me to think that I shall
not be very long away from England. If it please God,
I may hope to see you and shake you by the hand once
II) Oſe.
I wish you would keep Fawcett up to the mark. Let him
bring in a Bill (if nobody else will) to remove the disabilities
of the clergy. Say nothing about “indelibility,’ &c. If any
one believes in that dogma, nobody will prevent them from
so believing. But let a clergyman be free, while not hold-
ing clerical office, to engage in any trade or profession or
be elected to Parliament. There are clergy enough in the
House of Lords to prevent any progress. We shall never
have a real reform of the Church system, till we have
some in the House of Commons who know where the shoe
pinches.”
To THE REv. G. W. COX.
“KENSINGTON, August 14, 1865.
Many thanks for your most kind and loving letter. We
looked for you all day yesterday, the more so, as a very
important proposition has been made by Mr. Marriott
which will perhaps bring me back at the end of twelve
months. I have a heap of letters to write to-day, so cannot
say more but to assure you of our affection, and wish you
1863–65. WORK IN ENGLAND–THE BATTLE. 269
every happiness. . . . . I feel as though I had not half
expressed my grateful thanks for all the most able and
effective help which you have rendered to me and to the
cause during these three years. May you now be recruited
for further work hereafter.”
TO SIR CHARLES LYELL.
“KENSINGTON, August 15, 1865.
“In an hour we expect to start for the ship. So I use the
last moments to say farewell to Lady Lyell and yourself,
and to thank you most sincerely for all your innumerable
acts of kindness to me and mine during the last eventful
three years. I duly received your letter from Kissingen,
about three weeks ago, but delayed replying to it, wishing
to be able to communicate the latest intelligence. There
are now one or two important matters to name, in which I
think you will be much interested. (I) The trustees of
the Colonial Bishoprics Fund have at last sent in their
reply (provoked, I fancy, by the proceedings at Freemasons
Tavern). It reached our hands on Friday last, after three
months of incubation. But it contains literally nothing of
the slightest consequence, and when pulled to pieces by my
lawyers will, I am afraid, exhibit the conduct of the
trustees and council in no very creditable light. They
actually ‘crave leave to refer' to a letter of Miss Burdett
Coutts (), addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury a
few weeks ago, as a proof that none of the subscribers to the
Colonial Bishoprics Fund ever contemplated supporting
‘such a Bishop as that which the judgement of the Privy
Council decides the plaintiff to be.’ Of course, the reason-
ing, so far as it is worth anything, applies equally against
their paying the Bishop of Capetown and others their
incomes. But the genius of the Bishop of Oxford, is shown,
I expect, in this matter magnificently. The fact is, as Mr.
W. M. James told us in consultation a few weeks ago, that
Miss Coutts is so displeased with Bishop Gray's proceedings
in separating himself and his flock from the Anglicant
27o AZFE OF BISA/OA COLASMSO. CHAP. VI.
Church that, while no friend of mine, she has taken legal
advice as to whether she could not withdraw the whole
endowment of his see (which she gave), on the ground that
she did not contemplate founding a bishopric independent
of all control, &c. (I don't know the exact words; but
that I believe to be her meaning.) And so the council
adroitly use such a letter as bearing against me. . . . .
“This gives you a specimen of the sort of arguments
they employ. Their “reply, as one of my counsel say, is
childish and ridiculous, and amazing as coming from such
men as Sir W. P. Wood and Mr. Gladstone.
“(2) On Sunday last Mr. Marriott made to me a most im-
portant proposition, which may have the effect of bringing
me back to England much earlier than I had at all thought
of-perhaps as soon as my case is decided. He is prepared
to bear the whole expense of bringing out a new translation
of the Bible, with notes of all kinds, excursus, &c., bringing
it up to the latest results of criticism. He wishes me to
return, and take the office of chief editor, and to secure the
services of ten of the first men on the Continent, and five
Englishmen, so that the book may be a standard work;
and being thus the result of the combined action of
Englishmen, Germans, Dutch, and French, may become
European, though he says he cares principally for the
English. He reckons that it will take five years to complete
it, and a sum of £2O,OOO ; and he is prepared to place that
sum in the hands of trustees as soon as ever the plans are
sufficiently advanced. Mr. Vansittart Neale, Rev. H. B.
Wilson, and Prof. Kuenen, are already consulted about it ;
and the former will probably carry on the preliminary
correspondence during my absence. The idea is to divide
the whole Bible among the different writers, the special
work of each person to be printed and sent round to all the
others for their notes, then returned to the writer, then
forwarded to a committee of three or four in London, then
once more referred to the writer for his final corrections.
This is, of course, only a rough sketch of our present
notions. But I think you will feel that Mr. Marriott's
1863–65. WORK ZAV EAVGZA/VD–THE BA 7TTLE. 271
proposal is a very noble one, and the work contemplated
one of the very best that could be devised for carrying on
the movement in favour of free thought.
“(3) Another project, which I fancy Mr. Domville will take
in hand, is to form a society on a scientific basis (like any
other, Geological, Astronomical, &c.), for a scientific investi-
gation into the origin and history of all religions. It would
have a central room in London, with foreign and English
theological reviews of all kinds, a library, and a bi-
monthly journal, in which would be discussed all matters
of interest connected with the various religions of the
world.”
CHAPTER VII.
THE SO-CALLED TRIAL AT CAPETOWN.
THE change brought about in the relations between Bishop
Gray and Bishop Colenso after the publication of the Com-
mentary on the Romans was great indeed. In the Life of
the former there are some indications that Bishop Gray re-
garded himself as having been treated, not altogether fairly
by his brother Bishop ; and that, in short, the Metropolitan felt
that there had been some undue concealment of opinion on
the part of his suffragan. What has been already said must
be more than enough to show the real state of the case. The
biographer of Bishop Gray admits that their intercourse up
to that time had been “most kindly and affectionate.”
“Bishop Gray,” he tells us, “was in very weak health from
Over-work and over-excitement, and, as he himself says, he
was watched over and cared for very tenderly ’’ -
by his new fellow-labourer; and indeed, until the period of
Dr. Colenso's return to England in 1862, they were “as
brothers.” Their correspondence was unceasing and “most
confidential.” We need not doubt it; but Bishop Gray's
powers of discernment are more open to question. During
all these years it is quite impossible that in their intimate com-
munings Bishop Colenso can have said anything expressing,
1863. THE SO-CA/./A.D 7TRIAL A T CAPE 7"O WAV. 273
or even implying, agreement with Bishop Gray's ideas of the
Christian Church, of its catholicity, and of its faith. It is
impossible that he can have veiled, or that he could have the
slightest wish to veil, the wide differences between his own
convictions and those of Bishop Gray on these momentous and
vital subjects. It would be equally impossible, we might
suppose, for the latter to converse for any long time without
giving utterance to his theories, or beliefs, on the questions of
substitution, of the absolute truth of every statement in the
Old Testament and the New, of the unending torturing of
those who do not quit this life in a state of grace ; and
most certainly, if he did so, Bishop Colenso would have
avowed his own entire rejection of those theories or beliefs.
If Bishop Gray had been possessed of even ordinary insight,
he must have known that his own notions on the whole range
of theology must sooner or later come into conflict with those
of his colleague. Whether the battle should be fought out
between themselves personally or not, he would have seen
that the contest was inevitable, and that under the existing
conditions of thought in England it could not be very long
delayed. But from first to last, in the biography of Bishop
Gray, there is not a hint that the faith as well as the discipline
and the ritual of Christendom is liable to change and modifica-
tion, and that in many most important particulars it has been
modified and changed already. There is nowhere the least
approach to an admission that his own definitions, or even his
obiter dicta, on any theological questions, are open to examin-
ation, and may be accepted or rejected according to the
weight of the arguments for or against them. Everywhere
there is the assumption that his own opinions are in com-
plete harmony with those of the Church, and that he cannot
go wrong in deciding whether those of any one else are or
are not, in the same harmony with them.
If a man in such a condition of mind as this failed to
VOL. I. T
274 AAFE OF AP/SHOP CO/CAE/VSO. CHAP. VII.
discern the great gulf which separated his theology from that
of the Bishop of Natal, this can only have been the result of
a lack of discernment on his own part which would be
astounding but for the slowness with which such men are
brought to see that others do not think like themselves.
The seeds of future strife were, indeed, lavishly sown ; but
they were sown by Bishop Gray, not by the Bishop of Natal.
The theology of the latter may have been wrong, but it was
not aggressive. That of the Bishop of Capetown would admit
of no differences, and respect no law. He must have his
own way, because his own way was the Church's way;
and if he could not have it, it must be because the ex-
isting state of things involved an intolerable tyranny some-
where. The serene conviction of his own absolute orthodoxy
is thus accompanied by a stern resolution to obtain the
freedom which shall enable him to put down all opposition
to “Catholic truth,”—that is, to his own opinions. Hence his
letters and his public utterances are filled with almost in-
cessant denunciations of the thraldom in which the Church
of England is held in the mother country, and to which he is
resolved for himself never to submit. This thraldom extends
to the determination of matters of doctrine—in other words,
of faith ; and as these decisions are put forth as decisions of
the Church of England, his rejection of them commits him to
rebellion against the law of that Church, to which the Bishop
of Natal yielded a willing and hearty obedience.
“I will not be bound,” he says, January 1863, “by the narrow
limits of the Church's faith laid down by Dr. Lushington
or the Privy Council. I will not recognise them as an
authority as to what are the doctrines which the Church of
England allows to be taught. The Privy Council will make
itself, if not checked, the de facto spiritual head of the Church
of England and of all religious bodies in the colonies.” "
* Life of Bishop Gray, ii. 32.
1863. THE SO-CALLED TRIAL AT CAPETOWN. 275
If the Bishop of Capetown was not bound to these ad-
missions, the English Archbishops with their suffragans were
bound, and it was out of their power to stamp as heresy
teaching which does not contravene those decisions. Was
there, then, to be one law for England, and another for the
Cape of Good Hope 2 In the case of Bishop Colenso he was
himself the self-styled judge ; yet the judge could write,
July 20, 1863 :—
“If he is tolerated, the Church has no faith, is not a true
witness to her Lord. I am prepared to go through any-
thing and endure any loss in defence of the Bible as the
Word of God, and of the faith once for all delivered.” +
In short, the condemnation of the defendant was pre-
determined.
“The Church of England is no true branch of the Church of
Christ, nor is her South African daughter, if either allows
one of her Bishops to teach what Natal teaches and to
ordain others to teach the same. If the faith is committed
to us as a deposit, we must keep it at all hazards; and if
the world and the courts of the world tell us that we have
no power, we must use the power which Christ has given
us, and cut off from Him and from His Church avowed
heretics, and call upon the faithful to hold no communion
with them.””
Bishop Gray was thus resolved to have his own way. If
any authority crossed his path, that authority was of the
world—in other words, was anti-Christian. In the Bishop
of an English see this would be a defiance of the Sovereign in
Council. This defiance he at Capetown, in disregard of the
Apostolic warning that the powers which be are ordained of
God, was quite prepared to offer.
“I fully expect to be in open collision, before it [the so-called
* Life of Bishop Gray, ii. 63. * Ib. ii. 64.
T 2
276 I./FE OF BISA/OP COLEAVSO. CHAP. VII.
trial of Bishop Colenso] is done, with these civil courts,
which will, if not curbed, destroy the Church.””
“It is through civil courts that the world in these days seeks
to crush the Church. They represent the world's feelings
and give judgement accordingly.””
The judgement, therefore, which decided the lawfulness of
Mr. Gorham's position was a false and unrighteous sentence,
which the Church was supposed to have rejected. Come
what might, his own sentences should never be submitted to,
or revised by, such a court.
“I will not go before any civil court in the matter. . . . If
they send us back Colenso, I will excommunicate him. . . .
Were I to spend another fortune in vindicating the discipline
of the Church, I know what English lawyers' hatred of
ecclesiastical courts and ecclesiastical authority would lead
the Privy Council to decide. . . . If the Church does not
denounce the judgement which I hear is to be delivered in
re Essays and Reviews, she will cease to witness for Christ.
She must destroy that masterpiece of Satan for the over-
throw of the faith, the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council as her court of final appeal, or it will destroy
her.” 3
“The Privy Council is the great Dagon of the English
Church. All fall down before it.” “ -
“The world cannot crush the Church, if she will assert her
independence, and at all hazards witness for Christ. Her
servility is her great curse, and will, if she does not rise up
in the strength of her God, prove her ruin.” "
“The idea is,” he writes, April 4, 1864, “that Colenso will, by
claiming churches, or by an action against me, get into the
Natal court, and from thence to the Privy Council, which,
I verily believe, would affect to reinstate him, for this awful
and profane judgement [on Essays and Reviews] would
* Life of Bishop Gray, ii. 69. 2 Yb. ii. Io9.
* Ib. ii. p. 113. * /ö. ii. 119. * 1b. ii. 125.
1863. THE SO-CALLED TRIAL AT CAPETOWN. 277
cover all that he has written, and probably was intended
to do so.” +
“I believe that if the Privy Council can throw the Church, it
will ; and I believe that the Church must defy and destroy
it as a court of appeal or be destroyed by it. In that
body all the enmity of the world against the Church of
Christ is gathered up and embodied.””
The world here spoken of is the English Sovereign in
Council, and the court so formed is represented as the mouth-
piece of Satan—in other words, as a power which has for its
object no other work than the extension of evil. But it is
this power which represents the executive of England, to
carry out laws against theft, violence, perjury, and other
offences. Do these laws come from a source which is a
fountain simply of evil To speak of such language as
ludicrously absurd is to treat it with fully sufficient lenity.
The practical mischief wrought by it might be but small, SO
long as Bishop Gray had to deal with an absolutely subservient
and unthinking clergy and laity ; but the first sign of re-
sistance to the yoke so imposed would be followed by the
authoritative declaration that on these subjects the exercise
of thought except in certain definite lines could not be
allowed. This position cannot be maintained in England.
it to be maintained elsewhere 2
It was on this point that the whole controversy turned.
The one question was whether the law of England was or was
not to be defied with impunity. The letters of the Bishop of
Natal to the Metropolitan in 1858 should have impressed
upon the latter the hopelessness of any attempt to try, or to
pass sentence upon, any of his suffragans except by such
means as might lawfully be used for this purpose in England.
They should have taught him that the theories of union and
* Life of Bishop Gray, ii. 137. * Ib. ii. 158.
278 AZFE OF BASA/OP COZEWSO. CHAP. VII.
full communion between the South African and the English
Churches must go for nothing so long as the South African
clergy were deprived of a single right of which they would
have possession in England. Aware of the danger, but either
not heeding it, or despising it, the Bishop of Capetown re-
solved to take his own course, and thus found himself in
antagonism with English law ; but nothing had happened
for which he might not, had it pleased him, have been fully
prepared, nor was there the smallest ground for the pretence
that in no other way than that which he adopted was it
possible to obtain a decision in the case on its merits. In
such a controversy he could, forsooth, no more admit the
supreme authority of the Crown than Thomas of Canterbury
could abandon the rights of his order to the usurpation of the
civil power. This was the one issue, and from first to last he
met it with an uncompromising resistance. But he had known
for five years that his theory found no acceptance with the
Bishop of Natal, although he did not know that there had
been a time when it found no acceptance with the Bishop of
Grahamstown. Others could be consistent as well as himself;
and therefore his assumption of jurisdiction was summarily
met by a denial of the claim. The summons to appear before
his tribunal at Capetown was duly served upon the Bishop of
Natal in London, and when the day of trial came, the Bishop's
protest was by Dr. Bleek (who acted with the utmost judi-
ciousness as his agent) handed to the Metropolitan. This
protest was conveyed in the following letter:-
“TO THE RIGHT REVEREND THE LORD BISHOP OF
CAPETOWN.
“LONDON, October 5, 1863.
“My LORD,
“I have received from your Lordship's registrar a citation
calling upon me to appear before you at Capetown on
1863. THE SO-CA LILED TRIAL AT CAPE TO WW. 279
November 17, there to answer a certain charge of “false
teaching’ preferred against me by the Very Rev. the Dean
of Capetown, the Venerable the Archdeacon of Grahams-
town, and the Venerable the Archdeacon of George.
“I am advised that your Lordship has no jurisdiction over
me, and no legal right to take cognisance of the charge in
question. I therefore protest against the proceedings in-
stituted before you, and I request you to take notice that
I do not admit their legality, and that I shall take such
measures to contest the lawfulness of your proceedings, and,
if necessary, to resist the execution of any judgement adverse
to me which you may deliver, as I shall be advised to be
proper. - - -
“My absence from the Cape will make it impossible for me
to know what view your Lordship may take of your juris-
diction till long after your decision has been announced
and I have no desire to cause any unnecessary delay in the
settlement of this matter, such as would be produced if I
were to confine myself to a mere protest against your
jurisdiction. I therefore think it better to state at once
the answer which, if you have any jurisdiction in this
matter, I have to make to the charge brought against
1Ile.
“I admit that I published the matter quoted in the articles
annexed to the citation ; but I claim that the passages
extracted be read in connexion with the rest of the works
from which they are taken. And I deny that the publica-
tion of these passages, or any of them, constitutes any
offence against the laws of the United Church of England
and Ireland.
“For further explanation of my meaning in some of the
passages objected to from my Commentary on the Epistle
to the Romans, I beg to refer your Lordship to a letter
addressed to you on or about August 1861," in reply to one
from yourself expressing strong disapproval of the views
advanced by me in that work; and with reference to some
* This letter is given in Appendix A.
28o AAFE OF BASHOP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. VII.
of those objected to from my work on the Pentateuch, I
desire also to request your attention to the preface to
Part III., a copy of which I forward by this mail.
“I have instructed Dr. Bleek, of Capetown, to appear before
your Lordship on my behalf for the following purposes:—
“First, to protest against your Lordship's jurisdiction.
“Secondly, to read this letter (of which I have sent him a
duplicate), as my defence, if your Lordship should assume
to exercise jurisdiction.
“Thirdly, if you should assume jurisdiction and deliver a
judgement adverse to me, to give you notice of my
intention to appeal from such judgement.
“I have the honour to be, my Lord, your Lordship's faithful
and obedient servant,
“J. W. NATAL.”
In the labyrinth of controversies provoked by the publica-
tion of the Bishop's criticisms on the Pentateuch, the likeliest
way of avoiding confusion is to keep as distinct as may be
practicable the several strands in the discussion, which may
otherwise seem inextricable. There is the so-called Cape-
town trial, the outcome of a plan deeply laid, not by Bishop
Gray alone, but by Bishop Wilberforce and his colleagues in
England ; there are the remarks made upon that trial ; the
inquiry before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,
and the consequences which followed from that inquiry; and
apart from these is the ocean of literature, good, indifferent,
and bad, called into existence by the books which roused the
indignation of Bishop Gray and his adherents. None of these
can be dismissed without due notice ; and the point of most
importance is to bring out the real position and meaning of
the chief actors in the great drama. w
The charges brought against the Bishop were nine in
number. In the first schedule he was accused of “maintaining
that our Blessed Lord did not die in man's stead, or bear the
punishment or penalty of Our sins, and that God is not recon-
1863. THE SO-CALLED 7TRIAL AT CAPE TO WAV. 281
ciled to us by the death of His Son.” By the second he was
charged with holding “that justification is a consciousness of
being counted righteous; and that all men, even without such
consciousness, are treated by God as righteous, and counted
righteous; and that all men, as members of the great human
family, are dead unto sin, and risen again unto righteousness.”
According to the third he had maintained “that all men have
the new birth unto righteousness in their very birth hour, and
are at all times partaking of the body and blood of Christ,”
thus denying “ that the holy Sacraments are generally neces-
sary to salvation.” The fourth asserts that he had abandoned
the doctrine of the endlessness of future punishments. In the
fifth he was charged with denying that the Holy Scripture is
the Word of God, and with asserting that it only contained the
Word of God. The sixth charges him with dealing with the
Bible as a common book, and as “inspired only in such a
manner as other books are inspired.” The seventh charges
him with denying the genuineness, authenticity, and canonicity
of certain books of the Old Testament. The eighth ascribes
to him a denial of “the doctrine that our Blessed Lord is God
and man in one person,” because he maintains “that He was
ignorant and in error upon the subject of the authorship and
age of the different portions of the Pentateuch.” And in the
ninth and last schedule it is asserted that he had disparaged
the Book of Common Prayer, and incited the clergy to
disobey the laws which they had solemnly promised to keep.
Speaking at Pietermaritzburg a few months later, Bishop
Gray said that the three great questions mooted in these charges
were no less than these : “Is there a written revelation from
God 2 Is Our Lord God incarnate 2 Is Christianity true **
If dispassionate judges can anywhere be found, the first
* He had gone thither, as we have already seen, p. 86–89, to announce
to the people of Natal that their Bishop “had rebelled entirely,” had
“gone astray and would never come back.”
282 JAFE OF AP/SHOP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. VII.
impression left on their minds would not improbably be that
of surprise at the vast apparatus thus brought to bear upon
the accused, and the immense difficulty which the latter must
experience in parrying the weapons employed against him.
Those weapons are—undefined or half-defined terms, and
appeals to authorities which become practically co-extensive
with the literature of Christendom. There are sincere be-
lievers in Christianity and in revelation; but the conceptions
attached to these words are not always the same. What then
is Christianity, and what is a written revelation ? And so
with the terms employed in every one of the schedules.
These speak of vicarious punishment, of the reconciliation of
God to man, and of man to God, of justification and salvation,
of the body and blood of Christ, of punishment and of in-
spiration ; but all these are words to which meanings are
attached diverging from each other so far that the difference
of degree becomes often a difference in kind. All that we
have here to do is to note the fact, and pass on to the argu-
ments by which the accusers established the guilt of the
Bishop to their own satisfaction and to that of the judge with
his assessors.
Offering something like an apology for language which
was certainly vehement enough, the Dean (Douglas) of Cape-
town charged the Bishop with holding that “God is absolute
benevolence.”
“Considering what men are,” he said, “and how insulting sin
is to that Supreme Governor who absolutely hates it, I am
afraid that infinite benevolence, however great it sounds, is
only another name for amiable weakness; but it is in this
light, and in this light alone, that the Bishop will regard the
Almighty. . . . Upon the plea of showing forth the love of
God our Father, the Bishop has put forth a wild though
mystic and alluring scheme of blind benevolence, which is
subversive of all that is generally known as Christianity.
1863. THE SO-CA LZF/O TRZAZ A T CAPE 7"O WAV. 283
Professing to show us that God is all love, he represents
Him as indifferent to evil.” (46.) 1
The Bishop meant, so the Dean insisted,
“emphatically to deny that our Lord's sufferings were vicari-
ous, or that any act of His was needed to satisfy the Father
before He could forgive the world its sin. . . . Our Lord,
he teaches, died for us, on our behalf, to show His love
for us, to express and display His boundless sympathy;
but He did not die to bear our sins ; He did not bear
the weight of the curse. Man needed to be reconciled
to God; but God always loved us, and was never estranged
from us.” -
The Dean's own opinions on these subjects he held to be
embodied in the second of the Thirty-nine Articles, and in
other statements in our Articles and formularies; and he
demanded the Bishop's condemnation not on this ground
only, but because his teaching was opposed
“to the faith of the Church Catholic on the subject of sacrifice,
Satisfaction, and propitiation, as held in all places, and at
all times.” (50.)
Having thus spread a net inclosing a wide sea, the Dean
held it to be the business of the accusers to take “the results
at which the Church has arrived already,” and to test the
Bishop's opinions “by these authoritative conclusions.” . As to
the strictly vicarious character of Christ's death there could,
he asserted, be no question. The prophetic words of Caiaphas
were on this point quite conclusive. The language of “the
Church’’ was not less explicit.
“The Church has always taught that God was angry with
man because of sin, and that our Lord, sent by His Father's
love, and moved by His own affection for us, stepped in to
* The numbers in the text of this chapter refer to the pages in the
record of proceedings in this so-called trial at Capetown.
284 JLIFE OF BASHOP CO/CEAVSO. CHAP. VII.
satisfy His Father's honour, by bearing sin's penalty, and
to appease a God who wanted to be gracious.” (53.)
For this doctrine the Dean found full warrant everywhere.
The Greek verbs employed in the passages of the New
Testament to which he referred were sacrificial terms, de-
noting pacifying influences. The prayer of the publican in
the temple “indicated that God was angry, and he asked that
He might be appeased.” This
“work of placation goes on within the Godhead, and God is
not appeased by man but by Himself.” (55.)
The conclusion that
“an actual transference of evil from man to man's Redeemer
was actually effected by our Lord's atoning sacrifice’
is supported by the assertion of Bishop Butler that
“the legal sacrifices were allusions to the great and final
atonement to be made by the blood of Christ, and not that
this was an allusion to those ’’ (57);
and by the proper preface for Easter Sunday, which speaks
of Him “who by His death hath destroyed death” (59).
This language must
“be taken as affirming that we owe to Him salvation, and
by His stripes we are healed ” (61). “I should rejoice,”
the Dean remarked, “if I could say for certain that he
believes Him to be the Son of God.”
But he could not do so by reason of the “damning flaw”
which omitted the necessity for death which sin imposed.
From the Bishop of Natal he would appeal to St. Bernard for
the conclusion that
“mere obedience could not put away sin. Obedience must
be joined to death. Death is sin's penalty; and in order
that the penalty may be completely paid, the person who
1863. THE SO-CALLED TRYA/. A T CAPE 7'O WAV. 285
pays the penalty on man's nature must also be the Son
of God.” (63.)
This being so, he asked if the Metropolitan could allow
Bishop Colenso
“to proclaim that God is all mercy and no justice, or permit
him, with all the weight of influence which his position
gives him, to teach that God does not feel angry because
of sin.” (63.)
On the next count he charged the Bishop with maintaining
that all men are justified, and that
“the whole of mankind are recipients of God's grace in the
Gospel” (69),
and he asked
“What then is the use of being a Christian P What is the
difference between a heathen and a Christian 2° (70.) “The
Bishop teaches that men, as members of the human family,
belong to Christ. He says this again and again. I main-
tain that to teach this is to raise nature to the level of
grace. I maintain that if men, as men, belong to Christ,
they do not belong to Christ by faith; they do not come to
Christ in baptism ; they are not saved by Christ's name ;
they do not find safety within the Christian Church.” (73.)
The Dean deprecated, indeed, the dry, matter-of-fact, busi-
ness-like way in which many speak of the Divine terms and
Covenant, and so “bind in chains of bondage the large and
unfettered love of God.” Language, he holds,
“is our only instrument, and we must express in some form
or other the nature of the Divine dealings with us;”
but, however this may be, further argument was rendered
superfluous by the fact that
“the opinions of the Bishop amount to a complete subversion
of the Gospel, as commonly understood by all Christians”
286 A./FE OF AP/SA/OA' CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. VII-
(74); “and it is on these that his teaching inflicts a cruel
wrong, for virtually he tells them, ‘You are no better off
than Jews, Turks, and infidels. You are in no more safe
condition.’” (75.)
This same test furnished by the faith of Christendom con-
victed the Bishop of the false teaching by which, as the third
count averred, he declared that men receive, each for himself
personally, in baptism
“a formal outward sign of ratification of that adoption which
they had shared already, independently of that sign, with
the whole race.” (78.)
Such a belief, whatever be its value, was beyond the Dean's.
comprehension.
“We do not issue titles to gifts which all possess. We do
not say, “Air is a great blessing, and you may like to know
that you have a right to use your lungs, and enjoy this.
valuable property.' Men do not ask for proofs of universal
gifts.” (84.)
As in the previous counts, so in that which related to the
subject of eternal punishment, the teaching of the Bishop
must be confronted with “the doctrine of the Christian
Church in all ages” (87). It was true that the consensus.
on this point was not absolute. Some great names might be
cited in favour of teaching which seemed to harmonise very
much with that of the Bishop of Natal.
“Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, and other teachers.
adopted the substance of the Origenistic theory” (89),
which was summed up in the brief saying—Nothing is im-
possible with the Almighty, and there is nothing which
cannot be healed by its Maker. But “the Church vindicated
1 “Nihil impossibile Omnipotenti, et mihil insanabile Factori suo.”
See also note ", p. 169 supra.
863. THE SO-CALLED TRIAL AT CAPETOWN. 287
her character.” Agreement with Origen in this respect was
soon regarded as heretical." In fact
“no doctrine is more clearly revealed in Holy Scriptures. . . .
The bliss of heaven and the punishment of the lost must
stand or fall as doctrines together. We have no better
ground for assurance in the happiness of heaven than for
belief in the eternal miseries of hell.”
Of this the Dean had not a shadow of doubt.
“For persons who die in sin there is no hope. Life is their
time of probation ; and being proved and tried, they are
found wanting. What then P As the tree falls, so it lies,
and so it lies for ever. The Bishop of Natal denies this.
. . . Does he think that hell is a better school than Christ's
Church on earth, and that devils are more apt and kind
instructors than those bright angels who minister to man's
salvation ? I know not what he thinks. But he tells us
God is love. And so He is. But there are limits to for-
bearance ; and patience, suffering long, ceases at the last
to bear with sin. Then comes justice, . . . . and the sinner
is driven down into a pit which has no bottom, and into the
lake which burns with everlasting fire.” (93.)
Before the same test of the common faith of Christians, in
all ages, and in all lands, falls all that the Bishop may have
said on the Pentateuch or other records of the Old Testament.
“That faith is for me law and statute. There is a common
law which is inscribed upon the heart and the instincts of
Christendom. There is a statute law which, derived in its
principles from Holy Scripture, is written in the Creeds,
decisions, and symbols of the Church.” (98.)
Nay, the argument may be carried further. The Jews
regarded the Old Testament
* This is not true. Origen was never even censured, far less was he
condemned, on account of his teaching on the purpose of God’s dealings
with man. o
238 AAA E OF AP/SHOP CO/CE/WSO. CHAP. VII.
“with the highest awe as a divine book,” and “with well-
known care and almost superstitious scrupulosity” “counted
every word and letter of the whole volume and numbered
even its very points.”
This is for the Dean a very astonishing fact.
“Every feeling which pride suggests, every prejudice which
opposition rouses, called upon the Jewish people to prove
their records worthless.” (IOI.)
On his side he had the plain teaching of Josephus, that
“‘it is a principle innate in every Jew to regard these books
[and not merely the spirit of these books] as oracles of God,
and to cleave to them, yea, and to die gladly for them.’ Is
it possible to account for this conviction except by the fact
that these books are indeed divine P” (IO2.)
The whole course is clear. St. Paul
“treats the Bible [? the Old Testament] as a divine book”
(103). “He sees in its facts spiritual mysteries.” “The
critical Eusebius holds it presumptuous to try to show that
there is error in them " (IOS)."
1 This is one of those amazing statements in which ecclesiastical
partisans are apt to indulge. The Dean of Capetown does not think it
worth while to explain what Eusebius meant by the Scriptures, or to give
the reference for a questionable citation. But Eusebius wrote before the
summoning of the Nicene Council, and therefore his words cannot apply
to a Canon which had not yet been formed; and there is abundant
evidence in his pages that there were large differences of opinion in his
day as to the value and authority of some of the books afterwards included
in the Nicene Canon. Careful of expressing his own opinion, he prefers
simply to report the judgement of others. Of the Epistle of St. James he
tells us merely that it was said to have been written by the Apostle of that
name, that it was considered spurious, that few earlier writers made any
mention of it, or of the Epistle of St. Jude, but that, along with the other
“so-called Catholic Epistles,” it was published or used in many churches
(H. E. ii. 23). The Second Epistle of St. Peter he describes as almost
universally rejected (iii. 3). But a far more important example of the method
applied to books some of which were afterwards included in the Canon
of the New Testament and others excluded, is furnished by his remarks
1863. THE SO-CALLED TRIAL A T CAPE 7"O WAV. 289
Nor is the Dean at any loss to show how he himself thinks,
and how every one else Ought to think, on this vital matter:—
“If I say that the Bible is God's Word, I treat it as a kind of
mystery. I recognise a Divine and a human element, a
word of man and a word of God, so blended together, so
linked in a mysterious union, that, while I cannot theorise
about it and state either where the Divine ends and the
human begins, I must yet allow that the Divinity runs
throughout the least syllable and is never absent from any
part.” (IO7.)
To this belief he opposes the Bishop of Natal's
on the book known as the Apocalypse. This book has acquired a special
value for theologians of many parties; and the rejection of its authority
would by them be as fiercely resented as the rejection of the Gospels
themselves. Without committing himself on either side, Eusebius refers
his readers to the Alexandrian Dionysios, the disciple of Origen, who
speaks of the book as having been absolutely rejected by some previous
writers, and rejected not only as published under a false name, but as
being in no sense an apocalypse or revelation, being in fact covered by a
veil of dense ignorance. This, Dionysios admits, is not his own opinion;
but his verdict has no solid foundation. He cannot, he says, reject the
book, because many highly esteem it, and he regards himself as unable to
fathom the depths of its meaning. He cannot deny that it was written
by one named John, because it claims to be so written ; but he will not
allow that it was the work of John the son of Zebedee. His reason for
not admitting this is the belief that the Apostle John was the writer of
the fourth Gospel and of the Catholic Epistle which bears his name; and
the whole tone and language make the idea of a common authorship for
all the three quite inadmissible. Who or what may have been the John
of the Apocalypse, he cannot say. But that the writer who composed
the Catholic Epistle of John was the author also of the Apocalypse, is
with him wholly out of the question. In matter, in style, in thought, in
conviction, they are antagonistic from beginning to end. They have
nothing in common ; and that the writer of the Catholic Epistle could
fall into the barbarous jargon of the Apocalypse is more than he can
believe. When from the Dean and the Bishop of Capetown we turn to
the Alexandrian Dionysios, we breathe at once a fresher and purer atmo-
sphere. He is sufficiently, we might think perhaps more than sufficiently,
sensitive to the weight of authority, tradition, and usage ; but he has not
prostituted his powers of judgment, nor does he venture to insist, or
even to hint, that others are bound in duty to accept his conclusions.
VOL. I. U
29O I/FE OF AP/SHOP CO/CE/VSO. CHAP. VII.
“scandalous opinion which makes the story of the Pentateuch
a chain of legends and Samuel an impostor, who lies in
strict accordance with those new laws of critical morality
which puts to shame the law of Moses” (III).
But to this, i.e. the Dean's, belief the Bishop of Natal is,
nevertheless,
“bound by his ordination vows and his ordination of
others” (112).
The Bishop of Natal may appeal to the Court of Arches
and to its judge, who has ruled that the Deacon's declaration
means only that the Holy Scriptures contain everything neces-
sary to salvation (healing), and that to that extent they have
the direct sanction of the Almighty. But if Dr. Lushington's
“dictum is law, it is not theology ; ”
and it cannot
“rule the faith of English Churches” (113).
“We cannot,” he concludes, “afford to yield an inch in this
matter: we cannot allow this Book to be despised as not
the Word of God. The Bible is the Word of God, and to
say that God's Word is contained and may be found in it is
to deny that it is the Word of God.” (I 15.)
“St. Chrysostom reverently says that even in the genealogies
of Scripture there are mysteries. It would be too much to
look for reverence like this in one who teaches that the
Bible is a common book; but surely the Bible is beyond
the reach of ridicule.” (I 17.)
But the Bishop adopts the opinion of Mr. Maurice, who
asks if there is any difference between the inspiration which
we pray for in the Collect for the Communion Service and
that by which the writers of the Sacred Book were moved.
He contends that these writers and their books were or are
fallible. The contrary to this assertion
1863. THE SO-CA/C/CAE D 7TRZAZ. A 7" CAA’E 7TO WAV. 291
“must be formally and definitely pronounced by the Church
of England, later or sooner, if that Church is to guide
her children and perform her duty as a witness for the
truth” (I 19.)
Whatever appearance the surface of things may present, the
Book is absolutely without flaw.
“Every charge of error in history or in any other matter is a
libel against that Holy Book.”
Nothing less than this conclusion follows from the words of
Christ Himself, who
“treats the Jewish Scriptures as if the least word was full of
meaning. . . . From the tense of a verb . . . he
deduces the distinctive doctrine of the Christian faith.
He stakes His own veracity and credibility upon the truth
of the Old Testament in whole or in part.”"
There was, in fact, an inherent and eternal necessity for
his So doing.
1 The term truth must here mean either accuracy in matters of fact, or
rightness in moral and spiritual teaching, or both. There is the further
implication of an authority which is not to be impeached. But the fact
stares us in the face that no teacher probably has ever assailed more
directly than our Lord the authority of sacred books. He cites as the
sayings of the men of old time precepts and commands which in their
places in the Pentateuch are set forth under the direct sanction of God
Himself; and these sayings, which profess to come with immeasurably
more than Mosaic authority, He sweeps away with the summary declara-
tion, “I say unto you that it shall not be so.” We may, if we please,
carry back our own belief to the interpretation of the Gospel records.
We may urge that Jesus, in so speaking, was using His own divine
authority: but before the multitudes he appeared simply as a new teacher,
of whom they must judge according to his words. The insinuation that
they looked upon Him through the light thrown upon His person by
the Nicene theology is thoroughly disingenuous. But the fact of his
independent teaching, teaching which utterly repudiated the position of
the popular interpreters, was the fact which throughout the discourses
grouped together in the Sermon on the Mount most impressed his
hearers.
U 2
292 I/FE OF BISHOP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. VII.
“If God can be untrue, then the book which is the Word of
God can be untrue; but not otherwise. A book which has
error mingled in it, a book which, rightly understood, and
judged according to those true laws of criticism which apply
to its several kinds of literature, fails to stand the test of
perfection, cannot have absolute authority, cannot speak to
man as if it was the Voice of God.”
We are surrounded, in fact, by a tissue of marvels ; but
bewilderment is a reason only for a more complete submission.
Credo quia impossibile.
“Scripture may have its human imperfections, its seeming
theological inconsistencies, its difficulties which try faith, its
liability to alteration and corruption at the hands of copyists
and translators ; but I cannot admit that error can find
entrance into that which holy men wrote when they were
borne along, like a ship with sails outspread, by a Divine
afflatus, and spoke, not indeed without their own particular
intelligence, but by the Holy Ghost.” (122.)
With all its imperfections, with all its flaws, with all its
interpolations, with all its corruptions, it is uncorrupt,
flawless, and perfect. If any further proof were wanting
for the historical accuracy of the books of the Old Testament,
it is supplied by the Book of Common Prayer.
“The prayer in the Baptismal Service assumes the reality of
the flood and the passage of the Red Sea. The prayer for
fair weather likewise supposes that the story of the flood
is true. The prayer for times of sickness is based on the
historic credibility of the story of the plague in the wilder-
ness. The Communion Service and the Catechism accept
the Mosaic history as respects the giving of the Law from
Sinai.” (129.)
But, more particularly,
“the exhortation in the Communion Service treats those who
hinder or slander God's Word as unfit to come to the
Lord's table;”
1863. TAZ2 SO-CA/C/A.D 7TRIAA. A T CAPE 7TO WAV. 293
and by his criticisms of the Pentateuch the Bishop of Natal
has hindered and slandered God's Word as much
“as any living man, or any man in modern times.”
Thus slandering God's Word, he slandered also the Divine
Master, who
“took the Mosaic history under his protecting wing, and
spoke of Moses as the author of those writings which were
usually ascribed to him by the Jewish people” (130).
To deny this,
“if Christ be God, is to charge God with error. Either the faith
of the Church in the Godhead of Christ is a delusion ; or the
charge of the Bishop Substantially amounts to this. .
I pray God, with all my heart I pray it, lay not this sin
to his charge.” (I37.)
Such is the general outline of the Dean's long harangue.
It is unnecessary to follow with the same closeness the
pleadings of his fellow-accusers. The agreement between
them is so complete that the reader may well wonder how
independent thinkers could continue to preserve such harmony
in the midst of the multitude of propositions each of which
they put forth as articles of saving faith. All spoke with
equal vehemence, and all were equally unsparing in their
denunciation. The Archdeacon of Grahamstown was greatly
distressed by
“the very painful fact . . . that the other day, at one of our
largest public schools, where the Bishop had been once a
master, the boys, on his appearing among them on their
great speech-day, hailed him with a general and public
acclamation of joy." No doubt these poor boys thought
that the Bishop was what he tries to represent himself as
being in the Third Part of his book on the Pentateuch, i.e.
a great Reformer, like Ridley and Latimer of old. And could
* See p. 24.I.
294 A.IFE OF BISA/OP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. VII.
not the united voices of the English Bishops warn them 2
It must then be left to the sentence pronounced by your
Lordship to assure them that he whom they have confounded
with those great and wise master-builders in our Zion is in
truth but an arch-destroyer of the common faith.” (149.)
The Archdeacon of George went over the same ground. It
was his belief that, if the Bishop of Natal had been present, he
would have contended
“that the structure and composition of the Bible clearly
evince the presence of a human element. And to this,” the
Archdeacon adds, “we should, of course, assent, fully
allowing that the Holy Scriptures were penned by men
of like minds and passions with ourselves, and that they
were not supernaturally reduced to the condition of mere
machines, in order that they might be thereby qualified to
write under Divine dictation. But, ‘this being conceded,’
the Bishop would probably argue, ‘you also concede the
fallibility of the work so written, for no man can have
perfect knowledge upon any subject; and all men are
liable to make mistakes in communicating even what they
know best.’ The fallacy here lies in confounding human
nature, as human nature—human nature in its essentials,
with what is purely accidental to it. If it be asserted that
the action of the Holy Spirit, specially exerted for a special
purpose, could not preserve men from error in recording
facts or in delivering doctrine, that, I contend, is to beg the
whole question. My argument is that, because the inspired
penmen were living men like ourselves, what they wrote does
not, therefore, contain errors, for that human nature, although
it does imply limitedness, does not properly imply either
sinfulness or actual error; and that the influence of the
Holy Spirit, being specially directed to that end, might,
without any interference with the proper humanity of the
person influenced, preserve him effectually from error to the
fullest extent to which we can claim infallibility for God's
Word written. Obviously, the proof of all others which I
1863. THE SO-CALLED TRIAL AT CAPE TO WIV. 295
would prefer to adduce in support of this argument is the
perfect humanity of our Redeemer. For in His Divine
Person we behold human nature, in all its naturalness, in
perfect union with the Godhead.” (2 II.)
The question of earthly fact and of the accuracy of records
purporting to relate those facts is thus carried into regions of
the most abstruse theology ; and it becomes impossible to
examine the real or seeming discrepancies between the his-
tories of the books of Kings as compared with those in the
books of Chronicles without reference to the question
“how in one and the self-same person a finite or limited
nature such as ours could be united with a nature that must
be limitless * (223).
But because it was so united, it must have been impossible
“for our Lord to have subjected Himself to misleading and
mischievous error” (225).
The ascription of the Pentateuch to any writer but Moses
is a misleading and mischievous error : therefore, since Our
Lord affirmed Moses to be the writer of the Pentateuch, the
denial of this conclusion becomes blasphemy.
So ended what was called the case for the prosecution
There remained the defence (if any should be offered) and the
judgement. But before we come to the latter, some facts force
themselves upon our notice with glaring distinctness. The
tribunal before which the Bishop of Natal was summoned to
appear (whatever may have been its authority, and whence-
soever derived), consisted wholly of ecclesiastics, without a
single legal assessor. The accusers scarcely made profession
of anything approaching to judicial impartiality. They
admitted that, in dealing with many or most of the charges,
their hearts were stirred with indignation. They could see
in the defendant, it would seem, no redeeming points at all.
He was nothing but a hinderer and slanderer of God's
296 JC/PE OF BISA/OP COLEAVSO. CHAP. VII.
Word : he was arrogant, blind, presumptuous : he was an
arch-destroyer of the common faith of Christendom. But it
was not the common faith of Christendom which was now
in question. The real point at issue was whether certain
propositions might or might not be maintained by clergymen
of the Church of England, and maintained as lawfully by
clergymen of that Church in South Africa as by the same or
other clergymen in the mother country itself. The method
to be followed in this inquiry could, lawfully, be only the
method which would have to be observed in England ; and
this method must be based on certain well-defined and perfectly
intelligible conditions. The guilt or innocence of the accused
must be proved by reference not to the writings of the Old
or the New Testaments, not to the utterances of early
Christian Fathers or early Christian historians, not to the
Saints of any age or any country, not to a real or supposed
consensus of Christendom on the matters in debate, not even
to convictions avowed and put forth by the most learned or
the most devout theologians of the English Church itself, but
solely to the Articles and formularies of that Church.
But here, by a common consent, the accusers and the judge
with his assessors cast all such limitations to the winds. If
these were to be observed, justice, they urged, could not be
done. The “Church of South Africa” was in union and full
communion with the Church of England ; but it was in union
also with the Church Catholic, a union repudiated indeed with
contempt and anathema by the vastly larger portion of
Christendom, but none the less real (in their judgement) on
this account. By the faith, the doctrine, the discipline, the
canons of this Catholic Church must the accused be tested ;
and in this investigation the utterances of a Bernard and an
Anselm must be held to carry a weight scarcely less than the
Articles of Faith or the language of the Prayer Book of the
Church of England. This wide range was claimed from first
1863. THE SO-CA/C/LAE/D 7TRZAZ. A 7" CAPAE 7TO WAV. 297
to last; and underneath this claim lay the suppressed premiss
that the true interpretation of the Catholic faith and the
Catholic canons must be found in the judgement of the
Metropolitan of Southern Africa. This interpretation, in-
volving an almost infinite number of propositions, and, as it
might seem to the eyes of the profane, a vast mass of mere
speculation and opinion, was to be taken as the law of the
Church, and was to become binding on the consciences of all
English Churchmen. The assurance with which the self-styled
judge, the assessors, and the accusers in this case pile opinion
on opinion, inference on inference, dogma upon dogma, with-
out the faintest misgiving that these conclusions may not in
every instance commend themselves even to the whole body of
the orthodox, is amazing indeed. If they had been pleading not
for the condemnation of one from whom they differed, but for
their right to maintain these opinions for themselves without
forfeiting their position as English Churchmen, their contention
would have been intelligible; but it would also have been
superfluous. There was no desire on the part of any to shut
them out, although in reference to every one of the subjects
with which they professed to deal they had chosen to adopt
the extremest and the most extravagant views. But the
case was wholly altered when these views were put forward
for the purpose of coercing the religious thought of England,
and driving it into a channel scooped out only by them-
selves ; and still more so, when it became plain that of
these interpretations some were incorrect, some absurd, and
many, if true, not to the point.
Looking at matters even from their own standing-ground,
it seems strange that they could regard with so much com-
placency the fabric which they were so sedulously raising
with so little heed to its foundations. They spoke much of
the Divine character of the Scriptures and of the duty of the
Church as their interpreter. The result, they insisted, must
298 A./FE OF AP/SAE/OP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. VII.
be harmonious ; but if a large number of statements seem-
ingly not all self-consistent were to be so interpreted as to
yield a general agreement, some statements must be held to
be paramount. If the righteous God was to be regarded as
utterly hating and waging war upon all sin, if His will is to
be looked upon as unchanging, and His power as simply the
result of His will, then it becomes impossible to think of
Him as slackening in this war, still less to conceive of Him as
leaving any portion of His wide creation as a region in which
His will and His law should never be felt. Holding redemp-
tion to be, and denying salvation to be, universal, they never
pause to think what may be involved in any theories of partial
salvation. It is no light thing to ascribe to Him, whose
hatred of sin and whose purpose of conquering and destroying
it are admitted to be as eternal as Himself, a compromise with
evil, Yet if any are suffered to remain with the evil in them
thus unconquered, and under conditions which preclude all
further purpose of conquering it, there is this compromise.
The dislike which the Dean of Capetown and his fellow-
accusers felt for the critical method of the Bishop of Natal
and his conclusions may be easily understood and readily
forgiven ; but the vehemence of their indignation is no excuse
for untruth. It was false to speak of the Bishop of Natal as
representing God to be indifferent to evil (46). It was
false to describe him as teaching, or as desiring to teach,
or as dreaming of teaching, that God does not feel anger
because of sin (65). It was false to impute to him the
opinion that Christians were no better off than Jews, Turks,
or infidels. But, further, their accusing harangues bristle with
undefined terms. Definitions are always useful; but they
may perhaps be dispensed with so long as debate does not
imply condemnation, loss, and ruin to one of the parties Con-
cerned. When the investigation involves the risk of penal
Consequences, the meaning of every term employed should be
1863. 7 HE SO-CA/L/LAE/D 7TRIA Z. A 7" CAPA; TO WAV. 299.
very clearly drawn out. It may, or may not, be allowable to
use language which may seem unmeaning or nonsensical : but
such language must not be applied as a test of the truth or
falsehood of opinions held by others. The Dean of Capetown
speaks much of the satisfaction, the sufferings, and the death
of Christ. But what this sacrifice, this satisfaction, this death
may be, he never pauses to explain. He may appeal to
Bishop Butler; but of all writers in the Church of England
who have been sinners especially in the use of undefined
terms, Butler is among the foremost, and is perhaps the most
conspicuous. The Dean cannot disclaim the duty of defini-
tion on the ground that the terms used have the same con-
notation everywhere, for this is not the case. Not a few of
the terms employed by him have been used by writers in the
Church of England in diametrically contradictory senses. To
the word salvation, for instance, Dr. Pusey and Mr. Maurice
attached two entirely different conceptions. With the former
it was a rescue from a wrath ready to devour, a deliverance
from an angry Judge by One who interposes the merits of His
sufferings on man's behalf. With the other it is the process
of deliverance from sin wrought by the Holy Spirit, who is
working always, everywhere, and in all for good. Sacrifice
and satisfaction are words as much, if not even more, abused.
Sacrifice is the making of a thing holy, or that thing which is
made sacred or holy. But nothing can be made holy except
that which has a capacity for holiness or goodness ; and none
who has not in himself this capacity can make anything holy.
The Jewish sacrifices were thus sacrifices in name only. The
body of the bull or the goat could not be sacrificed really,
because it had no capacity for holiness or goodness. The
beast might be killed, and that was all. The true sacrifice
is the sanctification of the will ; and if God be infinitely
righteous, loving, and good, it follows that he cannot possibly
be satisfied except with a righteousness, goodness, and love
3OO A./FE OF AP/SHOP CO/CAE/WSO. CHAP. VII.
corresponding absolutely with His own. The perfect and
satisfying sacrifice involves death, indeed ; but it is not that
which we speak of as the death of the body: still less is it the
death which is the penalty or wages of sin, the death of wil-
fulness, selfishness, and disobedience, the death from which we
pray to be raised to the life of righteousness. It is (the
necessity of the case compels the repetition 1) the death to sin,
the absolute rejection of all sin, the death which, in strictness
and fulness, only One who is faultless and sinless can die. To
this death and this life the whole Eucharistic terminology may
be most truly and strictly applied. It is the full, perfect, suffi-
cient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction ; and He who offers it
is “Himself the Victim, and Himself the Priest.” The victim
denotes the absolute submission of the will to the law of
truth, of righteousness, and of love : the Priest is the Eternal
Son who alone has offered and offers this absolute, un-
wavering, unswerving obedience to the law of truth and
righteousness.
It is unnecessary to carry this train of thought further; but
from what has been said thus much at least is clear. We
have here two, or three, or more terms—satisfaction, sacrifice,
death, resurrection, life—the meaning of which has been
drawn out with unmistakable clearness, and it is obvious that,
if the definition here given be accepted, every other term used
indefinitely, and, therefore, more or less misapprehended, by
the Dean of Capetown and his fellow-accusers, may have its
meaning brought out with equal clearness. As it is, we hear
of redemption, atonement, justification, and many other terms,
without being able to determine what precise conceptions
they attach to them ; and perhaps we may be tempted to
think that the conceptions attached to them are not precise
at all. In truth, in the Dean's expositions we find confusion
and indistinctness everywhere. The analogy drawn from
* See p. 14.I et seq., and 167.
1863. THE SO-CA LZAZD TRYA/. A T CAPE 7"O WAV. 3or
the universal gift of air" (84) is, like many other supposed
cases of analogy, fallacious. He would allow that the promise
of forgiveness of sin on true repentance is universal and
unfailing, as universal in the spiritual world as the air which
sustains our mortal bodies. But if so, why in the daily office
of the Church of England is this announcement made from
generation to generation ? Repetition is not supposed to
render it unnecessary; and the experience of most people
will convince them that it is a lesson which we are sadly slow
and long in learning. It is, therefore, no argument against
the Bishop of Natal’s views of the sacrament of baptism to
say that, on his theory, it becomes a superfluous ceremony.
The charge is altogether untrue. But had the Dean of Cape-
town been pleading simply for freedom for his own views, no
further reply would have been needed. There is enough,
perhaps, in the language of the Baptismal Office in the Prayer
Book to justify his theory: there is much more to justify the
view of the Bishop of Natal, which is also that of Mr. Maurice
The latter declared
“that Dr. Pusey regarded ‘Baptismal Regeneration as a
change of nature, while he [Mr. Maurice] regarded it
as the coming out of the infant under the first influence
of a light that had always been shining for it and all the
world.” 2
The condemnation of the Bishop of Natal would carry with
it the condemnation of Mr. Maurice and, perhaps, of half the
clergy of the Church of England ; and this is a result which
may be forced upon us by the recklessness of those who, if
they had their way, would leave no room for any party but
their own.
On the question of the punishment of sin here and
See p. 286. * Life of F. D. Maurice, i. 214. See also ii. 242.
3O2 A/FE OF AP/SAIOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. VII.
hereafter enough has been said already." We may pass on
to the surprising assertions by which the Dean of Capetown
and his associates thought to uphold or strengthen the autho-
rity of the Bible. It is not easy to see what the awe which
the Dean describes the Jews as feeling for the letter of their
Scriptures can prove beyond the existence of an abject super-
stition : but it must be noted that even this superstition is one
of very late growth. The people at large were certainly
guiltless of it in the days of Manasseh and other idolatrous
kings and not much influenced by it in the time even of such
kings as Hezekiah and Josiah. But, indeed, it can scarcely
be supposed that the Dean of Capetown meant his views on
this subject to be intelligible. The writers of the Old Testa-
ment were men, not machines; they were, therefore, liable to
make mistakes, but the influence of the Divine inspiration
prevented them from making any. There is in Scripture a
Divine and human element; but the Divinity runs throughout
the least syllable (Io8).”
This reasoning may possibly be ingenious : it is certainly
not novel. There is scarcely a single argument urged here
on behalf of the Jewish or Christian Bible which has not been
urged on behalf of the Rig Veda and other sacred books of
the East, and the aggregate of believers in the Rig Veda form
a body more numerous, it may be, than the whole population
of western Christendom. But the least creditable portion of
these accusing arguments is that which is directed against
the Bishop for slandering the Divine Word and with it his
Divine Master (p. 137). There is something monstrous in
the alternatives to which the Dean and his associates seek to
compel the great body of English Churchmen. Either the
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are absolutely free
from any the least admixture of error, or God Himself is
* See p. I47 et seg. * See p. 289.
1863. 7THE SO-CA/C/LAE/D 7TRZAZ A 7" CAPE TO WAV. 3O3
false. We have heard before of this “great dilemma,” by
which they who hesitate to use the language of the Athanasian
formula are told that logically they are bound to look upon
Jesus Christ as the basest and meanest and the most bare-
faced of all cheats and impostors." But the very vehemence,
and extravagance of their language proves the extreme
importance of the subject in their eyes. All that they say
about it has the ring of genuine alarm ; but they merely work
out at greater length and with greater recklessness of assertion
the positions laid down by a Committee appointed in 1863
by the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury to examine
and report upon the Bishop of Natal's criticism on the
Pentateuch.
The three charges brought by this Committee against the
Bishop cover the whole ground occupied by the Dean of
Capetown and his fellow-accusers, and these charges were
summarily dealt with by Dr. Thirlwall, Bishop of St. David's,
in the same year with the Capetown trial. The Charge in
which he demolishes the work of the Committee is a complete
and unanswerable refutation of Bishop Gray and his suppor-
ters; but his words deserve to be remembered everywhere as
among the noblest and wisest ever spoken on behalf of the
rightful freedom of all members, clerical or lay, of the Church
of England.
Addressing himself first to the general question of Biblical
research and criticism, Dr. Thirlwall determines that the field
has been left open and free by the Church of England.
“The Church,” he maintains, “has not attempted to fence the
study of the Scripture, either for clergy or laity, with any
restriction as to the subject of inquiry, but has rather taught
them to consider every kind of information which throws
light on any part of the Sacred Volume as precious either
* The Great Dilemma, Rev. H. B. Ottley.
3O4 J.IFE OF BISA/OP COLEAVSO. CHAP. VII
for present or possible use. . . . . If the inquiry is to be
free, it is impossible consistently to prescribe its results.”
Passing on to the resolution by which the Convocation of
Canterbury condemned the Bishop of Natal’s criticisms on
the Pentateuch, he asserts that it
“assumes a paternal authority which rather suits an earlier
period in the education of the world ; and it presupposes a
childlike docility and obedience, in those over whom it is
exercised, which are now very rarely to be found. It also
suggests the question, what practical purpose it was designed
to answer. Two were indicated in the Committee's Report:
‘the effectual vindication of the truth of God’s Word before
men, and ‘the warning and comfort of Christ's people.’
But it is not easy to see how either of these objects could
be attained by a declaration that ‘the book involves errors
of the grossest and most dangerous character.” Both seem
to require that the censure should have pointed out the
errors involved, or have stated the doctrine which the book
had at least indirectly impugned, so as to make it clear
that the alleged errors affected not merely prevalent
opinions, but truths universally recognised as part of the
Church's Creed.”
The “Church " here is not the Catholic Christendom to
which the Dean of Capetown appeals ; it is, strictly, the
society to which the writer of the book under examination
immediately belongs. In Bishop Thirlwall's view, the Com-
mittee at once overstepped the proper limits of synodical
action in the cognisance of books.
“They were appointed to examine the Parts which had
appeared of the Bishop's work, and to report whether
any, and if any what, opinions, heretical or erroneous in
doctrine, were contained in it. They extracted three pro-
positions, which they have characterised as we have seen.
. . . It may seem, indeed, as if the Committee, in their
1863. THE SO-CALLED TRIAL AT CAPETOWN. 305
mode of dealing with the first of these propositions which
they cite or extract for censure, had shown that they were
aware of the precise nature of the function they had to
perform, and meant to confine themselves to it. That
proposition is [the one which excited such strong indig-
nation in the Bishop of Natal’s accusers at Capetown], ‘The
Bible is not itself God's Word.’ The author himself imme-
diately adds, “But assuredly God's Word will be heard in
the Bible by all who will humbly and devoutly listen for
it.’ Of this qualification the Committee, in their remarks
on the proposition, take no notice whatever. But they first
observe that the proposition, as they cite it, “is contrary to
the faith of the universal Church, which has always taught
that Holy Scripture is given by inspiration of the Holy
Ghost.’ They seem to have overlooked that this statement,
however true, was irrelevant ; but they then proceed to
refer to the Articles and formularies of our own Church,
which are, indeed, the only authority binding on her
ministers. But, unfortunately, not one of the passages to
which they refer applies to the proposition condemned.
Many, indeed, among them do clearly describe the Bible as
the Word of God ; but not one affirms that ‘the Bible is
itself God's Word.' . . . No doubt the expression indicated
that the author (Bishop Colenso) made a distinction between
the Bible and the Word of God, and considered the two
terms as not precisely equivalent or absolutely interchange-
able. . . . . And there is certainly high authority for the
distinction. Among the numerous passages of the New
Testament in which the phrase the “Word of God’ occurs,
there is not one in which it signifies the Bible, or in which
that word could be substituted for it without manifest ab-
surdity. But even in our Articles and formularies there are
several in which the two terms do not seem to be treated as
synonymous. . . . If the Word of God is to be found no-
where but in Holy Writ, not only would no other Christian
literature be properly called sacred, but the Bible itself would
be degraded to a dead and barren letter, and would not be
a living spring of Divine Truth. On the whole, the Report
VOL. I. * X
306 g I./FE OF BISHOP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. VII
first attaches an arbitrary meaning to an ambiguous ex-
pression, and then charges it with contradicting authorities
which are either wholly silent upon it or seem to Countenance
or warrant it. . . .
“But in their treatment of the next proposition [relating to
the authorship of the Pentateuch], the Committee seem
almost entirely to have lost sight of the principle which,
although misapplied, appeared to guide them in their
examination of the first. For, with a single insignificant
exception, they confront it not with our Articles and
formularies but with passages of Scripture. Quotations
from Scripture may add great weight to a theological
argument: they are essential for the establishment of any
doctrine of a Church which professes to ground its teaching
on Scripture ; but they are entirely out of place, where the
question is, not whether a doctrine is true or false, but
whether it is the doctrine of the Church of England. . . .
. This is no legal refinement, but a plain dictate of common-
sense; and it does not at all depend on the composition of
the tribunal before which such questions are tried, so as to
to be less applicable if the court consisted entirely of
ecclesiastics. . . .
“When I look at the Scriptural arguments adduced in the
Report against the second proposition extracted for Con-
demnation, they do not seem to me of such a quality as to
deserve to form an exception, if any could be admitted, to
the rule which would exclude them from such an investiga-
tion. . . . The Committee observe that ‘Moses is spoken of
by our Blessed Lord in the Gospel as the writer of the
Pentateuch.' I suspect that even a layman, little ac-
quainted with the manifold aspects of the question and the
almost infinite number of surmises which have been or may
be formed concerning it, would be somewhat disappointed,
when he found that the proof of this statement consists of
three passages in which our Lord speaks of “Moses and the
prophets,’ of the ‘law of Moses, and of ‘writings of Moses.’
It is true that it would not be a fatal objection to the
argument, that the word ‘Pentateuch' does not occur in
1863. THE SO-CAZZED 7RIAA. A T CAPE 7 O WW. 307
the Bible. It might have been so described as to connect
every part of its contents with the hand of Moses as
distinctly as if the Observation of the Committee had been
literally true. But, in fact, this is not the case; and still
less is any such distinct appropriation to be found in any
of the passages cited by the Committee in support of their
assertion that ‘Moses is recognised as the writer of the
Pentateuch in other passages of Holy Scripture.’ I They are
neither more nor less conclusive than the language of the
* This comparatively Sober and passionless statement becomes, as we
have seen, in the mouth of the Dean of Capetown an appeal to
the authority of our Lord as taking the authorship of the Pentateuch
under His protecting wing, and staking His own veracity and credi-
bility on the accuracy of this fact (see p. 293). It is strange that the Dean
should have been unable to see, not the falsehood, but the astounding
absurdity of his position. According to the Gospel narratives, our
Lord was speaking to the common folk gathered round Him on matters
relating not to questions of literary history but to their spiritual life. He
was speaking to people who were accustomed to a certain division of
their Scriptures, speaking of them as the Law, the Law of Moses, the
Prophets; and he wished to bring home to them in each case certain
moral and spiritual lessons. Let us suppose for a moment that with
Him historical accuracy as to dates or place of the composition of a
book or the names of the writers was a matter of even small import-
ance (and there is not a shred of evidence that it was of the least
importance). Let us suppose further, for one moment only, that on all
these points the conclusions of the Bishop of Natal and other modern
critics really represent the facts. What would have been the consequence
if our Lord had spoken in accordance with these conclusions P He must
have begun by going into an historical disquisition—in other words, by
diverting their thoughts into a channel for which they were totally unpre-
pared, and to a task for which they were hopelessly unfitted, and even
helpless; or He must have assumed the truth of these conclusions, and
spoken to them of the Law of Samuel, or the Second Law of Jeremiah,
or the Levitical Law of Ezekiel. In the former case He would have per-
plexed and bewildered His hearers; He would have wasted time needed
for quite other things, and made the discharge of His own mission hope-
less. In the latter case He would have been altogether unintelligible, and
|His utterances would have been received as those of a madman. Such
is the miserable folly into which good men may be hurried when they
will have it that the ark of God must fall, if they do not put out their
hand to save it.
X 2
308 I./FE OF BISHOP COLE/VSO. CHAP. VII.
Seventh Article, to which the Committee confined all the
references they have made to the judgement of the Church
on the question, though this was the only matter into
which it was their business to inquire. The Article alludes
to ‘the law given from God by Moses,’ a slender foundation
for any inference as to the record of that law, much more
as to the authorship of other parts of the Pentateuch,
especially as the name of Moses does not occur in the
enumeration of the canonical books in the Sixth Article.
If the question had been as to the authority of the Book of
Psalms, few persons probably would think that it had been
dogmatically decided by the Church, because in the Prayer
Book the Psalter is described as the ‘Psalms of David.'
“The third proposition, ‘variously stated in the book,' relates
to the historical truth of the Pentateuch, which the author
denies, not in the sense that everything in it is pure fiction,
but that all is not historically true.... But it is to be regretted
that the Committee should again have lost sight of the
object for which they were appointed, and have omitted to
refer to any doctrine of the Church which the author has
zontradicted. This was the more incumbent on them, since
a recent judgement has formally sanctioned a very wide
latitude in this respect. It is clear that in such things there
cannot be two weights and measures for different persons;
and also that it does not belong to any but legal authority
to draw the line by which the freedom, absolutely granted
in theory, is to be limited in practice. -
“These are the propositions which they extract as the ‘main
propositions’ of the book, which, though not pretending to
‘pronounce definitely whether they are or are not heretical,’
they denounce as involving ‘errors of the gravest and most
dangerous character.' But they proceed to cite a further
proposition, which the author states in the form of a ques-
tion, to meet an objection which had been raised against
his main conclusion, as virtually rejecting our Lord's
authority, by which, as the Committee state, “the genuine-
ness and authenticity of the Pentateuch have been
guaranteed to all men.’ Whether the passages in which our
1863. THE SO-CALLED TRIAL AT CAPE 7"O WAV. 309
Lord quotes or alludes to the Pentateuch amount to such a
guarantee, is a point which they do not discuss. They only
observe that the proposition “questions our Lord's Divine
knowledge’; and with this remark they drop the subject.
“Considering that this proposition is incomparably the most
important of all that they cite, . . . . one is surprised that
it should have been dismissed with so very cursory and im-
perfect a notice. For it is not even clear that it correctly
expresses the author's meaning. . The question which he
raises does not properly concern Our Lord's Divine know-
ledge—that is, the knowledge belonging to His Divine
nature. It is whether His human knowledge was co-exten-
sive with the Divine omniscience. It is obvious, at the first
glance, what a vast field of speculation, theological and
metaphysical, is opened by this suggestion. . . . . Bishop
Jeremy Taylor observes: “Those that love to serve God in
hard questions, use to dispute whether Christ did truly, or
in appearance only, increase in wisdom. Others apprehend
no inconvenience in affirming it to belong to the verity of
human nature, to have degrees of understanding as well as
of other perfections; and although the humanity of Christ
made up the same person with His Divinity, yet they think
the Divinity still to be free, even in those communications
which were imparted to His inferior nature.' . . . It is clear
to which side Taylor inclines. But I must own I should be
sorry to see these hard questions revived. . . . Still more
should I deprecate any attempt of the Church of England
to promulgate a new dogma for the settlement of this con-
troversy. But at least, as their remark indicated that the
Bishop had in their judgement fallen into some grave error,
it was due not only to him but to the readers of their
Report, and to the Church at large, that they should
have pointed out what the error was by a comparison with
the doctrine of the Church, which it was supposed to
contradict.” +
Having thus demolished all the allegations of the Convo-
Charge, 1863, pp. Io9-II5.
3IO AAFE OF BISA/OAE CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP, VII.
cation Committee, Bishop Thirlwall deals in conclusion a
crushing blow on the whole theory of Bishop Colenso's self-
styled judge and prosecutors at Capetown. That theory
regards the Bible as an organic whole in the sense that every
portion of it is of the like authority, that every sentence in it
deserves to be treated with the same reverence, and that thus
no distinction can be drawn between the Sermon on the
Mount and the narrative of Samson's exploits at Ramathlehi
with the thousand absurdities and impossibilities involved in
it. The burden which these vehement partisans would impose
on the minds and consciences of men is so huge and so utterly
past all bearing, that the incisive words in which Bishop
Thirlwall scatters this theory to the winds may be accepted
with a feeling of the deepest thankfulness. No doubt the
conclusion may have been as little welcome to Mr. Maurice
as to Bishop Gray; but the fact remains, in Dr. Thirlwall's
words, that
“a great part of the events related in the Old Testament has
no more apparent connexion with our religion . . . . than
those of Greek and Roman history. The history, so far as
it is a narrative of civil and political transactions, has no
essential connexion with any religious truth ; and if it had
been lost, though we should have been left in ignorance of
much that we desired to know, our treasure of Christian
doctrine would have remained whole and unimpaired. The
numbers, migrations, wars, battles, conquests, and reverses
of Israel, have nothing in common with the teaching of
Christ, with the way of salvation, with the fruits of the
Spirit. They belong to a totally different order of subjects.
They are not to be confounded with the spiritual revelation
contained in the Old Testament, much less with that fulness
of grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ. Whatever
knowledge we may obtain of them is, in a religious point
of view, a matter of absolute indifference to us; and if they
were placed on a level with the saving truths of the Gospel,
1863. 7THE SO-CALLED TRIAJC A 7" CAPE TO WAV. 311
they would gain nothing in intrinsic dignity, but would only
degrade that with which they are thus associated. Such an
association may, indeed, exist in the minds of pious and
even learned men ; but it is only by means of an artificial
chain of reasoning, which does not carry conviction to all
beside. Such questions must be left to every man's judge-
ment and feeling, which have the fullest right to decide for
each, but not to impose their decisions, as the dictate of
an infallible 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 remarks of Dr. Thirlwall were evoked by the censures
of the Committee of Convocation ; but they make of none
effect the whole of the pleadings in the so-called trial at
Capetown, and they also condemn by anticipation the whole
string of propositions again affirmed by Bishop Gray's asses-
sors, and promulgated finally by Bishop Gray himself with
such authority as he could impart to his judgement. Thus far
the ship which Bishop Gray had been steering had gone on its
course with sails full spread. The prosecutors had spoken
with a unanimity astonishing in thinking men. His assessors
had given their solemn approval of every point laid down by
the accusers. The condemnation was complete and unquali-
fied ; and it remained only for the judge to inforce the law of
the Church by an authoritative declaration which should not
only deprive the defendant of all spiritual functions, but be
binding on the whole of the Anglican communion, if it would
not bind all Christendom. The accused was not present. He
had by his agent entered a protest against the self-assumed
jurisdiction of the judge and against all his proceedings.
Although not called upon either in duty or in law to do so,
he had asserted in his letter of protest that he had neither
* Charge, 1863, p. 123.
312 AAFE OF APISA/OA COLEAVSO. CHAP. VII.
written nor published anything which offended against the law
of the Church of England. But to the chargés contained in
the several schedules exhibited in the Metropolitan's Court
he made no reply. Some defence, however, seemed in the
eyes of Bishop Gray to be called for. He, therefore, called
on his Registrar to read a letter, written two years before,
August 7, 1861, which, as he said, the Bishop had put in in
/his defence, and to which he had called the special attention
of the court." In the heat of this miserable controversy,
provoked by his own extravagant notions of Metropolitical
power, Bishop Gray could scarcely touch on any topic without
misrepresenting it. The letter, to which reference was made
was mentioned in the letter of protest. But the Bishop of
Natal did not say that he put it in in defence, nor did
he call to it the special attention of the court. He never
named the court at all. He could not do so because he
did not recognise its existence, and he was not even aware
of the existence of the second court which pretended to try
him. All that he did was to refer Bishop Gray to his earlier
letter for an explanation of his meaning in some of the
passages objected to in the Commentary on the Epistle to the
Romans, adding only, “I desire also to call your attention ”
(not that of the court) “to the preface to Part III., a copy of
which I forward by this mail.”” The letter, however, was read
by way of a defence; and the Metropolitan then proceeded
to deliver his judgement.
This judgement it is unnecessary to review at any length.
Theologically, it is in complete agreement with the opinions
of his assessors, and the pleadings of the prosecuting clergy.
But Something must be said about the position taken by Bishop
Gray, and the method by which he justified his verdict.
He professed, in the first place, to sit as Metropolitan,
* Trial, p. 244.
* The earlier letter here referred to is given in Appendix A.
1863. THE SO-CALLED TRIAL AT CAPE TOWN. 3I3
with full coercive and deposing powers, by virtue of the
Royal letters patent to which he appealed. He did not
indeed say that this claim was admitted by the defendant,
but he had no doubt on the subject himself. This was a
purely legal question, and it turned necessarily on the date
of the patent. To judge the Bishop of Natal by virtue of
powers conferred by a patent dated about a fortnight later
than his own would have been an intolerable injustice. At
the time of the Bishop of Natal’s consecration Bishop Gray's
letters patent were not in existence: and it was impossible
therefore for the former to know what might be their tenor.
No doubt by his own patent the Bishop of Natal admitted
himself to stand in a certain relation to the Bishop of Cape-
town ; and by the promises thus made he was bound.
According to Bishop Gray, he had acknowledged that he stood
in the relation of a Suffragan Bishop to the Metropolitan,
who was invested with the powers and authority of that office.
But not very long ago Bishop Gray had himself been in doubt
as to the extent and nature of this power and authority.
When in 1858 he administered a wise rebuke to the Dean of
Maritzburg, he said that he could reply to him only through
his Bishop.
“I am doubtful,” he added, “as to the extent of Metro-
politan jurisdiction in such a matter as you have submitted
to me (a point not so easy to be determined as you may,
perhaps, imagine). I cannot venture to give a judicial
opinion upon the case laid before me. All that I can do
is to give both you and the Bishop my views upon this
unfortunate dispute which has arisen.”
But nothing had occurred in the interval to solve and
remove these doubts; and the Bishop of Natal was firmly
and most rightly resolved that he would admit no obligations
which he had not taken upon himself at the time of his
3I4. A/FE OF AP/SAIOP CO/CEAVSO. CHAP. VII.
consecration. He had then taken the oath of canonical
obedience to the Metropolitan. But it had been ruled by
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that
“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 authorised to impose.”
Having before him the principle thus laid down, it was
impossible for him to recognise in Bishop Gray a power of
sitting in judgement upon him, and, if need be, deposing him ;
but his own letters patent placed the matter well-nigh beyond
reach of question. In these it was merely provided that
“the said Bishop of Natal and his successors shall be subject
and subordinate to the see of Capetown, and to the Bishop
thereof and his successors, in the same manner as any
Bishop of any see within the Province of Canterbury, in
our Kingdom of England, is under the authority of the
Archiepiscopal see of that Province and of the Archbishop
of the same.”
This patent, it is obvious, did not convey, and could not
convey, to the Metropolitan of Capetown a power not pos-
sessed by the Archbishop of Canterbury; and certainly the
latter had no power of summoning his suffragans before himself
to undergo a trial and receive a sentence. The proceedings
must take the legal form, which reserves for all the orders of
the clergy an appeal in the last resort to the Crown.
This appeal, as we shall see, the Bishop of Capetown was
resolved to bar ; and in spite of professions, at starting, to the
contrary, he was not less resolved on trying the Bishop of
Natal by a wider standard than the law would allow to a
judge in England.
* In the case of Long v. Bishop of Capetown.
1863. THE SO-CA/LLED TRYA/. A T CAPE TO WAV. 3I 5
“In forming a decision,” he declared, “as to the soundness or
unsoundness of the Bishop's views, I shall be guided entirely
by the language of the Articles and formularies, including,
of course, the whole Book of Common Prayer.””
But English practice confined the investigation virtually to
the Articles of Religion, and to the interpretation of them in
their plain, literal, and grammatical sense. In the sentence
just cited, Bishop Gray does not mention the Church, and
this seemingly was done of set purpose, for he at once goes
On to say,
“I do not mean thereby to imply that these are the only tests
by which the Bishops of this Church should try the teaching
of its ministers.”
Here the word Church denotes not the Church of England,
but the Church of South Africa; and the term is used in a
third sense when he goes on to speak of “the received faith
of the Church in all ages.” Thus we have three senses in
which the word may be taken, and the uses may be so inter-
changed as to make it by no means easy to ascertain the
application in given instances. He was thus provided with
an armoury of weapons, which, unless they should be very
blunderingly used, must insure his victory. In the first
place
“the decisions of those Councils which the Church of
England regards as oecumenical are the very highest
authorities by which " the Bishops of the Church of South
Africa “could be guided.”
To these must be added “the received faith of the Church
in all ages,” and the three creeds, as expressing “the mind
and faith, not only of the Church of England, but also of
the whole Catholic Church from the beginning.” In their
* Trial, p. 34.I.
316 I/FE OF BASA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. VII.
application to a particular case, he must necessarily be the
interpreter of all these authorities. But in this interpretation
he would, whenever it was possible to do so, “decide by the
literal and grammatical sense of the words.” When the sense
was not plain, he would “interpret them by a comparison of
passages, . . . by the history of the controversies which gave,
rise to them, by the analogy of the faith,” having regard
always “to the animus imponentis, the intention of the Church
in the wording of its documents.” It is clear that these
analogies must be traced, and these intentions ascertained, by
himself. Finally, when he came to the examination of certain
of the schedules of accusation, Bishop Gray decided the
question by a direct appeal to the Scriptures, and thus
opened a still wider field, with larger opportunities for securing
a conviction. So equipped, he had no difficulty in declaring
that the Church of England, or, rather, the Church, held the
doctrine of substitution in reference to the life and death of
Christ, and affirmed that He suffered to appease and remove
the Divine anger. He had no difficulty in laying it down
that the Church did not regard the heathen as having before
their conversion any part in Christ,” none in deciding that.
she denied that all men everywhere were accounted righteous.
before God,” none in determining that the Bishop of Natal's
statements with reference to the sacrament of baptism were
not covered by the final decision in the Gorham case.
“I am aware,” he says, “that practically the discipline of the
Church has been such that clergy have been allowed to
express themselves on the subjective side of the sacraments
very variously, chiefly, perhaps, because of the difficulty of
defining exactly that which is in truth a mystery ; and that
the right to do so has been considered, so far as Holy Baptism
is concerned, to be strengthened by a celebrated decision
which, though not given by the Church, or by judges.
* Trial, p. 343. * Ib. p. 356. 3 Ib. 360.
1863. THE SO-CALLED TRIAL AT CAPETOWN. 317
authorised by it, has not formally been set aside by it. But no
such language or teaching as that which I consider the Bishop
of Natal has been shown to have committed himself to, has
ever, so far as I know, been sanctioned or tolerated within
the Church.””
Even if the facts were as the Bishop of Capetown stated
them, the only inference to be drawn from them would be
that the new point thus raised should be referred by appeal
to the same tribunal which had dealt with the Gorham case.
But to this course Bishop Gray was resolved never to commit
himself. It was enough that his own view of this matter was
different, and it was enough too that he could not admit the
ruling of the Judicial Committee in the case of Williams and
Wilson. That ruling had declared that the Church of England
had not pronounced authoritatively that the state of sinners
after death was hopeless. Bishop Gray insisted that the
Catholic Church had always maintained this hopelessness, and
that the Church of South Africa was bound to maintain it also.
Nay, he asserted further, that, in spite of the Williams-Wilson
judgement, the Church of England maintained it likewise.
Did not the Athanasian Creed say plainly that they that have
done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have
done evil into everlasting fire 2 But the Bishop of Capetown
had probably never paused to think what answer he would
return to a questioner who might ask him whether God, the
righteous Judge and loving Father, could ever make a com-
promise with sin ; or to consider the consequences involved in
the answering this question in the negative. If the idea of
such a compromise was inconceivable, then all theories of par-
tial salvation were shown to be untenable, and not only unten-
able but mischievous and utterly misleading,” and therefore
* Trial, p. 362.
* See the whole argument in the Commentary on the Romans, already
given in Chap. IV.
—-i
318 AºE OF AP/SA/OA' CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. VII.
all minor considerations become matters of no moment.
But such minor considerations there were, and these, too, of
no small consequence, if the conviction of St. Paul was not
held to be decisive on the subject. One of the minor matters
to be thus considered was the fact that the words of the
Athanasian Creed could not bear the sense put upon them by
Bishop Gray. This sense, in the words of a well-known
clergyman still living, would be this :—
“They that at the moment of death are in a state of peace
with God through faith and repentance will at the Day of
Judgement enter upon a state of immeasurable and endless
felicity; they that at the moment of death are in their
natural state, and not reconciled to God, will at the Day of
Judgement enter upon a state of fearful and endless misery.
“But the Creed makes no allusion to the state of the soul at
the moment of death. Its two clauses are ‘they that have
done good, and “they that have done evil.’ Is there any
one so good as not to have done evil St. John and the
universal human conscience reply: “If we say that we have
no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” On
the other hand, where can we point to a brother-man of whom
we can say that he is so evil as never to have done good 2 If,
then, human beings in general have done both good and evil,
how are we to separate the two classes which are to inherit
such different destinies 2 The question is no easy one. It
will be answered very differently. It may be said that God's
infinite wisdom is able to strike a balance between the good
and the evil that a man has done, and that, according as the
good or evil preponderates, he will be classed with the doers
of good or the doers of evil. But who will be satisfied with
such an account of God's dealings with men 2 Another
view would be, that true faith with the forgiveness that
follows it blots out previous evil works; that one who has
the true faith is considered as a righteous man, and there-
fore as a doer of good for Christ's sake; and that when a
man dies a true believer these benefits accrue to him,
1863. THE SO-CALLED TRIAL A T CAPAE TO WAV. 319
however recently he may have come to the state of faith.
Let us suppose this to be sound theology; but can it for a
moment be said to be the literal grammatical interpretation
of the Athanasian article 2 . . . It is common to lay
down general propositions about the good man and the bad
man, the strong and the weak, the rich and the poor. When
we come to apply them to actual persons, we must speak of
the man so far as he is good or bad, rich or poor. Very
likely the same man may be in different ways or senses
both good and bad, both rich and poor. . . . . Similarly
we may believe that it is the strictest possible law of God's
judgement that they who have done good shall go into
eternal life, and they that have done evil into everlasting
fire; . . . . whilst it may well be true that the life and the
fire, the praise and the wrath, may touch the same person,
and that every sinner on the earth, so far as he has been a
doer of good, shall be rewarded, and so far as he has been
a doer of evil shall be punished.”"
But having cited the Athanasian Creed in support of his
own statements with regard to the punishment of sinners,
Bishop Gray found himself called upon to deal with the fact
“that in the Articles of I 552 there was one, the 42nd, which
expressly condemned those who held the opinion that all
men shall be saved at last, but that that Article was omitted
in the revision of the Articles in 1562.”
This has been taken as evidence that the design of laying
down any authoritative decision on this subject has been
deliberately disclaimed by the Church of England; but this
the Bishop of Capetown could by no means admit. The
real reason for the omission he believes to be
“that which is assigned by Hardwicke. The doctrines of the
Anabaptists, against which that and some other Articles
1 Forgiveness after Death ; London, Longmans, 1862.
32O A./FE OF AP/SA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. VII.
were levelled, were no longer so menacing as they had been
a few years before. There were, therefore, not the same
urgent reasons for proscribing them.””
For Bishop Gray this inference was a matter of no small
importance. It involves the principle that the Articles gener-
ally are not to be regarded as anything like a definite state-
ment of the doctrine of the Church of England, or as exhibiting
the extent of obligation imposed upon the clergy of that
Church. They are simply statements put forth by way of
refuting or condemning errors which in greater or less degree
were current in England; but there was no warrant for the
conclusion that nothing more was required from the English
clergy.” How much more was required, the Articles did not
state ; and this was a question which must be determined by
the decisions of the spiritual courts of the English communion.
If this principle be allowed, the Metropolitan might crush any
one without difficulty. But this principle has not been admit-
ted: it has been formally disallowed by the Arches Court of
Canterbury and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
For the fact itself there is presumption simply ; but there is
no conclusive evidence, when evidence of the most cogent
Rind is indispensable. That an error which destroys the
foundations of at least the great Calvinistic school or party
should have been so formidable in 1552 as to call for a special
Article in condemnation of it, and have come to be of so
little account in I 562 as to make it necessary and prudent to
remove that Article, is an amazing fact indeed, if it be a fact
at all. Is it conceivable that the Revisers of I 562 could have
looked upon this so-called error as one which was certain to
have no attraction for English minds, or that Englishmen of
all schools were so thoroughly convinced of the truth of the
Augustinian or Fulgentian theories as to need no sign-post to
* Trial, p. 369. * Zb. p. 378.
1863. THE SO-CALLED TRIAL A T CAPE TO WAV. 32I
warn them against thoughts which might lead them in a very
different direction ?
On the subject of Bishop Colenso's criticisms on the Pen-
tateuch Bishop Gray takes up precisely the position of the
Committee of Convocation of the Province of Canterbury;
and of this position Bishop Thirlwall, as we have seen, has
demonstrated the utter futility. With the Committee, Dr
Gray appeals to the language of the Prayer Book, and to the
authority of Christ Himself; and he decides emphatically
that
“language must altogether lose its meaning ; pledges, pro-
mises, declarations, must be regarded as So much waste
paper, if the words of the Church in those formularies and
Articles which speak of the Bible, and which are in accord-
ance with, and must be interpreted by, the language of the
Church on this great subject from the beginning, are not
held to be violated by the Bishop in the passages which
have been referred to, and which are but a specimen of the
views propounded by him throughout his books.”
But, according to Dr. Gray, Bishop Colenso had not only
impugned the authority of the Bible as being “itself the
Word of God.” He had put forth new views on the subject
of the authorship of the canonical books. Great part of the
Pentateuch was written, not by Moses, but probably by
Samuel ; and Deuteronomy was the work of some one
living in the time of Josiah, not improbably of the prophet
Jeremiah. In so saying Dr. Gray held that the Bishop of
Natal did “not contradict the express language of the Church
of England.”?
“But is it therefore,” he asks, “lawful for the Bishop to
teach that Samuel, and not Moses, was the author of the
Pentateuch I think not. The case is widely different
* Trial, p. 382. * See p. 290. * Trial, p. 386.
WOL. I. Y
322 AAFE OF AZSA’OP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. VII.
from what it would have been had he questioned whether
the Second Epistle of St. Peter, or the Epistle to the
Hebrews, were written by those to whom they have been
generally attributed. In this case the attributing the
Pentateuch to Samuel is not only opposed to the stream
of writers in all ages of the Church, and to express Canons
—as the 85th of the Apostolical Canons—and to the
internal evidence, and even the assertions of the Penta-
teuch itself. It goes beyond this. It involves the rejection
of our Lord's authority, and of His words as delivered to
us by the Church in the Gospels, as we have them, in
which the Saviour is made to quote from each of the books
of the Pentateuch ; and this is one of those instances to
which I have just referred, in which there may be an offence
against the Church's teaching, while there is none against
the express language of the Articles or formularies.”
Here again we have Bishop Gray ruling question after
question on the authority of the Church, or, in effect, on his
own interpretations of statements supposed to be made by
that Church. Here again we are left in uncertainty of the
meaning in which the term Church is employed ; and here
again also documents (such as the Apostolical Canons) are
referred to as authoritative, of which a clergyman in England
would not be presumed of necessity to have any knowledge,
and by which, therefore, he could not be tested. As to the
allegations of “rejecting Our Lord's authority,” we have seen *
the absurdity of the dilemma into which an admission of the
charge would lead us. We have seen further the emphatic
declaration of Bishop Thirlwall that Bishop Colenso's language
involves no such rejection, and that the words of our Lord
have no bearing on the point in debate. The monstrousness
of the issue becomes obvious when we find a Bishop tried, and
condemned, and deposed in South Africa on charges which a
* Trial, p. 387. * See p. 307, note.
1863. THE SO-CALLED TRIAL AT CAPETOWN. 323
Bishop in England pronounces to be groundless in fact, and
wholly inadmissible.
But Bishop Gray was not to be deterred by any such
considerations. Adhering obstinately to the Sense put by
himself upon documents and formularies, he declared that
“if Joshua (the man) be a myth, the Flood a fiction, the
Exodus not a real fact, a large part of that Book which the
Church declared to be ‘God's Word’ cannot possibly be
God's Word, and the language of the preface to the Prayer
Book . . . is entirely mistaken.”
Even if Joshua never lived, and the Flood never took place,
the conclusion drawn by Dr. Gray about the Pentateuch
generally does not necessarily follow ; and with the language
of the preface to the Prayer Book no clergyman perhaps is
required to be familiar, and most assuredly it is nowhere said
that he is bound by it. But Dr. Gray was confronted by a
recent decision in England. In the case of the Bishop of
Salisbury v. Williams, Dr. Lushington had ruled in the
Arches Court,
“that when the question in the Ordination Service for
Deacons is put, “Do you unfeignedly believe all the
Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament?’ and
to which the answer is given, ‘I do believe them, the
pledge then given must be regarded as sufficiently fulfilled
if there be a bona fide belief that the Holy Scriptures con-
tain everything necessary to salvation ; and that to that
extent they have the direct sanction of the Almighty, even
apparently though the historical portion of Scripture should
be disbelieved.” 1
This last qualifying clause cannot with any strictness be
applied to the Bishop of Natal. After all deductions made
by his criticisms it could not be said that he disbelieved the
1 Trial, p. 388.
Y 2
324. JZAZE OF BISAIOP COLAEAVSO. CHAP. VII
historical portion of Scripture, because he held that there was
a substantial truth in the narrative of the going down to
Egypt, of the sojourn there, of the Exodus, of the conquest of
Canaan, of the partial subjugation of the old inhabitants, of
the influence exercised by them upon the Hebrew people,
of the administration of the Judges, and the growth of the
country under the early Kings. In short, Dr. Gray had not
paused to consider what he meant by disbelief of Scripture
history, and he at once set himself in opposition to Dr.
Lushington's judgement.
“I cannot,” he said, “concur in such a decision as this. It is
a wrong to the Church thus to limit the meaning and
diminish the force of its plain language. It has two distinct
statements, as to what the Bible is, it is God’s word
written ; the other, as to what it contains with regard to the
faith, it contains without the aid of tradition all things
necessary to everlasting salvation.”
We are not, indeed, told in which of its three senses the
word Church is used in this passage. But we are made to see
that in every stage of this inquiry the Bishop of Capetown
insisted on appealing to the Scriptures; for when he appealed
to the “teaching of our Lord Himself,” he was manifestly
appealing not to the Prayer Book but to the Bible, although
authoritative decisions had declared in England that such a
course was altogether inadmissible. Both the Court of Arches
and the Privy Council had decided that they were bound to
look solely to the Articles and to the formularies, and had
refused to take account of passages of Scripture, even when
found in the Prayer Book.
“Were I once to be tempted,” said Sir Stephen Lushington,
“from the Articles and other formularies, the court could
assign no limits to its investigations: it would inevitably
1 Trial, p. 388.
1863. THE SO-CALLED TRIAL AT CAPE TOWN. 325
be compelled to consider theological questions, not for the
purpose of deciding whether they were conformable to a
prescribed standard, but whether the positions maintained
were reconcilable with the Scriptures or not. . . . I will not
be tempted, in the trial of any accusation against any
clergyman, to resort to Scripture as the standard by which
the doctrine shall be measured.”
Nor was this the only blow dealt by the judge of the Court
of Arches against the principles laid down by the Metropolitan
of Southern Africa. He had ruled
“that it is open for the clergy to maintain that any book
in the Bible is the work of another author than him whose
name it bears.”
This ruling he proceeds to explain by asking—
“What is the true meaning of these words P I apprehend,
it must mean this, that the clergy are at liberty to reject
parts of Scripture, upon their own opinion that the narrative
is inherently incredible, to disregard precepts in Holy Writ,
because they think them evidently wrong. Whatever I
may think as to the danger of the liberty thus claimed,
still, if the liberty do not extend to the impugning of the
Articles of Religion, or the formularies, the matter is beyond
my cognisance.”
But nothing, it seems, could bring Bishop Gray to define
his terms. He will not admit Sir S. Lushington's ruling,
because he holds that in the Ordination Service the candidate
is not asked whether the Scriptures contain all things neces-
sary to salvation, but whether he believes them to be God's
word, whether he believes them to be true. The Bishop of
Natal might reply that he did believe them to be God's word,
that he did hold them to be true, in the sense that they taught
men to seek after all things that are good, and holy, and
lovely, and of good report. But this was not what Bishop Gray
326 AAFE OF BISA/OA' CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. VII.
meant by truth; and therefore he felt bound to decide that
the Bishop of Natal had contradicted the teaching of Christ
Himself (395); and in spite of the language of Jeremy
Taylor," he persisted in maintaining that, by speaking of our
Lord as limited in His human nature by the conditions of
knowledge at the time of His ministry, he was denying that
He is God and Man in one Person. Thus
“in imputing to our Blessed Lord ignorance and the possi-
bility of error, the Bishop has committed himself to a most
subtle heresy, destructive of the reality of the Incarnation,
and he has departed from the Catholic faith, as held in the
Church from the beginning, and as expressed in the Second
Article and in the Creeds.” (395.)
Lastly, he held the Bishop of Natal to be justly charged
with depraving the Prayer Book, and with inviting the clergy
to disown their obligations and to disobey the law of the
Church. He forgot that Archbishop Longley had tried to
inforce on the clergy the same lesson. No power, he stated
in the House of Lords, should induce him to read certain
portions of the Office for Burial over those who had died in
known sin ; and he advised his clergy to follow his example,
promising them all the protection that he could afford them.
But that which might be permitted to, and be laudable in,
the Archbishop of Canterbury could not be tolerated in
the Bishop of Natal. Nothing, therefore, was left but to pass
sentence ; and in the exercise of a jurisdiction derived from
the Queen's letters patent, and from these alone, the Bishop
of Capetown decreed the Bishop of Natal
“to be deposed from the said office as such Bishop, and to be
further prohibited from the exercise of any divine office
within any part of the Metropolitical Province of Capetown.”
(4O4.)
* See p. 309
1863. THE SO-CALLED 7TRIAL AT CAPE 7TO WW. 327
This judgement and sentence Bishop Gray consented to
forward to the Archbishop of Canterbury for his revision, if
the Bishop of Natal should desire to make a formal appeal
to the Primate. But this appeal he allowed, not of right,
but as a personal favour under the peculiar circumstances
of the case; and the appeal was to be made not to the
Primate acting through his judge in the Court of Arches,
from which a further appeal would lie to the Crown, but only
to the Archbishop in his private and personal capacity, and
beyond him it was not to go. The defiance to the Crown
of England could scarcely be given in language less
equivocal.
The Metropolitan having thus finished his work, Dr. Bleek,
as acting for the Bishop of Natal, handed to him the following
protest:—
“On behalf of the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Natal,
I again protest against the legality of the present pro-
ceedings and the validity of this judgement; and, with all
respect towards your Lordship personally, I, on the Bishop's
behalf, give you formal notice that the said proceedings and
judgement are and will be regarded and treated by him as
a nullity, void of all force and effect.
“And I, in like manner, further give notice that the Bishop
of Natal will, if the same shall be expedient or necessary,
and if he shall be thereunto advised, appeal from, or other-
wise contest the lawfulness of, these proceedings, and will,
if need be, resist any attempt to inforce and carry out the
execution of this judgement in such manner and by such
lawful ways and process as he shall be advised to be
proper.”
CHAPTER VIII.
CONSEQUENCES OF THE SO-CALLED TRIAL AT CAPETOWN.
THE opinion of Mr. Maurice on the Capetown trial and the
issues involved in it is of importance, not because it is seem-
ingly unlike the opinion of any one else, but because few had
a truer and deeper insight than he into the nature of the
Divine Kingdom. For him the presence and the present
abiding and unceasing work of the Heavenly Father of all
mankind were eternal realities; and he shrunk therefore from
anything which limited the good tidings of His love. If there
was any one thing above another which the accusers of the
Bishop of Natal denounced with unsparing vehemence, it was
the conviction that the Divine purpose is to battle with and to
overcome sin, in all, everywhere. They would have had
nothing but an anathema for the words of Mr. Maurice when
he says:—
“God cares for every man whether or not that man cares for
Him, is seeking after every man whether or not that man is
seeking after Him. You must also suppose that there is a
Son of man who is near to every man, who is his Lord and
Brother, who died for him, and who lives for him. Yes!
and you must believe also that if my Christianity, or your
Christianity, or any man's Christianity, stand between you
1863. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPE TOWN TRIAL. 329
or me or him and God who is our Father, Christ who is
our Brother, He will sweep that Christianity away.” "
It was inevitable, therefore, that when the Bishop of Cape-
town professed to judge from a tribunal not responsible to
any tribunal in England, and to pronounce a sentence which
should be none the less valid because it came into collision
with English law, Mr. Maurice should without hesitation con-
demn his proceedings, and protest against their consequences.
His belief, Colonel Maurice tells us,
“in the appeal to justice, and to fixed laws expounded by
lawyers as an appeal to the judgement of God against the
tyranny of ecclesiastical public opinion,”
made him feel very strongly on the subject.
“His belief that Protestantism is for each nation the claim
that God is the King of its king, that God presides over
the law courts of its king; his belief that every effort to
arrive at right and justice is an effort to arrive at and submit
to the will of the invisible King, made him more and more
hostile to those measures which it became each year more
difficult to distinguish from intrigue and plotting ; of which
the Bishop of Oxford was the centre; of which the effect
was to set up the supremacy of what might be the current
theological opinions of the day. On October 4th he wrote
to the Times a letter on ‘the Bishop of Capetown and
spiritual jurisdiction,’ in which he maintained that the claim
of the Bishop of Capetown to set up a ‘spiritual jurisdic-
tion’ contra-distinguished to the rule of right and law was
the one against which the very existence of our national
Church was a protest, which touched the most sacred point
of our Protestant national position.””
Mr. Maurice was one of whom it could emphatically be said
that he spoke English, and he wrote English ; but in spite of
* Life of Maurice, ii. p. 478. * /b. ii. p. 487.
33O A.YAZ OA” P/SAIOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
this it was not always that he succeeded in making his mean-
ing plain, and it was often most difficult to understand him
when he spoke or wrote chiefly in monosyllables. A clergy-
man in the diocese of Grahamstown, recognizing in the Cape-
town Synod no authority divine or human, had put to Mr.
Maurice the seemingly superfluous question how he would
advise him to treat the Bishop of Natal in the contingency of
his presenting himself as a communicant in his church. Mr.
Maurice might have told him that, if in his eyes the Cape-
town Synod had no authority, any act of that Synod must for
him be nothing ; or he might have referred him to his own
conscience; or he might have said that nothing needed to be
feared from the obsolete weapon of “excommunication.” In
fact, his answer was :—
“With your feeling you could not treat him as an excom-
municated person. No presbyter, I suppose no Bishop in
England, would dare to do so; I should think the act in a
colony in which he has dwelt and ministered—though not a
part of his diocese—more, not less, inexcusable.”
On the point of his being allowed to preach, Mr. Maurice
advised his correspondent to be guided by the judgement of
the Bishop of Grahamstown. So far his meaning is clear.
It is not less clear when he adds that his correspondent is not
asked by English law to pay the least respect to the decrees
of the South African Synod (which are declared to be null and
void), and at the same time that he is not asked to recognize
the Bishop of Natal in that character (i.e. as Bishop of Natal),
being free to consider him as having no diocese at all. We
can understand the words; but the answer is that Mr. Maurice
is wrong in his facts, as was afterwards made plain by the
judgement of Lord Romilly. Speaking in the House of Lords
after the delivery of the so-called Capetown “judgement,” Dr.
Thirlwall declared that Dr. Colenso was as much and as really
1863. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETOWN 7"RZAZ. 331
Bishop of Natal as he himself was Bishop of St. David's. If
Bishop Colenso had no longer a diocese, who had deprived
him of it 2 To allow that Bishop Gray had done so would
concede every point for which the Metropolitan of South
Africa was contending. Mr. Maurice adds:—
“I should hope he would submit to one part of the
decision whilst he claims the benefit of the other, and
not go back to a country where he has not a legal status,
and where his presence can breed only strife. He is safe
till he raises the question in the colony. If it is raised,
your experience of the feelings of the laity, and the positive
expression of the feelings of the clergy, convince me that
he would come off worst.”
This passage is partly obscure, and where it is not obscure
is altogether unworthy of Mr. Maurice. Even Bishop Gray
never maintained that Dr. Colenso might not after his sentence
have a legal status in Natal. His contention was that a legal
status did not extend necessarily beyond temporalities, and
that his presence in Natal would breed strife not for lack of
the legal status, but because he had been deprived of all
spiritual authority. Mr. Maurice was wrong also in his esti-
mate of the feeling of the laity, and he ought to have taken
pains to ascertain whether the clergy had expressed what
they really felt. When after the reversal of a portion of Dr.
Lushington's judgement by the Privy Council on the appeal
in the Williams-Wilson case, Dr. Pusey and others sent
round to every clergyman in England a declaration of faith
which they were entreated to sign “for the love of God,”
Mr. Maurice rightly protested against the cruelty and the
cowardice of the proceeding. He declared that it meant
just this:–
“Young clergymen, poor curates, poor incumbents, sign, or we
will turn the whole force of religious public opinion against
332 JLIFE OF BISHOP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
you. Sign, or we will starve you ! Look at the Greek
Professor, you see we CAN take that vengeance on those
whom we do not like. You see that we are willing to take
it, and that no considerations of faithful and devoted Ser-
vices will hinder us. This,” he adds indignantly, “is what
is called signing for the love of God. I accept Dr. Pusey's
own statement, tremendous as it is. I say that the God
whom we are adjured to love under these penalties is not
the God of whom I have read in ‘the Canonical Scriptures,’
not the God who declares that He abhors robbery for
burnt-offering.”.”
But the clergy of Natal were even poorer and more help-
less than the poorest curates and incumbents of the mother
country. For the pittance on which they lived they depended
absolutely on the good-will of the Society familiarly known as
the S.P.G. Some, and even the majority, may have been as
Sacerdotally minded as the Metropolitan of South Africa,
although this has not been proved, and is not likely; but if
the pressure was exercised even in a single case, where the
total number was so small, then there was a cruel exercise of
power, with which the pressure put upon the English clergy
could hardly be compared. It was proved afterwards, as it
might have been suspected at the first, that the Natal clergy
were not free agents in this matter. Colonel Maurice gives
the particulars which show that the English declaration, which
was designed to uphold faith in the endless and useless tor-
turing of sinners, was for all practical purposes worthléss.”
The result of the methods applied in Natal was not a jot more
creditable to Bishop Gray and his followers.
But the case becomes more perplexing when we find Mr.
Maurice insisting, it would seem, that a truth which, if it be a
* Mr. Jowett, now Master of Balliol College, and lately Vice-Chancellor
of the University of Oxford.
* Life of Maurice, ii. p. 469. * /ö. ii. p. 470.
1863. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPE TOWN TRIAL, 333
truth at all, must be an eternal verity, falls to the ground
if the authority of some particular book is questioned or
rejected. He had clung to what he called the Old Testament
maxim that God Himself is the Deliverer, that His name
is the ground of national liberty. But why this maxim
should be convicted of falsehood if it should be shown that
the Levitical legislation is the growth of an age subsequent
to the Babylonish captivity, Mr. Maurice has not clearly
shown ; and, in the absence of Some explanation, disin-
terested men may be pardoned if they confess their inability
to follow him. Why should this truth have been any the
more doubtful, if the books of the Old Testament had never
been gathered into one collection, or if they had never been
written ? For some mysterious reason, however, he had con-
vinced himself that no foundation was left for this spiritual
belief if even the details of the narrative were proved to be
inaccurate or wrong.
“To have a quantity of criticism about the dung in the Jewish
camp, and the division of a hare's foot, thrown in my face,
when I was satisfied that the Jewish history had been the
mightiest witness to the people for a living God against the
dead dogmas of priests, was more shocking to me than I
can describe.”"
Mr. Maurice continually repeated himself. It becomes
necessary, therefore, to go over again and again ground
already traversed. There can be no reason for disputing
his dictum that the Old Testament is a witness for liberty,
Yet we might know something of liberty even if we had
never heard of the Old Testament; nor need we dispute his
conclusion that
“the Bishop of Capetown was waging a fiercer war against
the principle of the Old Testament than Bishop Colenso has
* Life of Maurice, ii. p. 490.
334 JAAA OF APASHOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
done. A thing called a Church, consisting of a Metropoli-
tan and a Synod, a poor imitation of a Popedom, is to
set aside the glorious traditions of the English nation,
which were grounded upon the Old Testament, which
were the deliverance from priestly tribunals and a king-
bishop.” -
The traditions may be thoroughly sound and wholesome,
and the Old Testament may set forth with all clearness the
Divine justice and righteousness ; but in spite of this it is
conceivably possible that the former may not have been
grounded upon the latter. This possibility, even as a con-
ception, lay beyond Mr. Maurice's ken.
But when Mr. Maurice professed to be grieved and shocked
by all and by anything that the Bishop had said about the
Pentateuch, he forgot that there were others who might be
pained and shocked by his own attitude ; and for some who
were thus distressed it might have been supposed that he
would wish to take some thought. It may be no breach of
confidence to cite the following sentences from a letter written
by Mrs. Colenso, February 1885 —
“I have been reading with intensest interest the life of Mr.
Maurice, which Mrs. Lyell sent me. I have no fault at all
to find with the editor's account of his father's treatment of
us; and I suppose nothing else was to be expected ; but I
did hope that one whom I had looked on as a prophet
would have found us a standing-point for Our faith quite
distinct from historical beliefs. But no, I was present, and
my blood ran cold when he whom I had always regarded
as a saint, as nearer to God than any other, actually said
that if he could not believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch,
he could not believe in God at all or in ‘the powers of the
world to come.’ I was present, you know, almost all the
time of that conference. . . . . I was driven at last to
exclaim in despair, “O Mr. Maurice, it is too dreadful to
hear such words from your lips. For all the bitterness of
1863. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETOWN TRIAL. 335
that time, the suffering of it, which we kept very much to
ourselves, I still remember F. D. Maurice with reverence
and affection. . . . . I think he might have taken a little
more pains with us, instead of casting us off at once with
something like contempt. But I found, when not long
afterwards we visited the Scotts at Manchester, who had
been very intimate with him, that difference of opinion did
sometimes meet with Something like violence, and issue
in estrangement.”
In delivering judgement, the Bishop of Capetown had
openly declared his refusal to acquiesce in decisions recently
delivered by the judge of the Court of Arches, and by the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. If no explanation
of the fact were offered, the course taken by the Metropolitan
of South Africa might be regarded as open defiance of the
law of the Church of England. It became necessary, there-
fore, to take ground which would account for the use of this
language. With the principles avowed by Bishop Gray, there
was no alternative. On the day, therefore, before the delivery
of the sentence, the Bishop of Capetown and his two episcopal
assessors formed themselves into a “Synod,” and laid down
a number of resolutions, intended to bind all the members of
the Church of England, lay and clerical, within the Province
of Capetown, so including the clergy and laity of the diocese
of Natal. In these resolutions they declared that the Church
of the Province of Capetown receives the standards and
formularies of the Church of England, but
“inasmuch as this Church is not, as the Church of England,
‘by law established,' and inasmuch as the laws of England
have by treaty no force in this colony, those laws which
have been enacted by statute for the English Church as an
Establishment, do not apply to, and are not binding upon,
the Church in South Africa;”
and again,
336 J./FE OF BISAMOA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
“This Synod considers that the final court of appeal, con-
stituted by Act of Parliament for the Established Church
of England, is not a court of appeal in ecclesiastical causes
for the un-established Church in this colony; and therefore
this Synod declares that, while the Church in this Province
is bound by, and claims as its inheritance, the standards
and formularies of the Church of England, it is not bound
by any interpretation put upon those standards by exist-
ing ecclesiastical courts in England, or by the decisions of
such courts in matters of faith.”
In other words, whether rightly or wrongly, whether the
change was necessary, or justifiable, or not, there was to be one
law for England, and another for South Africa. A clergyman,
upheld by the law in the former, might find himself an excom-
municated heretic in the latter. The power of interpretation
might furnish an indefinitely elastic line ; and a man might
pass from one legal status to another, while he deluded him-
self with the idea that his condition remained unchanged.
One question remained unanswered. Was this a keeping of
faith with all who went out to the colony as members of the
Church of England, and not of any other body ? The state
of things brought about by Bishop Gray was a state of war,
affecting the interests of generations yet unborn. In the
Bishop of Natal's words, the issue was
“no less than this—whether you and your children shall
enjoy hereafter the laws and liberties, and with these the
light of life, of the Church of England, to which you
belong ; or whether, among the clergy and laity of this
diocese, all inquiry shall be checked and crushed, all
thought repressed, and the aspirations of the age for a
wider, more comprehensive, more enlightened Christianity
exchanged for a return to Patristic theology and practice,
the decrees of the ‘Council of Antioch, as confirmed by the
Council of Chalcedon,’ and ‘what the Church held in the
first thousand years of her history.’”
1863. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETOWN TRIAL, 337
Into the purely legal questions connected with this Synod
it is unnecessary to enter; but there can be little doubt, or
none, that by holding this Synod between the so-called trial
and the so-called judgement Dr. Gray was multiplying diffi-
culties for himself. The two proceedings were entirely distinct.
They were also not judicial. They were, in short, independent
trials, and the proceedings in the Synod appear to have lacked
the most elementary and essential characteristics of a trial.
There was no citation of the accused, no accusers, no pleading,
no evidence. There could therefore be no judgement and no
sentence. It is not true, therefore, to say, as was often said
subsequently, that the Bishop of Natal was tried by a Provin-
cial Synod." He was not summoned to it. The Synod was
beyond doubt an afterthought. It professed, indeed, to go
through certain forms of trial ; but these forms were a mere
mockery of justice. The so-called Synod chose to say that
it had tried the Bishop. Its assertions could not convert
assumption into right, or farce into sober fact.
Between the years 1858 and 1866 nothing had occurred to
alter the complexion or significance of the theory of ecclesias-
tical ascendency propounded by Bishop Gray as Metropolitan
of South Africa. All that can be said is that before the latter
year an occasion had arisen for the exercise of the powers
claimed under this theory, which in 1858 the Bishop of Gra-
hamstown had not looked for. Whatever danger for the
rights and freedom of the clergy and laity had been involved
in those claims in 1858, those dangers were neither lessened
nor increased when the Metropolitan proceeded to judge,
condemn, and depose his brother of Natal in 1863. But in
the view taken of these claims by Bishop Cotterill change of
circumstances had wrought a marvellous revolution. It is
necessary here to note only how he had regarded the matter,
1 J. Brunel, Remarks on the Proceedings at Capetown in the Matter of
£he Bishop of Natal, 1868.
VOL. I. Z
338 3. JC/FE OF BASHOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
while yet there was nothing to blind his eyes to dangers
which might possibly affect himself. In 1858, Bishop Cot-
terill, writing to the Bishop of Natal, spoke of the patent of
the Metropolitan as one reason which had made him hesitate
in his acceptance of the see which he held.
“It shows,” he said, “how loosely these matters are managed,
that both the Archbishop, and the Government, I mean the
officials at the Colonial Office, knew nothing about that
formidable visitation clause, until I called their attention to
it. The Archbishop said that there was no court in which
this Metropolitical jurisdiction could be inforced, and Mr.
Labouchere and others at the Colonial Office told me that
if the Metropolitan interfered I could simply upset all he
had done, as soon as he left my diocese.
“But there is another important point connected with this
question, and on which I confess it seems to me you have
rather conceded too much, by your circulating the Metro-
politan's opinion on your doctrine. . . . . It seems to
me of the utmost consequence that we should not in any
way admit the principle that the Metropolitan is episcopus
episcoporum. If one of my clergy presented me to the
Metropolitan, I should decline submitting to any irregular
semi-official proceeding, and I should respectfully inform
the Metropolitan that his opinion of my sermons or acts
was no concern of mine unless he should proceed by a
regular process, and issue a final sentence such as would
form the ground for appeal to an ecclesiastical court
at home. If our clergy are to be presenting us to the
Metropolitan whenever we offend them, or they differ from
our views and acts, and we admit the right of another
Bishop, because he is the Metropolitan of the Province, to
censure us according to the standard of his own private
opinion, we are placed wholly in a false position. If he
has not a legally constituted court to try us in, that is his
business, not ours; but that we should be placed at the
mercy of the individual opinion of a Metropolitan is contrary
to all ecclesiastical law.
1863. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETOWN TRIAL. 339
“It is difficult, perhaps, to say what a Metropolitan ought to.
do. Still, we must make him understand that, unless we our-
selves break the ecclesiastical laws of England, and commit
deeds or maintain doctrines that would be legal offences in
England, he has no more right to give us his personal
opinions as a judicial sentence upon us than we have to
pass a sentence upon him. I wonder how the Bishops of
Exeter and Oxford would treat an extra-judicial opinion
of the Primate on their doctrine. I speak my mind to you
freely, because I do not see where this interference is to
end, if we admit it. . . . Closely connected with all these
questions is that to which you refer—what is our proper
title as a Church here 2. As you will observe, in our confer-
ence the description taken from the Capetown proceedings
was proposed ; but I objected to it, and it was altered.
Most certainly we are here as Bishops of the Church of
England ; our clergy are clergymen of the United Church
of England and Ireland, and take oaths both of allegiance
and supremacy. If we were merely Bishops of the ‘Catholic
Church, our ordination would (as in the case of the
American and Scotch Bishops) not make men presbyters
of the English Church. We are bound by ordination vows
(as are all our clergy) to observe the laws and use the
Liturgy of the Church of England.
“It is curious how some of these men, on points which fall in
with their views, will insist on the most rigid adherence to
Anglican customs; but in reality they are longing for
developement. A South African Church Catholic might
(especially with the aid of three more Bishops who should
be free from the fetters of the Queen's supremacy, &c.) set
an example to the whole Church of restoration. Who
knows what ancient customs, vestments, and other Catholic
practices (confession, e.g., to which I hear there is a strong
tendency in a neighbouring diocese) might not be revived,
if only we could forget that we are an integral part of the
Church of England P I have no doubt that the Tractarian
party, feeling that in England the battle cannot be fought
with success, have been for some time looking to the
Z 2
34O IZAZE OF BASHOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
colonies as the field where they might establish practices
which would ultimately react on England. This has been
my conviction for some years; and it was this that made
me feel so strongly the importance of a colonial bishopric
at the present crisis, that I felt it would be a dereliction of
duty to decline the office.
“Though I consider the influence of the Christian Xaos
should be co-extensive with the Church, I prefer, myself,
voting by orders. But to say, as the Metropolitan does,
that there is no representation of the Church because it is
not as he thinks right, is merely to say that, if your
Council assumes the powers which he does for his Capetown
Synod, he will object. But the Church is represented in
such manner as you think best suited for your guidance
in the exercise of those functions which belong to you,
and with which the Bishop of Capetown has no right to
interfere, unless you overstep the bounds of English
ecclesiastical law ; and this is all that concerns you. The
obedience we owe to the Metropolitan is simply canonical
obedience—‘all due obedience.’ It is so in the case of a
clergyman and his Bishop, much more in that of a Bishop
and his Metropolitan.” -
It would not be possible to put into clearer words than
these the indispensable need of maintaining the right of
appeal from any ecclesiastical tribunal in Southern Africa to
the Archbishop of Canterbury (not, as Bishop Gray after-
wards professed to grant as a favour, in his private capacity,
but) as presiding by his judge in the Court of Arches, from
which an appeal lies directly to the Crown. The idea of a
South African Church in which an appeal to the Sovereign in
Council should be barred by any Bishop or priest is sum-
marily and even indignantly cast aside. In the same spirit
Bishop Cotterill writes, some months later —
“With respect to the Bishop of Capetown's jurisdiction over
your outlying parts, I feel certain (as far as I can feel
1863. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETOWN TRIAL. 341
certain about a body so heterogeneous as the S.P.G.) that,
if you protest, they must place the mission under you.
They acknowledge—speaking in an under-whisper—the
monstrous insolence (I cannot call it by a milder term) of
the claims of the Bishop of Capetown. He has tried the
same thing with myself and the Orange Free State, declaring
it was on his conscience and I know not what besides. The
S.P.G. have, however, put in my hands the appointment of a
clergyman there, pending the question as to the appointment
of a Bishop. -
“His claim is most preposterous and absurd. On the ground
of a patent derived from the Queen, he assumes a right
Over no one knows what amount of territory beyond the
British dominions. We must, in a spirit of love and meek-
ness, but with much firmness, resist his claims. He is
Bishop of Capetown, and, as the Metropolitan, has certain
precedence and due reverence and obedience according to
law. But we must stand on the position that our episcopal
rights and authority are as good as his. The new Bishop
of St. Helena is not, I hope, any more disposed than we
are to co-operate in such claims on his part. At all events,
let us be firm, and we shall prevent evils of a most serious
character.”
In spite of all this, at the time of the so-called trial of the
Bishop of Natal, Dr. Cotterill had no hesitation in sitting as
an assessor to the Bishop of Capetown along with the Bishop
of the Orange Free State—in other words, with a Bishop who,
if he had any see at all, had one which lay beyond the borders
of British territory. On December 18, 1860, he had been of
a very different mind, for on that day he thus writes:—
“That it is our duty to aid in the consecration of the new
Bishop of the Zambesi Mission, I certainly think. . . . But
the question as to his seat in a Provincial Synod is quite
a different one. As at present advised, I am strongly of opin-
ion that it is contrary to the most fundamental principles
342 LIFE OF BISAIOP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
of our Church system to recognise any right to form a
province consisting of dioceses in different dominions.”
We have seen that it was the deep longing to take part in
missionary work, if he might be permitted to do so, which
determined Dr. Colenso to accept the offer of the see of
Natal. The same desire led him, as we have seen," to think
seriously of devoting himself to the same work in regions
where the ground was still altogether unbroken. To carry
out this plan he had already taken the preliminary steps,
when Bishop Cotterill, then in England, wrote the following
letter, urging upon him the very consideration, for acting
upon which, later on, the Bishop of Natal incurred his strong
reprobation :-
“The Bishop of London informs me that you have sent to
the Colonial Bishops' trustees a proposal that you should
resign your present see, and become a missionary Bishop.
He tells me that you have been informed in reply that
nothing is settled respecting the missionary Bishops. He,
with many others of the English Bishops, feels very strongly
the importance of more consideration of the question before
the English Church is committed to a course of action.
“But, independently of this, I sincerely trust that you will
yourself consider well whether it is desirable for you to
leave your present post. My own feeling is very strongly
that the position you there occupy is one of great im-
portance to the interests of the colonial Church ; and the
fact that you have met with difficulties from your Tracta-
rian clergy makes it all the more necessary that you
should remain at your post. Besides this, you have, I
trust, gained, after many struggles, the confidence of your
laity ; and I have no doubt that, by God's blessing, all the
difficulties you have to contend with will confirm their
affection for you, and their reliance upon you.
“To leave them to such a Bishop as might be appointed your
successor (especially by the present Colonial Minister)
1 See p. 117.
1863. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPA.TOWN TRZAZ. 343
would be a serious injury to your diocese ; and the results
might be most serious. Suppose, for example, that your
present Archdeacon should be appointed (and I suppose
great exertions would be made by the Bishop of Oxford
and others to obtain the appointment of him, no doubt
heaven and earth would be moved to have one like-minded
with him appointed), consider what a discouragement it
would be to the sound-minded laity. DO, my dear brother,
consider this, and do not think of forsaking your post. As
regards myself also I feel, so long as you are at Natal, we
two can prevent any serious amount of mischief that might
proceed from other sources. But if you go to native work,
and are no longer at your present post, I may stand quite
alone in all questions that affect the colonial part of our
Church work, and with a strong body of clergy in my own
diocese not sympathising with me I should have a harder
battle than ever to fight. I can assure you that on more
than one point your action (e.g. in your Conference and
Council) has helped me.
“I earnestly trust that even since you sent in your proposal
to the Colonial Bishops' trustees you may have considered
these things, and felt the importance of remaining.”
In another letter he expresses himself even more strongly
on the pretensions of Bishop Gray to the possession of some-
thing like autocratic power.
“He declares that his conscience is burdened with those parts
which formerly belonged to his diocese, and authority over
which he received from the Church, not from the Crown.
He forgets (1) that he resigned the see for subdivision ;
(2) that if the Orange Free State, e.g., had still been British
dominion, it most assuredly would not have been in the
diocese of Capetown; (3) that from the Church he received
consecration to the episcopal office of the see of Capetown,
but that the territorial limits are fixed by the Crown.
“I acknowledge to you that his ambition (I can call it nothing
else), and the very slight disguise with which he now thinks
it necessary to conceal it, amazes me and makes me more
344 AZAZE OF BASA/OP CO/CAE/WSO. CHAP. VIII.
resolved than ever to withstand his assumptions. He has
evidently a gigantic scheme for extending his province up
to the equator, and creating a host of Bishops dependent
on himself. He relies on you, I can see, to act with him.
If you do so, he will be independent of me, as I imagine
the Bishop of St. Helena has not strength of character
enough to resist him.”
In a later letter he again recurs to the same subject:-
“I think you will be quite right in insisting on independence
of Capetown as soon as you are out of British dominions.
The claims which some put forth of having a number of
native Churches in other nations subordinate to a Metro-
politan in British dominions, seems to me a most serious
invasion of the liberties of particular and national Churches.”
Lastly, he asserts that the metropolitical claims of the Bishop
of Capetown are altogether unsubstantial (1861).
“The metropolitical power of the Bishop of Capetown, or of
any Bishop on whom the title is conferred by the Queen's
patent, may seem something on paper; but in reality it is
nothing. Such is the opinion of the best Church lawyers
whom I consulted in England. . . . The supposition
that he is under the Archbishop of Canterbury as Bishop,
and not as Metropolitan, is ridiculous; for what is the mean-
ing of our having an appeal from Capetown to Canterbury,
in case of his sitting in judgement upon us * Would not his
judgement on one of the Bishops of his so-called province
be his act as Metropolitan P. . . . It is amusing enough.
These High Churchmen are hot against Erastianism and
the Queen's Supremacy, when it is against them ; but when
it makes a Metropolitan to their taste, it is a good card
to play, for this metropolitical power in the colonial Church
rests on nothing but the Queen's patent. It is not like
episcopal powers which come from the Church. Con-
sistent High Churchmen in England do not like it. They
had much rather that provincial synodical action should
1863. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETOWN TRIAL. 345
regulate all these questions. As regards the oath, on which
those lawyers, R. Palmer and Phillimore, with the Bishop
of Capetown rely, you will see what O'Malley says ; and in
foro conscientia, in which alone, of course, such an oath is
of any force, it is the very question at issue, what is due
reverence and obedience.
“The Bishop of Capetown and his party are very fond of
decrying the exercise of the Archbishop's authority, as a
quasi-papal interference with the rights of Metropolitans.
They forget that the real question is between arbitrary
power, such as a colonial Metropolitan might think fit to
exercise, and power limited and directed by English law,
such as an English Archbishop's would be. We know that
in going to Canterbury we go to England, and to the liberty
of thought and of conscience which England represents and
protects. We have no such assurance in going to Cape-
town. I do not speak of the individual Bishop, so much as
of the fact that his court has no legal existence, and no law
to guide it or control it.”
Yet, three years later, Bishop Cotterill took his seat in such
an unsubstantial court; and then, in a tribunal which had no
legal existence and no law to guide and control it, he took it
on himself to pass sentence of condemnation on the Bishop of
Natal, and to declare him, not merely deprived of spiritual
authority, but deposed from the see of Natal. It is a melan-
choly history; but it shows us how differences in the point
of view may modify or change the thoughts and conclusions
of any man. If we think we stand, it will be well to take
heed lest we fall.
It is thus plain that the working and the possible results of
Bishop Gray's theory of the South African Church had not in
1858 much to commend them in the eyes of Bishop Cotterill.
To him the claims of the Metropolitan seemed fraught with
a danger, which would only increase as the limits of the
Church of South Africa were gradually pushed forward to the
346 AZAZE OF BASA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
equator. To these fears he had given expression after the
appearance of the Bishop of Natal's Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans; and he had regretted what seemed to
him an ill-judged concession, when Bishop Colenso allowed
his work to be examined by Bishop Gray.
But subsequent events led him to change his tone and shift
his ground altogether; and these events, it is unnecessary to
say, arose solely out of the publication of the Bishop's criticisms
on the Pentateuch. It is true that in his Charge delivered in the
cathedral church of Grahamstown, in 1864, Bishop Cotterill
speaks of his once honoured and loved brother as one who had
“denied the Lord” (page 30); but these words manifestly
resolve themselves into the statement made a few lines lower
down, that the publication of his work on the Pentateuch was
“the most daring attack on the authority of God's Word, and
of our Divine Master, that has ever been made in ancient or
modern times by one invested with the responsibilities of the
episcopal office.” If then Bishop Colenso had “denied the
Lord ” and “attacked His authority,” it was only by question-
ing whether references to “Moses’ or to “David’ from the
lips of our Lord implied and guaranteed the authenticity
of the Pentateuch, or the Books of Kings, or the Psalms.
Certainly he had done so in no other way; and the question
thus raised was one which should have been referred on its
merits in the usual course to the Sovereign in Council. But
the Churchmanship of South Africa had, it seems, taken
alarm ; and from the judgement in the Williams-Wilson case
the inference had been drawn that the Court of Final Appeal
was prepared to strain every nerve so to interpret or to wrest
the law as to insure impunity for doubters and heretics of
every sort, to the confusion of all who remained true to the
faith of what they spoke of as the Church. The issue was a
plain one. The Bishop of Natal had beyond doubt declared
his opinion that many of the narratives in the Pentateuch were
1863. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETOWN TRIAL. 347
not records of historical facts; that some, at least, of the laws
bearing the name of Moses, and claiming to be imposed by
Divine authority, were unjust ; that the Levitical system set
forth in these books was of very much later growth, much
of it belonging to the age of the Babylonian Captivity; and
therefore that the Pentateuch was an agglomerate of records,
put together at various times by different annalists, and thus
could not as a whole be regarded as a genuine contemporary
history.
The only question calling for consideration was whether the
avowal of these opinions contravened the declarations of the
Church of England. These declarations could be found only
in the sixth of the Thirty-nine Articles; and of the authority
of the Holy Scriptures it must be noted that this Article says
nothing. It speaks only of their sufficiency, and this sufficiency
is declared to rest on the fact that they contain all things
necessary to salvation; the only one inference drawn from
this fact being that anything not found in those books, or
capable of being proved (in what degree, or to whose satisfac-
tion, it does not say) by them, is not to be imposed upon any one
as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary
to salvation (this last term also being left undefined). But if
salvation be, as undoubtedly it must be, taken to denote the
process of healing from the wounds, and deliverance from the
power, of sin, then this Article asserts nothing more and nothing
less than that the Holy Scriptures (and by this term are meant
the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments) contain
all that is needful for the perfecting of this healing, strengthen-
ing, life-establishing process, and that no burden of propositions
not found in them is to be imposed on the consciences of any,
whether clergy or laymen. It may be most safely said that
not only had the Bishop of Natal not impugned either of
these declarations, but that he had not uttered a single word
that implied even the remotest fancy of questioning either.
348 AZF E OF EASA/OA CO/A2AVSO. CHAP. VIII.
Nor would it have been possible for his opponents to take
refuge in the plea that he had denied or doubted the
Canonicity of any of these books.
In truth this controversy on the subject of canonicity is
now, and has been ever since the Canon was closed, a mere
waste of breath and beating of the air. The term canonicity
or canonical states nothing more than an historical fact.
It states nothing more than that at a certain date the Societies
of Eastern and Western Christendom agreed to look upon
certain books as “containing all things necessary to Salva-
tion,” and on certain others as furnishing examples of life, and
instruction of manners, but as not to be cited in support of
propositions not found in the other books. The fact that
certain other books had for a long or short time previously
been regarded with grave doubts, and in many quarters
rejected, ceased after the closing of the Canon to have any
significance. It was strictly within the functions of Greek and
Latin Christendom to set its seal on any set of writings as
containing whatever might be most useful for the spiritual
instruction, growth, and strength of Christian men ; and
most assuredly it never entered into the Bishop of Natal’s
thoughts to call this right into question. The one point was
whether books containing, admittedly, all things necessary to
salvation might not also contain much unhistorical matter,
and much that might be of dubious character as ethical or
spiritual philosophy, many expressions falling from the lips
of men whose moral perceptions were more or less weak.
The case might be drawn even more strongly ; but it is, and
was, absolutely certain that the Judicial Committee would
refuse to listen to charges brought against any clergyman for
doubting whether Jael was blessed in her murder of Sisera
merely because in the excitement of victory Deborah is re-
presented as declaring her so to be. It is not less certain
that every one of the Bishop's criticisms falls under the same
1863. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETOWN TRIAL. 349
category, and that for none of them could his opponents have
obtained his condemnation. In fact from no part of his
writings, probably, could a summary so trenchant and com-
plete of the unnecessary and unimportant matter in the
Pentateuch be drawn as that which has been already cited
from the Charge of Bishop Thirlwall, of St. David's."
This issue, the only one involved in his volumes on the
Pentateuch, the Bishop would most gladly and thankfully
have seen tried on its merits ; and there is not the least
doubt that he would have consented to its being submitted
in the first instance to the Bishop of Capetown as Metro-
politan, if Bishop Gray had told him at the outset that the
trial should follow precisely the course which it would take if
the suit had been instituted against any clergyman of the
Church of England in England. But it was indispensable
for the maintenance of the South African Church that the
decision of the Metropolitan of Capetown should be final;
and final he insisted that it must be, although he proposed to
allow to the defendant, or even to encourage, a reference to
the Archbishop of Canterbury personally, granting this strictly
as of grace or favour under the peculiar circumstances of the
case, and in no way as of right. In taking this course Bishop
Gray was actuated by two motives; the one being the resolu-
tion not to accept, in cases which he deemed spiritual, the
intervention of a non-ecclesiastical court; the other the fear,
amounting morally to conviction, that the Sovereign in
Council would give no judgement but one of acquittal. His
position, therefore, could, it is obvious, be maintained only by
insisting that the Church of South Africa must in South
Africa hear and decide its own causes, whatever troubles
might arise in consequence in reference to temporalities.
The alarm felt for what was regarded as the merely negative
and destructive criticism of the Bishop of Natal was, no
* See p. 310,
35O AAFE OF AP/SA/OA CO/CAE/VSO. CHAP. VIII.
doubt, genuine ; and we may give Bishop Gray and his col-
leagues credit for thinking that the danger was not wholly
confined to the side of the so-called rationalistic school. The
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had acquired, in
greater or less degree, the reputation of dealing out even-
handed justice, without respect of parties; and the Synod of
Capetown had no special wish to invite, or to submit to,
judgements which might not square with their own convic-
tions. Archdeacon Denison, it is true, had defeated his
assailants by virtue of merely technical objections; but this
imperfect victory was a poor set-off against the decided suc-
cess achieved by Mr. Long in his appeal from the Bishop of
Capetown, and still more against the judgements which closed
the case of Essays and Reviews, and allowed to Mr. Gorham's
teaching a place as definite as that which was conceded to
the teaching of Dr. Phillpotts, Bishop of Exeter.
Unless, then, Bishop Cotterill could make up his mind to
Submit to the Queen in Council, as the ultimate court of
appeal in all ecclesiastical causes, a change of front had
become imperatively necessary, and this change was made
with sufficient completeness in his Charge of 1864. His
examination of the whole subject is, it must be admitted,
marked by great ability ; but his perceptions had been not
less clear and vivid in 1858 on the other side. All this, how-
ever, was now a thing of the past. The matter for present
consideration was the actual condition of the Church of South
Africa. Had it been, or was it now, “a society lawfully
established by the authority of the Sovereign, governed by
rules which are the laws of the Sovereign, and with eccle-
siastical tribunals which are the courts of the Sovereign " ?
The Sovereign in Council had decided that
“whatever other value the letters patent [of the Bishops]
possess, in this very point of forming the Bishops and
1863. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETOWN TRIAL. 351
clergy of the Church of England here into an organized
body they have no legal force. It followed that ‘the
supremacy of the Sovereign in legislating for the Church is
not in exercise here,' and again, ‘that the tribunals for
determining whether these rules are violated are not here
courts of the Sovereign '; in other words, that the judicial
supremacy of the Sovereign in the Church has no force in
Our communion.”
But what should be the extent of the organic disconnexion,
since disconnexion there must be?
“We must not,” said Bishop Cotterill, “allow our freedom
from external restraints to lead us into paths of our own.
We must not suffer those who come to us from England,
attached to the Church of their fathers, to feel that in South
Africa they are brought into a different atmosphere, and
that we avail ourselves of our disconnexion from the State
to imprint some new features upon the Church according to
Our Own particular views of that which is expedient for its
welfare. The Englishman who leaves his native land does
not carry with him the exact form of its civil polity; . . . .
but he may justly expect to find here the same constitu-
tional principles, the same civil liberty, and, though under
different laws, the same substantial rights of a British
subject.”
But, he says, the question has arisen, how in things eccle-
siastical the substantial rights of the English clergy could be
maintained in South Africa. At present, apart from the
“unhappy exception ” of Bishop Colenso, there might be
much harmony, or practical unanimity, in the province which
might some day become a patriarchate. But men who agreed
with Mr. Long, or with Mr. Gorham, might, if they came
within the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Capetown, fear, and
have just cause to fear, that they might find themselves sooner
or later under sentence of condemnation for offences which in
England would not be offences at all. The tendency of the
352 A./FE OF BISAIOP CO/CAEWSO. CHAP. VIII.
Judicial Committee seemed to be to cast a shield over unsound
theology generally. The deprivation of Mr. Voysey was,
indeed, still a thing of the future; but without this Bishop
Cotterill felt it
“impossible to conceal from our minds the unwelcome fact
that the relation of the State to the Church in England,
to which, undoubtedly, in past generations we owe so much,
and which we are still fully convinced is in itself the
Ordinance of God, is yet now, through the peculiar nature
of its exercise in the present day, threatening to enfeeble
the testimony borne by the Established Church to the faith
of our Lord Jesus Christ.” "
This confession was no doubt sincere, as no doubt also
the expressions of his letters to the Bishop of Natal six
years before had also been sincere. But his argument was
vitiated by the common blot of undefined terms. For him the
teaching of Mr. Gorham or Mr. Long would be opposed only
in a less degree than that of the Bishop of Natal “to the faith
of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”
In short, what is this faith ? Is it a living principle, or is
it a multitude of propositions for which any one or every one
may assume the sanction of this august title 2 Is it that vast
body of conceptions, always fluctuating, always undergoing
modifications amounting in the end to changes in kind, which
cluster around the undefined terms, salvation, redemption, in-
spiration, atonement, election, propitiation, justification, sacrifice,
and the rest, terms which too often serve as weapons in the
ecclesiastical armoury for carrying on warfare not sanctioned
seemingly by Him for whose cause they profess to be fight-
ing The Church of South Africa would have done well to
define these terms at starting ; and then the followers of Calvin
or Melanchthon, of Jeremy Taylor or Hugh Peters, might
1 P. 17.
1863. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETOWN TRIAL. 353
---> * * x 3×
have satisfied themselves as to the sort of treatment which
they might expect to receive in that Church. But the
definition of terms had become a task not very congenial
to Bishop Cotterill. He had no longer any liking for the
system which so construed the letter of doctrinal standards
“as to give every possible advantage to the accused " (p. 18).
He had discovered in the interval since 1858 that
“it needs no argument to show that, although such a use of
the standards of the Church may be good in law, its effect
must be that the sanction of these standards will be given
to very unsound theology.”
The language of Bishop Cotterill is here not quite in-
genuous. His sentence might seem at first sight to imply
a desire for what he would have called orthodox judgement
given at the cost of a little, or a good deal of, injustice ; that
in short, it might be well for the Church if the practice of the
Court of Appeal deflected slightly in the direction favoured
by Dominic or Torquemada. But while we acquit Bishop
Cotterill of entertaining such thoughts as these, we may fairly
charge him with one-sidedness in this statement. The ques-
tion is one not of the unsound theology of any given writer,
but of the expressions in a given Article, and of their general
meaning. It may be true, or not true, to say that every
narrative in the Old and New Testaments is throughout
historical, that every precept contained in those books is
right and wholesome, that the descriptions of physical facts
are always correct, and that the philosophy and theology
found in them is always self-consistent as well as in harmony
with the first principles of morality. But on every one of
these points the Sixth Article is absolutely silent; and the
questions put to deacons at the time of their ordering throw
no further light upon them.
VOL. I. A. A
354 L/FE OF BISAOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
In short, the contention is for narrowing the limits of
freedom.
“It is the necessary connexion by law, in England, of the
spiritual office with the temporalities, that renders such
principles as are adopted in these judgements peculiarly
oppressive to the Church there. That the Church should
be constrained, through its union with the State, to recog-
nize as its own ministers those who retain their offices only
through the extreme leniency of such proceedings as are
adopted . . . . is a result which would not only justify the
Church in taking measures, out of its ordinary course, to
protect and vindicate itself, but which imperatively demands
that it should do so, unless it would receive the sentence
from its Divine Head, ‘Because thou art lukewarm, and
neither hot nor cold, I will spue thee out of my mouth.’”
The citation from the Apocalypse is ominous indeed. Here
are words from a book as to which the Opinions or judgement
of theologians of every age and every school exhibit contra-
dictions as astounding as they are innumerable ; 4 and here
is Bishop Cotterill applying these words, seemingly on his
own sole authority, for the repression of inquiry into the date
of the prophecies of Balaam, or of the directions for the
planning and decorating of the Tabernacle. No declaration
could be less ambiguous; and it is the declaration of a claim
to inforce on every clergyman (however it may be with the
laity) the general mass of propositions which are supposed
to formulate the opinions or the belief or faith of the Church
of South Africa. It is enough to say here that such men as
Mr. Gorham and Mr. Long, Dean Stanley and Mr. Bennett,
Bishop Wilberforce and Bishop Ryle, Mr. Maurice and Dr.
Pusey, have all been or are priests and incumbents in the
Church of England, bound to tolerate each other, and no one
of them regarded as having a better title to his position than
1 See p. 289.
1863. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETOWN TRZAZ. 355
the rest,-the only point of vast moment being this, that the
conceptions of Christian truth entertained by these men are
in almost every particular radically divergent. The notions
set forth by Dr. Pusey and Mr. Maurice on the subjects of
sacrifice, mediation, redemption, punishment, baptism, and
many others, were, it must again be said, contradictory. If,
then, the difference is to be measured by considerations of
technical theology, these two men would be professors of two
wholly different religions. But both called themselves Chris-
tians. It is hard to see how the title can be conceded to
both except by virtue of that “class of principles,” which, in
the words of Dean Stanley, underlie
“the sentiments and usages which have accumulated round
the forms of Christianity,+a religion, as it were, behind the
religion—which, however dimly expressed, has given them
whatever vitality they possess.” "
Further, they were both clergymen holding office in the
Church of England, and holding it by the same undoubted
right. One or other of them the Church of South Africa would
most assuredly have cast out.
But Bishop Cotterill could not, it seems, shake off altogether
the old misgivings.
“That theologians should be disposed at times to over-value
the importance of traditional interpretations of Divine
Truth ; that sometimes the additional bulwarks which
human wisdom or, it may be, human ignorance, has thrown
up, should be held by them with as much tenacity as if they
formed a part of the Divine original, is no more than the
analogy of human science and its students would lead us to
expect.”
Is there, then, no danger in this short-sighted and irrational
zeal 2 Was not Bishop Cotterill, at the moment when he
* Christian Institutions, 5.
A A 2
356 AAAZE OF BASA/OA COLAENSO. CHAP. VIII.
same-s-s-
wrote, full of indignation at what he termed the apostasy of
his brother of Natal, who had actually “denied the Lord ” 2 and
did not the denial consist merely in this that he questioned or
denied the accuracy or truthfulness of the story which recounts
the wanderings of the Israelites in the wilderness, or their
settlement in the land of Canaan 2 Further, is not the idea of
the value of these narratives a bulwark thrown up rather by
human ignorance than by human wisdom, and indeed not
worth the fighting about 2 Was not then Bishop Cotterill
doing, even as he spoke, the very thing which he deprecated
in others ? He speaks indeed of Bishop Colenso as having
“flagrantly and avowedly contradicted the formularies of the
Church;” but if by the Church he meant the Church of England,
there is not one of her formularies which bears in the remotest
degree upon the subject; and not one single word in the
Bishop of Natal’s work goes counter to the language of the
Sixth Article, which alone deals with it. Dr. Cotterill pro-
fesses to regard it as impossible that Bishop Colenso could
escape condemnation, “even by the lenient construction of
“temporal courts’; ” but the true nature of the contention is
betrayed by the proposition (here suppressed, but indispens-
able for the right understanding of Bishop Cotterill's position)
that the Metropolitan of Capetown and his suffragans were
debarred from seeking his condemnation at the hands of a
tribunal where they could not fail, with adequate evidence, to
secure it, by the fact that they could not resort to this court
without compromising or betraying the spiritual rights of the
Church of South Africa. Bishop Cotterill was pronouncing
judgement on himself and his fellow suffragans as maintain-
ing a society or a Church separated root and branch from the
Church of England.
It thus becomes plain that the so-called trial of the Bishop
of Natal was a matter of importance, in reference not only to
the defendant in the case, but to the interests of all English-
1863. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPE TOWN TRIAL. 357
men taking up their abode in the colonies. It cannot be
insisted on too strongly that the characteristics peculiar to
this prosecution were the result of accident. The Bishop of
Natal’s books were thrown into a form which would render
them singularly galling to a mind like that of Bishop Gray.
Even where they did not set forth convictions which the
latter regarded as subversive of Christianity, they treated the
question of ecclesiastical order and government as of an
interest altogether subordinate to the abiding and present
work of the Divine Spirit. By the publication of the volumes
on the Pentateuch the whole aspect of the discussion had
been changed not so much by the gravity of any of the
results attained as by the laying down the principle that the
date, the authorship, the composition of any given book (as
of all books) are simply subjects for inquiry. There was
enough in the position so taken up to account for the
outburst of indignation and wrath in those who believed
themselves to be members of a practically infallible society,
and the possessors of an absolutely infallible book. But
all this was merely accidental. Not many years before,
utterances of a very different kind had given rise to fierce
controversy in England, and Dr. Phillpots, Bishop of Exeter,
had used in reference to the heresies of Mr. Gorham language
scarcely less vehement than that in which Bishop Gray de-
nounced the method and conclusions of the Bishop of Natal.
There was, and there is, no reason for supposing that Mr.
Gorham would be dealt with more leniently in Capetown
than in England; but condemnation at Capetown would
most assuredly, according to the theory of Bishop Gray,
have deprived Mr. Gorham of the appeal which ended in
his victory. For the present, a clergyman who might be
charged, as Mr. Bennett was charged, with setting forth the
Tridentine doctrine of the Eucharist, might look with more
or less confidence either to acquittal or to some condonation
358 I/FE OF AP/SHOP CO/A2AVSO. CHAP. VIII.
of his offence by the Metropolitan of Southern Africa ; but
times might come when such a man could look for no mercy,
or even to any fairness in his trial; and for him also there
would not be that appeal to which every clergyman in
England is entitled. In short, Bishop Gray had rejected
the fundamental principle of the Church of England, and he
was resolved that no one should have the benefit of it. Thus
determined, he could not bring himself to see that the firmest
opposition to his procedure might come from those who had
no sympathy whatever with what was, or what was supposed
to be, the theology of the Bishop of Natal. All who felt
called upon to fight the battle for the rights of Englishmen
everywhere were regarded and spoken of as aiders and abettors
of Dr. Colenso in the dissemination of an infidel theology
and philosophy.
In the discussion which followed the so-called Capetown
trial, Bishop Gray strove always to show that his procedure
insured full justice to every one who might be brought before
his tribunal. He never failed to maintain that he had granted
to Bishop Colenso whatever appeal he had a right to claim.
In A Statement relating to Facts which have been Misunder-
stood, 1 in connexion with the trial, Bishop Gray declares
that he had given the defendant the option of submitting the
case either to the Archbishop in person, or to the Bishops of
the United Church of England and Ireland, or to a national
Synod, including colonial Bishops. The offer, he adds, was
declined, and the proposed alternative he pronounces to be an
impossibility. From his own point of view it was so. But
there is just this to be said, and we need say nothing more.
The appeal to the Archbishop in person, to the Bishops of the
United Church of England and Ireland, to a national Synod
including colonial Bishops, is not an appeal to the Sovereign
in Council, and it is to this appeal that every clergyman
* London, Rivingtons, 1867, p. 67.
1863. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPE TOWN TRIAL. 359
holding office in England is entitled. If it was “impossible”
for Dr. Gray to allow this appeal, it was not less impossible
for Dr. Colenso to dispense with it.
If, therefore, the case was never tried upon its merits, the
responsibility for this, and for the proceedings involved in the
attempt to carry out a sentence pronounced to be null and
void in law, rests with the Metropolitan of the Church of
South Africa, and his advisers. The plain issue is that Dr.
Gray did not like this appeal, and that in hindering it he
withstood the law of the Church of England. It becomes
idle, therefore, to speak of any other appeals which he
proposed to allow in its place.
To Dr. Gray it was thus a matter for amazement that any
should presume to call the legitimacy of his acts into question
and still more that they should do so while they disclaimed
sympathy or agreement with the views of Dr. Colenso. Such
a position as this was to him unintelligible ; and as he could
not imagine it to be sincere, he resolved to put the subscribers
to the Durban Protest to what Bishop Colenso charitably
describes as “undue pressure.” These memorialists had ex-
pressed no more than the wish to await the decision of the
Queen in Council; and for so saying they were warned that
if they did not openly disclaim the imputation of sympathising
with Bishop Colenso's views, they would be “generally and
fairly considered as having adopted them.”
A more striking instance of extra-judicial tyranny and
oppressiveness it would be impossible to find in the ecclesiastical
history of the present century. Bishop Gray was, however,
speaking the strict truth when he declared that he could not
regard their protest without stultifying his whole proceed-
ings and acknowledging the right of appeal to the Privy
Council, “which,” he said, “I had formally repudiated.” We
need no further confession. It was unfortunate for the
Bishop of Capetown that he had not been able by this device
-->is
x - ||
360 A/FE OF BISAMOP COLE/VSO. CHAP. VIII.
to arrest the interference of the Crown in the case of Mr.
Long.
But for those who regarded the proceedings of Bishop Gray
as sheer usurpation the way was perfectly clear; and the
Bishop of Natal had not a moment's hesitation in taking it.
Dr. Gray had declared that if the Metropolitan could not
remove an unfaithful officer from his office, no power on earth
could. The Archbishop of Canterbury could not. The Crown
could not. The Bishop of Natal at once rejoins, and his words
dispose of the whole matter:-
“Let us stop here for a moment and consider the statement,
. 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. . . . . If, then, as it is asserted,
I have transgressed so grievously—nay, if I have trans-
gressed 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 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. . . . . I call upon them solemnly to do
this, and not to persist in the unjustifiable practice of utter-
ing abusive and, in fact, libellous invectives against me. I
will put no obstacles in the way of such an inquiry: 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 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
these wholesome laws, which protect the clergy of the
Church of England from the grinding oppression of mere
1863. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETOWN TRIAL, 361
x -º-ºrrºr-z-z--- - ----> --- ~~~~-z - . . . sº- ºr 3 - - r r - - - ~~~~ :- ~~~ &r-r
ecclesiastical 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.”"
Nor can the distinction drawn by Bishop Gray between
temporal and spiritual jurisdiction be described as anything
but a groundless and mischievous fallacy. The Crown un-
questionably claims and exercises the power of allowing or
disallowing the judgements which may have been passed by
Bishops upon their clergy, and knows nothing of the distinc-
tion on which Bishop Gray lays stress. Dr. Gray had himself
seen Dr. Rowland Williams restored to his spiritual functions
by the decree of the Privy Council, in direct opposition to the
wishes of the Bishop of Salisbury. It was, therefore, open to
Bishop Hamilton to declare that if Dr. Williams should pre-
sume to exercise priestly functions in the diocese of Salisbury
after the spiritual sentence of the Bishop had been notified to
him, without an appeal to Canterbury, and without being
restored to his office by the Bishop, he should be ipso facto
excommunicate, and it would become the Bishop's duty to
pronounce sentence accordingly. Bishop Colenso adds:–
“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.” ”
It is a mistake to suppose that the theory of the Royal
supremacy is confined to Great Britain and Ireland. The
King's power is declared in the first Canon of the Church of
England to be the highest power under God within his realms
of England, Scotland, Ireland, and all his other dominions
and countries ; but if a distinction not known to English law
* Remarks on the Proceedings of the Bishop of Capetown, 1864, p. 23.
* Ib. p. 25.
362 JL/ATE OF BISA/OP COLEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
can be drawn in South Africa or elsewhere, the experiment,
as the Bishop of Natal has warned us, will be tried at no
distant day at home. It must be so, if a mass of literature
or volumes of dogmatic declarations are to be forced as being
de fide on the clergy of the Church of England or any other
Church. According to Bishop Gray,
“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 be, or received as, the
true faith, that is the true faith, and that we receive as such.
More than this we are not bound to acknowledge. Less
we may not.”
Such is the doctrine of Bishop Gray. By means of it any
one may be crushed. Why are the Councils held before
A.D. 1000 to be held infallible, and later Councils to be
unanimously rejected 2 How are the decrees of any of these
Councils, whether of the first or the second Christian millen-
nium, to be imposed on the clergy of a Church which empha-
tically declares the fallibility of all these Councils and the
actual blunderings or errors of some of them even in things
pertaining to God? But it is not on the authority of the
Church or of general Councils alone that Bishop Gray imposes
his yoke upon us.
“It is the office of reason to examine the grounds, to weigh
the evidence, of there being a revelation from God. Pro-
phecy 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 and
the Divine mission of Our Lord. . . . When the under-
standing is convinced that the Bible is the record of God's
revelation . . . the functions of reason end.”
It is at least conceivable that the reason may declare
emphatically that there is, and there must always be, a
1863. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETOWN TRZAZ. 363.
revelation (an Apokalypsis), but that this revelation does not
rest its claims on either prophecy or miracles. The sentence
just cited is, indeed, one of those wonderful utterances of
Bishop Gray, of which we can only say, as we have said already,
that they bristle with assumptions and undefined terms. Like
Bishop Butler, in his melancholy and fallacious chapter on
miracles as an evidence of the truth of Christianity, Bishop.
Gray has forgotten that diabolical miracles are denounced as
a snare in the Old Testament and in the New. It was not
of Bishop Gray that Mr. Goldwin Smith was speaking in the
following sentences; but his words apply strictly to his whole
argument and position :-
“You go to a heathen whom you wish to convert, and say,
‘You must not judge of my religion by its contents, for
they are beyond your judgement, but by its evidences,
which are the miracles.” May not he answer, “My religion
is said to be attested by miracles as well as yours, and the
questions of historical criticism, on the one side and on the
other, are such as I have neither time, learning, nor capa-
city to solve. Besides, according to your own Scriptures,
Egyptian Sorcerers and false prophets can perform miracles,
so that I do not see how miracles by themselves can estab-
lish the truth of a religion’? Or, rather, supposing him to
have any notion of religion, would he not say, “If your
religion is to be judged, not by its contents, but by its
evidences, it must be the lowest and vilest religion in the
World 2 ” 1
It was, then, for the sake of such a position as this that
Bishop Gray was prepared to set aside the law of the Church
of England, and to place an intolerable yoke on the necks of
its members. Carrying out this purpose, he had ruled that
the Church of England holds, and requires its clergy to hold,
two doctrines (on the subjects of inspiration and punishment)
* The Study of History, p. 86.
364 AZAZ OF BASA/OA' CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. VIII. .
which the judgement of the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council has declared that the Church of England does not
maintain ; and, if fresh hindrances should be placed in his
way by later decisions, he was ready to go still further. It
was for the sake of this position that he deliberately and
repeatedly charged Bishop Colenso with dishonesty in the
course which he was pursuing, as -
“teaching directly contrary to what she [the Church of
England] holds on fundamental points, and directly op-
posite 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.”
To this charge the Bishop replied calmly and patiently.
He had, he said, resigned his preferment in England, 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 had been
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 challenged his adversaries to
point out a single 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 was ready, also, even now to
resign his see, whenever he should be satisfied that he cannot
hold it conscientiously; 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."
But, although the Bishop of Natal would not avail himself
of the retort open to him, it was impossible for him to shut
* Remarks, &c., 1864, p. 58.
1863. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPE TOWN TRIAZ. 365
his eyes to the fact that the retort might be made, and he
candidly said so. In the following sentences, written by
Bishop Gray in condemnation of Bishop Colenso, only those
words have been changed which make the charge applicable
to the former. These words are italicised.
“What we have to consider is, whether one, who undertook
an office of great honour 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 would acknowledge the Royal
supremacy in the Church of England, and act according to the
laws and constitution 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 at first did teach—to retain his position in the
Church of England, and to enjoy the emoluments of his
abused office and violated trust.” +
And again :—
“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 con-
stitutional office as head of the Church of England, holds on
fundamental points, inforcing, as doctrines of the Church of
England, dogmas, as to the Bible and endless punishment,
which she has authoritatively forbidden to be inforced 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.”
* Remarks, &c., 1864, p. 59.
366 I/FE OF BISAMOP CO/LAEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
Bishop Gray had in like manner spoken of Bishop Colenso
as a fanatic. But the latter asks whether any fanaticism can
exceed that with which, shutting his eyes to the realities around
him, Bishop Gray
“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 ‘Apostolical succession,’ the infallible repre-
sentative and exponent in South Africa.”
But for Dr. Gray the yoke of the Catholic Church was
perfect freedom, so long as he was the interpreter of her will ;
and his whole attitude of mind involved a danger which must
excite alarm in all who could not share his faith. It was this
alarm to which Dean Stanley gave emphatic utterance in a
speech before the Lower House of Convocation, June 29, 1866,
when without previous warning an attempt was made to
commit the House to an approval of the course of action for
the intrusion of a strange Bishop into Natal, then contemplated
by Dr. Gray.
It is hard to see how the tactics thus employed can be
regarded in any other light than that of indecent stratagem.
Anything, it would seem, was thought fair in the fight against
the Bishop of Natal. In the previous year (1865), without
any specification of the object aimed at, an address had been
brought from the Upper to the Lower House of Convocation,
and in an assembly in which only 17 out of 140 members
were present, was carried by a majority of II to 5, and then
sent out to the Cape of Good Hope as representing the
sentiments of the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury
on Bishop Colenso's heresies. The resolution which the
Lower House was now (1866) asked to approve was that
1863. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPEzowy TRIAL. 367
the Church of England held communion with the Bishop of
Capetown and the other Bishops who had excommunicated
Bishop Colenso. With quiet sarcasm Dean Stanley expressed
his agreement with the motion, adding that, much as he dis-
approved of Bishop Gray's proceedings, they did not appear
to him to be offences of so grave a character as to justify a
refusal to hold communion with him. But the case was
altered by the proposal pledging the House to hold com-
munion with any Bishop whom Dr. Gray might put in
Dr. Colenso's place, and against this proposal Dean Stanley
entered his emphatic protest.
The issue of the theological controversy between the two
prelates in South Africa, and even the personal fate of either
of them, is of little moment compared with the importance of
preserving intact the existing liberties of the English clergy
throughout the British Empire, and of maintaining inviolate,
for all branches of the Church of England, a right to the
protection of the same laws and standards of appeal which
guard the freedom and regulate the teaching of the Church
at home.
It was precisely this freedom which was endangered by
the action of Bishop Gray. He had sentenced, and proposed
to deprive a Bishop, in a Synod composed entirely of Bishops,
without presbyters, without laymen, without legal assessors, a
Synod called together without the consent of the civil power,
either of the colony or of the mother country; and from this
sentence he had offered an appeal which no Bishop and no
clergyman could accept. This course, if not hindered, must
involve the entire ruin of our whole ecclesiastical system, for
it could not fail to establish an arbitrary tyranny. Bishop
Gray had, indeed, spoken of certain principles as guiding him
to his decision ; but this could not do away with “the funda-
mental injustice of his proceedings because he chose those
principles for himself. He might just as well have chosen
&
368 JAA’E OF BASAOA' COLE/VSO. CHAP. VIII.
either the principles of the Puritans or those of the Continental
Reformers.” 1
His course was, indeed, one of plain defiance of the law.
“The Supreme Court of Appeal in this country has deter-
mined that it is legal for every Bishop and every clergyman
to hold the hope that there may be found some means in
the infinite mercy of God to restore His erring creatures.
This is the proposition which the Bishop of Capetown has
declared to be intolerable in South Africa, and which the
Supreme Court of Appeal in this country has declared to
be tolerable in the Bishops and clergy of the Church of
England. Therefore, by accepting this ground of the
Bishop of Capetown’s judgement, you place yourselves in
direct antagonism to the law of this country.”
For the other counts on which the Bishop of Natal had
been ‘tried and sentenced, Dean Stanley showed that in Bishop
Gray's decision there was the same direct antagonism to the
rulings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and
that his procedure had been throughout reckless. He had
been playing with edged tools. The Bishop of . Natal might
have spoken now and then in a somewhat disparaging man-
ner of parts of the Prayer Book and of parts of the Articles;
but if he was to be deposed for this, the principle must be
extended to the excommunication and deposition of many
persons both in high and low station within the Church of
England. The Archbishop of Canterbury had declared in
the House of Lords -
“that in consequence of the charitable and universal hope of
mercy which the Burial Service pronounces on the departed
there were circumstances under which nothing could induce
him to read it.””
* Speech before the Zower Aouse of Convocation, 1867, p. 28.
* /ö. p. 55.
1863. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETOWN TRIAL. 369
If it was competent for the Primate to speak thus, the
language of the Bishop of Natal in reference to the Baptismal
Service was not less excusable. If the Convocation should
approve the judgement of Bishop Gray, they would condemn
large numbers of clergy who hold the same principles as
those which had been denounced by the Metropolitan of
South Africa, numbers against whom they had not proposed,
and dared not to propose, to institute proceedings.
“I might mention one,” the Dean added, “who . . . . has
ventured to say that the Pentateuch is not the work of
Moses; who has ventured to say that there are parts of the
Sacred Scriptures which are poetical and not historical; who
has ventured to say that the Holy Scriptures themselves
rise infinitely by our being able to acknowledge both the
poetical character and also the historical incidents in their
true historical reality; who has ventured to say that the
narratives of those historical incidents are coloured not un-
frequently by the necessary infirmities which belong to the
human instruments by which they were conveyed,—and that
individual is the one who now addresses you. . . . I am not
unwilling to take my place with Gregory of Nyssa, with
Jerome, and with Athanasius. But in that same goodly
company I shall find the despised and rejected Bishop of
Natal. At least deal out the same measure to me that you
deal to him ; at least judge for all a righteous judgement.
Deal out the same measure to those who are well
befriended and who are present, as to those who are
unbefriended and absent.”
Many years later Dean Stanley addressed with equal fear-
lessness an assembly of Bishops and clergy gathered together
in the Jerusalem Chamber (January 16, 1880) at a meeting
Of the S.P.G. :-
“Speaking to you as a Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel I am ashamed that these questions should occupy
VOL. I. B B
370 I/FE OF BISAHOF COLA2AVSO. CHAP. VIII.
your attention, relating as they do to one who, as a propa-
gator of the Gospel, will be remembered long after you are
all dead and buried. I know that everything I say will be
received with ridicule and contumely. Nevertheless, I say
that, long after we are dead and buried, his memory will be
treasured as that of the one missionary Bishop in South
Africa who translated the Scriptures into the language of
the tribes to which he was sent to minister; the one Bishop
who, by his researches and by his long and patient inves-
tigations, however much you may disapprove of them,
has left a permanent mark upon English theology, yes,
though you may ridicule, I say the one Bishop who, assailed
by scurrilous and unscrupulous invective unexampled in
the controversy of this country, and almost in the history,
miserable as it is, of religious controversy itself, continued
his researches in a manner in which he stood quite alone,
and never returned one word of harshness to his accusers;
the one Bishop who was revered by the natives who asked
him to intercede for them with the Government, and that
without reference to any other Bishop in South Africa ; the
one Bishop to whom the natives came long distances to
place themselves under his protection, or even to have the
pleasure of looking upon his countenance. I say there will
be one Bishop who, by his bold theology—(interruption)—
there will be one Bishop who, when his own interests were
on one side and the interests of a poor Savage chief on the
other, did not hesitate to sacrifice his own ; and with a
manly generosity, for which this Society has not a word of
sympathy, did his best to protect the suppliant, did not
hesitate to come over from Africa to England to plead the
cause of the poor and unfriended Savage, and when he had
secured the support of the Colonial Office, (unlike other
colonial Bishops) immediately went back to his diocese.
For all these things the Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel appears to have no sympathy ; but, you may
depend upon it, in the world at large, wherever Natal is
mentioned, they will win admiration; and posterity will
say that, among the propagators of the Gospel in the
1864. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPE TOWN TRIAL. 371
nineteenth century, the Bishop of Natal was not the least
efficient.” *
The Charge of Bishop Gray delivered to the diocese of
Natal in his primary Metropolitical visitation in 1864 calls for
no further criticism. There are classes of minds which seem
to have no affinity with each other, and intellects to which
everything seems to present itself through a different medium.
It is not so much that they differ on leading principles as
that there are no two points even of detail in which they seem
to be agreed. Whatever be the subject with which they deal,
their methods of approaching it seem hopelessly antagonistic,
and their conclusions express themselves in diametrically
contradictory propositions. Such a contrast will be forced
on all who compare, it matters little on what topic, the utter-
ances of Mr. Maurice and of Dr. Pusey. A gulf not less
vast seems to intervene between the mind of Bishop Gray
and that of the Bishop of Natal. We need not doubt that
in this Charge the former expressed his real convictions ; but
we may be very sure that he never analysed them or sought
to test them by the realities of the world in which he lived.
We may be tempted to think that for himself it was happier
thus. Into such a mind the entrance of a single doubt would,
in the words of Bishop Wilberforce, have been like a loaded
shell shot into the fortress of his soul ; and it must have been
so, because with him honest doubt was a thing which had no
existence. But in those who, whether by training or by self-
formed habit, have learnt to try the spirits and to test facts,
or rather statements of facts, the utterances of Bishop Gray
cannot fail to excite a feeling of profound astonishment.
They build on different foundations; and their methods are
therefore mutually repulsive. But except for such as share
his faith in the “Catholic Church,” the productions of Bishop
Gray will be monuments chiefly of a wonderful intellectual
B B 2
372 AAA’E OF BISA/OP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
perversity. For all others this Charge, written with the
purpose of branding the Bishop of Natal as one who had
deliberately fouled the very fountains of morality and religion,
will be a sickening document indeed.
The methods of procedure adopted by the opponents of the
Bishop are not rendered more attractive by lapse of time.
Further thought only makes it more clear that the question
might without difficulty have been settled on its merits, if the
Bishop of Capetown had submitted himself frankly to the
decision which might follow the appeal of the defendant to
the Crown. To this necessity Bishop Gray declared that no
consideration would ever induce him to yield ; and although
his influence might carry a certain amount of weight in South
Africa, he was only giving strength to influence of a very
different kind in England. An address drawn up and signed
by laymen affirmed it
“to be of the utmost importance to the Established Church,
and to the nation at large, that there should be within the
Church itself men of mark and influence who desire to
bring its working into conformity with the highest know-
ledge and the best aspirations of modern times.”
But in using the words “within the Church” they declared
that, as they were well aware, the clergy, though an important,
are still but a very small portion of the Church, and they
added :—
“We certainly have as deep an interest in the full and free
examination of theological dogmas, and the exposure of
theological errors, as we have in the discussion of dogmas
and the exposure of errors in political science. And it is
of the utmost importance to all of us who desire to find the
truth, that the Bishops and clergy of our Church should,
with honest boldness, use the freedom of opinion and
freedom of expression which the highest ecclesiastical
1866. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPE TOWN TRZAZ. 373
tribunal has decided that they may lawfully use. . . .
Much as we should admire the sincerity and self-sacrifice
of any clergyman who might abandon his preferment in
the Church from difficulties arising from scientific and
critical investigations and conclusions, we venture to think
that those take a more enlarged view of their position as
ministers of the national Establishment, who feel able to
retain it with a good conscience, and that they aid the
cause of religious truth by so remaining at their post.”
Nor were the laymen of Natal less explicit in the utterance
of their opinions. In an address to the Convocation of the
Province of Canterbury they referred to the letter addressed
by the Archbishop of Canterbury (Longley) to Dean Green,
urging the clergy to withhold their obedience from the Bishop
of the diocese, as a letter inciting the clergy to the offences
of schism and perjury (February 24, 1866). They also com-
plained that the rights of members of the Church of England
in the colony were systematically encroached upon by the
Bishop of Capetown's assertion of a jurisdiction which, as
loyal subjects, they could not in any way recognise. They
protested, further, against the action of the Soeiety for the
Propagation of the Gospel, in departing from its rules on the
plea of proceedings all of which the highest legal tribunal
had pronounced to be null and void ; and also against the
assumption that those clergymen in Natal who gave allegiance
to Bishop Gray, and who, from the fact of his having the
disbursement of the Society's funds, are necessarily exposed
to an unscrupulous exercise of power, might yet be held to
represent fairly the general feelings of members of the Church
of England in the colony. They asked, in short, for justice.
They knew that this justice could be attained only by a
settlement of the question on its merits; and this demand for
justice implied a further protest against the assumption of
Archbishop Longley and Bishop Gray that the paying of due
374 I/FE OF AP/SHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
obedience to the Bishop of Natal involved either approval or
disapproval of certain opinions. You cannot, the Archbishop
said to Dean Green, submit yourself to Bishop Colenso with-
out identifying yourself with his errors. These errors had
not been formulated in any legal court, still less had they
been condemned. But the doctrine of the Archbishop was
one which could not be maintained in England ; and the
idea that the clergy or laity of an English diocese would
make themselves responsible for, or partakers in, the real or
supposed errors of the Bishop of the see before his legal trial
or condemnation, would be scouted as an egregious and
monstrous absurdity. From the Bishop of Natal they would,
of course, receive only a clear exposure of this false insinua-
tion. In his reply to the Durban address (November, 1865)
he spoke of their recognising as the
“grand foundation-principle of the Church of England, that
the Queen, not, of course, in her personal capacity, but as
representing the whole nation—the State, and not the
clerical body—is the one only legislator and supreme arbiter
of all causes which may arise within her pale, spiritual as
well as temporal ; that the Archbishops and Bishops in
England itself exercise jurisdiction in the Church, as it is
delegated to them from the Crown, and hold their courts in
the Queen's name; that all their authority, except only
what comes by force of moral persuasion and convincing
argument, by the power of the holy life, and the influence
of the truth spoken in love, emanates from the common
Head of the Church and State. This principle seems, no
doubt, to many most excellent persons, very objectionable ;
it is styled ‘Erastian,’ and condemned as ungodly. I am
not now called upon to justify or maintain it. I merely
assert that it is the fundamental principle of the Church of
England.”
With this decisive statement the language used at the time
by Dean Green stands out in ludicrous contrast. He took.
1865. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETOWN TRIAZ. 375
credit to himself for disregarding the charge of speaking
against Caesar as one which “was brought against Our Saviour,
who fulfilled all righteousness.” He was thankful that there
remained still enough of the Divine love “to make him
shrink with horror from the teaching of Dr. Colenso’’ whose
words “make light of the unutterable sufferings of Christ
upon the Cross.” “Fallen spirits,” he added in his letter
to Mr. Tönnesen (February 9, 1866), “may use their subtle
intellect to cavil and condemn the Bible, whilst in heaven we
believe it is read with ineffable and deepest adoration.” We
need not cite more of this gross mixture of nonsense and
falsehood.
It is impossible to understand fully the significance of the
great conflict provoked by the publication of the Bishop's
work on the Pentateuch, unless we mark every step taken by
the prelate who undertook to beat him down, or to get rid of
him. It is necessary to see how at every stage of the combat
the weapons employed are undefined terms, or terms which
Bishop Gray well knew that he was using in one sense while
the Bishop of Natal was openly and confessedly using them in
another. This is in a marked degree the characteristic of a
letter written by Bishop Gray when the time which he had
fixed as the limit for recantation drew nigh. It could not be
1<nown except from the subscription at the end that it was
addressed to the Bishop of Natal, for there were no words of
greeting or naming at the outset. The letter, it is said, was
meant to be informal ; and this was Bishop Gray's notion of
friendly informality:-
“As the time draws near,” so the letter began, “in which I
feel that I must take the most painful step I have ever
taken in my life, my heart yearns over you ; and I make
this last, I fear ineffectual, attempt, to lead you to adopt
one or other of the two only courses which can spare us
376 AAAZZ OF BISA/OA COLEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
both the pain and distress of a formal severance. My own
feeling, since you entered upon the course which you have
of late followed—and, I think, at first, your own also—has
been, that having consciously departed from the faith of the
Church of England, the true line for you, as a religious-
minded man, was openly to admit this, and retire from a
post which not only implied that you held that faith, but
required you to see that others under you taught it. I
think you must be conscious that you do not believe what
the Church teaches. If you really held what it holds, you
would, I am persuaded, have been shocked, and deeply
pained, at what has been said of your supposed views, and
at your having given any real grounds for the imputations
cast upon you ; and you would at once have eagerly pointed
out that you had been misunderstood—misrepresented—
and have declared what your real convictions were, and
given to the world a full confession of your faith. You
have not done this, and it leaves the impression on my
mind, that you know and feel that, on the very gravest
subjects and doctrines, you differ from the Church. If so,
surely you ought, as a true man, to say SO, and Save us all
the pain, anxiety, and many troubles, which your not
saying so is entailing. Unless you are very much changed
from what you were when we had free, confidential, and
loving intercourse with each other, you will not be content
to hold on to your position and endowments upon the
miserable plea that the measure of the legal is the measure
of the moral obligation.
“But if your own judgement leads you to think that you have
not departed from the truths which you have undertaken to
teach, ought not the general voice of the Church on this
matter to convince you? That voice has been, I need
scarce tell you, clearly expressed—not in England only,
but by the Synods of many colonial Churches, and of
Churches in Scotland ; and, as you will learn by this mail,
by the unanimous vote of the first Provincial Synod of
Canada, and the equally unanimous vote of the General
Convocation of the Church in America, which is one in
1866. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETOWN TRIAL. 377
faith with ourselves. These conclusions are, in each place,
the act of the whole Church, consisting of Bishops, clergy,
and laity. As, then, through a great many constitutional
organs, the Churches of our communion throughout the
world have spoken with one voice, ought you not to “hear
the Church, and cease to trouble and disturb its peace, by
withdrawing of your own accord to lay communion ?
“But if you are not prepared for this, and think that it is
through misapprehension that the Church has denounced
your teaching, a door is still open to you. You can plead
your opinions, or explain your views, if you so will, before
the nearest approach to a national Synod which we can
obtain, and, after striving to show their conformity with its
faith, leave yourself in its hands. Such a Synod has been
asked for by the Province of Canada, and by myself very
earnestly. To the decision of such a body I shall cheerfully
refer everything. To civil judges you know that I could
not, as a matter of conscience, refer the decision of a spiritual
question.
“Consider, I pray you, what the result must be of your refusing
this, and forcing yourself upon the Church.”
This result, Bishop Gray added, would be his excommuni-
cation, and the consecration of another Bishop in his place.
“I think that your heart must recoil from the strife and con-
fusion you have already occasioned. Build up the Church
in Natal in one communion you never can. Another may
do this. You only can weaken and disturb. . . . . With
very deep sorrow that we should ever have been brought
into the relationship in which we now stand to each other,
“I am truly yours,
“R. CAPETOWN.”
To this letter the Bishop sent the following reply. No one
who reads it with unprejudiced mind will deny its singular
calmness, dignity, and beauty.
378 JL/EE OF BISAIOP COLE/VSO. CHAP. VIII.
TO THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
“BISHOPSTowe, January 1, 1866.
“My BROTHER,
“Your letter reached me on Christmas Day, just after I had
come in from publishing to a crowded mass of native
Christians and heathens the “glad tidings of great joy,' and
from commemorating with some of them at the Holy Table
the dying love of our Lord.' Though not properly addressed
to myself—for it begins without even a common formula of
courtesy—I read it at once and considered it; and I need
not say how painfully its contents contrasted with the tenor
of the Christmas song, “Peace on earth, good will to man,’—
and how soon it recalled to me the truth of Our Lord's Own
words, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth.
I come not to send peace but a sword.”
“It must be so, then. I give you credit for doing what you
believe to be your duty before God and man. I claim, in
the name of Christian charity, that you shall think the same
of me ; that differing wholly, as we do, from one another—
doing each what we think to be right—pointing out what
appear to be the grave defects in each other's conduct—
taking action, if need be, against each other, as we seem
driven to do—we shall yet refrain, as far as possible, from
judging one another with harsh and angry judgement,
remembering that to one common Master we must each of
us stand or fall.
“As this is probably the last time that we shall communicate
before what you call a “formal severance, I feel it to be my
duty to reply to your letter—not to your official one, which
you say I shall receive, as you have ‘given conditional
instructions, upon the subject of my “being separated by
open sentence from the communion of the Church,' for I
cannot recognise your right to address to me any ‘official '
letter on such a subject; but I shall reply to this com-
munication, which, though intended to be private, I feel
justified under the circumstances in publishing.
“I cannot doubt that, as a man, you must feel pain, as you
1866. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETOWN TRZAZ. 379
say, while about to take a step which, if it had the result
which you anticipate—of severing me from the whole Eng-
lish Church and ‘all the Churches of our communion
throughout the world,'—would affect so seriously me and
mine, after many years of hard labour in the Church at
home, and in the missionary work of this diocese. That
pain, I think, must be deepened by the consciousness that
you have judged and condemned me unheard ; that, when
I refused to defend myself before you, believing that the
jurisdiction which you claimed to exercise in the Queen's
name was unlawful, as it has now been pronounced to be,
you proceeded, however, to ‘try’ me undefended, and pass
“sentence’ upon me—in that very ‘sentence’ refusing to
allow me any right of appeal whatever, such as is allowed
to the humblest deacon by the laws of the Church of
England. But, before doing so, you had agreed with your
two brother Bishops, who sat as assessors in judgement with
you, and who also condemned me unheard, to refuse me
such right of appeal; and you had also all three agreed that,
if I did not submit myself to the ‘sentence’ issued under
these conditions, I should be ipso facto excommunicate.
. . . . I repeat, I think that, to a manly and honourable
mind, like yours, the reflexion upon the injustice of the
course to which you have committed yourself—now that it
has been brought to your notice by the strong comments
made upon it by Englishmen of all religious persuasions—
must give additional pain. -
“But the man, alas ! has too frequently, in the history of the
Church, been sunk in the theologian ; and such language as
yours might be used—has been used repeatedly—by some
pitiless inquisitor, while dooming a victim to the stake, and
claiming for himself, and for his “Church, Divine authority,
and the most absolute infallibility.
“You must suffer me to say that I cannot allow your
‘ thoughts’ and ‘impressions’ about me to be the measure
of my duty. If you do ‘think' as you say, doubtless I shall
forfeit your esteem and that of those who think with you,
by the course which I consider it right to take at this time;
380 A/FE OF AP/SA/OA' CO/CAEWSO. CHAP. VIII.
and while I shall regret this loss, it is only a part of the
sacrifice which is required of me by present circumstances,
and which I am prepared to make. We have only now to
do with facts. And I say again, as I have said in my first
volume on the Pentateuch, and repeatedly since, that I am
not conscious that in any of my published writings I have
transgressed the limits allowed to the clergy of the national
Church, by whose laws only I am bound, to whose autho-
rity only I will be responsible, and not to that of the
‘Church of South Africa,’ or of what you understand by
the expression ‘the Church, which you substitute
instantly in your letter for the ‘Church of England, with
which you began.
“I have been, as you rightly imagine, “shocked and deeply
pained ’ by very much that has been said of my ‘supposed
views’ by many of my adversaries, more especially by your-
self, whether speaking as a fellow Christian, as a brother
Bishop, or as a judge. Whatever ‘supposed’ heresies you
might detect or deplore in my writings, yet I consider that
the tone of every one of my books, from the Commentary
on the Romans to the last volume on the Pentateuch, Ought
at least to have protected me from being publicly charged
by you—in the house of God, in my own Cathedral church—
with “reckless arrogance like that which marked the infidels
of the last century,’ with ‘using the language of the boaster
and the scorner, with “being led captive by the Evil one,’
with ‘having forsaken the Living Words of God.' I utterly
deny that I have given any ‘just ground for these imputa-
tions.’ And I do not feel called upon, because I have been,
not “misunderstood,' but “misrepresented, calumniated, re-
viled, by many, to make any ‘full confession of my faith,’
beyond that which I have already made in my various
writings already before the world, so as to save you and
others the ‘pain, anxiety, and trouble' of examining my
books themselves, of considering carefully their actual state-
ments, and judging righteously a righteous judgement,
according to the truth, and not according to foregone
conclusions and violent prejudices.
1866. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPE TOWN TRIAL. 381
“When, however, you say ‘you should have at once eagerly
pointed out that you had been misunderstood and mis-
represented' and add “you have not done this, I beg to say
that I have done this more than once, and with the result
that might have been expected from what usually happens
when strong theological prejudices are entertained on any
subject. My explanations were at once set aside, or ex-
plained away. . . . . I will give you an instance of
this.
“When my book on the Romans was published, you wrote to
me a private letter, in reply to which I said (among other
things) as follows:—
“‘I am sorry that you have so much misjudged what I have
written about the Athanasian Creed as to suggest that I
did not hold the essential part of it, more especially the
doctrine of the Divinity of our Lord, than which from the
first moment of my ministry up to the present hour, in all
my preaching and teaching (as any one who knows them
well must witness), no doctrine of the Church has been
maintained by me more strenuously, though I have taught
also the doctrine of His perfect humanity more fully and
prominently than many, and not lost sight of it practically
to a great extent as some do. I say this to you as a dear
friend and brother; though, after all that I have written,
even in this book on the Romans, I feel that I should be
justified in declining to say it to you as Metropolitan. Nor
do I think that you had any just ground, from anything
that I have said, or omitted to say, in my Commentary, for
the remarks which you have made on this point as on some
others.” -
“But what was the use of this explanation ? A charge was
brought against me at my (so-called) “trial’ of having
‘contravened the Second Article of our Church and certain
statements of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. This
charge was founded on one sole passage out of all my
writings, though the corresponding ‘proposition' alleged
against me in the Report of the Committee of Convo-
cation, who examined my books on the Pentateuch, was
382 J.A.E OF BASA/OA' COLEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
characterised by the Bishop of St. David's as “incomparably’
the most important of all that they cite. My words, on
which this charge was based, were as follows:—
“‘Lastly it is perfectly consistent with the most entire and
sincere belief in our Lord's Divinity to hold, as many do,
that, when He vouchsafed to become a “Son of man,” He
took our nature fully, and voluntarily entered into all the
conditions of humanity, and, among others, into that which
makes our growth in all ordinary knowledge gradual and
limited. We are expressly told that Jesus increased in
wisdom as well as in stature. 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 science;
nor, with St. Luke's expressions before us, can it be
seriously maintained that, as an infant or young child, He
possessed a knowledge 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.”
“The Committee of Convocation, under the chairmanship of
Archdeacon Denison, reported upon this that the proposition
“questions our Blessed Lord's Divine knowledge;’ upon which
Bishop Thirlwall very justly pointed out that the Committee
appeared to have mistaken my obvious meaning. He says:–
‘The question which he raises does not properly concern our
Lords Divine knowledge—that is, the knowledge belonging
to His Divine nature. It is whether His human knowledge
was co-extensive with His Divine omniscience.’" And this
is perfectly true. It is plain that my argument assumed
that one who had “a most entire and sincere belief in our
Lord's Divinity, who believed, therefore, that He had, as
the Eternal Son of God, ‘certain Divine knowledge,’ might
yet hold, as many excellent Christians do, that, as the Son
of man, though possessed as God of ‘Almighty Divine
Power, yet He hungered and thirsted, was weary, weak, and
faint, suffered and died as man. Bishop Thirlwall further
* See p. 309.
1866. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETOWN 7RIAZ. 383.
showed that Bishop Jeremy Taylor was ‘inclined ’ to this,
view ; and a clergyman has proved, in a letter published in
my third preface, that it has all along been fully shared by
a host of great divines, ancient and modern. . . . But this
moderation did not suffice for yourself. . . . You had evi-
dently made up your mind on the subject, in opposition to
the view of so many great authorities ; and whereas the
Bishop of St. David's deprecates any attempt of the Church
of England to promulgate a new dogma for the settlement
of the controversy, you pronounced at once a peremptory
judgement upon the point in question and decided that,
‘in imputing to our Blessed Lord ignorance and the possi-
bility of error, the Bishop of Natal has committed himself
to a most subtle heresy, destructive of the reality of the
Incarnation, and has departed from the Catholic faith, as
held in the Church from the beginning, and expressed in
the Second Article and the Creeds.”
“What, then, has been the use of my having “at once
eagerly pointed out that I had been misunderstood and
misrepresented 2 -
“As to my “differing from the Church’ on this and other of
‘the very gravest subjects and doctrines, my being
‘conscious of it, and my “being bound as a true man to
Say SO, and save you all the pain, anxiety, and many
troubles which [my] not saying so is entailing, there can be
no doubt whatever that I do differ very materially from the
views which you lay down as the ‘doctrines of the Church,
and which I assume, therefore, to be the doctrines of that
body which you call ‘the Church, but whose authority
over me, as a Bishop of the National Church, I do not in
any way recognise. For, besides the difference above con-
sidered—where you, in the name of your Church, have
‘promulgated a new dogma’ which our Church, the Church
of England, has not laid upon the necks of her clergy—
your Church, as you have said, holds all her officers bound
to teach at least two dogmas, viz. that ‘the whole Bible is
the unerring word of the Living God,” and that ‘the punish-
ment of the wicked in hell is endless, upon which our
384 AAA’E OF AZSA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
Church does not dogmatise, but leaves her clergy free to
think and speak the truth on these points, as God may
have enabled them to see it. Your Church, again, main-
tains, as you have also said, that ‘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 be, or received as, the true faith, that
is the true faith, and that we receive as such. More than
this we are not bound to acknowledge; less, we may not.’
“Whereas our Church says of the same “great Councils’ in
her Twenty-first Article,” “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.”
“As I do intend most assuredly to use, to the full extent
which my own sense of duty will allow, the liberty where-
with the good providence of God has made us free in the
Church of England ; and as my own views on all the above
points, and no doubt on many others, do not at all accord
with yours, it is certain that I ‘differ' on very grave
questions from the views which you assert to be the only
‘true faith,’ the ‘doctrines of the Church, but which the
Church of England does not inforce upon the consciences
of its ministers.
“Further, I do maintain the soundness of the principle—
though you speak of it as a ‘miserable plea –that for the
clergy of an Established Church, which notoriously tole-
rates such extreme views as are expressed within it by
well-known opposite schools of theologians, whose laws
are made and inforced, or, as the progress of the age in
knowledge and charity may seem to require it, having first
become practically relaxed by disuse, are from time to time
(as in the recent case of clerical Subscription) rescinded and
remodelled by the State—for the ministers of such a Church
the measure of their legal is the only measure of their moral
obligations, which others from without have a right to
apply; while doubtless each clergyman, in the sanctuary
1866. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETOWN TRIAL. 385
- - - - - - -n-- ", ,----------- * *
of his own soul, will judge for himself how far his con-
tinuance in the active discharge of his ministerial office is
consistent with his own sense of truth, and a due regard to
those great objects for which, in the eyes of enlightened
men, a National Church exists.
“As a Bishop of the Church of England, I thank God that
at my consecration, when I was examined publicly ‘in
certain Articles, to the end that the congregation present
might have a trial, and bear witness how I was minded to
behave myself in the Church of God’—I undertook to
teach—not a system of doctrines, a dead body of dogmas,
but that which I believe to be the truth of the Living God.’”
As you yourself have said, ‘The Bishop's only contract
with the Church at his consecration, is to teach or maintain
nothing, as required of necessity to eternal salvation, but
that which he shall be persuaded may be concluded and
proved by the Holy Scriptures’; though, in order to restrain
this liberty within just bounds, our Church requires me to
submit myself to an authority which she regards as Supreme
in her affairs, ‘in all causes, spiritual as well as temporal’—
an authority which I gladly recognise, but which you
repudiate. 4.
“You ask, “Ought not the voice of the Church in this matter
to convince you ?’ ‘Ought you not to hear the Church 2’
I answer, most assuredly not, when I know by what pro-
cesses that voice has been elicited ; when I know that every-
thing has been done, in England as well as here, to raise a
storm of prejudice against me, without any fair attempt
having been made to examine and answer my arguments;
that not only the flocks, but even the clergy, have been
frightened into expressing condemnation of my works with-
out having made any personal acquaintance with them ;
that these Synods have simply indorsed your proceedings,
well knowing that I have never been heard in my own
defence, and not caring to know what my defence would
* See the remarkable statement of “strange doctrines to be banished
and put away” made in his ordination papers by Mr. Maurice (Life of
F. D. Maurice, i. p. 159).
VOL. I. C C
386 A./FE OF AP/SHOP CO/LEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
be ; when I see from their expressions that even his Grace
the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Oxford, and
others of my brethren who have condemned me, have read
my works very partially—nay, that Archdeacon Denison
himself, when moving, in the Convocation of the Province
of Canterbury, for a Committee to sit upon my works, did
not hesitate to say, ‘I have no doubt, at all events I hope,
that there are many here who have not read the First Part
of this work; and I am sure there are many who have not
read the Second.”
“No | I have no confidence in any of these judgements, and
feel in no way bound to defer to the “voice of the Church’
expressed under such circumstances, even if it had been
more unanimous than it really is. For, when you speak of
the ‘general voice of the Church’ having condemned me—
‘not in England only, but by the Synods of many colonial
Churches, and of Churches in Scotland—by the unanimous
vote of the first Provincial Synod of Canada, and the
equally unanimous vote of the Convention of the Church in
America’—I must remind you that these different bodies
do not in any sense represent the Church of England, with
which alone I have to do. And you are aware that a very
large body of the most intelligent members of that Church,
including not a few of the clergy, second to none in learning
and piety, have not joined in that condemnation, and do
not in any way share in those sentiments. I repeat, the
“Synods’ on which you lay so much stress, and to whom
you ascribe so much authority, have no pretence to repre-
sent the National Church, any more than those other bodies
which you have enumerated in a letter recently published
in the Natal Mercury, as presenting addresses to you, ‘The
English Church Union, do. Oxford Branch,’ &c.;
which latter bodies, as you well know, represent only one
party in the Church of England—the party which is most
anxious to shake off the Royal Supremacy, and to exalt the
priestly order, and the sacramental system.
“Still less do they represent the ‘Catholic Church, the true
disciples of Christ in every land, the pure in heart and true
1866. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPE TOWN TRIAL. 387
in life, whatever be their form of Church government. It
is my comfort to know that I stand supported by the wishes
and prayers of very many earnest and devout Souls such as
these, who form an integral portion of the ‘Church of the
Living God.' But were it otherwise, were the whole
religious ‘world’ apparently against me, the examples of
the past, even in Church history, would suffice to support
and strengthen me for the maintenance of that which I
believe—rather, which I know—to be true, in spite of the
temporary opposition of my brethren, and in the assurance
that the truth will ultimately triumph. - -
“You put before me two alternatives, as the “two only
courses' which are open to me, by adopting one or other
of which I may ‘spare us both the pain and distress of
a formal severance’; though I confess I do not see how the
‘severance’ can be more complete and ‘formal’ than it is
now, when you have publicly denounced me in my own
Cathedral as an “infidel” and “heretic,’ ‘led captive by the
Evil one.’ -
“The first of these alternatives is to resign my office, and
‘withdraw of my own accord to lay communion '; though
it is difficult to see how one who, according to your views,
is so notorious an “infidel” and “heretic' can be allowed to
exist even in ‘lay communion' with your Church, without
some recantation' on his part, of which you say nothing.
I need hardly say, after all I have said already here and
elsewhere, that I am not “prepared for this.’ On the con-
trary, I feel that it would be a dereliction of duty for me to
do so—a cowardly forsaking of a post in which God's
Providence and the will of my Sovereign have placed me ; in
which, however little such strife is congenial to my own
feelings, I am called to maintain the sacred cause of religious
liberty against the incroachments of the priestly system ; in
which I have been adjured to remain by not a few of the
clergy and laity of the Church of England, men of devout
mind, of deep thought, and far-reaching insight, who foresee
clearly the dangers which threaten the Church at home
from the growing extension of ecclesiasticism in the
t
C C 2
388 IIFE OF BISHOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
colonies—dangers, I may add, foreseen by none more
clearly than by the present Bishop of Grahamstown in
former days." -
“The only other ‘door’ which, you say, ‘is open to me,’ is to
submit myself to the judgement of ‘the nearest approach to
a National Synod which we can obtain,_such a Synod
‘having been asked for by the Province of Canada,’ and by
yourself ‘very earnestly.’ ‘To the decision of such a body,’
you say, ‘I will cheerfully refer everything. To civil judges
you know that I could not, as a matter of conscience, refer
the decision of a spiritual question.’ *
“Doubtless you would ‘cheerfully refer everything’ to such a
body as you propose; for you have already told me, almost
in the same sentence, that the very judges to whom my
books would, in that case, be submitted, have already
‘unanimously’ approved of what you have done. I need
hardly remind you that it is not necessary that Her Majesty,
for the consideration of my case, should nominate merely a
body of laymen, that a Commission might be appointed,
composed in part of learned and unprejudiced ecclesiastics,
not already committed, by violent extra-judicial denuncia-
tions of my books, to foregone conclusions about them, as
well as of laymen learned in the law, and that in all the
past history of the Church of England, whenever such Com-
missions have been appointed in spiritual cases, they have
always contained a majority of laymen. This, I believe, is
a fact which the recent inquiry into the subject, published
with the authority of the Bishop of London, has placed
beyond all doubt.
“I appeal to you once more, as a loyal subject and professedly
a Bishop of the Church of England, not to overstep the
bounds of Church order, and not to violate the law of the
land. I appeal to you, as I have lately appealed to his
Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, to address a humble
petition to Her Majesty, praying that a Commission may
be appointed to examine and report upon my books, if you
think they deserve to be condemned ; but, at all events, to
* See p. 339 et seg.
1866. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETowny TRIAL. 389
resign the patent which you hold from the Crown, before
you proceed to take the steps which you threaten. If, how-
ever, you feel it to be a ‘matter of conscience, not to ‘refer
the decision of a spiritual question’ to that authority which,
to use your own words, you “solemnly swore before God to
recognise when you received your commission as a Bishop
and Metropolitan of the United Church of Great Britain
and Ireland,' on the other hand I feel it to be on my part a
‘matter of conscience’ to submit myself to that authority
which I am bound on oath to obey, and a matter of loyalty
not to admit the jurisdiction which you claim to exercise,
but which the Privy Council has declared it would not be
Mazofu/ for me to recognise.
“But I will on my part make a proposition, with which I
think you should be willing to comply. I am quite ready
to submit my writings, in accordance with the provision in
your own letters patent, to the Archbishop of Canterbury—
not, of course, to the Archbishop in person, for that would
be a mere idle form, since his Grace has repeatedly, and
even within the last month, condemned me unheard, and
evidently, as I have said, without having even read my
books. But I am ready to submit them to the Archbishop
of Canterbury, sitting in his Ecclesiastical Court, before
which the case of any clergyman of his province, and of
every dignitary below a Bishop, might be brought by appeal.
But your own counsel, Sir H. Cairns, admitted that there
must be from the Archbishop a further appeal to the Crown ;
and as you are also aware, the Privy Council laid down the
law that for us to make an agreement with one another to
ignore the Supreme authority of the Crown in such a case
would be an illegal act on our part. I am not prepared to
violate the law of the land for the purpose of supporting
ecclesiastical authority. I reserve, therefore, my right of
finally appealing to Her Majesty ; and Surely, as I have
said, you cannot be justified in assuming beforehand that
in such a case as this, involving questions of doctrine, a
Commission would be appointed consisting only of lay
judges. The duty of a loyal subject would seem to be to
390 LIFE OF BISHOP COLENSO. CHAP. VIII.
await and see what would actually be done, and then, if
felt to be necessary as a ‘matter of conscience, to protest
against the constitution or the decision of such a court, and
to disregard and disobey it, taking the consequences.
“In default of my complying with either of your two Sug-
gestions, you say that you will “separate me with open
sentence from the communion of the Church, and you add
that ‘ that separation will, you have no doubt, be formally
recognised by the English Church and by all the Churches
of her communion throughout the world.' I cannot believe
that you have any authority for this statement as regards
the Church of England. If you mean that the Convocation
of the Province of Canterbury, under influence of Bishop
Wilberforce and Archdeacon Denison—the latter himself
condemned for ‘heresy” upon the ‘merits’ of his case, and
deprived of his preferments, by one lawful ecclesiastical
tribunal, though absolved upon mere technical grounds by
another—may adopt by a majority in both Houses a reso-
lution expressing approval of your proceedings, that indeed
is possible: only then it is well known that the Convocation
of one Province does not in any sense properly represent
even the clergy of that one portion of the Church of Eng-
land, and not in the least the laity. If you mean, however,
that the Bishops in England will issue—as they did three
years ago, following the lead of the Bishop of Oxford—a
series of manifestoes, adopting your act, and ‘formally
recognising ' its justice and validity, then I do not believe
that in every diocese this will be done, and sure I am that,
whenever such documents may be issued, there will be
found multitudes of Englishmen, both clergy and laity,
even of those who do not sympathise with me, who would
utterly dissent from such unwarrantable and unlawful pro-
ceedings, who would regard these ‘admonitions’ as not
‘godly,’ and would refuse to ‘follow’ them.
“But, however this may be, it is certain that you hold your
office, as Metropolitan in the Church of England, solely by
the Queen's appointment, and that under that authority you
have no power whatever to pronounce such a ‘sentence,’ any
1866. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETowy TRIAL. 391
more than to deprive me, as you suppose yourself already to
have actually done, of all power ‘in any way to minister in
divine offices’ or ‘to exercise any sacred offices whatever in
the Church of God, pretending thus to an universal jurisdic-
tion. It is true that in this age of the world such ‘sentences’
have lost their terrors for earnest and thinking men, who,
believing in the presence of the Living God in the world,
and not in the existence of a spiritual caste to whom the
Supreme King has delegated his power, will remember that
‘the curse causeless shall not come,’ and go about their work
as calmly as ever, content to say ‘Let them curse, but bless
Thou.’ Your “sentence of excommunication' would fall as
lightly on me as that of “deprivation,' or as that which is
annually launched by the Bishop of Rome on both of us.
“But if you really believe in these spiritual powers which you
profess to wield, and desire to show the world that you trust
in them, and not in the arm of flesh, then let the battle be
fought out, if it must be, openly and fairly between us. I
declare that I belong to the Church of England, and that
to her laws I will submit myself, by her decisions I will be
bound. You declare that you do not belong to the Church
of England—that you will not recognise the Queen's su-
premacy, nor accept the decision of her Supreme Courts of
Appeal—that you belong to the Church of South Africa.
Let it, then, be distinctly understood that we represent two
utterly discordant principles—on the one hand, that of State
supremacy, maintained as a part of the very Constitution of
our National Church, the safeguard of her liberties, the
pledge that, from time to time, as knowledge advances, her
system shall be modified (as it has so lately been) to meet
the demands of the age ; and, on the other hand, that of
Clerical Supremacy, which secures that certain dogmatic
teachings—‘what the Catholic Church, during the first
thousand years of her history, declared to be or received as
the true faith’—shall be bound as a yoke upon all future
ages, as Infallible, Divine, Eternal Truth.
“But, if this is the case, may I not say in your own words
‘Surely you ought as a true man to say SO, by giving up
392 J./FE OF BISHOP CO/CEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
at Once your patent, and laying aside all the power and
influence which you now exercise, by virtue of your apparent
subjection to the Crown, and your apparent organic con-
nexion with the National Church 2. It is true this would
involve a great sacrifice of ‘worldly' power—not only of
‘position and endowment, but of lands, houses, schools,
churches, which have been set apart by the Government
and others expressly for the purposes of the members of
the Church of England. It would involve also, I imagine,
the loss of that strongest of all ‘worldly’ means of coercion,
which, while professing to use only ‘spiritual' weapons, you
have wielded with great effect, and, in the case of one
clergyman of my diocese, most unsparingly, and, I must
add, in a way which I cannot justify, by means of the funds
of the Gospel Propagation Society; for these, I presume,
could hardly be granted to support the claims of a Bishop
of the ‘Church of South Africa’ in opposition to another
lawful Bishop of the ‘Church of England, who might be
nominated by Royal mandate as Bishop of Capetown. But
your position would then be at all events consistent with
your avowed principles, and intelligible to many who are
now beguiled by the double appearance of things, And it
is obvious that any ‘sentence’ of excommunication, which
you might think it necessary to issue, might then be issued,
if not without breach of Christian charity, yet at least
without the scandal of disloyalty and disregard of the
conditions on which you received from the Crown your
appointment and dignity as Bishop of Capetown and
Metropolitan.
“You go on to say that the endowments of this see were
“obtained by you for far other teaching than mine.' If you
mean by this that they were raised with the express design
of promoting, with the help of the incumbent of this see,
the ecclesiastical system of the Church of South Africa,
with a view of its reacting at Some future day, in common
with that of other colonial Churches, on the system of the
mother Church at home, then I say, as I have said before,
that the gatherer and donors deserve to be disappointed ;
1866. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPE TOWN TRIAL. 393
that I utterly disclaim having ever been a party to such an
arrangement; that I should deem it then, as I should deem
it now, to be a treasonable conspiracy against the very life
and well-being of our National Church. But, if nothing of
this kind is meant, then I say that these funds were raised,
as I suppose, from all quarters, from persons of very differ-
ent views in the Church of England, from High Church,
Low Church, and Broad Church, Tractarian and Erastian ;
by donations and subscriptions, at meetings and after
sermons, for the express purpose of founding a Bishopric
which should be subject to the fundamental laws of the
Church of England ; and, in many cases, from those who
would heartily rejoice in the work which I am doing, or
trying to do.
“As regards those who may choose to join the threatened
South African ‘schism' in this colony, I do not see any
reason for supposing that they would find it necessary to
meet with their Bishop in ‘ dens and caves,’ while building
their own places of worship. It would be easy to hire
rooms both in Maritzburg and Durban ; though I doubt if
the number of worshippers in each place would be so large
as you suppose—misled, it may be, by too zealous and
sanguine informants. But when you say ‘You know that
all earnestness and all deep religious conviction would be
against you,' I cannot but think that you have lost sight for
a moment of what is due to the conscientious feelings of
multitudes who differ from you, and who have placed them-
selves by my side in this controversy. It is the same kind
of language as that which you employed before in my
Cathedral church, when you told my flock that all good
people were ‘avowedly on God's side, and therefore stood
aloof from me; ‘all that would be respectable in the world,
ignorant and careless though some be-all but the scoffer
and unbeliever.’
“I must be allowed to say that I do not ‘know’ this; that I
know the very contrary; that, among those who are with
me in England and Natal, among those who read my works
with interest and approbation, . . . . there are many most
394 I./FE OF BASHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
excellent and estimable persons, of “earnest and deep
religious conviction, who share with me the feeling that
such work as you are now doing, so far as it is effective,
must tend to destroy the true life of any Church ; and that
the work which I am trying to do is that which must be
done—may it only be done by more powerful agents —to
secure the permanence and prosperity of the National
Church. . . . . -
“I am, my brother,
“Yours faithfully in Christ,
“J. W. NATAL.”.
The informal letter of Bishop Gray, to which the Bishop
thus calmly and conclusively replied, was certainly a mar-
vellous production. If it betrayed a strange hankering after
an ecclesiastical despotism, it betrayed also an ignorant
narrowness not less astonishing. Not content with differing
from Bishop Thirlwall or Jeremy Taylor—to say nothing of
Hammond and Waterland, Chrysostom or Ambrose—on the
subject of the human knowledge of Christ, Bishop Gray
flatly condemned them all ; and this condemnation of what
he, in his haste, regarded as a notion almost exclusively
confined to the Bishop of Natal, was practically the pivot on
which the arguments in the so-called Capetown trial mainly
turned. Bishop Gray was ready to refer Bishop Colenso's
case to Synods or Councils of various kinds; but he forgot
that if the Royal Supremacy had any meaning or any
purpose, it was to prevent the bringing of ecclesiastical causes
for final settlement before any such tribunals.
The official letter forwarded to Bishop Colenso through his
own Dean has in part been noticed already." We need only
mark here that one of the reasons now given for refusing to
him an appeal to the Queen in Council was the provision, “ in
the letters patent founding the several sees of this province,
1 See p. 378.
1865. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETOWN TRIAL. 395
that the gravest spiritual causes in this portion of the Church
shall be finally decided by Bishops only,”—in other words,
that English Churchmen were to be under one law, one
system, one discipline at home, and under a wholly different
law, system, and discipline in the colonies; and here again
are spiritual powers derived from a civil instrument, and
exercised by an officer who protests against and disavows that
subordination to the State which is the necessary condition
of every clergyman in England, from the Archbishops down-
wards. Another reason was the absence of any law, either of
the Church or of the State, empowering the Queen, either in
person or by deputy, to hear and decide spiritual causes for
colonial Churches, which were declared to be purely voluntary
religious associations. In other words, by the mere fact of
leaving England, members of the Church of England, on this
theory, exchanged their condition of freedom for one of slavery.
But no real effort was made to bring the case before the
Crown, or into a court from which it could go by appeal to
the Crown ; and the plea, moreover, was thoroughly dis-
ingenuous. Had such a law been forthcoming, Bishop Gray
must have protested against it, and found some means of
evading it. He had said as plainly as possible that he could
not recognise the jurisdiction of the civil tribunal of the Privy
Council ; and it was at least superfluous to say that he could
find no law requiring him to do that which he was steadily
resolved in any case not to do. Dean Green was only a
trifle more extravagant than his Metropolitan when he com-
pared the Submission of Churchmen to the authority of the
Crown with the litigation of Corinthian Christians in heathen
courts, which St. Paul vehemently denounced.
But of misrepresentation and distortion of facts on the part
of Bishop Gray and his supporters there was no end. The
Bishop of Natal was constrained to address himself to the
Archbishop of Canterbury, to call his attention simply to
396 JAZE OF AP/SA/OA COLAEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
such matters of fact. The clergy of Natal had been warned
that “if any one of them communicated with Dr. Colenso,
they would thereby be excluded from any cure in Englaud";
and it was hinted or asserted that this statement came from
the Archbishop himself.
TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.
“BISHOPSTOwe, Wovember 30, 1865.
. “I cannot and do not believe it possible that such a
hint can have been contained in your Grace's letter. Yet I
cannot forget the fact that Bishop Gray's course of pro-
ceeding has been publicly indorsed with your Grace's full
approval, though I do not suppose your Grace is aware that
part of that proceeding was ‘to advise by letter the clergy-
man of Durban to commit a brawl in the church by reading
the Communion Service while the Bishop preached, and
another, ‘to tell one of the churchwardens at Durban, when
informed that steps might be taken by the laity to prevent
the reading during Divine service of the illegal docu-
ment deposing Bishop Colenso, that, if all the devils in hell
were to appear next day, nothing should prevent his having
the document read.' . . .
“I have applied for a copy of your Grace's letter, and have
been informed by the Dean that it has been sent for publi-
cation to the Natal Mercury, but that the extract which I
require is as follows: ‘I do not see how you can accept
Dr. Colenso as your Bishop without identifying yourselves
with his errors.’ Your Grace has thus distinctly and
publicly advised the clergy of this diocese, professing to be
clergy of the United Church of England and Ireland,
receiving their stipends as such from the colonial Treasury
and from the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel,
and ministering within buildings set apart for that Church,
to rebel openly against their lawful Bishop, on the ground
of certain ‘errors’ of which your Grace pronounces me to
be guilty. . . . I feel that I have now a right to ask
your Grace, before my fellow-countrymen, to point out as
1866. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETOWN TRIAL. 397
publicly and distinctly, what those ‘errors’ are of mine to
which your Grace refers, if any such have been already con-
demned by the existing laws of the Church of England.
Or should your Grace not be able—as I venture to believe
you will not—to produce any passages of my works, for
which the humblest deacon could have been ejected from
his cure by any of the Bishops in England, upon the
principles by which the Church of England is governed, as
laid down in any judgement hitherto given, then I feel that
I have a right to demand, in the name of common justice,that
your Grace should present a petition to the Queen, specifying
those parts of my writings which you deem to be ‘errors'
of such kind as to justify my deposition, and praying that
Her Majesty would be pleased to appoint a Commission to
examine into the justice of the charge.
“I am a Bishop of the United Church of England and Ireland,
and not one of the Church of South Africa, with which, in
common with the great body of the laity of Natal, I neither
have, nor wish to have, at the present time, any very intimate
relations. And I desire for them and their children, as well
as for myself, the right to enjoy the liberties, and be judged
by the laws, of that Church to which it is our privilege and
our pride to belong. . . . . We count it no evil, as your
Grace implies, but a great advantage, to be ruled by the
decisions of her Supreme Courts of Appeal, and to be saved
thereby from the arbitrary and prejudiced proceedings of
irresponsible ecclesiastical judges. So long as the Church of
England is maintained as the National Established Church
in England, so long do we desire of our own free choice to
maintain our connexion with it, and submit ourselves volun-
tarily to its laws, which are made by the State and by the
Queen, and not by the clergy.”
Of the Archbishop's reply to this letter this much at least
must be said, that it reveals Dr. Longley's absolute unfitness
for the office of a judge. He knew perfectly well that if the
Critical Examination of the Pentateuch had been the work of
the Bishop of London instead of the Bishop of Natal, the
398 M.I.A.'E OF BASA/OA' CO/CAEWSO. CHAP. VIII.
-
course, if any, taken with regard to it must have been ex-
tremely different. He may also have felt that in all likelihood
a time of bluster would in that case have been followed by a
tacit agreement to leave matters alone. Anathemas and Con-
demnation by the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury
would have availed nothing towards the deposition of a
Bishop of London ; and the promoter of any suit against
him would probably have been advised that the chances of
conviction before the Queen in Council were very small, and
possibly that no passages were forthcoming on which any
penal charges could be grounded. As to the vast mass of
accusations brought against Bishop Colenso by the prose-
cuting clergy at Capetown, almost every one of these would
have been swept away like cobwebs on the first breath of
judicial inquiry in England. It was worse than useless, there-
fore, for the Archbishop to refer to the indictment in that
so-called trial as furnishing the least warrant for supposing
that such an indictment could be preferred against any clergy-
man in England. Yet this is what Dr. Longley, as Primate of
England, did not scruple to do.
“I have no hesitation,” he said (February 10, 1866), “in avowing
that, according to my belief, you have been duly and canoni-
cally deposed from your spiritual office, according to the
common laws of the Church of Christ, as set forth in the con-
cluding paragraph of the Twenty-sixth Article of the Church
of England; and I must decline to hold myself responsible
to you for entertaining such a belief. I have never obtruded
this opinion upon others, in my capacity as Primate of the
United Church of England and Ireland ; but I have not
hesitated to avow my private opinion when it has been
sought for. . . . . I never expected that my letter would
have been given to the public, nor am I responsible for the
fact ; but as those to whom I addressed it have thought fit
to publish a portion of it, I do not disavow the sentiment
therein expressed. At any rate, I could not have objected
1866. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPE TOWN TRIAL. 399
to the course they thus took from any apprehension that I
might one day be called to sit as a judge in your case,
because I have high legal authority for saying that there
appears to be now no mode of proceeding by which I could
be called upon to act in this capacity. The censure, there-
fore, which you would impute to me on this ground proves
to be entirely without foundation.
“As you ask me to point out the errors to which I have
alluded, I have merely to refer you to the reasons for your
deposition, as stated in the judgement of deprivation passed
upon you, and to state my belief that for such errors in
doctrine an English clergyman could be ejected from his
cure.”
That Archbishop Longley might not have been called upon
to act in a judicial capacity, had Dr. Tait instead of Dr.
Colenso been the author of the Critical Examination of the
Pentateuch, is not so certain as the Primate supposed ; but
assuredly if his private opinion had been put forth before
such a trial as a public declaration of his state of mind he
must have insured his own exclusion from such a tribunal, as
entirely as any juryman who should avow his belief in the
guilt of a prisoner before his trial was begun. He could not
fail to know that the propositions charged against Bishop
ColensO at Capetown might be penal errors, and yet it was
possible that they had not been proved, and perhaps could
not be proved against him. It is hard, indeed, to see how he
could, further, fail to know that a large number of these
charges had been cleared away by recent decisions of the
Judicial Committee, and therefore were no longer admissible
in future indictments. Yet, in spite of this, Archbishop
Longley could speak thus confidently of the ejection of Eng-
lish clergymen for charges many of which could not be even
formulated against them. In fact, Archbishop Longley had
said deliberately what he either knew, or ought to have known
to be not true.
..ºr ºf ºr “ ” ”
As
4OO AAA’E OF BASA/OA' CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
On the various counts of the indictment at Capetown some-
thing has been said already. A few remarks may bring out
more clearly the results which might be expected to follow from
such charges if preferred against a clergyman in this country.
For the whole of them, as urged against the Bishop of Natal,
Archbishop Longley's reference to the Twenty-sixth Article
was altogether inapplicable. He had not been rightly tried,
and he had not by just judgement been deposed. When we
come to particulars, we find, on the first head, that the Bishop
of Natal’s patent says nothing of the jurisdiction of the Metro-
politan over himself, and that it is doubtful whether the English
Metropolitans have jurisdiction over their suffragans. On the
second head, it is certain that the references made from time
to time by the Bishop of Natal to the opinion and advice of
Bishop Gray involved no pledge of submission, if need be, to
be tried and deposed by him. On the third head, we find that
the principles by which the English ecclesiastical courts are
guided differ indefinitely and most widely from those by
which Bishop Gray claimed to pass judgement. On the fourth
head, which related to Holy Scripture, Bishop Gray and his
advisers made assumptions which must end in the conviction
of every one brought before his tribunal, but which the judge
of the Arches Court had emphatically repudiated.” According
to Bishop Gray, the Church of England “holds what the Church
has always held,” and this common faith commits her to the
decisions of Councils for the first thousand years of the history
of Christendom, “silence upon any particular point of faith, or
upon any great question of religion [being] no reason for
supposing that the Church of England was indifferent to that
portion of the faith.” Of the soundness of this argument
Bishop Gray asserted with haughty assurance that he had no
doubt. In the Gorham judgement it had been “established .
* See p. 28o et seq. * See p. 325.
1865. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPE TO WAV TRIAL. 4or
that all theological doctrines not determined by the Articles or
formularies are open questions.” On the one side we have
the Bishop of Capetown's dreams, dreams which have inspired
the ecclesiastical zealots of all ages: on the other we have the
sober utterances of the Supreme Court of Appeal for the
Church of England. The Gorham judgement scatters to the
winds by anticipation the truculent theories of Bishop Gray.
“If the case be, as undoubtedly it is, that in the Church of
England many points of theological doctrine have not been
decided, then the first and great question which arises in
such cases as the present is, whether the disputed point is,
or was meant to be, settled at all, or whether it is left open
for each member of the Church to decide for himself
according to his own conscientious opinion. If there be
any doctrine on which the Articles are silent or ambigu-
ously expressed, so as to be capable of two meanings, we
must suppose that it was intended to leave that doctrine
to private judgement, unless the rubrics and formularies
distinctly decide it. If they do, we must conclude that the
doctrine so decided is the doctrine of the Church. But, on
the other hand, if the expressions used in the rubric and
formularies are ambiguous, it is not to be concluded that
the Church meant to establish indirectly as a doctrine
that which it did not establish directly as such by the
Articles of Faith—the code avowedly made for the avoid-
ing of diversities of opinion and for the establishing of
consent touching true religion.”
In other words, we have on the one side a clearly-defined
principle ; on the other, we have a grim apparatus for the
fabrication of arbitrary and constructive treasons.
The fifth head of Bishop Gray’s “judgement” was a plain
defiance of the judge of the Court of Arches. Dr. Lushington
had ruled that the declaration of belief in the Holy Scriptures
made by candidates for ordination must be interpreted as
meaning that the Scriptures contained everything necessary
VOL. I. - D D
w tºº.
4O2 IIFE OF BISPHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
to salvation, and that to that extent they have the direct
sanction of the Almighty." In this decision Bishop Gray
flatly refused to “concur.” “It is a wrong,” he said, “to the
Church thus to limit the meaning and diminish the force of
its plain language.” It was, in short, a wrong and a hardship
to himself to be thus interfered with in the exercise of an
instrument admirably adapted for the conviction of every
accused person ; but it was no wrong and no hardship to the
Bishop of Natal to be arraigned and condemned in Southern
Africa on charges which could not even be entertained in
England. Incumbents in this country were perfectly free to
use language which was to be regarded at Capetown as justi-
fying his deposition, and his excommunication for not yield-
ing obedience to that sentence; and yet this was no denial of
justice to the accused.
Under the sixth head Bishop Gray objected to the Gorham
judgement as taking an inadequate view of the Sacrament of
Baptism, and he therefore condemned the Bishop of Natal
for holding the same inadequate view. Under the seventh
he admitted that the passage impugned on the subject of the
Atonement
“was not so at variance with [the doctrine] of the Church as
to call for any condemnation, did it stand alone. There
are, however, other passages in his work besides those com-
plained of which show that he uses the words “atonement,’
‘redemption,’ ‘sacrifice,’ ‘satisfaction,’ ‘propitiation,'—which
are, so to speak, ecclesiastical and historical words—in a
Sense of his own, that he does not mean what the Church
intends by them. . . . . I must consider the charge as
proved,”—
that is, he condemns, while he confesses that the passages
arraigned do not furnish materials for condemnation. It is
an amazing thing; but “ecclesiastical words” are ready to
* See p. 323.
1865. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETOWN TRIAL. 403
hand, and the sense in which he interprets those words
supplies a safe and easy path to the sentence. The ruling
of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that “the
accuser is, for the purpose of the charge, confined to the
passages which are included and set out in the articles as
the matter of the accusation,” was for him not worth
consideration.
Such are the main grounds on which Bishop Gray claimed
the right to try, and, on condemnation, to depose, Bishop
Colenso, and it was with regard to such grounds as these
that Archbishop Longley stood committed to the belief that
they would be sufficient for the deprivation of an English
beneficed clergyman. Whatever his belief might be, the
statement was false. It is quite certain that they could not
be applied in this country. It is equally certain that if they
could be applied they would, in Dean Stanley's words,
“exclude every one possessed of a moderate knowledge of
Biblical criticism, or even of intelligence enough to dis-
believe the universal deluge; and equally would they
exclude every party in the Church but that in whose
name Bishop Gray tries to lord it over the South African
dioceses, assuming on all occasions that mere Church
membership is a sufficient recognition of its principles,
though both common notoriety, and the opposition which
he has himself encountered from far other quarters than
the Bishop of Natal and his friends, must have made him
as well aware as any man that that party numbers no
majority of the clergy, and but an insignificant proportion
of the laity, of this great Church and nation.”
Twelve years later, 1880, the old allegations of Bishop
Gray, repeated often, and as often refuted, were brought
forward once more by his successor, Bishop Jones, who did
what he could to fasten again a moral stigma on the Bishop
of Natal in the following words:—
D D 2
4O4. A./FE OF BASHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
“There is such a thing as a moral obligation which no human
law can inforce, but which is paramount in ford conscientia.
And surely there is a moral obligation on a Bishop who has
recognised his Metropolitan as his judge by accepting his
letters patent, and who has, at the most solemn moment
of his life, bound himself by a solemn oath to render due
obedience to his Metropolitan, to obey the sentence which,
even though not binding in civil law, that Metropolitan in
his court, with the consent of the Bishops of his Province
has pronounced against him, and which the Synod of the
Bishops of the Province at the same time has solemnly
accepted.”
This charge has been proved to be absolutely without
foundation, and it would be mere waste of time to go over
ground already traversed with care. The language of Bishop
Cotterill has shown that the opposition to the ecclesiastical
theories of Bishop Gray was not confined to the Bishop of
Natal; and Bishop Jones deserves no further reply than that
he has misinterpreted declarations set forth in the plainest
language. It is true that, by the letters patent granted to
him, Bishop Colenso was to be
“subject and subordinate to the see of Capetown and to the
Bishop thereof;”
but it was declared that he should be subject only
“in the same manner as any Bishop of any see within the
Province of Canterbury is under the authority of the
Archiepiscopal see of that Province and the Archbishop
of the same ; ”
and it has certainly never been maintained that the Archbishop
of Canterbury can try, sentence, and depose his suffragans
without appeal; and from the Primate appeal can lie only to
the Crown. But it is not less true that by the letters patent
of Dr. Gray the Sovereign declared that the Bishop of
Capetown
1865. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETOWN TRIAL. 405
“shall be subject and subordinate to the Metropolitical see of
Canterbury and to the Archbishops thereof, and in the same
manner as any Bishop of any see within the Province of
Canterbury is under the same Metropolitical see and the
Archbishops thereof;”
and it cannot be pretended that the former could be tried,
condemned, and deprived by the latter without appeal, and
this appeal must of necessity be to the Crown. By the so-
called judgement at Capetown, Bishop Gray assumed to deprive
Bishop Colenso of a right to the loss of which it cannot for
a moment be supposed that he would himself have submitted,
had he been arraigned before the tribunal of the Primate.
According to the second patent granted to Bishop Gray, it is
stated that he is to be
“subject to the general superintendence and revision of the
Archbishop of Canterbury, and subordinate to the Archi-
episcopal see of the Province of Canterbury.”
These words settle absolutely the relations between the
Bishop of Capetown and his suffragans, and between these and
the English Primate. These relations involve the right of
appeal to the Crown ; and this right cannot be taken away,
or these relations affected, by the clause in Bishop's Gray's
second patent which authorised him
“to exercise Metropolitan jurisdiction over the Bishops of
Grahamstown and Natal, and all the clergy in their
dioceses.”
This authorisation, whatever it be, must be taken as involving
nothing antagonistic to the former; and the question is there-
fore settled without going into further controversy with
reference to this patent. This question has been sufficiently
examined by Bishop Cotterill in the letters already cited ;
but when all doubt on the subject has been removed by
4O6 I/FAZ OF PISAIOP CO/LEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
these general considerations, it becomes pertinent to lay
stress on the fact that Bishop Gray's second patent, dated
December 8, 1853, was not issued till a fortnight after those
issued to the Bishops of Grahamstown and Natal, dated
November 23, 1853.
“Such a clause,” the Bishop of Natal remarks, in his reply to
Bishop Jones, in 1880, “would not legally override my
older patent ; nor would it bind me in any sense morally,
unless I had been informed of its existence before accept-
ing my own patent. In point of fact, I was not aware of
it until I saw the Capetown patent in the report of the
proceedings of the first Synod of Capetown, published in
1857. Nor was it likely that I should have known anything
about it, since on November 15, 1858, Bishop Cotterill wrote
to me: “It shows how loosely these matters are managed,
that both the Archbishop and the Government (I mean
officials at the Colonial Office) knew nothing about that
formidable visitation clause, until I drew their attention
to it.’” I
What Bishop Cotterill thought at that time of this claim
to jurisdiction has been sufficiently shown in his own words.
The fact that he took different ground later on may not be
to his credit; but it does not lessen the force of his earlier
reasoning. To this reasoning there is obviously no answer;
and he himself never ventured to make any. He had then
declared his conviction that
“in the matter of judgement on a suffragan Bishop, the letters
patent are directly opposed to the principles of Church
law.”
If then, the Bishop of Natal asks, Bishop Cotterill could
express these convictions, although
“he had received his letters patent with full knowledge of
the contents of Bishop Gray's,” “what right has Bishop
* See p 338.
1865. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPETOWN TRZAZ. 407
Jones to charge me—who had no such knowledge—with
an act of gross immorality and the violation of a Solemn
Oath 2 ”
The idea of a consensual jurisdiction could not be maintained
in this case for a moment. The Privy Council, in Bishop
Colenso's words,
“took their stand on the principle that a public functionary,
appointed by Royal letters patent, cannot by his own
private act so modify the conditions of his office as to
subject himself to deprivation in a way not pointed out by
the law, since others are interested, as well as himself, in
holding his office according to law, and not allowing the
law to be overridden by ecclesiastical phrases or arguments,
as the clergy and laity of the Church of England in other
parts of South Africa, but especially in Natal, are interested
in the maintenance of my position against the arbitrary
action of Capetown.”
But Bishop Jones insisted that he had a further moral hold
on the Bishop of Natal.
“Bishop Colenso's contention,” he says, “as to the illegality
of which he would have been guilty had he obeyed a sent-
ence which the Metropolitan Court (through an undue
reliance on the authority bestowed by letters patent) had
assumed to pass, but which it had no power to inforce, is
tantamount to his saying that when the law says that a
sentence has no legal force, it forbids a man to obey it;
that even what is binding on a man's conscience, so long as
a court of law refuses to allow its inforcement, it is wrong
and illegal to do. He might as well say that should the
law refuse to support a father in requiring obedience from
his son, it would be illegal for the son to keep the fifth
commandment.”
“I have shown,” the Bishop of Natal replies, “that it was not
‘binding on my conscience’ according to my own view of
my duty, confirmed by the decision of the Privy Council—
408 AAFE OF BISA/OA' CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. VIII.
not to speak of Bishop Cotterill's opinion—to appear before
the illegal court of the Metropolitan, or obey its illegal judge-
ment, though approved by Bishops Cotterill and Twells.
The appeal of Bishop Jones to the fifth commandment is
a mere fallacy, since he tacitly assumes that the command
in question was one which the son was ‘bound in conscience’
to obey, whereas a son would be perfectly justified in
disobeying a father who commanded him to do what was
wrong, either morally or legally, and which therefore the
father had no right to command—e.g. to betray a trust
confided to him for the sake of others—nor in the eyes of
sensible men would he appear to have broken the fifth
commandment by such disobedience.
“But Bishop Jones has taken no notice of the fact that
I wrote in my letter, “it would be illegal for me or for any
other loyal subject, e.g. Bishop Jones and others, to recognise
Bishop Gray's sentence of deprivation as having any force,
which has been pronounced by the highest authority to be
null and void in law.”
- - - ++ - - -- ~~~~~~~rº-r-, -, -, -º-º-º-º- + --~~~
CHAPTER IX.
BISHOP HAROLD BROWNE AND THE ANTAGONISTS OF THE
BISHOP OF NATAL.
THE publication of Bishop Colenso's criticisms on the
Pentateuch was for many reasons an important event,
important, not more, it may be, for the conclusions reached
by the inquiry than in its relation to the religious and the
general thought of the land. The way in which these criti-
cisms were received by that which is commonly spoken of as
the religious world was still more remarkable. The object of
the investigation was simply the discovery and the establish-
ment of the truth; and it was obvious to all impartial minds
that the result must affect the value put upon certain books,
either by adding to that value or by lessening it. The
volumes thus submitted to examination were some of
the Sacred books of Christendom ; and the sacred books of
Christendom were, admittedly, only a part of the sacred books
of the world. But there was this vast difference between
them, at least in the eyes of Christians generally, that all
those other books were wrong—wrong in history, wrong in
philosophy, wrong in the statement of facts, wrong in the
conception of spiritual realities. In all these respects the
Christian books were right, absolutely right; and the great
task of Christendom was to convince the world of the error of
the rest.
4 IO JARE OF BISA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
This work, it was clear, could not be accomplished without
a firm conviction on the part of the assailants that their own
position was impregnable; but it was an indispensable condi-
tion to their success that the task should not be confined to
assertion. If it should be so confined, nothing could be looked
for but an infinite series of wranglings. The mere assurance
of Christians would be met by equal assurance on the part of
the adherents of Zoroaster, of Buddha, or of Mahomet. The
worship paid by the Rabbinical schools to the letter of the
Hebrew Scriptures was equalled, if not surpassed, by the
reverence shown by the Hindu for the text of the Rig Veda.
Each had his sacred history, his sacred law, his sacred psalms,
hymns, and prayers; nor could the Christian hope to sweep
all this aside, if he chose to challenge them on the authority
of other sacred books, except by showing that these books
were in every respect superior to all others. If they really
were so, they could be submitted fearlessly to the most
searching scrutiny; and the examination could be carried on
without excitement and without passion, the results being left
to take care of themselves. To say that the value of the
Christian sacred books must in no case be affected would be
a begging of the whole question. In the general opinion of
Christendom all the series of sacred books were wrong but
one. It was at least conceivable that this one series might be
found to be no exception. It was further conceivable that
the progress of the Divine work in the Church and in the
world might render necessary a complete change in the esti-
mate put on all sacred books and in the methods to be applied
to them ; and it was, at least, possible that the idea of an
external infallible authority in books or in Churches must
give way to something higher and better.
But in any case, if the veracity or accuracy of a book
should be assailed, its correctness could be maintained only
by showing the untenableness of the specific charge, and not
1865. THE ANTAGO/WIS 7'S OF BISHOP CO/LEAVSO. 4II
by shifting the question to any side issue. If it should be
said that the genealogies of the Book of Genesis are self-
contradictory, that the book speaks of Methuselah as dying
before the flood and after it, that it gives an impossible chro-
nology for the family of Abraham and of Jacob, these charges
could only be met by showing that on these points, and not
on some others, there was no mistake. Either let this be
shown in every instance, or let the admission be candidly
made that the Hebrew or other Scriptures had been regarded
in a wrong light, and made to answer purposes for which they
had never been designed. There had seldom been a question
which called for greater clearness of thought and precision of
language in those who should undertake to deal with it; but
the putting of the question evoked, in fact, a very Saturnalia
of untruthfulness. Writer after writer committed himself at
starting to conclusions of which he had never attempted to
foresee the consequences. There was constant shifting of
ground, constant shuffling, equivocation, and evasion ; and
these disingenuous methods were employed by many who had
won, and won deservedly, a high reputation, not only for their
learning, but—in a far higher degree—for the integrity of their
lives, for their earnestness, and their zeal. They had done,
and they continued to do, good work; and it might be thought
that there is no justification for expressing a disparaging
opinion of any of them personally. Judgement must be left
to the Divine Judge; but we are bound to point out and to
denounce methods which involve the least disingenuousness,
if our own sense of truthfulness is not to be tampered with
and impaired.
Before he published the First Part of his work on the
Pentateuch, the Bishop of Natal had written (without
forwarding it) a letter to Dr. Harold Browne, then Norrisian
Professor of Divinity at Cambridge. At the time when
he thought of consulting his friend, he could little have
412 A/FE OF BISHOP COLAEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
anticipated the mode which some two years later that friend
would feel himself called upon to adopt in answering him.
The employment of this mode involved a great wrong to
the Bishop of Natal, and this wrong has never been re-
paired. In mere justice to him, the history of this contro-
versy must be given; but its real nature cannot be shown
except by reference to some other historical controversies,
somewhat earlier in the century, which throw a full light
on the questions raised about the historical value of the
Pentateuch.
We must suppose, then, that a writer is examining the
history or the so-called history of the invasion of Greece by
Xerxes. Taking the several portions of the narrative in
succession, and submitting them to those tests to which
narratives of facts in our daily life must be submitted, he
comes clearly and definitely to the conclusion that a great,
perhaps even the greater, part of the story is not to be
depended upon ; that the accounts given of the causes which
led to the war are clearly fictitious; that the whole tale of
Demokédés is full of inconsistencies and contradictions; that
the debates which are said to have preceded the march of
Xerxes are mere fictions; that the account of the march is
highly embellished, and that the whole Hellenic land could
not have supported the invading army for a week; that even
the most notable incidents are full of suspicious circum-
stances ; that not a detail in the records of the battles of
Marathon or Salamis, or even Plataia, can be relied on ; that
the beautiful history of Leonidas contains much more of
fiction than of fact. We must suppose, further, that this
writer, after making so much havoc of the traditional narra-
tive, distinctly avows his belief, and positively maintains, that
Xerxes did invade Europe with a large force, that he made
strenuous efforts to inslave a free people, and that he was
beaten back ; and, further, that these facts were of the utmost
1865. THE ANTAGO/WISTS OF BISPHOP COLEAVSO. 4I3
importance for the future history of mankind ; that the victory
of the Persians would have retarded for hundreds, if not for
thousands, of years, the development of European civilisation;
that the victory of the Greeks attested the profound sagacity
of Themistokles, and bore fruit in the freedom and splendour
of Periklean Athens.
It is obvious that anyone who proposed to answer such a
writer might fairly say, if he so thought, that he was absurdly
incredulous, and that he had made an extravagant use of the
pruning knife. His only duty would be to show this, as well
as to assert it. But what would any impartial critics say if
the reply took the following form 2
“I have carefully examined the writings of Herodotus, and in
my opinion everything tends to prove that his history must
in its main facts be true. The Persians beyond question
marched out of their own country, passed through Asia
Minor, invaded Western Hellas, and were beaten back by
the Athenians and their allies. The latter must have been
in a far higher state of discipline, and influenced by far
higher motives than their enemies, or such a victory would
have been impossible. This is exactly what the history of
Herodotus says, and what this writer denies.”
There is not, it may safely be said, a man with a particle
of honest feeling, who would not at once answer that the
critic had given utterance to a tissue of false statements,
which, if he had read the book before him, he must have
known to be false, and the uttering of which, without reading
the book, aggravates the offence; and that the critic was bound
to make an unqualified apology not only to the writer whom
he had slandered, but to the public whom he had led to believe
the slander.
But here the terms must be changed. The history of the
Jewish conquest of Canaan in many remarkable points closely
4I4 AZFE OF BISHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
resembles that of Herodotus. Like the latter, it describes an
invasion, and exhibits a striking picture of the effects of
political and moral foresight. We will suppose that the
narrative of this Hebrew conquest has been very patiently
and closely analysed by a writer who comes to the conclusion
that very much of the tale is unhistorical ; that the conferences
with Pharaoh could not have taken place as they are related ;
that the numbers throughout are exaggerated ; that the story
of the invasion of Midian is as contradictory as that of the
attack of the Persians on Delphi; that the elaborate “Mosaic”
legislation is as much the composition of a later age as is the
legislation of Servius Tullius at Rome; that the long speeches
put into the mouth of Moses are to be classed with the long
speeches put into the mouths of the counsellors of Xerxes;
that the story of the exploits of Joshua is deserving of about
as much credit as the story of the exploits of Leonidas; and
that the account given of the political career of Moses is at
least as inconsistent as the account given of the political
career of Themistokles. But this writer, while thus pulling to
pieces the traditional narrative, has, we will suppose, taken
special care to record his conviction that the people had
sojourned in Egypt; that they did pass through the wilder-
ness ; that they invaded Canaan and established themselves
in the conquered territory after partially subduing the inhabit-
ants; and that these facts are of the greatest moment in the
history of mankind, as opening the way to that higher faith
and deeper conviction of the Unity and Righteousness of God
which it was the mission of the teachers of the Hebrew people
to exhibit to the world. -
It is clear that against such a writer also an opponent might
fairly, (provided that he alleged the proof for it), bring a
charge of over-much incredulity or over-minute analysis, or
too great a severity in applying the ordinary tests of evidence
to a narrative of events which took place in very remote ages.
1865. THE ANTAGO/W/STS OF BISHOP CO LEAVSO. 4I 5
But what would the impression be, if the critic, after asserting
that he had with the greatest care examined this history and
read his opponent's works, were to say:—
“Everything tends to prove that the history of the Pentateuch
must be in its main facts true. The people without ques-
tion came out of Egypt, Sojourned in the wilderness,
conquered Canaan, and must have been both numerous
and well-trained, or such a conquest would have been
impossible. This is exactly what the Pentateuch says, and
what [this writer] denies.”
The verdict of every honest man must be in this case
precisely that which it would be in the case which I have
previously supposed. Is the offence lessened because the
writer criticised is not the incredulous Mr. Grote, or the more
incredulous Sir Cornwall Lewis, but a clergyman 2 and is our
honest judgement to be suppressed because the critic has a
high repute as a scholar and as being in general a fair and
moderate controversialist,--because, in short, the writer criti-
cised is the Bishop of Natal, and the critic is Dr. Harold
Browne, now Bishop of Winchester 2
The question concerns not so much the personal character
of Bishop Browne as the strength of theological prepossessions
and prejudices; and it must be said plainly that, if one who
should ascribe to Mr. Grote a denial of the fact of the Persian
invasion would owe him the best reparation in his power,
the same reparation was due to the Bishop of Natal for
charging him with a denial of the fact of the Jewish invasion
and of its success, the reality of which he distinctly and
positively affirmed. The refusal or failure to make this
reparation leaves on the critic the responsibility of a man
who should accuse Thierry or Lappenberg of denying the
fact of the Norman invasion of England. In the interests,
not of individuals, but of the nation, the matter is very
416 I./FE OF AP/SAIOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
serious. The abuse of criticism in questions which affect the
traditional or popular belief has become so gross, it appears
so completely to blind the eyes and pervert the nature of
men who in other things show themselves upright and
generous, that it can no longer be borne with. Is our faith
in the honesty and truthfulness of Englishmen to be shaken
altogether ? Are we really to be brought not to the hasty
thought, but to the deliberate and fixed belief, that the
moment' they think their shibboleths (whether religious or
political) endangered, all men become liars 2
To the demand for retractation made through the columns
of the Examiner, August 26, 1865, Dr. Browne, then Bishop
of Ely, returned the following answer:-
“Your correspondent and Bishop Colenso charge me with
wanton misrepresentation, when, after having proved that
the Israelites had dwelt long in Egypt, had gone out of
Egypt in large multitudes, had sojourned for a great
length of time in the Sinaitic wilderness, and had then
poured in vast hordes upon the plains of Canaan and so
conquered the country, I add, “This is exactly what the
Pentateuch says and what Bishop Colenso denies.” Now
really, if I have failed at all, it has been in the summing
up of my own conclusions, which I did not wish to press
too far; and so, perhaps, those conclusions do not seem
so very much beyond Bishop Colenso's admissions as they
would have done if more clearly and forcibly put. This
may be formally and in the letter unfair to Bishop Colenso:
but it is not so in spirit and reality. . . . My object in
the argument referred to was to show that the history of
the Pentateuch was most strongly confirmed by indubit-
able facts in those very points on which Bishop Colenso
most strongly attacked it ; that facts, which could not be
gainsaid, proved a long residence in Egypt, proved a long
sojourn in the wilderness, proved especially that the num-
1 The Pentateuch and Elohistic Psalms, 1864.
1865. THE ANTAGOVISTS OF BISHOP COLEVso. 417
bers which went out of Egypt and dwelt in the wilderness
must have been enormous, and that the conquest of Canaan
could, humanly speaking, only have been effected by the
invasion of masses or hordes of an almost countless multi-
tude. . . . Such being the real conclusion at which I
arrived, I surely do Bishop Colenso no wrong if I say that
this is what the Pentateuch says, and what Bishop Colenso
has written on purpose to disprove.”
A comparison of these words with the sentences previ-
ously, cited (the words this writer only being substituted for
Bishop Colenso) displays a most material shifting of ground.
How, it might be asked, was any one to know that, when
Bishop Browne said that “the people came out of Egypt,” he
meant that they came out after dwelling there “a long time”?
When he said that “they sojourned in the wilderness,” who
was to know that here also “a long time” was to be supplied ?
When he added that “they must have been both numerous
and well-trained,” who was to imagine that they were to
be numbered by thousands of myriads, and again that these
well-trained warriors were mere masses and hordes P To
make the point more clear, we are driven back to the records
of the Persian invasion of Europe. To his supposed critic
Mr. Grote might reply:- /
“It is most unfair, it is most false, to say that I deny the
march of the Persians through Western Asia and their
defeat by the Athenians and their allies. You cannot say
that this is what the history of Herodotus affirms and what
I deny, because I do not deny this any more than you
deny it yourself.”
But what would be Mr. Grote's astonishment if his critic
were to reply :-
“My object was to assert that facts which could not be
questioned proved that the march of the Persians extended
over years, that thousands of ships were arrayed against
VOL. I. - E. E.
418 AAFE OF BISHOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
each other on either side, and more especially that the
number of the invading force must have been enormous—
in fact an almost countless multitude.”
But how would it be if the historian were to urge further —
“And even now I cannot make out your meaning, or what
you believe or do not believe about the matter. You tell
me now that the history of Herodotus especially proves
the enormous, nay, the countless, numbers of the Persians;
but a little while ago you told me that you were quite
perplexed and could not tell what to do with them, and
that the substitution of hundreds for myriads would remove
most of the difficulties, while yet again you said that the
smaller number would be just as puzzling as the larger.
What am I to infer from all this but that our notions of
truthfulness cannot agree together ?”
Yet this was precisely the position in which the Bishop of
Ely placed himself by his letter in the Eraminer. In that
letter he said that the Pentateuch “proved especially the
enormous, almost countless, numbers ” of the invading Israel-
ites; and he forced on his readers the question whether he
himself really believed this,
(1) Because he had said in his volume on The Pentateuch
and the E/o/izstic Psalms,
“It would be rash to deny that the numbers of the Exodus
are inordinately great, and proportionately puzzling.”
He added, it is true, that the story is professedly miraculous,
and said that it is very unreasonable,
“in the consideration, to keep out of sight miracle altogether.”
But in his letter he said that
“the conquest of Canaan could, humanly speaking, only
have been effected by the invasion of masses or hordes of
an almost countless multitude.”
1865. 7A/A2 AAV7'A GOAV/STS OF AP/SA/OP CO/CAEAVSO. 4I9
(2) Because in his book he had asserted, when “puzzled ”
to know what to do with these multitudes,
“if for 600 (thousand men fit to bear arms) we might read
60, all would be clear; every numerical difficulty worth
thinking of would vanish at once.”
In other words, that the numbers are “inordinately great
and proportionately puzzling,” whereas in his letter he said
that the work of conquest could not have been done without
almost countless numbers, and that, therefore, the numbers
are not exaggerated at all.
(3) Because in the very same page of his book in which he
made the preceding statement he said:—
“Sixty thousand would, perhaps, be as much too small, as
six hundred thousand seems too large, a number. On the
whole, notwithstanding the admitted difficulty of the large
numbers, it is very questionable whether the difficulties
would not be greater on the supposition that the numbers
were much less”—
whereas in his letter he urged that
“the insuperable difficulty would lie in the supposition that
the numbers fell short of an almost countless multitude,”
and that, therefore, there is no admitted difficulty in the
larger number.
It is, indeed, pitiable to find such a man as Bishop Browne
struggling vainly in the nets of inextricable contradictions.
He wishes to uphold the credit of the Pentateuch; he can do
so only by saying or implying that its statements cannot be
trusted. He will give up as unhistorical and impossible
the alleged fact that seventy souls could in four generations
grow into six hundred thousand armed men. The difficulty,
he holds, lies in the paucity of generations, there being four
E E 2
42O AZFE OF AP/SAIOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
only from Levi to Moses. The generations in the family of
Levi were, he thinks, “abnormally few,” and he insists that
“eight or nine is the more probable number for the generality
of the descendants of Jacob.”
But even if we grant that there were eight or nine, or that
there were ten, this would not expand a troop of seventy
persons into a nation of more than two millions. The positive
promise is, however, given in Genesis xv. 16, that “in the
fourth generation they’’ (the Israelites generally) “shall come
hither again"; and this solemn declaration Bishop Browne
summarily sets aside. But, as the Bishop of Natal remarks,"
“the ‘abnormally few generations are not confined to the
family of Moses and Aaron. They occur in every instance
which is recorded in the Pentateuch or, with one exception,
anywhere else in the Bible.”
The exception is the genealogy of Joshua, as given by the
chronicler in a book full of errors, written two centuries after
the captivity, and a thousand years after the commonly re-
ceived date of the Exodus. Bishop Browne's rejection of
these alleged facts is a plain admission that the “Scriptural
account, as it stands, is incredible.”
Nor is this the only straw at which he catches. He clings
to Abraham's retinue of three hundred and eighteen followers,
and holds that the family of Jacob must in their descent to
Egypt have been accompanied by a corresponding number of
shepherds and herdsmen. But of this the narrative of Genesis
gives not the slightest indication, and Jacob himself, on his
return from Padan-Aram, says, “I am few in numbers.” But
if he had this retinue, why did he send his darling Joseph
alone to look for his brethren 2 How is it that the ten sons
went unaccompanied to buy food from Egypt? The whole
* Pentateuch, Part V. p. xiv.
1865. THE AAVTA GOAV/STS OF BISA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. 42I
story shows that they had no attendants, and how would their
Zen ass-loads of corn have supplied food for these hundreds of
shepherds and herdsmen for a whole year, as well as for their
own family of seventy persons P + But he has yet another
resource remaining. The numbers as they now appear are
large. The difficulties are not removed by striking off a
cipher and reducing six hundred thousand warriors to sixty
thousand ; but the text of Moses may have been affected by
the carelessness or blundering of copyists. It may have gone
through some such changes as happened to the poems of
Homer, collected by one and re-edited by another, and the
“slight corruptions” so introduced “might have affected most
probably and easily the numbers in the Pentateuch.” This
is, indeed opening the flood-gates of speculation. The so-
called Homeric poems are an accretion of songs or lays which
grew up through a long series of years, and the story con-
tained in them is inconsistent or impossible from beginning
to end. But here again Bishop Browne cannot escape from
the morass. He shows that he is very well aware that the
numbers in Exodus are not corrupted.
“I must freely confess,” he says, “this solution of the problem
‘by the reduction of the numbers’ is not so simple or satis-
factory as it sounds at first. The number 600,000 does not
stand alone. In the first two chapters of Numbers we have
all the constituents of that number. Twice over the number
of fighting men in each tribe is mentioned, and the Second
time they are arranged in four camps . . . . the number in
each camp is given, and in both cases the sum is 603,550
fighting men above twenty years of age. All the way through
the history the numbers, more or less, correspond, by what
is not the simple recurrence of the figure, which might have
suffered equally in every place from error of transcription.”
So far then as the numbers are concerned, we know that the
* Pentateuch, Part V. p. xv.
422 I./FE OF BISAOP COLA2AWSO. CHAP. IX.
text is not corrupt, that they are checked, and counter-checked
in so many cases that there is no pretence for any such
hypothesis.
What right then had Bishop Browne to talk of corruptions
such as these in the text, and then to speak of these corrup-
tions as “slight,” when in truth they would be of the most
serious kind 2 What right had he to assert that
“without miraculous intervention the numbers in the writings
of Moses were a thousand-fold more liable to have become
corrupted than those in the writings of the great Greek
historians” ”
What right had he to assert this, when he had himself
already given the strongest possible reasons for saying that
they were not corrupt, and when he must, or ought to, have
known that the numbers in the Greek historians have also not
been corrupted 2 He is speaking of corruptions caused by
the fault of transcribers, and in this sense the numbers in
Herodotus, for instance, are not corrupt. They are impossible
numbers, it is true, but they are the numbers which Herodotus
himself wrote down. These also have been checked and
counter-checked, and the sums total correspond. Critics may
have rejected both these totals and their constituents; but no
one supposes that they have been falsified since first Herodotus
set them down. Bishop Browne further takes comfort from
the thought
“that much greater difficulties than inaccuracy in numerals
would not invalidate the general truth of the Persian
history of Herodotus or the Athenian history of Thucydides,
or the retreat of the IO,OOO related by Xenophon.”
But the numerals in these histories are not inaccurate, in the
sense that they have been tampered with by later transcribers.
Wrong they may be ; but if they are, they were so written by
1865. THE ANTAGONISTS OF BISHOP COZEWSO 423
Thucydides or Herodotus or Xenophon. The cases moreover,
as the Bishop of Natal remarks, are not parallel.
“What credit,” he asks, “should we give to the details of
Xenophon's narrative if, starting with IO,OOO, he had gone on
to describe his doings as those of a general of a million of
men, sending 50,000 here and there, losing tens of thousands
by plagues and other accidents, and besides all this
deliberately and systematically falsifying the numbers of
his troops throughout, even when professing to give the
exact results of the different marshallings, which he himself
had superintended ?”
But Bishop Browne was well aware also that difficulties
even more formidable than any connected with the numbers
of the Israelites at the time of the Exodus were involved in
the characteristics of the Elohistic and Jehovistic portions of
the Pentateuch. The Bishop of Natal brought out the evidence
of actual facts as furnished by the narratives: the Bishop of
Ely sought only to give some “probable" explanation of these
narratives. His first hypothesis was that Moses would write
first only a very brief sketch of the previous history from the
Creation onwards, reserving a fuller account for the closing
years of his life. If so, he would be likely in the earlier tale
to use the word Elohim, and would defer the constant use of
Jehovah till his people had become more thoroughly familiar
with it. In the more recent portions of his books, the por-
tions interpolated in the older parts and the portions added
at the end of them, he would introduce the more sacred and
now long known name of the Almighty.
Bishop Colenso remarks here that Bishop Browne has over-
looked a point fatal to his theory—viz. that certain sections in
which the name Elohim is used exclusively, are almost identical
in style with the Jehovistic, yet are entirely distinct from the old
Elohistic narrative, which forms the basis of the Pentateuch."
* On the Pentateuch, Part V. p. xxvi.
424. A./FE OF BISHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
The Bishop of Ely's second hypothesis is that, writing at
two different periods of his life, Moses would naturally use
different sets of documents. For the earlier portions he would
use the ancient records; and these would
“pretty certainly have been Elohistic, for otherwise the people
could not have been ignorant or forgetful of the great name
of their Creator. The portions written and mingled in with
the traditional portions by Moses would on the other hand
most probably be Jehovistic.”
Of these two hypotheses he says:—
“These explanations are surely possible solutions of the
difficulty which Bishop Colenso declares to be insuperable.
I firmly believe that one of these solutions is indeed
true.” 1 -
It is a happy thing that we have only two hypotheses;
Bishop Browne might have found a dozen, and then expressed
his conviction that one of them was the true one. But he
would be bound to say which of the dozen was the right inter-
pretation: it is not easy to see why or how this duty is
changed because he confines himself to two. But he has, as
in the former case, overlooked a point which upsets his hypo-
thesis. The account of the revelation of the Divine name to
Moses in Exodus vi., which must have been written by Moses
himself, if any part of the history was so written, is due
undoubtedly to the very same hand which wrote the old
Elohistic narrative.” It is useless to speak of the name
Jehovah as having been known and then forgotten. The
Elohistic writer abstains throughout his narrative from using
the name Jehovah at all, until he has recorded its revelation
to Moses, and it follows therefore inevitably that he meant
the statement
* Bishop of Natal, Pentateuch, Part V. p. xxi.
* Ib. p. xxviii.
1865. THE ANTAGONISTS OF BISHOP COLEVSO. 425
“I appeared unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by El-Shaddai,
but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them,”
to be understood as saying that the name was actually not
known at all to the Patriarchs."
What the Bishop of Ely may have meant by his reference
to miracle is not clear. Could his reasoning be that numbers
which are utterly perplexing on any human supposition may
in some way or other be received on the ground that the
narrative is professedly full of miracles, just as the enormous
numbers of the army of Xerxes, utterly inexplicable by any
reference to the supplies of any human commissariat, may be
received in a narrative in which, as is the case in that of
Herodotus, superhuman agency is manifest throughout 2 This
is an opinion which might perhaps be legitimately expressed
by one who will adhere to it; but in his letter the Bishop of
Ely shifted his ground by saying that the conquest of Canaan
could, humanly speaking, have been effected only by an almost
countless multitude.
But this is not all. Dr. Browne had, in his letter, charged
Bishop Colenso with reckless and irreverent treatment of
records
“thrown into the sacred, solemn form of the Pentateuchal
narrative, a form in which they have for three thousand
years been accepted as a true and heaven-inspired history;”
but it can scarcely be denied that he has himself laid
violent hands on at least one cardinal statement which in the
Book of Deuteronomy is put into the mouth of Moses. On
the supposition of the Mosaic authorship of this narrative, the
intimate familiarity shown with minute local features in the
land of Canaan had to be accounted for. According to Dr.
Browne, this familiarity was attained by Moses during the many
journeys of exploration which he made through Palestine
* Bishop of Natal, Pentateuch, Part V. p. xxix.
426 LIFE OF BISHOP COZEWSO. CHAP. IX.
before the final entrance of the Israelites; but except on
the hypothesis that the Book of Deuteronomy is historically
untrustworthy, this point is not left an open one. The words
ascribed to Moses not merely imply, but state with the
utmost possible clearness, that he had never visited or seen
the Promised Land. The very pathos of his pleading lies in
this fact, that his eyes have never rested on its hills and
streams. “I pray thee let me go over and see the good land
that is beyond Jordan.” But the prayer was not to be
granted. From the top of Pisgah he might indeed gaze on
its faint and distant outlines, but nearer he might not
approach. “I must die in this land : I must not go over
Jordan.” What meaning, or rather what truth, is left in
these words, if they were spoken by one who had many a
time crossed the stream, and made himself familiar with the
future inheritance of his followers ?
These are matters which cannot be treated as questions
of mere detail. The supposition last mentioned strikes
directly at the truthfulness of the Hebrew lawgiver. The
Bishop of Ely's charges, as put forth in his volume on the
Pentateuch, are amply refuted by those passages in which
Bishop Colenso distinctly maintained that
“the Israelites did leave Egypt, and remained for a time in
the wilderness of Sinai, under circumstances which pro-
duced a profound impression on the national mind,”
and in which he further affirmed that
“there is not the slightest reason to believe . . . . that there
was no residence of the Israelites in Egypt, no deliverance
Out of it.”
They could be established at all only by shifting ground ;
and Bishop Browne shifted his ground accordingly. But in
doing so he took no notice of the two histories to which his
1865. TAIA. AAV7A GOAVISTS OF BISA/OP COLEAVSO. 427
attention had been specially called. The systematic Mosaic,
legislation, and the elaborate minuteness of the Levitical
organization, had been regarded as conclusively proving the
accuracy and authority of the Mosaic narrative. But of this
network of laws, and this intricate priestly system, the
national history down to the time of the Captivity exhibits
not a trace. How could the inference be avoided that both
the system and the code belong to a period subsequent to
the Captivity ? And how could the student, examining the
records of this legislation, forget that the early history of
Rome furnished the closest parallel to that of the Jews 2
Here also we have a legislation (the Servian) drawn out with
the precision of an English Act of Parliament, a legislation
affecting directly the whole body of the people; and with it
we have a subsequent traditional history which ignores it.
Hence, after the closest examination, Sir Cornewall Lewis.
concludes that whatever the Servian legislation may have
been, we have of its details no knowledge whatever, or rather
we have ample evidence that in its main provisions no
attempt was ever made to carry out that legislation. Why
may not that which took place in Italy have taken place
also in Canaan 2
But, if Bishop Browne might legitimately strive to uphold the
historical value of the Pentateuch so far as it could honestly
be upheld, it was unworthy of him to insinuate that the Bishop
of Natal admitted even less than he professed to maintain.
The Bishop had spoken of some of the Pentateuchal narrative
as derived “from legendary recollections of some former
residence in Egypt under painful circumstances, and of some
great deliverance,” and Dr. Browne, fastening on the phrase,
ascribed to him not quite accurately a constant use of the
word, which he pronounced to be in itself “somewhat
suspicious.” Legend, he remarked, became so soon almost
identified with fable
428 JZFAE OF PISA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
“that one chief sense attached to it by Johnson is “an
... x xx
incredible unauthentic narrative ; and he added, “I
cannot think that the Bishop would have used the word
so frequently without intending to throw some discredit
even on that traditional basis which he does not wholly
deny.”
The constant use of the word imputed to Bishop Colenso
cannot be proved ; and of the traditional basis it is enough to
say that he not only does not deny, but positively maintains
it. But the word was used in a few cases simply to denote the
transmission of this basis, through a series of generations, by
oral traditions. It would have been more accurate, probably,
to speak always of “stories orally transmitted” instead of
“legendary stories"; but the former phrase is more cumber-
some and awkward, and the latter implies no greater disbelief
of the narrative than the other. If the historian of Greece
speaks of the narrative of Herodotus as legendary, he asserts
no more than that it was transmitted by oral tradition only,
until Herodotus committed it to writing.
Whatever, then, may have been the motives and the purpose
of the Bishop of Ely, his criticism of Bishop Colenso was not
fair, not just, not true. It was criticism which must cause
gratuitous pain; but in this respect another of the Bishop's
friends was a worse offender. Not much, perhaps, may be
gained by attempting to trace the workings of a mind like that
of Mr. Maurice ; but the supreme unselfishness and beauty of
his character give his words a weight which makes it the more
needful to point out the fallacies running through them or
underlying them. The thought that charges of historical
inaccuracy can be disproved only by proving the correctness
of the history seems never to have entered his mind. Although
for quite other reasons than those which influenced the
traditionalists of the day, yet with not less vehemence than
theirs, Mr. Maurice took upon himself the office of the judge
1865. THAE AAVTA GOAVYSTS OF BISA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. 429
and the doomster. None, he said, could be more indignant
with the Bishop of Natal than he was himself.
“He seemed to be taking from us the very message which
we had been suppressing and mutilating ; to be indorsing
the crime which we had been committing against the laity ;
to be using physical facts for the sake of cheating us of
moral and political facts; to be destroying the great link
between God and national life ; to be driving us to the Old
platitudes and abstractions about the necessity of order to
freedom, and freedom to order, which have no power Over
any human spirit, when we might, if we believe the Exodus,
speak of an everlasting God of Freedom, who is also, and
for that reason, the God of Order.”” -
What, it might be asked, is all this talk about 2 What did
Mr. Maurice mean by physical facts, and by the application
of them to overthrow spiritual truths 2 What did he mean
by saying that the Bishop of Natal had struck out sparks and
invented theories,” and that the answers to him, so far as they
have not consisted of shrieks and ridicule, have been directed
to an exposure of his physical facts ** Any one who had not
opened the Bishop's work on the Pentateuch might be led by
these words to suppose that it broached some new geo-
graphical or astronomical ideas which upset the Mosaic
cosmogony, or that it urged the evidence furnished by the
Science of language or of comparative mythology against the
Mosaic accounts of the fall of man. He could not possibly
learn from Mr. Maurice's pages that the Bishop of Natal had
pronounced the narrative of the Pentateuch to be not histori-
cal, because it exhibited palpable contradictions; because its
chronology was artificial ; because it embodied a legislation
which, as we see on the face of it, was never carried out, and
exhibits a state of society which never existed ; because,
* Claims of the Bible and of Science, p. 76.
* Ib. p. 125. * Ib. p. 73.
43O JLIFE OF BISHOP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
finally, it would be impossible to account for the later history
of the people, if the Mosaic history was a genuine relation of
events which passed before the occupation of Canaan. To
physical facts there are only indirect and incidental references:
and all that Mr. Maurice could do by such remarks was to place
the question on a false issue. The truth is that no one was
more profoundly conscious than Mr. Maurice that spiritual
things must be spiritually discerned ; but he remained not
less assured that it was indispensably necessary for all others
to discern the truth where he saw it himself, and that, if they
failed to see it where he saw it, they would not find, it at all.
His own conviction of the Divine righteousness was a rock
not to be shaken ; but it also drove him to make a crowd of
assumptions about the records in which he traced the several
steps in the Divine government of the world. From the Book
of Genesis he learnt the sacredness of the order of the family,
the misery which comes with the infraction of it, the blessings
which flow from obedience to it. The Book of Exodus taught
him that God had sympathy with sufferers, that He was the
Judge of the tyrant, the Deliverer of the bondman and the
captive; and from these convictions he drew the inference
that the books were, throughout, trustworthy historical narra-
tives. At the same time his respect for the letter of the
narrative was not so unswerving as to satisfy the adherents
of straiter schools. Thus, for instance, he resolved the inci-
dents of Balaam’s journey into a spiritual impression left on
the mind of the seer 1 in the teeth of the comment in the New
Testament that the dumb ass spoke with the articulate speech
of man. But when the same freedom with regard to this
same narrative was used by another who went on to the
further question of the time of its composition, and who
reached the conclusion arrived at more recently by the most
* Sermons on the Old Testament, Sermon I. p. 28.
1865. THE ANTAGO/W/STS OF AP/SHOP CO/AFAWSO. 43 I
eminent of modern Jewish interpreters,' Mr. Maurice expressed
his aversion not of a critical method which was too lax or
too'arbitrary, but of the spiritual perversity which was robbing
men of lessons indispensable for the vindication of the Divine
righteousness. It mattered not that Dr. Stanley spoke of the
national religion of the Jews, down even to the Babylonish
captivity, as a sensual and bloody idolatry. It was enough
for Mr. Maurice that the Book of Genesis inforced in his
opinion certain spiritual truths, and he insisted with an amaz-
ing pertinacity that apart from this book the knowledge of
those truths could not have been attained. The lessons which
it taught were or had been needed by Englishmen. Like the
Israelites in Egypt, they had been Sorely oppressed by the
ecclesiastical yoke before the Reformation, and deception had
gone hand in hand with tyranny. With astonishing simplicity
He failed to see the irrelevance of the tirade called forth by
the thought of that time of bondage.
“If there was a Lord God who had proclaimed His commands
out of heaven amidst thunders and lightnings; if He was
really what He said that He was, a Lord God who brought
His people out of bondage, . . . . then Englishmen might
hold up their heads against their foes and rise up, were they
ever so sunken, in the might of Him who had promised not
to forsake them or forget them.””
Such comments, it is clear, might be drawn out to any
extent, and Mr. Maurice had at his command wealth of illus-
trations which proved that the lessons taught by the Book of
Exodus were living lessons.
“They raised the English middle classes into moral and
political existence; they ratified the great oath of the
peasants at Rütli; they raised the Dominican Savonarola
to be the witness against Alexander the Sixth ; they made
* Dr. Kalisch. * Claims of the Bible and of Science, p. 70.
432 J.IFE OF BISHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. IX
the German monk mightier than Charles the Fifth ; their
echoes woke again among the peasants of the Tyrol; they
stirred the scholars of Germany to a new life; they roused
the Czar of the Russias to drive back the invader who had
profaned the holy shrine of Moscow.” "
If it was the Book of Exodus, and this book only, which
taught all these men their lessons, there ought surely to be
some record of the fact. The force of the lessons is not dis-
puted, but the fact that the peasants of Rütli had any intimate
familiarity with the narratives of that book, or that some or
many of them had any knowledge of it at all, is one rather to
be proved than assumed ; and it is not easy to see why Arnold
of Brescia and Savonarola could only have been roused to
their condemnation of Sacerdotal corruption by the story of
the Exodus. It is nothing less than absurd to assert that with-
out this story the clergy would no longer be able to say to
the laity :-
“The God who rules over you is verily such an One as this
book, taken in its simplest sense, says that He is. We
proclaim to you that God is the Deliverer of nations. He
did not pretend that He delivered them ; He actually
delivered them.” ”
But such deliverance does not come always. It did not
come to Harold and his brave Englishmen who fought under
him at Senlac ; and there has surely been no invasion marked
by more monstrous wrong than that of the Norman Con-
queror. Mr. Maurice's teaching may seem to be edifying,
but it is really dangerous. It is dangerous because it stakes
our faith on a wrong issue, and because our inference may be
used to support the authority of other sacred books besides
our own. We may, with Mr. Maurice, hold up the Pentateuch,
and ask whether the events related in it are not all “discove-
* Claims of the Bible and of Science, p. 71. * Iº. p. 72.
1865. THE AwzagoNISz's of BISHOP cozzAso. 433
ries to us of a Divine Lord, speaking to man, and of man.”
If we reply that this is so, our answer does not prove the
historical accuracy of the Pentateuch except by involving the
historical truth of the Koran. When we ask—
“Has not this story of the Red Sea given faith to men in
sore trials, when they needed something else than fictions
to rest upon 2 ” +
many a professor of Islam might retort—
“Has not the history of our Prophet nerved our arm for
conquest, and supported us in times of defeat and shame 2
Have not our heroes received fresh strength in the convic-
tion that there is no God but God, and Mahomet is the
Prophet of God?”
When we say that the books of the Pentateuch educate us,
as no other books can, out of the temper of mind which makes
us think of God as a very great Being who does not care
about little things, when we assert that
“they compel me to believe that God does care for the
sanitary condition, for the bodily circumstances, of the
people of my land, and of every other land,” ”
we use words which might come as earnestly from the lips of
a Mahometan as from our own. The lesson is in either case
true and good, but it does not prove the historical truth
whether of the Koran or of the Old Testament.
Mr. Maurice's canon would carry us even further than the
Koran. It would prove the historical truth of the Iliad and
the Odyssey. The Greek could not afford to dispense with
the lessons taught by the friendship of Achilleus for Patroklos,
or the still higher lessons of self-sacrifice, of filial and brotherly
love, displayed in the person and the career of Hektor. Nay
more, these epic poems taught them that long ago their
* Claims of the Bible and of Science, p. 104. * Ib. p. 142.
VOL. I. F F
434 LIFE OF BISHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
fathers were not like the barbarous Thrakian and Scythian
tribes of their own day,+that the Achaians of Agamemnon
had, like themselves, a respect for law, and a greater respect
than they had for the equal companionship of men and
women ; and so these epic poems are genuine and veracious
histories. After all, the evidence for facts is a matter of little
consequence. Great events, like the victories of Salamis and
Plataia, are truths rather than facts.
“They are taken out of the region of letters. They do not
depend any longer on the credibility of records. They have
established themselves in the very existence of humanity.
You cannot displace them without denying that, or re-
making it anew, according to some theory or fashion of
your own.” +
These utterances of Mr. Maurice were to me unintelligible
at the time when they were published, and they remain un-
intelligible still. But we have to note them patiently, if we
would see how far he was qualified to deal with the criticisms
of the Bishop of Natal, or indeed with any narrative of facts.
It is hard to see what end can be attained by his method but
that of complete bewilderment. Mr. Maurice spoke with
something like contempt for those who “believe in nothing
but contemporary testimony,” and asked how Sir Cornewall
Tewis could reach such a conclusion
‘. with all the proofs which the Crimean War and the Indian
Mutiny gave him of its utter untrustworthiness.”
Sir G. C. Lewis, he insisted
“could believe in no evidence coming to his own reason and
conscience; he could, after living through the Crimean War
and the Indian Mutiny, depend upon the contemporary
testimony which told him one day that the defeats of the
* Claims of the Biöle and of Science, p. 75.
1865. THE ANTAGONISTS OF BISHOP COLEA’so. 435
Russians were entirely due to the French, the next that
the French had almost no share in them ; one day that
hundreds of men and women were mutilated by the Sepoys,
the next that there were none.”"
If, on reading these sentences, bewilderment gives place to
a weaker feeling, or even vanishes, it is only because we are
driven to the conclusion that, when a question is treated thus,
words are wasted. Did Mr. Maurice disbelieve absolutely
the occurrence of the Crimean War and of the Indian Mutiny 2
Whatever notions either he or any one else may entertain
about either of these events, if they be events, what proofs
apart from contemporary evidence can be adduced in support
of either of them 2 If Mr. Maurice knew of any testimony
which has fallen down from Jupiter, he has given no hint of
his knowledge. But, in truth, all this declamation comes
from the familiar logical fault of an undistributed middle. Sir
Cornewall Lewis never said that all contemporary testimony
was of necessity absolutely trustworthy ; and most assuredly
he never would have allowed that all must be worthless be-
cause Some may be false.
Such statements, many of them altogether irrelevant, almost
all of them proving too much, serve only to show how
greatly and urgently Bishop Colenso's criticisms were needed.
The device of plausible fiction has been employed, often with
marvellous success, in most countries and ages ; but Mr.
Maurice was able to shut his eyes to the fact, and found a
proof of the historical trustworthiness of the Pentateuch in
the style and form of its contents. The Levitical legislation
was exceedingly minute, and has very little of the air of a
romance ; we may therefore, forsooth, safely assign it to the
age of Moses. Moses himself is not such a personage as an
epic poet might picture to himself. He is described as
encountering all manner of difficulties and opposition.
* Life of Maurice, vol. ii. p. 510.
F F 2
436 LIFE OF BISHOP code/wso. CHAP. IX
“But He who has sent him prevails over the tyrant, bears
with the murmurs of the slaves, educates them to trust
through their distrust, orders their society, gives them laws,
statutes, a tabernacle, and priests to minister in it.”
We may therefore without misgiving ascribe the Levitical
legislation to the time of the sojourn in the wilderness,
although the sentence simply begs the whole question. With
the same wonderful assurance Mr. Maurice asks his readers to
give credence to the story of Noah, on the ground that it is
“familiar and prosaic,” although the remark applies strictly,
so far as language is concerned, to every tale in the Arabian
Nights legends. There is the less reason to distrust it,
because it is “not surrounded with all kinds of romantic
incidents.” This may be a matter of opinion ; but it is at
least as easy and as reasonable to maintain that the incidents
are romantic from beginning to end. The building of a house
or ark larger than the largest of modern ships, the mighty
procession of living things which are to inhabit it, the rising
of the enormous structure with its flat floor on the swirling
waters which have ingulfed a world, the success with which it
keeps its balance in the tumult of the currents sweeping
round a submerged globe, the story of the dove and of the
olive-branch which has been some miles under water for a
year or more, keeping its leaves still green, are surely not
familiar incidents of every-day life; but if they were, such
incidents cannot of themselves give weight to any narrative.
Some of the legends of Numa Pompilius are familiar and
prosaic. The constitution of Servius Tullius is exceedingly
minute and utterly free from the slightest admixture of
romance. It is as calm, sober, and practical as an English
Act of Parliament; and yet it is nothing more than an
elaborate piece of plausible fiction, thrust into a narrative of
traditions which are utterly incredible and impossible. It
1865. 7THE AAV7'A GOAV/STS OF BISAOP COLEAVSO. 437
does not, indeed, follow that because the constitution of
Servius has no reality, therefore the Levitical legislation is a
fiction ; but it is absurd to infer the reality of the latter from
the particularity of its details or the homeliness of the
language in which its precepts are conveyed.
To all such considerations Mr. Maurice shut his eyes, while
yet his own method was both eclectic and rationalistic. It
was eclectic, because he chose to dwell on those parts of the
narrative which told in favour of his teaching, while he made
no reference to other portions which told against it. It was
rationalistic, because in many cases he substituted a narrative
of his own in place of that which he professed to receive as
the Mosaic record. It is true that this method may be
applied to the Koran ; and it may be rightly applied, so long
as it is done openly. There are some Suras which are as
nearly perfect as any words uttered by human lips can be ;
and if in dealing with the Pentateuch we say plainly that
we are separating the gold from the alloy, the process is
thoroughly legitimate. But it is disingenuous and Sophistical
to leave the impression that the alloy either is absent or is
infinitesimally small. This is what the Bishop of Natal
refused to do, and what Mr. Maurice did systematically.
The latter omitted all mention of laws which appear cruel
and actions which seem inhuman, when these laws are stated
to proceed, and these actions to receive encouragement, from
God. He would not assert in so many words that God gave
His expressed sanction to the laws of slavery, concubinage,
and marriage, to the extermination of whole nations, whose
extermination was never accomplished or attempted,—to
wholesale massacres of enemies and prisoners. He denied
in plain terms that Jewish slavery was caused or decreed by
God, although the whole legislation about slaves is asserted
to come from God as distinctly as the declaration that He
* Sermons on the Old Testament, Sermon XVI. p. 306. .
438 I/FE OF BISHOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
dwells in the high and holy place with those that are of a
contrite heart and humble spirit. Some might, perhaps, be
perplexed to know what Mr. Maurice meant by the Divine
sanction ; and on this difficulty some light may be thrown
by the following words:—
“The Jewish legislator, referring all his wisdom, all the
sanction of his laws, to the unseen Deliverer and Ruler,
sinking himself altogether, exhibiting the sins of his family
and tribe, conferred a blessing upon Israelites which we can
only appreciate by considering its effects on those who
accepted his words most strictly.” "
If we accept Mr. Maurice's words strictly, it would follow
that in every single instance in which Moses or other Hebrew
leaders and judges propounded a law or an ordinance under
the sanction, “Thus saith the Lord God,” he or they were
referring their wisdom to the unseen Deliverer and Ruler ;
and that when they claimed that sanction for the law of
jealousy or the massacre of the Midianite children, they
were only sinking themselves altogether, out of reverence
to Him in whom all live, move, and are. It would follow,
further, that the words of the Hebrew prophets are utterances
of deep moral conviction, coming from men who habitually
refer their thoughts to God, and sink their own individuality
in the sanction which they claim for their words. If this was
(and there can be little doubt that it was) his meaning, Mr.
Maurice was virtually saying that, while God speaks in every
true word contained in the Pentateuch and every other part
of the Bible, yet the book contains at least some things which
do not proceed from Him at all. It would have been more
simple and straightforward to say this, instead of indulging in
generalisations which exhibit the Hebrew Scriptures as a
grand and harmonious unity never marred by the faintest
* Claims of the Bible and of Science, p. 143.
1865. THE AAWTAGO/WISTS OF BISHOP COLEAVSO. 439
discord. So thinking and speaking, Mr. Maurice naturally
disliked any careful or rigorous handling of these old nar-
ratives. It is perhaps his strongest ground of complaint
against the Bishop of Natal that he assumed the Pentateuch
to be giving
“not a revelation of God’s ways to men, of His mode of
governing men and holding intercourse with them, but a
narrative of events which are unlike any other events that
have happened in any generation since.” "
Mr. Maurice was, as usual, overstating his case. The
Bishop had treated the story simply as a narrative of his—
torical events, to be tested by the rules which are applied
to all events in any generation whether before or since. In so
doing, the Bishop was only applying to Jewish history the
method which had been already applied to the ancient tradi-
tions of Greece and Rome, of Egypt, Assyria, Persia, and
India. There remained only the earlier history of the Jews
to serve as a field for the same rigorous scrutiny. That
history, like the traditional history of Rome, was found on
examination to present a number of narratives more or less
Contradictory, with details apparently as inconsistent as they
were minute. It exhibited a chronology not less artificial,
and institutional legends not less clearly declaring their
own character; while, to complete the parallel, it contained an
elaborate political and religious legislation, of the actual exist-
ence of which the subsequent history of the people fails to give
sufficient, if indeed any, evidence. The conclusion was in-
evitable. The traditions of the Hebrew nation before the rise
of contemporary writers could not be accepted as authentic
history. The traditions themselves might inforce the sublimest
of all lessons, the most precious of all truths. The critic was
concerned with the simple question of fact. They might
* Claims of the Bible and of Science, p. 102.
44O J.IFE OF BISHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
contain much real history mixed up with the colouring of
legend ; but the critic had no warrant for determining posi-
tively in every instance what was fact and what was fiction.
Such was the simple conclusion to which an examination of
the Pentateuch brought the Bishop of Natal : and this is the
simple question, which must be held up as the only point at
issue. It matters not what or how great may be the interests
or the hopes involved, or supposed to be involved, in it. We
have before us, in the early Hebrew history, a narrative of
alleged facts; and each one of these alleged facts either took
place or did not take place. That history may exhibit
lessons which we can ill afford to part with. It may carry
with it, for certain minds, a consolation and encouragement
which they will tell us that they cannot do without. But
the Mosaic and Levitical legislation remains, nevertheless,
as much the subject of historical criticism as the reforms
of the Spartan Lycurgus or the constitution of Servius
Tullius.
But, having so overstated the case, Mr. Maurice added
that the Bishop
“demands that there should be a minute accuracy in all the
details of these events, to insure their credibility, which
would not be needed to insure the credibility of any other
events.”
To a certain extent this depends on the judge ; and as a
judge Sir Cornewall Lewis would have been probably far
more rigorous than the Bishop of Natal. Not content with
this, Mr. Maurice further insisted that “the moment he missed
that accuracy,” the whole narrative was dismissed as worth-
less. This charge was both unjust and untrue, although Mr.
Maurice had no wish to be either untrue or unjust. Was it
a “minute inaccuracy” which carries the life of Adam down
to that of Noah, and makes the life of Noah overlap, or
1865. THE AAV7'AGO/WISTS OF BISHOP COLEAVSO. 44 I.
nearly overlap, that of Abraham ; or which records as actually
working from the time of the Sinaitic sojourn a legislation
to whose existence the later history bears little testimony or
none 2 The results might, of course, be unwelcome. They
would be so in the highest degree to a mind which, like that
of Mr. Maurice, could not see the positive gain which might
often come from negative conclusions.
“Researches into ancient history which lead to merely nega-
tive results are important and useful, as well as similar
researches which lead to positive results. They distinguish
between fiction—which, however diverting, instructive, and
elevating, can never be historical—and reality, which is a
necessary attribute of an historical narrative.”"
These are the words of Sir Cornewall Lewis, than whom
in this domain of ancient history few critics have been more
destructive. But it would be absurd to say that even under
his potent wand the whole of early Roman history vanishes
into air. The cardinal fact of that history is the conflict of
the several orders in the State; and that fact remains, and is
borne out by the subsequent history of the commonwealth;
or, in Mr. Maurice's language, we still have that from which
we may draw “lessons.” It would not be less absurd and
untrue to say that all Jewish history vanished at the touch of
the Bishop of Natal. The Exodus remained, with the
ascendency acquired by a poor and exiled people over the
inhabitants of a land in which they had once sojourned them-
selves. There is still the sharp contrast between them and
the Canaanitish tribes by the belief of their leaders in one
Living God, and by their possession of a law higher than
any known to the nations whether of Palestine or of Egypt.
There remained, in fact, enough to yield all those lessons
which animated the countrymen of Wyclif and Cranmer,
* Sir G. C. Lewis, On the Astronomy of the Ancients, p. 433.
- * – =~~~~~-------z--------
442 IIFE OF BISA/OA COLEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
and nerved the hearts of the sturdy peasants who met at
Rütli. Bishop Colenso did not, indeed, profess to receive the
narrative as it stood; and in this lay his strength. Mr.
Maurice did profess this ; and the result was language which
had too much the likeness of sophistry. The lay corre-
spondent whose question led to the writing of the book on
The Claims of the Bible and of Science had spoken of many as
fearing that, “if once they 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”; and
on this point Mr. Maurice gave the following explanation:—
“There may be an historical reality in that which does not in
the least correspond with those facts with which the physical
student is occupied. It might be true of a deluge covering
a very small portion of the earth, that God saved a man
and his family from perishing in it; that He gave him a
warning of the calamity which was coming, before it came ;
that He taught him how to save his family, and how to
save creatures of various kinds in the same building in
which he himself took refuge. All this might be a very
simple, child-like narrative of an historical fact, not in the
least legendary.” "
Of course it might; and if Mr. Maurice had intended to
give this as the historical nucleus round which the Noachian
story had grown up, it may safely be said that no objection
would have been offered by the Bishop of Natal. But it did
not follow that because this nucleus was historical the Noachian
narrative was historical also. The inference would rather be
the other way; but whatever Mr. Maurice's hypothetical
story might be, it was not the narrative of the Book of
Genesis, and it violated the Mosaic record in its essential
particulars. That record spoke of a flood over all the earth,
* Claims of the Bible and of Science, p. Io9.
1865. THE ANTAGONISTS OF BISHOP COLEAVSO. 443
covering the high hills; of the gathering of all living creatures
of every kind; of the destruction of every living thing which
did not enter the ark, and of every living substance on the
face of the ground, although the olive-branch survived with its
leaves several miles under water. It was a strange method of
dealing with the Book of Genesis. According to Sir Cornewall
Lewis, any fact of history is a fixed quantity; from Mr.
Maurice's words we might suppose that it was an elastic line.
That the plain statements of the tale involved some difficulty,
he was constrained to admit; but he asked:—
“Has then that length or breadth anything to do with it I
should say ‘absolutely nothing, if I did not reflect that just
in proportion as my thoughts of the earth expand, I must
treat the principle—the law of this narrative—as also ex-
panding. If it was true once that God punished men for
their lust and violence, it is so still.””
Who doubts it But why is it said 2 The remark applies
with fully equal force to the overthrow of Xerxes, and
Herodotus insists on the lesson again and again with all the
earnestness of Mr. Maurice. But although he had thus got
rid of some of the restraints of ordinary historical criticism,
Mr. Maurice had still some qualms, and he proceeded to allay
these by objecting that, for Bishop Colenso,
“a small fact is no fact at all. Noah's deluge must have been
universal, else why make so much of it 2 I reply, because
the whole Bible is occupied about small areas, little families,
contemptible tribes.””
Mr. Maurice may have made this statement in good faith.
It is, nevertheless, not true. It is absurd to speak of kings
who could make equal alliances with some of the mightiest
monarchies of the East as the sovereigns of little families or
* Claims of the Bible and of Science, p. III. * Ib. p. II.4.
444 IIFE OF BISA/OA' COZEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
contemptible tribes, absurd to speak of the empire of Solomon
as a small area; and the account of this empire is certainly
included in “the whole Bible.” It remains further an open
question whether the historian of the Deluge was altogether
unacquainted with the larger area which extended “from the
one sea to the other—from the flood unto the world's end.”
Here, however, as elsewhere, Mr. Maurice escaped with instinc-
tive eagerness into that ethereal region in which alone he could
breathe freely, and then returned to defend himself against
the charge of cowardice for not informing his people that they
have been deceiving themselves in heeding the story of “a.
deluge.” This contempt he admitted that he should deserve,
if ever he bade them hold any opinion about the Deluge which
he “did not hold * himself. What then was his opinion ? The
Book of Genesis asserts that the flood was universal: he had
said that it was very partial. The former says that all species
were represented in the ark: Mr. Maurice said that some only
were sheltered in it. The Mosaic record maintains that all
other men and all other flesh died: Mr. Maurice declared
that, for all we know, a great many in other parts of the earth
may have remained alive. He had left scarcely an incident
of the narrative unmodified, and then asked his readers to
heed the story of a deluge, when the simple question was
whether the Noachian story, and no other, is a matter of fact
or not. It is mere specious argument, if it be not rank
absurdity, to talk of the principle of the story. There are
thousands of overwhelming calamities which, if the Noachian
Deluge were proved to be the merest fiction, might still teach
us that God “punishes men for their lust and violence.”
Only we have received a caution not to judge those who
were crushed by the falling tower in Siloam, or the earthquake
of Lisbon. -
In short, Mr. Maurice, in these criticisms on Bishop Colenso,
dealt with the Mosaic story of the Deluge much as Thucydides
1865. THE ANTAGO/WISTS OF PISAIOP COZAAWSO. 445
treated the tale of the Trojan War. It is conceivably possible
that both Mr. Maurice and Thucydides may have hit upon the
real historical residuum in each case ; but we cannot have any
warrant or evidence for this, beyond their own word. In both
the tales the several incidents form one coherent whole. In
the Trojan story,
“If we are asked whether it be not a legend embodying
portions of historical matter and raised upon a basis of
truth; whether there may not really have occurred at the
foot of the hill of Priam a war purely human and political,
without gods, without heroes, without Helens, without
Amazons, without Ethiopians under the beautiful son of .
Eós; . . . . if we are asked whether there was not really
some such historical Trojan war as this, our answer must be
that, as the possibility of it cannot be denied, so neither can
the reality of it be affirmed.”"
It is not easy to see what would under any circumstances
be gained by dissecting in the same fashion the Noachian
story of the Deluge, and then talking of the principle of an
event which, in the form propounded, had been really fabri-
cated by Mr. Maurice himself. Had Mr. Maurice put forth
these conclusions as his own, in place of the Noachian story as
it has come down to us, it would have shown at once that he
ranked the Pentateuch with all other histories, although the
soundness of the method by which he reached the residuum
might still be questioned. Critics like Sir Cornewall Lewis
might have said that he spoke too positively about events
which belong to a pre-historic age ; but the admission that
Mr. Maurice regarded the history of the Pentateuch as a fair
subject for scrutiny would have gone far towards quieting the
stormy waters of the controversy provoked by the publication
of the Bishop's volumes. It would have shown that he shared
* Grote, History of Greece, vol. i. p. 434.
446 IIFE OF BISFIOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
Dean Milman's conviction that “the words of Christ, and His
words alone (the primal, indefeasible truths of Christianity)
shall not pass away.” ". It would have dealt another blow on
that exaggerated or false dogmatism which has overlaid
those words by doctrines which are not His. It would also
have shown that the vast gulf which Mr. Maurice supposed
to intervene between himself and the Bishop of Natal was
really but a narrow channel Created by his own unreasonable
and unreasoning fears.
We should, however, be doing Mr. Maurice a gross injustice
were we to put out of sight the really vast gulf which separated
him from the rank and file of those who came forward to
uphold what they called the authority and inspiration of the
Scriptures. For him every narrative even of the earliest books
of the Old Testament was instinct with a living spirit; and
this spirit was the Spirit of the God of Truth, of Righteousness,
and of Love. These books revealed to him nothing but things
lovely, and beautiful, and of good report. They pointed to the
conflict between truth and falsehood, and to the great Con-
summation in the victory of righteousness over sin. They
left him, therefore, precisely on the ground on which the
Bishop of Natal had taken his stand, although they had
reached it by opposite ways. The former had insisted on his
right to draw all these lessons from these books, and to con-
tend, by some strange mental process, that apart from these
books they could not have been learnt at all. The latter
showed that in many, if not in most, cases, these narratives
did not teach the lessons so extracted from them, and that
Mr. Maurice's attitude in the matter gave unfortunate encour-
agement to those who made use of their Bibliolatry to inforce
on the people the most horrible falsehoods and superstitions.
It is useless to blink the facts of the case. The Bishop of
Natal had tested the historical accuracy of the Pentateuch,
1. History of Latin Christianity, vol. vi. book xiv. ch. x. p. 447. -
1865. 7THE A/V7AGO/WIS 7 S OF BISA/OP COZEAVSO. 447
partly because he was moved by a natural desire for historical
knowledge, as for all other truth ; partly by a wish to throw
off the yoke which thrust on him as historically true a narra-
tive some of which at the least is uncertain ; but, most of all,
by a longing to take away the foundation of those cruel
notions or doctrines which are scarcely less fatal than the
Manicheeism of Simeon Stylites, in short, to break the
chains of a cruel and deadly tyranny. It may be true that
no great amount of arithmetic would be needed to “induce
men,” in Mr. Maurice's words, “to throw off the incubus of an
authority which they suppose exists to curse them ; ” 1 but it
is equally true that they who represent God as dooming “the
immense majority of His creatures to hopeless destruction,”
profess to speak on the authority and by the command of an
infallible book. The blow struck against this fetish worship
had called forth an outburst of this malignant dogmatism.
The Primate himself had declared that the endless torturing
of individual sinners was Our Only warrant or assurance for
the endless happiness of the righteous, and that the latter
must fall with the former. Another, pleading expressly the
sanction of the New Testament, held that it would be an
insult to the saved if a harlot or a thief dying impenitent
were admitted, after atonement extended over billions of
years, to take but the lowest room in the house of their
Father and Redeemer.” On this sanction, together with the
authority of that which he spoke of as the Church, this same
writer condemned, not to the Zimbus puerorum, or limbo of
children, but to the hell of bodily torture, all infants dying
unbaptized.” To these he had unquestionably the authority
of Fulgentius for adding those who die before birth in their
mother's womb. Against this horrible blasphemy the Bishop
of Natal and Mr. Maurice were both fighting ; and we have to
* Claims of the Bible and of Science, p. 136.
* Christian Remembrancer, April 1863, p. 476. * Ib. p. 477.
448 LIFE OF BISHOP colºvso chap. ix.
~sº ºr "
remember that Mr. Maurice had come forth first to bear his
righteous testimony. While he was reproaching the Bishop
for taking away the foundations of trust, he was also
denouncing
“the popular interpretation, not for its severity, but for the
practical laxity which its fierceness engenders, . . . .
because it deters from no crime, and cultivates the despair
which is the cause of ten thousand crimes.”
While he looked on his friend as obscuring the light of the
Divine Love, he was uttering the golden words—
“If I preached that there would be no deliverance from eternal
death, I should be preaching that no sinner can be raised
from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God.”"
He who could thus speak might well have withheld the hard
words which he cast at the Bishop of Natal. But, great and
good man though he was, in Mr. Maurice the historical sense
was very weak. He was but scantly capable of weighing the
laws and applying the tests of historical credibility; and hence
it was that, in dealing with alleged records and statements of
facts, his method assumed, in the eyes of men who wished
simply to know the truth of facts, very much the appear-
ance of Sophistry, although he expressed just indignation
at the •
“race of quacks who can always prove what they are wanted
to prove.”
Strange to say, the utterance of his censure is followed by an
attempt to prove the harmony of the two accounts of Creation,
which provokes a comparison with the mysticism that spoke
of the seven sons of Job as meaning the twelve Apostles, and
of his daughters as representing the faithful laity. It was,
1 Claims of the Bible and of Science, p. 133.
1865. THE ANTAGO/WIS 7'S OF BISHOP COLEAVSO. 449
therefore, scarcely possible for him to do justice to the Bishop
of Natal, who broached no theory, who put forth no hypothesis,
propounded no solutions, but set himself sedulously to deter-
mine the historical value of certain professedly historical records.
The controversy provoked by Bishop Colenso's writings
raised some curious side issues. For the time High Church-
men and Low Churchmen alike seemed united in their
enthusiasm for a book (or series of books) which they
regarded as a direct gift from God; and of Broad Churchmen
or muscular Christians some at least seemed resolved that
they would not allow others to outrun them in their zeal. But
it never seems to have struck any of them that they might
have to encounter difficulties with other prodigies than those
related in the Bible, or to defend themselves against home-
thrusts on the score of relic worship. Of these champions of
Christendom not a few insisted that the Hebrew Scriptures
had during three or more millenniums been preserved by
special Divine interposition from mutilation, interpolation, or
corruption, that they were in short like a picture or a statue
fresh from the hands of the painter or the sculptor; and they
insisted with not less vehemence that a series of wonderful
incidents recorded in those books were all historical facts, and
that no other wonderful incidents could be included under the
same term. Prominent among these was Mr. Kingsley, who,
being then Modern History Professor at Cambridge, under-
took to hurl his lance first at the Bishop of Natal, and then at
Dr. Newman. The discussions which ensued threw a singular
light first on the arbitrary method which regarded as fact
certain miracles because related in particular writings, as
against others because they were not recorded in those books ;
and next on the dogged pertinacity which will take up any
ground rather than give up the genuineness of a relic. Mr.
Kingsley had applied some very strong language to Dr.
Newman, charging him, among other things, with “stupendous
VOL. I. G G
45O AAAZZZ OA' AASA/OA COLEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
silliness” because he thought it difficult or impossible to with-
stand the evidence which is brought for the liquefaction of the
blood of St. Januarius at Naples, and also because he thought
that the holy coat of Treves may possibly or probably be a
genuine relic, whereas “the very texture and material of the
thing prove it” to Mr. Kingsley's satisfaction “to be spurious.”
But Mr. Kingsley had read, or he ought to have read, the
preface on ecclesiastical miracles which Dr. Newman had
prefixed to a translation of a part of Fleury's Ecclesiastical
Aſistory, and in which he argued that the question of miracles
is one wholly of evidence, and that the fact of a miracle in any
age or country must be accepted if the evidence offered for it
be adequate. It followed from this that no sharp line could,
as Mr. Kingsley held that it could, be drawn, on one side of
which miracles are possible, on the other impossible. It would
be absurd, therefore, to say that they ceased with the close of
the Apostolic age, or with the conversion of Constantine, or
to deny that they may be extended down to our own time.
Logically, therefore, no one who accepted the miracles of the
Bible could reject contemptuously the miracles of St. Augus-
tine or St. Boniface without examining the evidence in each
case ; and any one who urged difficulties with regard to the
latter must be prepared to face difficulties which may be urged
against the former. But Mr. Kingsley would have it that,
as miracles do not occur nowadays, modern narratives of
miracles must be false ; and he insisted at the same time
that the Pentateuch was written by Moses, settling the debate
by the triumphant question, “If Moses did not write the
Pentateuch, who did 2 ” Dr. Newman had his own answer
ready, and the following words, though nowhere used by him,
may be taken as fairly representing it.
If I believe that the blood of St. Januarius liquefied at
Naples, you believe that a long time ago an ass spoke with
1865. THE Awza'GowIsTS OF BISHOP COLENso. 451
articulate human speech ; that an iron axe-head was made
to float on the water, instead of remaining at the bottom ;
that handkerchiefs which had touched an Apostle's body
were endued with the power of healing diseases. If I see
no special harm in people crowding to look at the coat at
Treves, you have no special condemnation for those who
fancied that their sicknesses would be cured if merely the
shadow of an Apostle passing by fell on them. Moreover,
for my belief I may bring up the testimony of a hundred
living witnesses: to what can you refer me but to the mere
statement of a record which does not profess to be con-
temporary, and for which there is no corroborative evidence
whatever ? If I believe in the genuineness of the holy coat,
do you not believe in the genuineness of the Pentateuch P
Have you not been calling the Bishop of Natal hard names,
and charging him with abandonment of the faith, because
he asserts, and gives his reasons for thinking, that your
holy coat is no genuine relic, inasmuch as “the very texture
and material of the thing prove it to be spurious”? If I
believe that portions of the true cross are at Rome and
elsewhere, do you not hold that not a portion only but the
whole, or something very like the whole, of the writings
of Moses have come down to us in their integrity ? If
the tradition of the Jews, who, as you say, ought to know
best, is that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, does not the
tradition of Catholics, who ought to know best, affirm that
the holy coat was worn by our Lord 2 What are the diffi-
culties against this supposition compared with those which
Bishop Colenso has urged against your theory of the
authorship of the Pentateuch I see that in your opinion
the debate is ended by asking, “If Moses did not write
these books, who did?” Bentley, as the Bishop of Natal
remarks, would, of course, have said that it was no part of
his business to determine, if Phalaris did not write the
epistles of Phalaris, who did write them. But at the least I
have as good a right to ask, “If the holy coat is not the
work of those who wove it for our Lord, whose work
is it P "
G G 2
452 IIFE OF BISHOP COLE/VSO. CHAP. IX.
It is strange, indeed, that Mr. Kingsley should not have
seen with how serious a matter he was dealing. He was
bound, by the terms of Dr. Newman's Essay, to prove that
miracles called ecclesiastical stand on a different footing
from those in the Bible. He attempted nothing of the sort ;
but he turned savagely on the Bishop of Natal because he
called into question the genuineness of a relic about which
Mr. Kingsley refused to entertain a doubt. These facts alone
would suffice to show not merely how thoroughly the Bishop
of Natal was justified in undertaking his task, but how
urgently his work was called for. If the clergy and laity of
the Church of England had seen things in the light in which
they were beheld by Dr. Thirlwall, all the criticisms proving
that the really historical residuum in the Pentateuch was less
than they had taken it to be would have been received with
interest indeed, but dispassionately, as in no way affecting
any higher concerns. Questions relating to the families of
the Patriarchs, to the sojourn of the Israelites first in Egypt,
then in the desert, to the promulgation of the moral, the civil,
and ecclesiastical codes, would have been treated on the
footing of questions relating to the expulsion and return of
the Herakleids, to the legislation of Lykourgos (Lycurgus)
or Drakon (Draco), of Solon, or Numa, or Manu. One man,
and one man only, amongst the Bishops of English sees, had
the insight to discern and the courage to say this, and he
said it with a clearness which left no room for misapprehen-
sion." In his judgement we were no more called upon to
explain away difficulties in the story of Samson, or in the
annals of the children of Jacob, than to take part in the
search for the philosopher's stone or the elixir of life. But
the replies which came forth in shoals on the publication of
each part of the Bishop's work implied without exception
that, if the defence of these narratives were not made good,
* See p. 310.
* *
1865. THE ANTAGO/WISTS OF BISHOP COLENSo. 453
Christianity itself must fall. The Bishop's First Part pointed
out the Self-contradictions in the accounts of the children
and grandchildren of Jacob, and other like difficulties in the
earlier portions of the Pentateuch; and the self-styled ortho-
dox champions hurried into the fight without waiting to see
whether their labours might not all be rendered useless by
arguments and evidence still to be adduced. Such evidence
was produced in the Third Part, which had for its special
object to show the composite character of the Pentateuch,
and the later date at which much of it must have come into
existence. On the supposition that it was all the work of one
author, some of the explanations proffered might seem to
prop up a tottering wall; but if it should be proved that it
was not, and could not be, the work of one author, then these
efforts must, as the Bishop insisted,
“be dismissed at once as merely ingenious attempts—like the
cycles and epicycles of the old Ptolemaic system of astro-
nomy—to build up a theory which has no real foundation in
fact, and which falls at last by the weight of its own cumbrous
additions, and must be swept away together with them.” "
Some of these pleaders seemed to think that, if they shifted
a difficulty ever so slightly, they had got rid of it altogether.
The Bishop had pointed out the very astonishing consequences
involved in the directions given to the priest, Leviticus iv. 12,
about the carrying of the dead victims to a place without the
camp. The Bishop had treated this as a task imposed upon
the priest personally ; and at once a broadside was opened
against his Hebrew scholarship, and his folly in forgetting
that the verb had here a causal meaning. The point is by no
means certain ; but the difficulty remains much where it was.
“I am quite ready,” the Bishop rejoined, “to admit that the
Hebrew word here' employed may be used in the sense of
* Pentateuch, Part III. p. viii.
454 I/FE OF BISHOP CO/LEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
carrying out with the help of others. But the stress of my
argument is not laid upon the necessity of the priest himself
in person doing this, but upon the fact that it had to be done
by somebody, that all the ashes, offal, and filth of every
kind, for a vast city as large as London, without any kind
of sewage arrangements, had to be carried out daily through
the crowded streets a distance of six miles.” "
Difficulties such as these were met by Mr. Maurice with an
indignant remonstrance against the temper which could cast
such foulness in his face,” when the only matter of any moment
was the training of the people to the conviction of the Divine
rule and the Divine love. To this, again, no objection needed
to be made, provided only that all were ready with Mr. Maurice
to treat the Pentateuch merely as a storehouse of wholesome
lessons and edifying instruction. The case was altered when
others spoke as if the way was made fairly clear by the hypo-
thesis that many of the laws were never meant to be carried
out in the wilderness. Thus they disposed of the difficulty
about the pigeons or turtledoves, although these are ordered,
as the story states, by Jehovah Himself, as an easy offering
for a poor man to bring, with express reference to their life
in the wilderness.”
This method of putting a part for the whole runs through
many or most of the replies put forth to the Bishop's earlier
volumes. A writer in the Edinburgh Review” eulogized an
anonymous layman's treatise” as effectually disposing “of
the greater part of Dr. Colenso's objections” by appealing
“entirely to the direct evidence of the Pentateuch itself,
interpreted by common-sense.” The Reviewer was mistaken.
The objections in general were not removed at all ; and it is
* Pentateuch, Part II. p. xiv.
* He had himself already spoken of sanitary laws as a necessary part
of the Divine work. See p. 433.
* Pentateueh, Part II. p. xiv. * No. 240, p. 505.
* The Historic Character of the Pentateuch Vindicated.
1865. 7THE AMTA GO/WZSTS OF BISA/OA COLEAVSO. 455
obvious (I) that, so long as any remained, the ground taken
by Mr. Burgon and Dr. Baylee was lost; and (2) that it was
only against this position that the Bishop's labours were
directed. Had it been universally admitted that the narra-
tives of the Pentateuch were records comparable precisely
with the records of the invasion of Xerxes, or the exploits of
the Roman kings, the “intelligent Zulu "would have had no
need to put his searching questions, or, if he had, even Lord
Macaulay's school-boy would have known how to answer them.
The layman's method, however, affected to dispose of one of
the chief difficulties connected with the numbers of the Israelites
at the time of the Exodus by assuming that Jacob went down
into Egypt with “a thousand or more” followers, who were all
reckoned as his children, and as the forefathers of the two or
three millions who escaped from captivity; and this in the
teeth of the plain statement in Deuteronomy (x, 22), “Thy
fathers went down into Egypt with three score and ten per-
sons,” and although, as the Bishop adds,
“it is equally plain that ten asses (Genesis xiii. 26, 27) could
scarcely have brought up corn enough from Egypt to
support a thousand servants, besides Jacob's own children
and grandchildren, for twelve months in a time of famine.”
After the same fashion the perplexities involved in the
numbers of the priests are supposed to be met by the supposi-
tion that the priests formed originally five households, of
which Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar were the
heads ; that each of the families consisted of about forty souls,
including a considerable number of servants ; and that all the
males of the proper age among them all were reckoned as
sons of Aaron, and priests, although it is distinctly stated
that there were only three. Another objection, which, the
layman allowed, would, if established, be fatal to the
entire argument, was thought to be disposed of by the
456 AZFE OF BISAMOA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
assertion that the first-borns of man were not to be “openers
of the womb,” although it is distinctly stated (Exodus xiii. 2)
that they were.
The Bishops generally seemed to think it their duty to treat
Dr. Colenso's work as almost beneath contempt. Bishop
Wilberforce spoke of his arguments as “but the repetition of
old and often-answered cavils,” but at the same time denounced
the book as doing an amount of evil which it was difficult to
estimate. If Bishop Wilberforce meant that these arguments
had been satisfactorily and conclusively answered, it was
surely nothing less than his duty, and that of all his colleagues
on the bench who agreed with him, to put forth these answers,
and commend them with their solemn sanction to the whole
body of the faithful. But nothing of the sort was done, or
seemingly even thought of. Of collective action there was
none. Individually some of them pronounced his criticisms
to be “rash and feeble,” “unfounded, false, and childish ; ”
and one of them in one short letter, forbidding him to minister
in his diocese, applied either to him or to his work the follow-
ing choice expressions—“heretical,” “blasphemous,” “abomin-
able,” “unhappy,” “blind,” “daring,” “ignorant self-sufficiency,”
“instrument of Satan,” “poor Bishop Colenso.”
In truth, while from all parts of the country he was receiving
letters of sympathy from clergymen and laymen, urging him
to carry on and complete his labours, he might well confess
himself disappointed at the course adopted towards him by
the great body of his episcopal brethren.
“I had no reason,” he said, “to suppose that I should receive
from all of them expressions of sympathy or encouraging
help in my work. . . . But I did not imagine that so many
Bishops of England, with the Bishop of Oxford at their
head, would have absolutely ignored the existence of
such a science as Biblical criticism, and its undoubted and
* Pentateuch, Part III. p. xv.
1865. THE ANTAGONISTS OF BISHOP COLEAVSO. 457
undeniable results in its application to the earlier Hebrew
Scriptures. I believed that there were men of science and
scholars among them, who, being acquainted generally with
these results, would be aware of their reality and importance,
and who would feel it to be impossible, in this age of
inquiry, any longer to bar out their admission, as facts to
be taken account of, like any of the facts of science, by the
more intelligent minds of the Church of England. I had
hoped that their influence would have prevailed to check
the hasty judgement of others, less informed than them-
selves on these matters ; and that if my episcopal brethren
generally, did not think it expedient to hold out to me a
brotherly right hand of fellowship—if they condemned me
as going too far in my conclusions, or as reasoning too
confidently on insufficient premises—they would at least
have recognised that my arguments were not altogether
without some real foundation, and Ought to be judged upon
their merits, ought to be considered, and, if need be, checked
and corrected, not merely thrown aside with contemptuous
language, as unfounded and ridiculous. I could not have
believed, for instance, that the Bishop of Oxford would have
ventured to say that my ‘speculations, so rash and feeble in
themselves, are ‘in all essential points but the repetition of
old and often-answered cavils against the Word of God,'
and still less that his Grace the Primate of All England
would have pronounced, with the high authority of his office,
that my objections ‘are, for the most part, puerile and
trite ; SO puerile that an intelligent youth who read his
Bible with care, could draw the fitting answers from the
Bible itself—so trite that they have been again and again
refuted, two hundred years ago by Archbishop Ussher, one
of the most learned analysts of this or of any country, more
recently by Bishop Watson and others.’” +
If nothing more was needed for their complete refutation
than the intelligence of an average youth who read his Bible
carefully, the great learning of Archbishop Ussher must have
* Pentateuch, Part III. p. xviii.
458 M.I.A.A.' OF PASA/OP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
been wasted on a task unworthy of his powers. But not one
word of the Primate's statement was true in fact ; and, as the
Bishop of Natal temperately urged, “the writings of Arch-
bishop Ussher and Bishop Watson will throw no light
whatever upon the most important questions which are here
discussed.” But, in truth, Archbishop Longley allowed him-
self to use language which, if employed for instance in the
long controversies on the origin, growth, or composition of
the Homeric poems, would have covered the critic with
disgrace. Not content with expressing his contempt for
the Bishop’s “puerilities,” he ranged the readers of his
book into three ranks or categories—the ignorant, the
half-informed, and those who rejoiced “in anything which
can free them from the troublesome restraints of religion.”
This is one of those vast falsehoods of which we may hope
that Archbishop Longley, were he Primate still, would be now
ashamed. But the Bishop, now as always unruffled, replied
simply :-
“The object of my whole book is to bind the consciences of
men more imperatively than ever by the law of true
religion, which is the law of life and happiness. But inas-
much as multitudes have already broken loose from the
restraints of that traditional teaching, which they know to
be contradicted by some of the most familiar results of
modern science, now made the common heritage of every
educated English child, I believe that I have only done
my duty, as a minister of the National Church, in endea-
vouring to re-establish a permanent union between the
teachings of religion and science, and to heal effectively
that breach between them, which otherwise will assuredly
widen day by day, with infinite injury to the Church itself,
and to the whole community.” "
But again and again the Bishops tried to divert the con-
troversy to false issues. They would have it, for instance,
* Pentateuch, Part III. p. xviii.
1865. THE ANTAGONISTS OF BISHOP COLEAVSO. 459
that Dr. Colenso “denied the inspiration of the Bible.” He
had not done so, and indeed he had not in these volumes
entered into the question at all. His only aim had been “to
examine critically the Pentateuch and Book of Joshua,” with
the special purpose of determining, as far as possible, the age
and authorship of the different books. They insisted further
that he wished to prove the whole Pentateuch, and, in fact,
the whole Bible, to be untrue. Nothing, he replied, could be
further from his wish and purpose.
“Rather,” he said, “I desire to know what is true in the
Pentateuch history, and in the Bible generally. I wish to
know, if possible, in what age, by what persons, under what
circumstances, the different portions of the Bible were
written, that I may be able to judge for myself, and help
others to judge, the amount of credibility to be attached to
the different narratives. . . . . The process of critical in-
quiry, so far from eliciting proofs and confirmations of the
Mosaic origin of these books, leads quite to the opposite
conclusion. All the arguments drawn from an examination
of the Pentateuch point in one direction. It is well to
observe this. There is literally nothing in these books
distinctly indicative of Mosaic authorship. The whole force
of the argument for that authorship rests upon tradition,
and may be referred back to the opinion of the Jews who
lived nearly a thousand years after the date assigned to
Moses. It is not a question of balanced internal evidence,
but a case where there is a host of indications all tending
to show diversity of authorship and late date, and mone
discoverable, by all the ingenuity yet brought to bear upon
the subject, which tends decidedly the other way; and the
supporters of the traditional view will be found to be con-
stantly occupied—not in producing “internal evidence” to
show that Moses did write the Pentateuch, but—in trying
to account for the existence, on the assumption of his
authorship, of so much internal evidence of the contrary.
In short, the strength of the resistance to the critical
460 A./FE OF BISA/OP COLEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
conclusion lies in the feeling that we do not like to think
that those books could have grown up in the way which the
‘internal evidence ’clearly indicates, the way in which, be
it observed, the religious books of all other nations are
known to have been formed.”
“I have felt it to be my duty,” he went on to say, “to lay the
facts of the case before the English reader. . . . . I believe
that I have succeeded in this to some extent, though I must
confess that I have been surprised at the amount of ingenuity
which, even in an age like this, can still be expended in
framing all kinds of possible or impossible ways of escape
from the most overwhelming difficulties.”
Further than this, the Bishops charged him with imputing
dishonesty to the clergy generally for concealing their views
about the Deluge, and using the Baptismal Form of Prayer
without believing it. The charge was not true; and if any
words used by him could fairly be made to express this
meaning, he would, he said, have regretted and apologized for
the use of language capable of being so misconstrued." He
had acted simply in self-defence. Accused of dishonesty
himself, in retaining his clerical office while disbelieving
many or most of the details of the story of the Exodus, he
replied
“that Wyclif did not retire from his sacred office, though
disbelieving the doctrines of the Church of which he was a
minister; and that Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer, and
other Bishops, though consecrated as Bishops of the Roman
Church, and bound by the solemn vows of their ordination
in that Church, did not resign their sees as soon as they
became Protestant Bishops, and the National Church by
the national will had become Protestant also ; nor after-
wards, when, by the same will, the Church ceased to be
Protestant, and once more became Romanised. But I felt
that in the present instance there was far less reason for
urging upon me such a course as a plain duty, inasmuch as
* Pentateuch, Part III. p. xxi.
1865. THE AWTA GOAWISTS OF BISHOP CO/LEAVSO. 461
very many of the clergy, I believed, and certainly not a few
of my episcopal brethren, did not accept the story of the
Noachian deluge as literally and historically true, and yet
justified themselves in retaining their offices in the Church.
If my conduct was dishonest, so, too, was theirs; for my
‘dishonesty,’ surely, could not consist in openly professing
that which others secretly held.”"
Far, however, from imputing dishonesty to them, he gave
certain reasons which he thought would satisfy different
classes of minds, and enable them still with a clear
conscience to use the form of prayer which referred to that
narrative.
But the disingenuousness of the great majority of the
prelates of the Church of England was shown still more
glaringly in the joint letter which they addressed to the
Bishop of Natal, calling upon him to resign.” They were
well aware that the position of the clergy in England had
been much affected by recent decisions of the Court of Arches
and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and that
the effect of these judgements was greatly to extend the
range of their freedom. Of some of these facts the Bishop of
Natal could not be aware at the time of writing some of the
sentences on which the prelates fastened ; but they proceeded,
nevertheless, to judge him out of his own mouth, without
betraying any consciousness that the circumstances of the
case were no longer what they had been.
“(1) We understand you to say,” they wrote, “that you do
not now believe that which you voluntarily professed to
believe as the indispensable condition of your being intrusted
with your present office. *
“(2) We understand you to say that you have entertained,
and have not abandoned, the conviction that you could
not use the Ordination Service, inasmuch as in it you must
* Pentateuch, Part III. p. xxiii. * See p. 236.
462 M.IFAE OF BISHOP CO LE/VSO. CHAP. IX.
require from others a solemn declaration that they “un-
feignedly believe all the canonical Scriptures of the Old
and New Testaments, which, with the evidence now before
you, it is impossible wholly to believe in.
“(3) We understand you further to intimate that those who
think with you are precluded from using the Baptismal
Service, and consequently (as we must infer) other offices
of the Prayer Book, unless they omit all such passages as
assume the truth of the Mosaic history.”
The comments added to these three suppositions show that
they were meant to serve as nooses to catch an unwary
victim. How different the comments might have been, and
how different the results following from those comments, the
Bishops were not aware. Their words had not ascribed to
the Bishop of Natal any definite offence, or shown that these
three headings involved any offence at all. They do not state
what it was that the Bishop of Natal had, at the time of his
ordination, voluntarily professed to believe; and it did not of
necessity follow that, in believing this, whatever it may have
been, he was right. The fact is that he was not right, and
one at least of the English Bishops, Dr. Thirlwall, of St.
David's, felt that he had not been right. Had all of them
seen things as Bishop Thirlwall saw them, their comments
would have taken probably the following form :—
We understand you to say that you no longer hold a certain
belief which you held at the time of your ordination ; and
from your writings we gather that you felt yourself bound
by this belief to accept every single incident in the narra-
tives of the Hebrew Scriptures as historical fact. We are
thankful to be able to disabuse you of a mistaken notion,
and to assure you that in accusing yourself of failure in
duty by abandoning this notion you were led astray by an
over-sensitive and scrupulous conscience. Your error lay
in the old belief or idea, not in the abandonment of it.
We are aware that such ideas are still entertained by Some
1865. 7THE AAV7.4 GONZSTS OF BISHOP COLENso. 463
amongst both the clergy and the laity; but it is a ground-
less superstition. The Church holds, and has always held,
that the voice of God may be heard in the Scriptures of the
Old Testament and of the New ; but it has never said
or meant that they should be treated as though the narra-
tives found in them were all genuine history, or as though
the prophets and righteous men whose words we read in
them were guaranteed against all mistakes and errors. If
we have at any time so spoken as to countenance this
popular delusion, we take blame to Ourselves ; and we
welcome your work as showing clearly how the Scriptures
should be studied, and as helping the people to realise more
fully the real nature of the Divine Kingdom and the Divine
work in the world.
These things might have been, and should have been, said;
but we have to come down to hard facts. -
The Bishop's answers to these inferences or assumptions
are so important that they must be cited almost in full. He
had to reply to one of the craftiest documents that ever came
from a body of hierophants conscious that the popular faith
in their own authority was being assailed and shaken. They
were trying to pin an honourable and single-minded man to
his own words in a sense which might, as they hoped, constrain
him to withdraw from the struggle, and leave them masters
of the field. They were careful at the same time so to lay
their snare as to impart the semblance of a judicial authority
to their interpretations of the promises made at ordination
and consecration. They juggled (the word cannot be with-
held) with their phrases, when they said that the Bishop had
to obtain from candidates for orders a declaration that they
“believe the canonical Scriptures” which now he found it
impossible to believe in. Christians, and, it is to be hoped, all
men, believe in God alone: to other things they may give
credit, they can do no more. But the Bishops were insinuat-
ing throughout that the acceptance of an immense number of
464 A./FE OF BISA/OP COLEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
incidents of all sorts and kinds as historical events was the
most important condition imposed on candidates for orders,
so that when in the daily office the priest declares the forgive-
ness of sin for all who unfeignedly believe the Holy Gospel,
this means not so much the thankful welcome of the message
of healing, strength, peace, and love, as the receiving without
question as genuine historical events every incident in the
narratives relating to the Nativity or the Passion. By speaking
of certain prayers in the offices of the Church of England as
assuming the truth of the Mosaic history, and insinuating on
this ground that an acceptance of every incident in that
history as actual fact was imposed as a sacred duty on all
the clergy, they were making a demand still more monstrous,
and were doing their best to choke the spiritual life of the
country. When, as a candidate for orders, Mr. Maurice was
asked what were the erroneous and strange doctrines which
he undertook to banish and put away, he specified among
others the doctrines that there is any goodness in the creature
disunited from God ; that there is any bar to the admission
of a sinner into God's presence, except that which his own
unbelief creates ; that men are more anxious to attain the
knowledge of God than He is anxious to bring them to that
knowledge; that man can worship God except in the Spirit;
and that there is any reward so great or glorious which God
can offer to His creatures as that of making them partakers of
His Divine character. These are truths or realities on which
men can live, without which they cannot live ; and yet the
prelates could speak as though their own minds and those of
their clergy were, or ought to be, running at least equally on
the duty of believing that historically the ass of Balaam spoke
with articulate human speech, or that Samson smote a thou-
sand Philistines with an ass's jaw-bone. The very thought of
such superstition is to the last degree humiliating ; and it
was a happy thing for the future history of English thought
1865. THE Awza GONISTS OF BISHOP COLENso. 465
that the Bishop of Natal avoided the trap thus laid for
him.
As to the first of the three assumptions made by the
prelates who addressed him, he said that at the time of his
ordination he understood the words “believe unfeignedly all
the canonical Scriptures”
“in their obvious and most natural sense, the sense in which
Some of the Bishops and many of the clergy at this very
time receive them,--as implying that those Scriptures were,
in matters of historical fact, as well as in statements of moral
and religious truth, divinely and infallibly true.”
“I have said also,” he added, “that I had ceased to believe
this, and that I was pained to find my convictions contra-
dicting, as I conceived, the words of the Ordination Service,
until it was declared, on the highest legal authority of the
Church of England, that my former view—I may say the
popular view—of the meaning of those words was mistaken,
and that they must be held to mean no more than a simple
expression of a bond ſide belief that ‘the Holy Scriptures
contain everything necessary to salvation, and that, ‘to that
extent, they have the direct sanction of the Almighty.”
On the second of their remarks he reminded them that,
although he had at one time
“felt the impossibility of demanding from a candidate for
orders such a confession of belief in the Holy Scriptures as
[he] then considered, and as many still consider, to be
required by the formula of the Ordination Service,”
he had added, since reading in England the judgement of Dr.
Lushington, that his words were written before that decision,
which had, of course, materially affected his conclusion.
Of their third assumption he said that it
“is contradicted by my own language already referred to
(Part II. p. xxii.), where I have said that many clergymen
VOL. I. H. H.
466 IIFE OF BISAIOP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
who do not believe in the historical truth of the Noachian
Deluge will yet be able to justify themselves, in one of two
ways, in using still such a form of prayer. If it is perfectly
understood that a minister is at full liberty to explain to
his people freely his opinion respecting the Biblical account
of the Deluge, the unhistorical character of the Mosaic story,
or the age and authorship of Deuteronomy (and this appears
likewise to be decided in the affirmative by the same legal
judgement), I apprehend that many who have an intelligent
acquaintance with the results of modern criticism, may still
be content to read the allusions in the Liturgy. But I felt
also that there might be others, of more scrupulous con-
science, who would not be satisfied with this mode of meet-
ing the difficuly, and to whom I could give no other advice
than that which I have given—viz. to omit such expressions,
and take the consequences of such omission. I consider,
however, that such passages ought no longer to be retained,
as of absolute obligation, in our Prayer Book ; and I hold it
to be my duty, as a Bishop of the National Church, to
labour for their removal—or, at least, for the liberty being
granted of omitting them—as soon as possible.”"
In giving this advice the Bishop was, as it so happened,
fully borne out by the Primate, Dr. Longley.” To the Bishop
of Natal this support was satisfactory, and in a certain sense
it was eminently so ; but there was, nevertheless, this differ-
ence, that, at the worst, the using of the words in the Burial
Service over the remains of those who had lived unworthily,
or shockingly, would but express trust in a love stronger than
spiritual death, trust in a righteousness which will make each
undergo the discipline which they have deserved and which
they need, trust in a will which is eternally at war with evil, and
which will remove and destroy it in the end. By the advice
which he gave, Archbishop Longley was virtually expressing
distrust in this Almighty love and this righteousness; by his
* Pentateuch, Part III. p. xxvi. * See p. 326.
1865. THE A/VTA GO/VISTS OF BISHOP CO LEAVSO. 467
counsel to clergymen in perplexity the Bishop of Natal was
affirming it. -
But the Bishop was the last person to say or to think that
the course which he took or the position which he occupied
must in every instance be right. As against the prelates,
who, if they were to be judged exclusively by the words of
their letter, seemed dead to all spiritual perceptions, he was
perfectly right. The extravagant views or fancies which were
fast becoming an incubus on the thought of the country made
his challenge indispensably necessary; but apart from these
absurdities it would have been less urgently called for. Dean
Stanley was one of those who would put all these follies out
of sight and keep them out of his mind, and if this could
always have been done by all, it might perhaps have been a
gain for Christendom. For those who can throw themselves
into his mode of thought, questions of historical credibility
become, in reference to the province of faith, matters of
supreme insignificance and indifference. If some portions
of the offices of the Church of England make mention of
the Noachian flood, and the passage of the Red Sea, of the
marriage of Abraham and Sara, of Isaac and Rebekah, all
these are merely illustrations of the Divine government of
the world or of the Divine love. They mean nothing else;
and apart from this significance the incidents themselves
become mere chaff, husks, and straw, lacking utterly all
nourishing power. If these illustrations fail, millions more
are forthcoming. It was Mr. Maurice's special fallacy that,
without the narrative of the Exodus, the truth that God is a
deliverer from bondage and tyranny could not be brought
home to the hearts of men.
Regarded in this light, all so-called historical difficulties
may be said with truth not so much to be solved as to fade
away. In another channel the history of Christianity has
been the history of the petrifaction of spiritual life into a set
H H 2
468 AAPE OF BASA/OA COLEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
of outward symbols, which are supposed to point to historical
incidents; and its future history must be the history of
deliverance from this house of bondage. In the words of an
eminent layman :-
“Such terms as forgiveness, reconciliation, and salvation,
instead of representing experiences of the believer—
processes of his spiritual life—came to represent certain
Divine transactions, in which the believer had no personal
part, though through faith he had the benefit of them in the
acquisition of final happiness. The death and resurrection
of Christ ceased to be looked upon as perpetually re-enacted
in the surrender of the fleshly self, and the substitution for
it of a new man in the moral life. They became past
events by which certain blessings had been obtained for us,
or Divine testimony given to an authority" claiming our
obedience.” -
Against this falling back, which was also a falling away,
there had been more than one protest already.
“Having come to be understood as no more than an accept-
ance of the authority of the Church and obedience to its
rules, faith was restored by Luther to the meaning of an
assurance of sonship in Christ, founded on personal ex-
perience. This was so far a gain ; but it did not carry with
it—most Christians would have said that it would have
been pernicious if it had carried with it—any change in the
view of man's redemption as achieved by past historical
events. The death and resurrection were not interpreted
into present realities within the experience of the believer.”
With reference to these eternal realities, St. Paul
“seemed to himself to die daily, and rise again with Christ,
and it was this moral and personal experience that gave
reality in his eyes to the supposed historical events.”
But, by the hardening process which marks the dogmatic
theology of the Christian Churches,
1865. 7 HE AAWTA GOAV/ST'S OF BISHOP COZENSO. 469
“faith is regarded as necessarily involving the belief that
propositions asserting the actual occurrences of these events
are true. The saving faith on which Protestants insist is
doubtless held to imply much more than such an accept-
ance of certain propositions ; but though much more, it
cannot, according to the common conception, be less than
this. But the more strongly we insist that faith is a per-
sonal and conscious relation of the man to God, . . . the
more weakened becomes its dependence on events believed
to have happened in the past. . . . It is not on any estimate
of evidence, correct or incorrect, that our true holiness can
depend. Neither if we believe certain documents to be
genuine and authentic can we be the better, nor if we
believe it not, the worse. There is thus an inner contra-
diction in that conception of faith which makes it a state
of mind involving peace with God and love towards all
mankind, and at the same time makes its object that
historical work of Christ of which our knowledge depends
on evidence of uncertain origin and yalue.” "
From the serener region in which the layman is free to
move and breathe, we are drawn down to the heaver air of
the traditional dogmatism which does not represent the true
spirit of the Church of England, and which can never do
more than give a stone where bread is asked for. It is a
wretched necessity; but the language of his opponents left
the Bishop no alternative. Well might he ask how, if the
acceptance of the old Pentateuchal or other narratives as
historical was the Christian's first duty, his conduct differed
from theirs in respect of honest adherence to the principles
1 The Witness of God, and Faith, two lay sermons, 1870, 1878. By
T. H. Green, M.A., Whyte's Professor of Moral Philosophy in the Uni-
versity of Oxford. Pp. 59 and 68.
I make no apology for quoting these passages from one of the most
remarkable sermons written within the life-time of any now living. These
two sermons were preached in the Chapel of Balliol College. Their
importance, as showing the channel into which the deepest religious
thought of the age is flowing, can scarcely be exaggerated.
470 A./FE OF BISAIOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
of the Church of England. After his reply to the letter of
the prelates, the Bishop of Oxford was the first to issue a
letter of inhibition, and most of the other Bishops had “fol-
lowed him in adopting this extraordinary mode of public
Church censure, upon the mere judgement of each individual
Bishop, without any hearing or trial of the accused.” Before
his countrymen, therefore, he put to the Bishop of Oxford,
as the guide and representative of his colleagues, this
question :-
“Does he, a Fellow of the Royal and other scientific Societies,
believe unfeignedly in the literal historical truth of the
account of the Creation, the Noachian Deluge, or the
numbers of the Exodus 2 . . . If he does not, then how,
I repeat, does his present conduct differ essentially from
mine P He has some way of explaining these matters,
which satisfies his own mind, as I have. And the only
difference is this, that I think it to be my duty, and shall
make it my practice, to tell my people plainly, on such
points, what I believe, and what I know to be true; and
the Bishop of Oxford has not yet, as far as I am aware,
thought it necessary to say what he really thinks upon any
one of these subjects.”
It was indeed difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain what
Bishop Wilberforce and his colleagues did believe as to this
matter. They had expressed themselves in strong terms as
“resting their hopes of eternity on the Word of God.” “But
that,” the Bishop remarks, “I trust I do as truly and entirely
as they.” What, however, is the Word of God, which, in the
language of the first Homily, is “contained in Holy Scrip-
ture " ? The question was answered by Dean Milman in
these few plain words:—
“The moral and religious truth, and this alone, I apprehend,
is the Word of God, contained in the sacred writings. I
know no passage in which this emphatic term is applied to
1865. THE AAV7AGONISTS OF BISHOP CO LEAVSO. 47 I
any sentence or saying which does not convey or inforce
such truth.”
To the Dean's words the language of the Bishops presented
a pitiable contrast; but the qualifications and reservations
which underlay their professed unanimity call for a harder
term. On the one side was the assertion that
“the very foundation of our faith, our nearest and dearest
consolations, are taken from us, if one line of that Sacred
Book be declared to be unfaithful and untrustworthy.”
On the other hand there was the assurance that
“every line of Scripture will amply bear the pressure of any
test applied to it, if viewed with relation to the subject it
really refers to, the state mentally and morally of those to
whom it was addressed, and the effect it was intended
to convey.”
Probably nowhere, certainly not among Mahometans, or
Brahmans, or Buddhists, could a more barefaced method be
propounded for the easy covering of every difficulty, for
establishing any preconceived conclusion, and for making
anything mean anything.
Of the value of the results which this method might be
made to yield Dr. Pusey had never a moment's doubt. It
would meet all objections urged by the Bishop of Natal, or
by any one else, as fast as they were made. The Bishop
might appeal to Galileo, as one who upset the Mosaic account
of the Creation. The appeal was irrelevant. It was wrong
to condemn Galileo. The Book of Genesis really said only
what Galileo said. It never was of faith (de fide) to hold
that the earth stands still while the sun moves. It was
simply a wrong interpretation ; and the same may be said of
every other question. The language of the books in the
Bible may seem to assert or to imply that the earth is
472 A.Y.EE OF BISA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. IX,
a flat plane, with a solid heaven stretched over it, which
God may bow to touch the mountains and make them
smoke. The words of St. Paul may seem to speak of all
men as rising together at the end of the world from a plane
surface to a common centre in the air. The Psalmists may
seem to speak of an earth which cannot be moved. But the
appearances are all delusive. What they really set forth
is the Copernican astronomy, which the accusers of Galileo
most culpably failed to discover in its pages. What if it be,
as the Bishop of Natal urged, a scientific fact that the universe
existed for unimaginable ages before man walked the earth 2
This may have been puzzling once, but why should it cause
any difficulty now 2 Is there not a great chasm between the
verse, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth,” and “The earth was waste and desolate ’P It is
strange, perhaps, that no one should have thought of this
before ; but then “we had,” Dr. Pusey replied, “no occasion
to think of a gap which we had no data to fill up.” Dr.
Buckland and Sir Charles Lyell have supplied the data, and
the gap is found. There is nothing more to be done. It is,
he insisted,
“absolutely certain that the Bible does not say that the earth
was created at any definite past time, and that between its
original creation mentioned in verse I and man's creation
there is room, if need be, for time countless by man.”
If any are so unrighteous as to think that Dr. Pusey's
chasm does not much mend the matter, inasmuch as the first
verse is followed by a consecutive history which places the
creation of the Sun and moon at a later stage than that of
the earth, we must suppose that more gaps will be found
which carnal sight is too dull to espy. So with the Deluge.
If some ask how the wingless birds of New Zealand or
Australia came into the ark, the answer is that they never
1865. THE ANTAGO/W/STS OF BISF/OP CO/CEAVSO. 473
→ * ~z-------- - - , az- i * * * * * ..I ... " - ** , . —- - - - , , --, wrº- + - . - -
came at all, and that God created them afresh when the
waters had subsided. If anyone be perplexed by the chrono-
logy of the Noachian genealogies, the doubt is knocked on
the head by the answer that God did not mean them to be
“exact measures of man's existence on the earth.” If,
according to Augustine, God has a right to doom to endless
agonies the infant of an hour old who dies unbaptized, has
He not also the right of setting forth a pictorial chronology
Dr. Pusey could not see the possibility of doubting this.
“St. Matthew,” he insisted, “omitted purposely in one place
some names, in others, others; and used the word beget of
the grandfather or of the grandfather's grandfather. . . . .
Since, then, St. Matthew employed fourteen, not as an actual
number, but probably as a symbolical number, we need not
say positively that Moses did not in like way employ ten,
as it often seems to be used, as a mysterious number, signi-
ficant of completeness, and the word beget of the grandfather,
as St. Matthew did.”
From reasoning such as this it would seem to follow that
one falsehood is rendered historical by adducing the parallel
of another falsehood. Of one thing only can we be assured.
The Gospel according to St. Matthew, as we have it, says that
from Abraham to David there are fourteen generations: what
the writer really meant, it seems, is that there were a good
many more than fourteen, but that his symmetrical chronology
made it inconvenient to mention them.
If we can speak seriously of this astounding method of
adaptation, should we not say that Dr. Pusey deserved the
gratitude of all who have Sacred Books, the statements of
which seem to need manipulation in order to bring them into
harmony with scientific or historical facts P But miserable as
all this shuffling may be, it is somewhat less repulsive than
the brazen hypothesis which would uphold the credit of the
Hebrew Scriptures by charging God Himself with falsehood.
474 IZFE OF APASA/OP COLEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
According to this hypothesis, the whole existence of man on
the earth to the present time, has not exceeded six millen-
niums ; and the earth's strata point to a lapse of many
myriads of years. If the chalk cliffs had never grown from
the first at a more rapid rate than that of coral reefs and
islands now, the years of the world must be reckoned almost
by millions. But all these appearances are, we are told,
delusive, and were purposely caused to be delusive. God
imparted this semblance of age to works by comparison of
yesterday, in order to confuse the human mind, and humble
the pride of the human intellect. This is, indeed, to make
God a liar, and to make Him such for the express purpose of
bewildering and misleading His creatures ; and yet some who
could stoop to such wretched shifts could denounce the Bishop
of Natal for deliberate impiety for saying that when Jesus
spoke of Mosaic books or of the Mosaic law, he may have
only shared the popular opinion of the day. It was, per-
haps, scarcely necessary that the controversy thus provoked
should have been raised ; and on the whole we may regret
that it was raised. It was renewed with almost more than its
first virulence at the Capetown trial ; and it may be that the
abuse heaped on the Bishop, both there and in England,
might have been avoided, by insisting simply that it was
impossible for Jesus to speak otherwise than as He spoke."
But the theological hatred had been fully roused by the
Bishop's words. The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke of
them as “derogatory to the person, the attributes, and the
work of our Divine Redeemer,” and as “charging Him who
knew what was in man, with ignorance and imposture.” The
Archbishop of York reproached him with “having imputed
to the Lord of Glory ignorance of holy things,” and with
“having described our Lord as a blind guide, quoting for the
very bread of life the baseless fables of men.” One prelate
* See p. 307, note.
1865. THE ANTAGONISTS OF BISHOP COLEVSO. 475
only, the courageous and judicially-minded Bishop of St.
David's, came forward to say that this was not a question of
holy things at all, and that, if the Bishop of Natal was on this
point in error, the error was shared by Jeremy Taylor." But,
in truth, the notion which the two Archbishops seemed to
regard as indispensable to soundness in the Christian faith
was practically unknown to the Ante-Nicene Church.
Athanasius himself had said plainly that “as, on becoming
man, He hungers and thirsts and suffers with men, so
with men, as man, He #nozws not.” Of this language Dr.
Pusey was constrained to say that it certainly seems to
impute ignorance to Our Lord as man. To Cyril it was
evidence of His love, that He could “bring Himself down to
so great humiliation as to bear all things that are ours, one of
which also is ignorance.” The utterances of Chrysostom and
Augustine are not less explicit; nor is Jeremy Taylor the
only theologian of more recent times who has entertained the
same opinion. The words of Hammond, Lightfoot, and many
others, are cited in an admirable letter addressed by Mr.
Houghton to the Bishop, and inserted by the latter in the
preface to the Third Part of his book on the Pentateuch. The
Bishop felt deeply the sincerity and courage shown by Mr.
Houghton in thus coming forward in a controversy in which
he had at first taken the opposite side. Mr. Houghton had
published a pamphlet in reply to Part I. ; but before he wrote
his letter he had withdrawn that reply from circulation. It
was impossible for him to deny that “the Bible and science
were opposed to each other.” A four years' examination of
almost every word in the Bible relating to natural history
had convinced him that
“in many and essential points, the Biblical and natural records
are, to use the words of the learned and candid Kalisch,
utterly and irreconcilably at variance.”
* See p. 309.
476 AZFE OF BASHOP COZEAVSO. CHAP. IX.
It was, therefore, absurd to speak of the Bible as being in-
fallible in the sense in which the popular creed assumes it to
be ; but Mr. Houghton was sure, nevertheless, that it contained
“a jewel of heavenly lustre and of priceless value,” and that it
was madness in men to refuse to drink of the water of life
because it was offered to them in an earthen vessel.
From these manly and wholesome utterances it is, in truth,
depressing to return to the Report of the Committee of the Con-
vocation of the Province of Canterbury appointed to examine
the first two parts of the Bishop's work." Of this Committee,
Archdeacon Denison, who had moved for it, was the chair-
man ; but here, as elsewhere, the paramount influence was that
of Bishop Wilberforce, whose own convictions as to the his-
torical value of the Old Testament records it was then, as it
is still, impossible to ascertain. It was Bishop Wilberforce
who had striven to impress upon the nation the duty of taking
a signal vengeance on the Indian mutineers. It was his
crusading zeal which now led his followers to break the
bounds of all decent moderation. Whether among these
Archdeacon Denison was to be reckoned, it might be rash
to say. He might be acting as a fellow-leader, when, having
expressed a wish to “avoid the appearance of approaching to
intemperance in thought and language,” he confined himself
to speaking of the Bishop of Natal as “a sacrilegious person,”
as one ready to “damage the Bible by misrepresentation, to
tear out its leaves, mutilate it, and desecrate what is left.”
“I am going to say,” he added, “if any man asserts such
things as are asserted in this book, ‘Anathema esto Z Let
him be put away.’”
Nor was this enough to satisfy his sense of fairness. He,
a judge, addressing himself to judges, who were about to
* See p. 303.
1865. THE AAVTAGONISTS OF BISHOP COLEAVSO. 477
examine and pronounce on the merits or demerits of a given
book, could have the triple brass to say—
“I have no doubt—at all events, I hope—that there are many
here who have not read the First Part, and I am sure that
there are many who have not read the Second Part,”
of the work on which they were about to pass sentence. Such
was the justice of English ecclesiastics in the latter half of
the nineteenth century, a justice which might seem to be
borrowed from Archbishop Laud and his colleagues in the
seventeenth. But it had a strange look, as being exhibited
to the world after the decision of Dr. Lushington in the pro-
secution connected with the volume of Essays and Reviews.
On three points the terms of this decision were broadened by
the final ruling of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
In other respects it was unchallenged, and remains the law of
the Church of England. Dr. Lushington's judgement was
rejected with contempt at the so-called trial of the Bishop of
Natal by the Metropolitan of Southern Africa; but it is
for all who have not, like the clergy of the Church of South
Africa, bartered away their rights, a safeguard for the liberties
of the Church of England. It rests on the principle that the
judge is not to travel away from the Articles and formularies,
either to the decrees of Councils or to passages of Holy Scrip-
ture, of which it would become necessary that the judge should
be the interpreter.
Dr. Lushington's comment 1 is almost more important
than his ruling. All liberty carries with it its own especial
danger; and the man who acts or speaks as though all things
were expedient for him because they were lawful must be as
strangely wanting in charity as in discretion. The office of
the Christian priest or teacher is to guide, educate, comfort,
and cheer his people. Will he be discharging his duty, if to
* See p. 325.
478 A.IFE OF BASAOA' CO/CAE/VSO. CHAP. IX.
the folk of a country parish who possess perhaps not a book
beyond the Bible he bluntly announces that Deuteronomy
is the work of the Prophet Jeremiah, or that the belief of an
immediately impending Parousia in the Apostolic age was a
delusion ? It is enough that the clergy are as free as the
laity in the Church of England to examine and criticise
the books of the Bible by the tests applied to all other
books, and that they are not under the yoke which Bishop
Wilberforce and Archdeacon Denison would have imposed
upon them.
The Report" of the Committee over which Archdeacon
Denison presided is in many respects a noteworthy com-
position. It embodied the conclusions reached by fourteen
clergymen after an inquiry extended over nine days. These
judges might wish and intend to be truthful and impartial ;
but many or most of them had previously expressed them-
selves in terms of severe censure on the books, and “could
not therefore,” as the Bishop of Natal rightly supposed, “be
likely to spare any traces of heresy which might fairly be
detected in them.” But in spite of this the Committee did
not report that his criticisms were unfounded, or his critical
conclusions false. They impeached not the scientific truth,
but only the orthodoxy of his reasonings. In the words of
one of them, they had simply taken expressions from the
book, and “placed them side by side with the Bible and
expressions from the formularies and Articles;” and even
with the large license so assumed, they found four points
only in which the Bishop of Natal was in their judgement
guilty of having transgressed the law of the Church. How
these points were dealt with by the Bishop of St. David's, we
have seen already.” It was strange that on the subject of the
Divine and human knowledge of Christ the Committee should
in their haste to condemn the Bishop of Natal condemn the
* See p. 303. * See pp. 3O4–II.
1865. THE AAV7'AGO/WIS 7'S OF BISHOP CO/CE/WSO. 479
teaching of some of the greatest doctors in Christendom, who
had either avowed conclusions similar to those which had been
reached by Bishop Colenso, or had declared that others were
free to hold them. With reference to these opinions of Cyril,
Athanasius, and other theologians, Dr. Colenso remarks that
it is surprising
“that neither the Bishop of Oxford, nor any one of the
Bishops who voted with him, uttered one syllable to imply
that he was aware of any such passages existing, or ex-
pressed a brotherly hope that on this particular point at all
events, I might not be altogether so guilty as some Sup-
posed. It is, I repeat, an amazing fact, that SO many
Bishops, doctors, and divines, should have adopted this
Report, without one single voice breaking the dead silence
to intimate that there was even the slightest doubt in the
Church upon this question ; still less to give utterance to
the simple truth that, here at least, I am supported by the
consentient opinion of very many of the greatest divines,
both ancient and modern.” "
A legitimate, if not the only, inference is that they wished
to keep this consentient opinion out of sight, in the hope that
they might succeed in arrogating the authority of the Church
of England for a decision which would have for its effect the
exclusion of the Bishop of Natal. Their policy was one of
treachery to the English Church, involving sooner or later its
downfall and ruin. It was not meant to be such. Of any
such intention they may be most thoroughly acquitted ; but
the true friends of an institution or a constitution are often
not those who are loudest in protestations of their zeal. The
Committee of Convocation had not eyes to see the real
bearing of their own words and acts, or the real mission of
the Church in which they were ministers. This mission had
been well set forth in the memorable words with which Dean
* Part III. p. xlvi.
48o A./FE OF BISA/OA' CO/CE/VSO. CHAP. IX.
Milman closed his long and arduous toil as the historian
of Latin Christianity:-
“As it is my own confident belief that the words of Christ,
and His words alone (the primal, indefeasible truths of
Christianity), shall not pass away, so I cannot presume to
say that men may not attain to a clearer, and at the same
time more full and comprehensive and balanced, sense of
those words than has as yet been generally received in the
Christian world. As all else is transient and unstable,
these only eternal and universal, assuredly, whatever light
may be thrown on the mental constitution of man, even on
the constitution of Nature and the laws which govern the
world, will be concentered so as to give a more penetrating
vision of these undying truths.”
This happy consummation can be brought about only by a
readiness to receive and to acknowledge the truth of facts,
when they are shown to be true. It must be retarded by the
exercise of authority barring the way to impartial and un-
prejudiced research, on the books included in the Canon of
Scripture as on any others; and here the warning of Dean
Milman is still indispensably necessary:-
“If on such subjects some solid ground be not found on
which highly educated, reflective, reading, reasoning men
may find firm footing, I can foresee nothing but a wide,
a widening, I fear an impassable, breach between the
thought and religion of England. A comprehensive, all-
embracing, Catholic Christianity, which knows what is
essential to religion, what is temporary and extraneous to
it, may defy the world. Obstinate adherence to things
antiquated, and irreconcilable with advancing knowledge
and thought, may repel, and for ever—how many, I know
not—how far, I know still less. A vertat omen Deus /*
CHAPTER X.
THE PENTATEUCH : ITS MATTER.
NEARLY a quarter of a century has passed away since
Archbishop Longley was pleased to pronounce Bishop
Colenso's criticisms on the Pentateuch “so puerile that an
intelligent youth who read his Bible with care could draw the
fitting answers from the Bible itself,” and so trite that they
have been threshed out and refuted again and again during
the last two centuries. The two statements are not altogether
consistent. Mere trivialities, of which a child could detect the
worthlessness, could scarcely need so often to be knocked on
the head, and ought Scarcely to cause so much excitement or
provoke such fierce and even malignant denunciations. The
value of Archbishop Longley's judgement must be tested by
some account of the Bishop's method and of the results
attained by it. If the Bishop was assaying a silly and
ridiculous enterprise, then seldom, if ever, has an unprofitable
task been undertaken with such single-hearted devotion to
truth and with so steady a resolution to surrender everything
else, if need be, for the sake of it.
The fact is that Luther himself, when he nailed his Theses
on the church door at Wittenberg, was not committing
himself to a more momentous work than the Bishop of
Natal when he resolved to search into the structure of the
VOL. I. I I
482 JC/PE OF AP/SAMOA CO/A2AVSO. CHAP. X.
Pentateuch. Each was proposing to fight with a strong delu-
sion ; and the superstition which worshipped the letter of a
book was not a jot better grounded than the superstition which
regarded a Papal indulgence as the remission of sin and the
restoration of the penitent to peace. The circumstances of
his past life and work had drawn away the Bishop's mind to
other channels; but the unswerving truthfulness of his nature
compelled him to go thoroughly into the matter, so soon as
inquiry was forced on him as a duty which he owed to others,
and to none could he owe this duty more than to the ignorant
and helpless, who yet had wit enough to ask whether certain
things were really so. Having once felt that he was called
upon to go into the question, he never for a moment hesitated
in his purpose ; but he wished to give as little pain and create
as little of disturbance as possible. He soon found that the
work was much more serious and extensive than at the first
he thought that it might be ; and feeling that above all things
he needed counsel, he turned to Dr. Harold Browne, then
Norrisian Professor at Cambridge, now Bishop of Winchester.
To him he wrote, although he did not forward, a letter from
which the following passages are extracts:–
“My remembrance of the friendly intercourse which I have
enjoyed with you in former days would be enough to
assure me that you will excuse my troubling you on the
present occasion, were I not also certain that, on far higher
grounds, you will gladly lend what aid you can to a brother
in distress, and in very great need of advice and assistance,
such as few are better able to give than yourself. You will
easily understand that, in this distant colony, I am far
removed from the possibility of converse with those who
would be capable of appreciating my difficulties, and helping
me with friendly sympathy and counsel. I have many
friends in England; but there are few to whom I would
look more readily than to yourself for the help which I
1861. THE PENZA TE UCH: JTS MA 7'7"EA’. 483
need, from regard both to your public position and private
character; and you have given evidence, moreover, in your
published works, of that extensive reading and sound
judgement, the aid of which I especially require under my
present circumstances.
“You will, of course, expect that, since I have had the charge
of this diocese, I have been closely occupied in the study of
the Zulu tongue, and in translating the Scriptures into it.
Through the blessing of God, I have now translated the
New Testament completely, and several parts of the Old,
among the rest the Books of Genesis and Exodus. In this
work I have been aided by intelligent natives; and, having
also published a Zulu Grammar and Dictionary, I have
acquired sufficient knowledge of the language to be able to
have intimate communion with the native mind while thus
engaged with them, so as not only to avail myself freely of
their criticisms, but to appreciate fully their objections
and difficulties. Thus, however, it has happened that I
have been brought again face to face with questions which
caused me some uneasiness in former days, but with respect
to which I was then enabled to satisfy my mind sufficiently
for practical purposes, and I had fondly hoped to have laid
the ghosts of them at last for ever. . . . .
“Here, however, as I have said, amidst my work in this land,
I have been brought face to face with the very questions
which I then put by. While translating the story of the
Flood, I have had a simple-minded, but intelligent, native—
one with the docility of a child, but the reasoning powers of
mature age—look up, and ask, ‘Is all that true 2 Do you
really believe that all this happened thus, -that all the
beasts, and birds, and creeping things upon the earth,
large and small, from hot countries and cold, came thus by
pairs, and entered into the ark with Noah P And did Noah
gather food for them all, for the beasts and birds of prey,
as well as for the rest ?' My heart answered in the words
of the prophet, ‘Shall a man speak lies in the name of the
Lord 2’ I dared not do so. My own knowledge of Some
branches of science, of geology in particular, had been much
I I 2
484 IIFE OF BISA/OP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. X.
increased since I left England ; and I now knew for certain,
on geological grounds, a fact of which I had only had mis-
givings before, viz. that a universa/Deluge, such as the Bible
manifestly speaks of, could not possibly have taken place in
the way described in the Book of Genesis, not to mention
other difficulties which the story contains. I refer especially
to the circumstance, well known to all geologists, that volcanic
hills exist of immense extent in Auvergne and Languedoc,
which must have been formed ages before the Noachan
deluge, and which are covered with light and loose sub-
stances, pumice-stone, &c., that must have been swept away
by a flood, but do not exhibit the slightest sign of having
ever been so disturbed. Of course, I am well aware that some
have attempted to show that Noah's deluge was only a
partial one. But such attempts have ever seemed to me to
be made in the very teeth of the Scripture statements,
which are as plain and explicit as words can possibly be.
Nor is anything really gained by supposing the Deluge to
have been partial. For, as waters must find their own level
on the earth's surface, without a special miracle, of which
the Bible says nothing, a flood which should begin by
covering the top of Ararat (if that were conceivable), or a
much lower mountain, must necessarily become universal,
and in due time sweep over the hills of Auvergne. Knowing
this, I felt that I dared not, as a servant of the God of
Truth, urge my brother-man to believe that which I did
not myself believe, which I knew to be untrue as a matter-
of-fact historical narrative. I gave him, however, such a
reply as satisfied him for the time, without throwing any
discredit upon the general veracity of the Bible history.
“But I was thus driven—against my will at first, I may truly
say—to search more deeply into these questions; and I have
since done so, to the best of my power, with the means at
my disposal in this colony. And now I tremble at the
result of my inquiries; rather, I should do so were it not
that I believe firmly in a God of Righteousness and Truth
and Love, who both IS, and is a rewarder of them that
diligently seek Him. Should all else give way beneath me,
I861. THE PEWTATEUCH: ZTS MATTER. 485
I feel that His Everlasting Arms are still under me. I am
sure that the solid ground is there on which my feet can
rest, in the knowledge of Him in whom I live, and move,
and have my being, who is my faithful Creator, my
Almighty and most merciful Father. That truth I see with
my spirit's eyes, once opened to the light of it, as plainly as
I see the sun in the heavens. And that truth, I know, more
or less distinctly apprehended, has been the food of living
men, the strength of brave Souls that “yearn for light,’ and
battle for the right and the true, the Support of struggling and
sorrow-stricken hearts, in all ages of the world, in all
climes, under all religions.”
Having mentioned some of the chief difficulties in the
account of the Exodus, the Bishop went on to ask advice in
the selection of books, and to mention that he had sent for
Hengstenberg's work on the Pentateuch, which he had seen
commended in the Quarterly article on Essays and Reviews.
Of this article he spoke as a remarkable paper, which shrank,
however, from treating the real question at issue, and as
occupied chiefly with pitying the essayists, or censuring them,
instead of meeting them with arguments.
“I cannot,” he said, “think it to be a fair way of proceeding to
point out, as the apparent consequence of the course which
they are pursuing, that it will necessarily lead to infidelity
or atheism. It may be so with some : must it, therefore, be
so with all 2 The same, of course, might have been said—
and probably was said—freely, and just as truly, by the
Jews of St. Paul and others; and, in later times, by mem-
bers of the Romish Church of our own Reformers. Our
duty, Surely, is to follow the truth wherever it leads us, and
to leave the consequences in the hands of God. Moreover,
in the only instance where the writer in the Quarterly does
attempt to remove a difficulty, he explains away a miracle
by a piece of thorough “neologianism'—I mean where he
accounts for the Sun ‘standing still” at the word of Joshua,
by referring to ‘one of the thousand other modes by which
486 AZAZ OA; B/SAMOP CO/CEAVSO. CHAP. X.
God’s mighty power could have accomplished that miracle,
rather than by the actual suspension of the unbroken
career of the motions of the heavenly bodies in their
appointed courses,’ which last the Bible plainly speaks of
to a common understanding, though the writer seems not
to believe in it.
“After reading that article, I felt more hopelessly than ever
how hollow is the ground upon which we have so long been
standing, with reference to the subject of the inspiration of
Scripture. I see that there is a very general demand upon
the clerical authors of Essays and Reviews that they should
leave the Church of England, or, at least, resign their pre-
ferments. For my own part, however much I may dissent,
as I do, from some of their views, I am very far indeed
from judging them for remaining, as they still do, as
ministers within her pale, knowing too well, by my own
feelings, how dreadful would be the wrench, to be torn from
all one has loved and revered by going out of the Church.
Perhaps they may feel it to be their duty to the Church
itself, and to that which they hold to be the truth, to abide
in their stations, unless they are formally and legally ex-
cluded from them, and to claim for all her members, clerical
as well as lay, that freedom of thought and utterance which
is the very essence of our Protestant religion; and without
which, indeed, in this age of advancing science, the Church
of England would soon become a mere dark prison-house,
in which the mind both of the teacher and the taught would
be fettered still with the chains of past ignorance, instead
of being, as we fondly believed, the very home of religous
liberty, and the centre of life and light for all the world.
But, whatever may be the fate of that book or its authors,
it is surely impossible to put down in these days the spirit
of honest, truth-seeking investigation into such matters as
these. The attempt to do this would only be like the
futile endeavour to sweep back the tide which is rising at
our very doors. This is, assuredly, no time for such trifling.
Instead of trying to do this, or to throw up sandbanks which
may serve for the present moment to hide from our view
I86 I. THE AAEAVTA 7TE UCA Z7'S MA 7'7"EA’. 487
the swelling waters, it is plainly our duty before God and
man to see that the foundations of our faith are sound, and
deeply laid in the very truth itself.”
The Bishop went on to speak of the possible need of
resigning his office if the difficulties pressing on him could
not be removed. This question will come before us in its
proper place later on. We have only to remember here that
he did not forward this letter, which ends with the following
s words:–
“God’s will must be done. The law of truth must be obeyed.
I shall await your reply before I take any course which may
commit me in so serious a matter. And I feel that I shall
do right to take time for careful deliberation. Should my
difficulties not be removed, I shall, if God will, come to
England, and there again consult some of my friends. But .
then, if the step must be taken, in God's name I must take
it ; and He Himself will provide for me future work on
earth, of some kind or other, if He has work for me to do.”
A few weeks before this letter was written the Bishop had
taken part in an episcopal conference at Capetown, January
I86 I. At the time of that conference, to which he had gone
for the purpose of taking part in the consecration of Bishop
Mackenzie, he had not entered into the inquiries which led to
the writing of his book on the Pentateuch, nor had he, of
Course, any idea of their results. The admission of these facts
might, he was well aware, suggest to some that his conclusions
had been hastily reached and might be as hastily given up. This
retort he was prepared to endure, as he was prepared for the
further rejoinder that his exposure of the difficulties connected
with the Pentateuch was stale and flat. They had all been
put forth by German critics, who had been perfectly answered
by their own countrymen. This was just the point which
called for settlement. There were, it is true, in Germany as in
* See p. 125.
488 I./FE OF PISA/OA COLEAVSO. CHAP. X.
England, orthodox critics and liberal critics; and there, as well
as here, the former charged the latter with merely following their
leader and repeating parrot-like each his statement of difficul-
ties, with the addition of little or no new matter of their own.
At the worst, this charge could but reduce many voices to one
voice. It could not silence that one voice, except by showing
that its utterances were false or foolish ; but it was also obvious
that, if there were a hundred independent critics working on
the same records, they would all, or almost all, fasten on the
same difficulties, if those difficulties really exist. The seeming
repetitions would be really the most cogent evidence of their
reality and their importance. Still, wishing to avoid all bias
in what might be thought the wrong direction, the Bishop
resolved to confine himself to the orthodox Kurtz, whose
History of the Old Covenant “maintains the ordinary view of
the Mosaic origin and historical accuracy of the Pentateuch
with great zeal and ability”; and not till he had gone through
this work did he turn to the ponderous volumes of Ewald.
Having grappled with these, he read carefully the orthodox
works of Hengstenberg and Håvernick, and on the other
side those of De Wette, Bleek, Kuenen, and Davidson, the
last of these being in his opinion “the most able work
which has yet appeared in England on the subject of
Biblical criticism.”
During all this time, he retained the letter which he had
written to Dr. Browne, “to see what effect further study and
consideration would have upon "his “views.”
“At the end of that time—in a great measure by being made
more fully aware of the utter helplessness of Kurtz and
Hengstenberg in their endeavours to meet the difficulties
which are raised by a closer study of the Pentateuch—I
became so convinced of the unhistorical character of very
considerable portions of the Mosaic narrative that I decided
not to forward my letter at all. I did not now need counsel
1861. THE AREAV7'A TEUCH - ZZTS MA 7'7"EA’. 489
or assistance to relieve my own personal doubts: my former
misgivings had been changed into certainties. The matter
was become much more serious. I saw that it concerned
the whole Church—not myself and a few more only, whose
minds might have been disturbed by making too much of
minor difficulties and contradictions, the force of which
might be less felt by others.” "
But teachers and modes of teaching are not of one kind
only. There are methods of shirking difficulties or of slurring
them over; and there is a mode of bringing out a negative
conclusion by drawing a vivid picture of the condition of
things which seems to render any other conclusion im-
practicable. We may trace the popular or national religion,
worship, and society of the Jews through the days of the
Judges to those of the earlier and later Kings, realising their
persistent polytheism, their gross, sensual, and cruel idolatry,
their solar and phallic cultus. We may dwell on the protests
and struggles of the scanty band of prophets in every age
against these abominations, showing that at no time was there
anything more than a weak and evanescent reformation,
wrought by an appeal to a higher sanction for which the
people could not be brought to care at all. We may mark
the dense ignorance and obstinate adherence to their de-
grading rites as clear evidence that they had no acquaintance
with a higher law; and so we may imply that the Mosaic and
Levitical codes and the discourses in Deuteronomy were not
so much a system carried at any time into practice as ideal
pictures of a state of things which ought to have been but
never was realised. This method and these conclusions
clearly sweep away the historical character of the Penta-
teuch, because they insinuate that the civil and ecclesiastical
codes which bear the name of Moses were put together
1 Pentateuch, Part I. p. xviii.
490 JL/AFE OF BASAHOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. X.
in after times by some who wished to bring their country-
men, even at the eleventh hour, to walk in a better path ;
but the strictly negative character of this method, and of
its results, might very probably not be perceived by those
who regarded the Pentateuch as historical. The impression
made by it would, therefore, be in proportion weaker, and,
except to the enlightened few, the real state of things would
not be made known at all.
This method was recommended to the Bishop, only to be
summarily rejected.
“A friend,” he says, “to whom I had submitted the book
before I had decided to publish it, was afraid that I might
give offence by stating too plainly at the outset the end
which I had in view. . . And he suggested that I might do
more wisely to conceal, as it were, my purpose for a time,
and lead the reader gradually on, till he would arrive of
himself, almost unawares, at the same conclusions as my
own. But however judicious for a merely rhetorical purpose
such a course might have been, I could not allow myself to
adopt it here, in a matter where such very important con-
sequences were involved. I must state the case plainly and
fully from the first. I do not wish to take the reader by
surprise or to entrap him with guile. I wish him to go.
forward with his eyes open, and to watch carefully every
step of the argument, with a full consciousness of the
momentous results to which it leads, and with a deter-
mination to test severely, with all the power and skill he
can bring to the work, but yet to test homestly and fairly,
the truth of every inference which I have drawn and every
conclusion to which I have arrived.”
In short, for the Bishop, as for St. Paul, there was a sacred
call from One whom he dared not to disobey, and whom
before all things he longed to obey. There was a woe on
both if they failed to answer to the call; and for himself
the constraining power of this call was strengthened by the
I862. 7THE AEA2AWTA TE UCH - Z7'S MA 7'7"EA’. 491
circumstances of his past life. For him, therefore, it was as
with the prophet of old. The Lord God had spoken : who
can but prophesy He was asked, “Why publish to the world
matters like these, about which theologians may have doubts * *
To such questions he could give no heed. They were no
longer doubts to him ; and it was not theologians only who
were troubled with such doubts.
“We have,” he said, “a duty to discharge towards that
large body of our brethren—how large, it is impossible to
say, but probably much larger than is commonly imagined
—who not only doubt, but disbelieve, many important parts.
of the Mosaic narrative, as well as to those whose faith may
be more simple and uninguiring, though not, therefore,
necessarily, more deep and sincere, than theirs. We cannot
expect such as these to look to us for comfort and help in
their religious perplexities, if they cannot place entire con-
fidence in our honesty of purpose and good faith—if they
have any reason to suppose that we are willing to keep
back any part of the truth, and are afraid to state the plain
facts of the case.” *
Thus in the course which he took he had no alternative.
Arriving in England as a missionary Bishop, he must receive
calls from many quarters to plead the cause of missions; and
he could not decline acceding to such calls without assigning,
by the publication of the First Part of his book, the reason
why, with his present work in hand, he could not comply with
them. The question was to him a matter of life and death.
He was not aware, after the delivery of the judgement in the
case of Essays and Reviews, that he had in any way violated
the law of the Church of England ; and in any case, as a
Bishop of that Church, he dissented entirely from the principle
laid down by some that the question with which he intended
to deal was not even an open question for an English clergy-
man. Against this contemptible sophistry Dr. Stanley had,
492 I./FE OF AZSAIOP COZAZAVSO. CHAP. X.
about eighteen months before, protested with all his might in
the pages of the Edinburgh Review. It was a shame to
Englishmen that any among them should say or think
“that truth was made for the laity and falsehood for the clergy
—that truth is tolerable everywhere except in the mouths
of the ministers of the God of Truth—that falsehood,
driven from every other corner of the educated world,
may find an honoured refuge behind the consecrated
bulwarks of the sanctuary.”
The Bishop of Natal himself could scarcely denounce with
greater earnestness this godless theory of a National Church as
tainted with a far deeper unbelief than any which could ever
be ascribed to professed infidels. He could scarcely urge
more strongly that they who can sincerely accept as a whole
the constitution and the worship of the Church of which they
are ministers will count it treason to the Church and to its
HDivine Head to desert either its communion or its ministry.
He would heartily approve, but he could scarcely add force
to, Dr. Stanley's words, that if the obligations laid upon the
clergy involved such differences between their belief and that
of the educated laity, it would be the bounden duty of both,
“in the name of religion and common-sense, to rise as one
man and to tear to shreds such barriers between the teachers
and the taught, between Him whose name is Truth and
those whose worship is only acceptable if offered to Him in
spirit and in truth.”
It was well, indeed, for the Church of England that the
Bishop of Natal, in full accord though he might be with all
these utterances of Dr. Stanley, did not adopt the critical
method which was, no doubt, best suited to Dr. Stanley's
circumstances, but which would have fallen with little effect
* April 1861, p. 495.
I862. THE PENTATEUCH - ITS MATTER. 493
on one of the chief superstitions and extravagances of orthodox
Christendom.
But while smiting this superstition, the Bishop never made
any attempt to deny the fact that he had himself shared it.
The belief that every chapter, every verse, every word, every
syllable, every letter of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures is
the direct utterance of the Most High, was the creed of the
school in which he was educated, and it cost him a hard
struggle to break away from it. -
“God is my witness,” he says, “what hours of wretchedness
I have spent at times, while reading the Bible devoutly
from day to day, and reverencing every word of it as the
Word of God, when petty contradictions met me, which
seemed to my reason to conflict with the notion of the
absolute historical veracity of every part of Scripture, and
which, as I felt, in the study of any other öooſé we should
honestly treat as errors or misstatements, without in the
least detracting from the real value of the book | But, in
those days, I was taught that it was my duty to fling the
suggestion from me at once, “as if it were a loaded shell
shot into the fortress of my soul,” or to stamp out desper-
ately, as with an iron heel, each spark of honest doubt,
which God’s own gift, the love of truth, had kindled in my
bosom. . . . I thank God that I was not able long to throw
dust in the eyes of my own mind, and do violence to the
love of truth in this way.””
It may suit those who sneered at the “puerile simplicity”
of the Bishop who could be converted by an intelligent Zulu,
to say that nothing else could be expected in one who had
thus himself been in bondage to the letter. But all unpre-
judiced and impartial thinkers and judges will be thankful
that a man has been found whose powers of judgement were
not stunted and starved by the creed which he shook off.
* Bishop S. Wilberforce; see p. 164, note.
* Pentateuch, Part I. p. 6.
494 AAFAE OF AP/SA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. X.
This warping and withering of the mental powers is so sadly
manifest in all but an infinitesimally small minority of Biblio-
laters, as to make it matter both of wonder and rejoicing that
the early bondage quickened, rather than dulled, the Bishop's
powers of perception, and thus excited in him only an un-
faltering resolution to seek out the truth at all hazards, and
a manly candour in setting forth the nature of his conclusions.
It was supposed at the time, and some may suppose still, that
the Bishop came to regard the historical books of the Old
Testament as unhistorical, Solely because he could not bring
himself to give credit to the stupendous wonders recorded in
them, to the standing still of the sun and moon, the dividing
of the waters of the Red Sea and the Jordan, the articulate
human speech of Balaam's ass, or the marvels of the Egyptian
magicians, or because he recoiled from some of the precepts
or laws of the Mosaic or Levitical codes. One or two such
laws he mentions—the provisions, for instance, which directed
that in certain cases a man gaining his freedom should leave
his wife and children in slavery, or that a master who beat
his slave to death should not be punished if the slave sur-
vived his torture for a day or two, because he was his money.
Cynical critics a quarter of a century ago may have laughed
at the sentimentality which could make a fuss about nothing;
but their jeers furnish no reason for omitting the Bishop's
record of the impression made by these laws upon Kafir
minds.
“I shall never forget the revulsion of feeling with which a
very intelligent Christian native, with whose help I was
translating those words into the Zulu tongue, first heard
them as words said to be uttered by the same great and
gracious Being whom I was teaching him to trust in and
adore. His whole soul revolted against the notion that the
great and blessed God, the merciful Father of all mankind,
would speak of a servant or maid as mere “money,’ and
1862. 7THE PEAV7.4 7E UCAEſ: Z7'S MA 7'7"EA’. 495
allow a horrible crime to go unpunished, because the victim
of the brutal usage had survived a few hours. My own
heart and conscience at the time fully sympathised with
his. But I then clung to the notion that the main substance
of the narrative was historically true. And I relieved his
difficulty and my own for the present by telling him that I
supposed that such words as these were written down by
Moses, and believed by him to have been divinely given to
him, because the thought of them arose in his heart, as he
conceived, by the inspiration of God, and that hence to all
such laws he prefixed the formula, “Jehovah said to Moses,’
without its being on that account necessary for us to suppose
that they were actually spoken by the Almighty. This was,
however, a very great strain upon the cord which bound me
to the ordinary belief in the historical veracity of the
Pentateuch, and since then that cord has snapped in twain
altogether.”
The temper of mind which mocked at the questions of the
intelligent Zulu may regard his revulsion of feeling as a matter
to be treated rather with a laugh than seriously. But it was
on no such considerations even as these that the Bishop's trust
in the historical accuracy of the Pentateuch was finally dis-
pelled. It was not only a question of marvels, of external
revelation, of the moral character of Mosaic or other precepts
or enactments. The doubt, first, and lastly the rejection of
the narrative as history was forced upon him by the “many
impossibilities involved in it, when treated as relating simple
matters of fact,” and it was his bounden duty to set forth this
conclusion plainly. Infidelity, or lasciviousness, it might be
urged, must be in many cases the consequences of his pub-
lishing it. It was enough to reply that infidelity and las-
civiousness were as rampant under the strictest traditional
theology as under the freest German criticism, and that the
greatest license prevailed where the popular creed was that of
the Westminster Confession. It might be said that all faith
496 M.IPE OF BISA/OA COZEAVSO. CHAP. X.
in God must go if belief in the historical trustworthiness of
the Pentateuch be lost. But the statement would be a mere
falsehood.
“Our belief in the Living God remains as sure as ever, though
not the Pentateuch only but the whole Bible were removed.
It was written on our hearts by God's own finger, as surely
as by the hand of the Apostle in the Bible, that God Is, and
is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. It is
written there also as plainly as in the Bible, that God is not
mocked, that whatsoever a man Soweth that shall he reap,
and that he that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap
corruption.”
The Bishop had here touched the very root of the matter.
The superstitious reverence paid to the mere letter of a book
points to the failure or to the absence of the conviction that
the Church is a living society under a living Head, who is
ever present with it and in it, and in every member of it. With
the foresight of true spiritual perception, he could say:-
“It is, perhaps, God's will that we shall be taught in this our
day, among other precious lessons, not to build up our faith
upon a book, though it be the Bible itself, but to realise
more truly the blessedness of knowing that He Himself, the
Living God, our Father and Friend, is nearer and closer to
us than any book can be, that His voice within the heart
can be heard continually by the obedient child that listens
for it, and that shall be our Teacher and Guide in the path
of duty, which is the path of life, when all other helpers, even
the words of the Best of Books, may fail us.”
But, let the historical untrustworthiness of its narrative be
what it may, the Pentateuch still contains abundance of matter
“profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in
righteousness.”
“It still remains an integral portion of the Book, which, what-
ever intermixture it may show of human elements, of error,
I862. THE PAEAVTA TE UCH: JTS MA 7'7"EA’. - 497
infirmity, passion, and ignorance,—has yet, through God's
Providence, and the special working of His Spirit on the
minds of the 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.” "
This confession fully satisfies any requirements of the
Articles and formularies of the English Church ; it more
than satisfies the demands of Dr. Lushington's judgement in
the case arising out of Essays and Reviews; but it failed
altogether to satisfy the Metropolitan and his adherents,
who were resolved on imposing the ecclesiastical yoke on the
neck of the Church of Southern Africa. The Bishop was,
nevertheless, right in saying that
“the time is come, in the ordering of God's Providence and in
the history of the world, when such a work as this must be
taken in hand, not in a light and scoffing spirit, but in that
of a devout and living faith, which seeks only Truth, and
follows fearlessly its footsteps ; when such questions as
these must be asked—be asked reverently, as by those
who feel that they are treading on holy ground—but be
asked firmly, as by those who would be able to give an
account of the hope which is in them, and to know that
the grounds are sure on which they rest their trust for time
and for eternity.”
The first passage of the Pentateuch selected by the Bishop
for examination relates to the birth of Hezron and Hamul,
sons of Pharez, son of Judah. This birth is stated most
positively to have taken place in Canaan, and Hezron and
Hamul are mentioned as included in the list of seventy
* Pentateuch, Part I. p. 13.
VOL. I. FC K.
498 I./FE OF AP/SHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. X,
persons (Jacob, Joseph, and Joseph's two sons being among
them) who went down from Canaan into Egypt. We get
then the following chronology for the incidents in the life of
some of the sons of Jacob. Joseph is spoken of as thirty
years old when he stands before Pharaoh as ruler over all the
land of Egypt. When his father came down to Egypt nine
years later, he was, therefore, thirty-nine years of age ; and so
his brother Judah, who was three years older than himself,
was at that time forty-two. But if we turn to Genesis xxxviii.
we find that in the course of these forty-two years the follow-
ing events happen. Judah grows up, marries, and has three
sons. Of these sons two grow up, marry (the second marrying
his brother's widow), and die. The widow deceives Judah,
and has by him twin Sons, of whom one grows up, marries,
and has two sons, Hezron and Hamul, who are thus great-
grandsons of a man not forty-two years old. The Bishop
remarks:– - - -
j
“The above being certainly incredible, we are obliged to
conclude that one of the two accounts must be untrue. Yet
the statement that Hezron and Hamul were born in the
land of Canaan is vouched so positively by the many
passages which sum up the seventy souls, that to give up
this point is to give up an essential part of the whole story.
But then this point cannot be maintained, however essential
to the narrative, without supposing that the other series of
events had taken place beforehand, which we have seen to
be incredible.”
Here, then, is a manifest contradiction. If we choose to
admit, as in all honesty we are bound to admit, that this
portion of the story is not a narrative of facts, we may pass
on without entangling ourselves in so-called reconciliations.
The commentator Thomas Scott saw that Pharez at the time
of the descent into Egypt would, if born, be only an infant,
and could not, therefore, be the father of children whom he
1862. THE PAEAVTA TE UCAI. MTS MA 7'7"EA’. 499
took with him from Canaan ; but he thought that he had
solved the difficulty by saying that the heads of families born
in Egypt during Jacob's life were included in the list. The
record, however, says that Pharez and his sons were all born
not in Egypt but in Canaan. Kurtz professes to rid himself
of the perplexity by asserting that the grandsons and great-
grandsons of Jacob and Judah, though not born, were in
their fathers, and therefore entered Egypt with them. But
so assuredly were their great-great-grandsons and all their
children from that day to this. With calm effrontery
Kurtz adds,
“Objections have been raised to this interpretation from
various quarters; but we must adhere to it.”
Certainly we must, the Bishop replies, if the historical character
of the Pentateuch is to be maintained at all costs; but it can
be maintained only by the assertion of an equivocation or a
falsehood—only by tearing to pieces the statements of the
book whose veracity is to be defended. The very principles
by which commentators like Hengstenberg allow themselves
to be guided involve insincerity ; words mean in many or
most cases what they seem not to mean ; and theological or
religious considerations are introduced to account for or to
justify this misuse of language. It is true that in the vision
of the Apocalypse the number of the servants of God sealed
on their foreheads is twelve thousand for each tribe ; and we
see at once that there is here no pretence of an historical
enumeration. But it is quite otherwise when we find the
family of Jacob at the time of the descent into Egypt men-
tioned as consisting of seventy souls, Jacob himself with
Joseph and his two sons being included to make up the total ;
and when elsewhere—Genesis xlvi. 26—the number excluding
these four is given at three-score and six. In spite of this,
Hengstenberg treats the numeration as mystical.
K. K. 2
5OO JL/FE OF BASA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. . CHAP. X.
“The author's object in making this computation is to show
from how small a quantity of seed so rich a harvest was
produced. For this object it was perfectly indifferent to him
whether the numbers were 40, 50, 60, or 70. The contrast
between these numbers and the hundreds of thousands re-
main the same. The author, who must be judged by the
standard of a sacred historian, not of a writer of statistics,
could hence follow his theological principle, which recom-
mended to him the choice of the number seventy. Seven
is the signature of the covenant between God and Israel.
By fixing on the covenant number the author intimated
that the increase was the covenant blessing.”
In short, the sacred historian is emancipated from every
duty by which other historians are supposed to be bound, and
his standard enables him to play fast and loose with words,
facts, and figures. If the contrast was the only thing of
moment, it would have been far more impressive, even on his
own theological principle, if he had represented the seed
by the covenant number seven and the harvest by seven
millions.
The difficulties connected with the gathering of the assembly
or the congregation before the door of the tabernacle are more
striking. That these words are meant to denote the whole
body of the people there can be no question, and the attempts
to limit their meaning in some passages to the chief men or
the elders are desperate. The passover was to be killed by
the whole assembly of the congregation ; the whole congrega-
tion or mass of the people murmur against Moses and Aaron,
and reproach them with bringing the whole assembly into
the wilderness to kill them with hunger. In the story of
Korah the congregation is pointedly distinguished from the
elders. In Joshua it includes the women, the little ones, and
the strangers conversant among them ; and these certainly
would not all be exempted from the plague which breaks
1862. THE PEAVTA TE UCH: Z.Z.S MA 7'7"EA’. 5OI
out in the congregation. Of this mighty body the 603,550
Israelitish warriors formed only a part; and this vast mass is
invited or commanded to assemble before the door of the
tabernacle—in other words, within the court. But the width
of the tabernacle was 18 feet, its length 34, while the court
was about 180 feet long and 90 broad. The latter, when
thronged, might have held some 5,OOO people; but if merely
the adult males of the people had stood nine abreast in front
of the tabernacle door (and more could not have stood
in a space I8 feet in width), they would have formed a line
of nearly twenty miles. Moses, again, and Joshua address
the whole assembly of the people ; but what human voice
could make itself heard by a multitude of three millions 2 In
the same way, allowing four square yards only for each
person, we find that their camp must have covered more than
1,650 acres. According to the Levitical direction, the priest
was to carry away daily the refuse of all the sacrifices to
a spot outside this camp ; and even if it be allowed that
he might do the work by deputy, the difficulty remains much
where it was for, in truth, from the numbers given, the camp,
according to the commentator Thomas Scott, must have
formed a movable city of twelve miles square. From this
huge space the people were every day to carry out their
rubbish, and into it they must bring their daily supplies
water and fuel, after first cutting down the latter where they
found it. The supposition, as the Bishop remarks, involves
an absurdity; and it is a mere gratuitous and useless assump-
tion, if we say that the narrative in its original form related
the exodus of a scanty troop with a few women and children,
for whose numbers the tabernacle described in the record
might amply suffice. The question is then shifted to the
date of the description of the tabernacle and of the laws
relating to it; and if these belong to a comparatively late
age of Jewish history, their historical character vanishes. In
502 JLIFE OF AP/SAIOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. X.
any case no trust whatever can be placed in the alleged
numbers of the Israelites at the time of their departure out
of Egypt.
It is even more astonishing to find this people, who fled Out
of the land of bondage in haste, “taking their dough before it
was leavened, their kneading-troughs being bound up in their
clothes upon their shoulders,” provided soon afterwards with
tents, with armour, and with weapons. A Levitical precept
refers to their having dwelt in booths on coming out of Egypt;
but there is not, the Bishop remarks, the slightest indication
in the story that they ever did live in booths, nor is it con-
ceivable when they could have done so." Where were the
boughs and bushes needed for this purpose to be found 2 But
if they used tents, then at the very least 200,000 would be
needed for a population of two millions. Where did they get
these tents Had they been provided in expectation of
marching, when their request was merely to be allowed to go
three days’ journey into the wilderness 2 They had not lived
in tents in Egypt, for they were to strike the blood of the
Paschal lamb on the two side-posts and on the lintel or upper
door-post of their houses. How, again, were these tents
carried ? Their own backs were sufficiently burdened with
the dough and the kneading-troughs, together with the grain
needed for the first month's use, for they had no manna given
to them until the fifteenth day of the second month after their
departing out of the land of Egypt. The cattle might, indeed,
have been used for this purpose; and a single ox might
perhaps carry four canvas tents of the lightest modern make.
He could hardly bear more than one heavy tent made of
skins; and thus 200,000 oxen would have been needed for
the wants of the Israelites. But “oxen are not usually trained
to carry goods upon their backs as pack-oxen, and will by no
means do so if untrained.”
* Pentaleuch, Part I. p. 45.
1862. THE PENTA TE UCH - ITS MA 7'7"E.R. 503
We thus find ourselves plunged into a narrative which is
honeycombed with impossibilities; and each step does little
more than reveal fresh difficulties or fresh marvels. The
down-trodden victims of Pharaoh's taskmasters, who had
crouched in abject fear beneath the driver's lash, suddenly
appear as a nation with an armed force of more than 600,000
warriors. They are harnessed, and amply provided with
weapons. If they had this armour and these weapons in
Egypt, how had they been kept down, and how had they
allowed themselves to be kept down 2 According to Herodotus
the whole caste of all the warriors in Egypt numbered only
I6O,OOO fighting men. If all these had gone out against the
Israelites, if all had been drowned in the Red Sea, if, when
dead, they had retained their weapons in their grasp, and if
their armour and their weapons had all come into the hands
of the fugitives, not less than 440,000 Israelite warriors would
still have been without weapons or armour. Some orthodox
critics have not been ashamed of resorting to the grotesque
supposition that the Israelites borrowed both weapons and
armour from their enemies on the night of the Exodus; but if
they came out from the country known to us as Egypt, they
came from a land where only the warrior caste was armed.
But these men would belong to Pharaoh's army, and the
Surrender of all their arms would, as we have seen, leave
very much more than half the Israelites unarmed. By this
ludicrous supposition the Israelites, or at least I6O,OOO of
them, would be armed, and their enemies absolutely defence-
less. Yet the latter pursue, and the former cry out in panic
terror, “sore afraid.”
“If, then,” the Bishop urged, “the historical veracity of this
part of the Pentateuch is to be maintained, we must believe
that 600,000 armed men (though it is inconceivable how
they obtained their arms) had, by reason of their long
servitude, become so debased and inhuman in their
5O4. I./FE OF BISA/OA COLEAVSO. CHAP. X.
cowardice (and yet they fought bravely enough with
Amalek a month afterwards) that they could not strike
a single blow for their wives and children, if not for their
own lives and liberties, but could only weakly wail and
murmur against Moses, saying, ‘It had been better for us
to serve the Egyptians than that we should die in the
wilderness.’”
The difficulties connected with the institution of the Pass-
over are of a still more serious kind, for we are now dealing
with injunctions which are said to come from Jehovah Him-
self. We have here some passages which cannot on any
supposition be made to match with the rest of the story. We
have special charges about the choosing of the lamb, and
other rites spreading over many days, and at the same time
we have the repeated declaration that the first announcement
relating to the Passover was made on the day preceding the
night in which the Egyptian firstborn were destroyed. We
have, therefore, to see what the narrative really implies.
“Moses called for all the elders of Israel. We must suppose,
then, that the elders lived somewhere near at hand. But
where did the two millions live? And how could the order
to keep the Passover have been conveyed with its minutest
particulars to each individual household in this vast com-
munity in one day, rather in twelve hours, since Moses
received the command on the very same day on which they
were to kill the Passover at even, Exodus xii. 62
“It must be observed that it was absolutely necessary that
the notice should be distinctly given to each separate
family. For it was a matter of life and death. Upon the
due performance of the Divine command it depended
whether Jehovah should “stride across’ the threshold, and
protect the house from the angel of death, or not. And yet
the whole matter was perfectly new to them. The specific
directions—about choosing the lamb, killing it at even,
sprinkling its blood, and eating it with unleavened bread,
I862. THE PENTA TE UCPſ: /7'S MA 7'7"EA’. 5O5
‘not raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire,
with loins girded, their shoes on their feet, and their staff in
their hand,’—were now for the first time communicated to
Moses, by him to the elders, and by them to the people.
These directions, therefore, could not have been conveyed
by any mere sign, intimating that they were now to carry
into execution something about which they had been
informed before.” +
There would, however, be no great difficulty in conveying
the information to the Hebrews (due time being allowed for
the purpose), even if they lived in a city as large as London.
But in this case twelve hours alone are allotted for this task,
for the bringing together of the lambs for the Passover, and
for the gigantic work of borrowing (as it is termed), which
was to precede the rite. To make this borrowing the easier,
we may, if we please, assume not only (as we are told) that
they were living in the midst of the Egyptians, but that the
latter, hating the mad folly of their king, had a friendly feel-
ing, and even a deep respect, for the Israelites; that many of
them lodged with Israelite householders; and (as Hengstenberg
supposes) that these lodgers were persons of good property, who
would give from their abundance gold and silver ornaments
and clothes. In this way we may account for the Hebrews
possessing not a little raiment and jewelry; but we can do
so only on the hypothesis that under the guise of borrowing
they were robbing and pillaging not their enemies but their
friends. The difficulty of the supposition that the latter
would be thus eager to lend to a people who were in the wild
excitement of instant departure is one of which critics like
Hengstenberg seem to think it needless to take any notice.
But the Hebrews were not living together with the Egyp-
tians. They were owners of vast herds and flocks which they
must have been tending over a wide extent of country. If we
* Pentateuch, Part I. p. 56.
506 A./FE OF AP/SHOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. X.
take the numbers of the Pentateuch, at least 150,000 male
lambs would be wanted for that first Passover, and this
according to the experience of sheep masters in Australia
and Natal implies a flock of 2,OOO,OOO sheep and lambs of all
ages, of which two only could be supported by each acre of
land. But even if five sheep be allowed to each acre, the
Israelites would have required 40O,OOO acres of grazing land
for their sheep alone, and, it may be, a larger space still for
their oxen. They would, therefore, be scattered over an area
equal to that of the counties of Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire
together. To all these people, then, so scattered, the warning
to keep the Passover within twelve hours had to be conveyed,
and with it the strict injunction that no one was to go out at the
door of his house until the morning ! But they were not allowed
to obey this injunction even if they had willed to do so, for at
midnight came from Moses the order for instant departure to
families who had only just been told that they were not to
think of stirring from their houses before daybreak. *
We are not, in these incidents, dealing with marvels, miracles,
and prodigies; but we are intangled in a perfect network of
impossibilities. In an hour or two from the time of receiving
the midnight order a population of two millions starts, without
leaving one behind, together with all their flocks, herds, and
goods. --
“Remembering as I do,” writes the Bishop, “the confusion in
my own household of thirty or forty persons when once we
were obliged to fly at dead of night—having been roused
from Our beds by a false alarm that an invading Zulu force
had entered the colony, had evaded the English troops sent
to meet them, and was making its way direct for our station,
killing right and left as it came along—I do not hesitate to
declare this statement to be utterly incredible and impos-
sible. Were an English village of (say) two thousand people
to be called suddenly to retreat in this way, with old people
1862. THE PEWTATEUCH; 17's MATTER. 507
young children, and infants, what indescribable distress
there would be But what shall be said of a thousand
times as many 2 And what of the sick and infirm, or the
women in recent or in imminent child-birth, in a population
like that of London, where the births are 264 a day, or about
one every five minutes ?
“But this,” he adds, “is but a very small part of the difficulty.
We are required to believe that in one single day the order
to start was communicated suddenly, at midnight, to every
single family of every town and village, throughout a tract
of country as large as Hertfordshire, but ten times as thickly
peopled ; that in obedience to such orders, having first
‘borrowed very largely from their Egyptian neighbours in
all directions (though, if we are to assume Egyptians oc-
cupying the same territory with the Hebrews, the extent of
it must be very much increased), they then came in from
all parts of the land of Goshen to Rameses, bringing with
them the sick and infirm, the young and the aged; further,
that, since receiving the summons, they had sent out to
gather in all their flocks and herds, spread over so wide a
district, and had driven them also to Rameses; and lastly,
that, having done all this, since they were roused at mid-
night, they were started again from Rameses that very
same day, and marched on to Succoth, not leaving a single
sick or infirm person, a single woman in child-birth, or
even ‘ a single hoof' behind them.” "
Such in all strictness is the Exodus story. Kurtz felt and
admitted it to be in many respects impossible, although of
its extravagent absurdity he says nothing. He, an Orthodox
critic, writing to uphold the historical accuracy and veracity
of the Pentateuch, cannot bring himself to believe that they
all meet at Rameses, many of them merely to retrace their
steps. Although the narrative says plainly, “the children of
Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred
thousand [warriors] on foot,” he insists that some only started
* Pentateuch, Part I. p. 62.
508 I./FE OF BISAMOP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. X.
from Rameses, the rest joining them on their road. The tale
speaks of a distance of about sixty miles traversed in three
days. Kurtz remarks :-
“Others may believe it, if they please. But I cannot believe
that such a procession as we have described could keep
up a journey of seventeen or twenty miles a day for three
days running. Even if they only travelled three days, it
would certainly be necessary to assume, as Tischendorf
does, that there were periods of rest of longer duration—
that is, actual days of rest between the three marching
days. But had there been any such days, it can scarcely
be supposed that a narrative so minute would have failed
to notice them. But we have next to imagine this mighty
throng moving through the open desert; let it be granted,
as some have supposed, in a wide body, fifty men abreast.
These, with only a yard between each rank, would form a
Column more than twenty-two miles long, and thus, far
from starting at one and the same hour from Rameses or
from Succoth, the last of the body could not have stirred
till the first had advanced that distance, ‘more than two
days’ journey for such a mixed company as this.’” +
So speaking, we leave out of sight the flocks and herds, the
first of which might eat, while their followers would certainly
trample down, such grass or herbage as might be found.
How then were these two millions of sheep and cattle sustained
on the march from Rameses to the Red Sea 2 But let Kurtz
have the full benefit of the supposition that most of them
joined the company after the Hebrews had left Rameses.
Even this, as the Bishop remarks with irresistible logic, would
not affect the difficulty of so many miles of people marching
with so many miles of sheep and oxen.
“It would only throw it on to a further stage of the journey.
For when, on the third day, they turned aside and ‘en-
* Pentateuch, Part I. p. 64.
1862. TAZE PAEAVTA TEUCH - MTS MA 7'7"E.R. 509
camped by the sea,' what then did this enormous multitude
of cattle feed upon P’’
How, again, were they fed when they had crossed to the
other side 2 The people, we are told, were supplied with
manna, and might also be sustained by their flocks and herds;
but for the latter there was no extraordinary provision, and
they were thus left to live on such fodder as they could find
in the wilderness, and this for the long space of forty years.
The story precludes the notion that they were scattered over
indefinite tracts of country. The people had to keep together
for self-defence; and the flocks, if scattered, must have been
guarded by large bodies of armed men. Much has been said
of changes of climate, caused by disappearance of vegetation,
in the Sinaitic peninsula; but such notions are not coun-
tenanced by the old record. The story describes the region
generally as being then, what it is now, “a waste howling
wilderness,” a land of “fiery serpents, scorpions, and drought,”
where there was “no water to drink.”
Fully aware of the difficulties thus encountered on both
sides of the question, Dr. Stanley admitted that the main-
tenance of the Israelites during their long wanderings could
not be accounted for by a reference to miracles.
“Except the manna, the quails, and the three interventions
with regard to water, none such,” he said, “are mentioned
in the Mosaic history; and if we have no warrant to take
away, we have no warrant to add.”
But, again, he would not allow that such difficulties fur-
nished a proof of the unhistorical character of the narrative ;
and he appealed to Ewald in support of his conclusion that
“the general truth of the wanderings in the wilderness is an
essential preliminary to the whole of the subsequent history
of Israel.”
The Bishop replied that, though Ewald had asserted, he
5 IO JAPE OF AP/SAIOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. X.
had failed to show, this ; that the story of the Exodus is as
much out of harmony with some parts of the later history as
it is in harmony with others, and that it is at the least pos-
sible that the latter also may turn out to be unhistorical.
Dr. Stanley fell back, further, on a supposed spread of the
Hebrews “far and wide through the whole peninsula,” and
“on the constant means of support from their own flocks and
herds.” The latter point may be admitted, the real question
being how the cattle were supported, the narrative saying
nothing about any dispersal of the people, and distinctly
implying that they had to keep together everywhere. He
adduced the further fact that a population nearly, if not
quite, equal to the whole permanent population of the penin-
Sula, passes yearly through the desert on the way to and
from Mecca. But the caravan of pilgrims numbers about
five thousand, and carries ample stores on the backs of
camels. The Hebrew population numbered two millions,
and had hurried out of Egypt without “having prepared for
themselves any victual,” and had no means of carrying food,
if they had it." The caravan passes through with all prac-
ticable speed: the Hebrews remained a year in one most
desolate spot, and spent forty years in wandering through
other parts of the desert. They were encumbered with vast
herds, needing daily supplies of water: the caravan hurries
along with camels which can go for days without drinking.
The reference to some climatic changes in the peninsula is,
as we have seen, still more desperate. Whatever change
there may have been, the story of the Exodus speaks of it
as being then, what it is now, “an evil place,” without fruits,
without crops, without water. Groves of acacia-trees may
have disappeared in the wadys or winter-torrent courses,
and the lessening or concentration of the rainfall may have
contracted somewhat the scanty area of grass; but the differ-
* Pentateuch, Part I. p. 71.
I862. ſ THE PEAVTA TEUCH - MTS MA 77 ER. 5 II
ence would be inappreciable, when the question affects the
sustenance of millions. The monks of St. Catharine have
created a paradise of flowers, fruit, and grass. But the para-
dise extends over some four or five acres, and has been the
work of centuries; and the attempt to explain the sustenance
of a mighty multitude at a moment's notice on the stony
soil of the plain beneath Sinai by the results of unremitting
labour applied to a small garden is absurd. It is more to the
purpose to refer to the Amalekites. There is no proof that
they lived in the Sinaitic desert, which Jeremiah describes as
“a land that no man passed through and where no man
dwelt.” There is, indeed, the ruined city of Petra ; but Petra
is in an oasis, not in the wilderness. As he approached it,
Stanley found that he had “suddenly left the desert.”
“Instead of the absolute nakedness of the Sinaitic valleys,
we found ourselves walking on grass sprinkled with flowers,
and the level platforms on each side were filled with
sprouting corn.”
But compared with the population of the Israelites that of
Petra was nothing. That a writer so able and earnest as
Stanley would say all that could be said to uphold the general
trustworthiness of the Mosaic narrative, we may be sure ;
but he was too candid to withhold the confession that, though
these considerations might mitigate the force of the difficulty,
they failed to solve it. To how slight an extent they even
mitigate it, it can scarcely be necessary to say. Nor need we
dwell on the ridiculous supposition that near the populous
Mount Seir they must come into intercourse with rich nations
and tribes who would supply them easily with all the neces-
saries of life. The tribes would at the outside be numbered
by a few thousands; and we have to picture to ourselves one
or two myriads supplying the needs of millions. The cattle
must be thought of almost more than the people, who, though
512 A/FE OF A/SAIOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. X.
they might in part live on their flocks, could not buy grass or
other food for them. Such hypotheses may be indefinitely
multiplied; but every hypothesis will do violence more or
less to plain statements of the narrative. There remains
another difficulty. The Israelites were under Sinai for nearly
a year, and they kept the second Passover there in the first
month of their ecclesiastical year, March-April, when the
weather is bitterly cold. Whence did the people at this time
obtain fuel, not merely for their daily cooking, but also for
warmth P and how, under such circumstances, were the cattle
saved from cold and starvation ?
This nation with its vast mass of 600,000 warriors had been
told that their mission was to displace the tribes of Canaan;
but before they emerged from the desert they received a
Divine assurance that hornets should drive out these tribes
before them ; that the work of expulsion should be done
gradually, till the increase in their own numbers should enable
them to inherit the land, the reason for not expelling them
in a single year being the fear that otherwise the land might
become desolate and the beasts of the field multiply against
the new comers. But, according to the Pentateuch story, the
inheritance of the twelve tribes, east and west of Jordan,
covered about seven millions of acres. The acreage of Nor-
folk, Suffolk, and Essex, is about half this quantity, and
their population in 1851 was somewhat under I, 150,000—not
greater, therefore, in proportion than that of the Israelites
on their entering Canaan, without reckoning the Canaanites,
who are described as seven nations, greater and mightier than
Israel itself.
“Surely,” remarks the Bishop, “it cannot be said that these
three eastern counties, with their flourishing towns . .
are in any danger of their lying ‘desolate, with the beasts
of the field multiplying against the human inhabitants.” "
* Pentateuch, Part I. p. 83.
1862. THE PENTATE UCH - ITS MA 7'7"EA’. 5.I.3
But the colony of Natal has an extent of 18,000 square
miles, with a population, black and white included, which in
1861–62 did not greatly exceed I 50,000. The numbers are
scanty, and the land could bear vastly more; but the human
inhabitants thirty years ago were well able to hold their ground
against the beasts of the field, few of which could now be
seen, while lions, elephants, and other species which had once
abounded in the country, have long since disappeared.
“Natal, in fact, should have a population of three millions, in
order to be compared for density of population with the
land of Canaan, according to the story, after the entrance
of the Israelites, without reckoning the old inhabitants.”
The truth is that, without going further, we are dealing
with records, which, regarded strictly as historical narratives,
are wholly worthless. Whatever moral and spiritual beauty
they may exhibit, whatever righteous lessons or warnings
they may inforce, remains unaffected by the investigation ;
but the authority of the book as a history is reduced to a
level not much higher than that of the beautiful apologue of
Prodikos which describes the trial and testing of the youthful
Herakles by Kakia and Arete. But although we have ample
grounds already for setting down the narratives of the Penta-
teuch generally as untrustworthy, the perplexities connected
with these stories are far from having been fully enumerated.
Thus for the huge total of two million Israelites all the first-
born males from a month old and upwards are given as
2,273, and these are distinctly named as firstborns on the
mother's side, the proportion to the whole number of males
being as I to 42.
“In other words, the number of boys in every family must
have been on the average forty-two, and each woman
who became a mother must have been the mother of this
number of sons.”
VOL. I. L L
5 I4. AZFA. OA AMSATOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. X.
It is scarcely worth while to go through the attempts at
reconciliation or explanation offered for statements which
imply that there were only 60,000 child-bearing women to
6OO,OOO men, so that only one man in ten could have a wife
and children. Of Orthodox critics some urge the prevalence,
others the rarity, of polygamy, as helping us to account for
these assertions. But the inquiry sends us now further afield.
That the period of 430 years assigned for the sojourning or
pilgrimage of the children of Israel is to be reckoned from the
time of the covenant made with Abraham there can be no
doubt. The time spent in Egypt after the descent of Jacob
and his family would thus be 2 I 5 years. This conclusion
removes some astounding perplexities, for, if we take the 430
years as the actual sojourn in Egypt,
“Moses, who was eighty years old at the time of the Exodus,
must have been born 350 years after the migration into
Egypt, when his mother . . . must have been at the very
least 256 years old.”" -
The shorter period is more in harmony with the narrative,
which, as a rule, gives the contemporaries of Moses and Aaron
as descendants in the third, and those of Joshua and Eleazar
as descendants in the fourth, generation from some one of the
sons or grandsons of Jacob, who went down with him into
Egypt. But the comment involved in these statements on the
value of other parts of the narrative is amazing indeed. The
twelve sons of Jacob are said to have had between them fifty-
three sons, or an average of four and a half to each.
“Let us suppose,” the Bishop writes, “that they increased in
this way from generation to generation. Then in the first
generation, that of Kohath, there would be fifty-four males;
in the second, that of Amram, 243 ; in the third, that of
Moses and Aaron, I,094; and in the fourth, that of Joshua
* Pentateuch, Part I. p. 93.
1862. THE PEN 7.4 TEUCH - MTS MA 7'7"EA’. 5I 5
and Eleazar, 4,923: that is to say, instead of 600,000 war-
riors in the prime of life, there could not have been 5,000.
Further, if the numbers of all the males in the four genera-
tions be added together (which supposes that they were all
living at the time of the Exodus), they would only amount
to 6,31 I. If we even add to them the numbers of the fifth
generation, 22, 154, who would be mostly children, the sum
total of males of all generations could not, according to these
data, have exceeded 28,465, instead of being 1,000,000.” I
A further examination of the genealogical records reveals
still greater extravagance. In Genesis xlvi. 23, Dan is spoken
of as having one son. In Numbers xxiii. 42, the sons of Dan
consist of only one family. Dan, therefore, had no more sons
born to him in Egypt. He would thus in the fourth genera-
tion have had twenty-seven warriors descended from him ;
but in Numbers ii. 26, they are given as 62,700, and in xxvi. 43,
as 64,OOO. Yet more, these descendants of the one son of Dan
are represented as nearly double the number of the ten sons of
Benjamin. The factors relating to the family of Levi give
similar results. How are they to be dealt with ? The problem
is one of hopeless difficulty, and the efforts to solve it are not
less desperate. Kurtz insists that Abraham and those who
came after him all had hundreds, if not thousands, of servants,
who, as being circumcised, were reckoned as his family, and
that in Egypt his own immediate descendants intermarried
with these servants. But with all such hypotheses the narrative
of the Pentateuch is altogether in conflict. Nothing is said
of this multitude of dependents as going down with Jacob
into Egypt. Jacob has none such when he meets with his
brother Esau. If he had possessed them, would he have sent
his darling son Joseph, at seventeen years of age, to wander
alone and unattended in search of his brothers ? His brothers,
again, are mentioned as feeding their flocks unattended ; and
* Pentateuch, Part I. p. Io9.
L L 2
516 AZAZAZ OA' BMSA/OA' CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. X.
indeed the presence of bands of servants would have been
highly inconvenient for the execution of their designs against
Joseph. Nothing is said of servants accompanying the sons
of Jacob when they go to buy corn in Egypt. On the con-
trary, each man has his ass, and when they find their money
in their sacks, their fear is that Joseph will confiscate their
beasts, but they make no mention of any servants. They had,
moreover, eleven asses, and eleven sacks; and the contents of
these sacks would have yielded but scanty support for many
starving thousands. The comments and explanations which
deal with these perplexities are vain attempts to tear down
the walls of a prison-house with the bare hand.
These difficulties of inconsistency, downright contradiction,
and impossibility, are interwoven with the whole texture of
the Pentateuch records. The Levitical legislation, purporting
to be drawn up specially for the people during their sojourn in
the desert, assumes that they are to be numbered by millions.
But the entrance to the tabernacle is, as we have seen, so narrow
that scarcely nine men could stand abreast in front of it ; and
the number of the priests, after the death of Nadab and
Abihu, is only three. For each birth there was to be a burnt-
offering and a sin-offering ; and as the births for such a popu-
lation would be 250 daily, 500 sacrifices would have to be
offered up each day on this account alone. The rules show
that scarcely less than five minutes could be allowed for each
sacrifice; and if these offerings were taken separately, they
would occupy not a single day of twelve hours, but forty-two
hours consecutively. The notion of many simultaneous offer-
ings receives no countenance from the statements of the
Pentateuch, and there was but one altar, about nine feet square,
on which, therefore, not many victims could be placed together.
These victims might be lambs or pigeons ; and the latter are
permitted as a lighter and easier offering for the poor to bring
during their sojourn in the wilderness. “They are, therefore,
1862. THE PENTA TEUCH: ZTS MATTER. 517
spoken of as being in abundance, as being within the reach of
every one, in the wilderness under Sinai.” It is absolutely
impossible to resist the conclusion that these enactments were
framed at some time when, and some place where, it would
really be a boon to the poor to allow them to offer pigeons
instead of lambs; but the time was not that of the sojourn
in the desert, nor was the place the peninsula of Sinai. Doves,
indeed, are supposed to be birds of the wilderness; but the
wilderness is, probably, that of Judah, not the stony wastes
of Arabia. If, however, by such pleas we fancy for a moment
that we have escaped, or at least lessened, one difficulty, it is
only to find ourselves face to face with another. The priests
were enjoined to eat the sin-offerings in the most holy place.
There were but three of them, and the number of the offerings
would be 264 daily. Each, therefore, would have to devour
eighty-eight pigeons every day. To the priests also belong the
first-born of all cattle ; and these would be reckoned by
hundreds of thousands yearly. What were three priests to
do with such an inheritance 2 The requirements on their
powers during the feast of the Passover were on a scale vastly
more gigantic. At the second Passover, under Sinai, I5O,OOO
lambs were killed, it would seem, between the two evenings;
that is, between the setting of the sun and the closing in of
actual night. In other words, in about two hours each priest
had to sprinkle the blood of 50,000 lambs, at the rate of 400
lambs every minute. But where were these animals slain 2
The court of the tabernacle, when thronged most densely,
would not have held more than 5000 people ; and how then
“are we to conceive 150,000 lambs being killed within it by
at least I5O,OOO people, at the rate of I,250 lambs a
minute 2 * *
Any slight reduction, based on the calculation that a lamb
* Pentateuch, Part I. p. 125. * Ib. p. 132.
518 I./FE OF AP/SP/OP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. X.
may have sufficed for twenty people, instead of for eight or
ten, has no appreciable effect on the difficulty. The amount
of slaughtering and sprinkling to be done remains an absolute
impossibility. Kurtz tries to get out of the snare by saying
that “the place which Jehovah shall choose to place His
Name there” means not the sanctuary but the city or camp,
within which the sanctuary was situated—in other words,
that, so long as they were anywhere within the limits of this
city or camp, each father of a family might offer the lamb
for his household within his own tent. But the narrative of
the Pentateuch gives no warrant for any such supposition ;
and in the Book of Leviticus it is expressly commanded that
all burnt-offerings, peace-offerings, sin-offerings, trespass-
offerings, shall be killed “at the door of the tabernacle of the
congregation, and the blood be sprinkled upon the altar
round about.”
Nor do we move more freely when we pass from the region
of ceremonial enactments to incidents of the popular history.
We have seen that the enormous numbers of the Israelites
are made up from different sets of factors, all of which yield
as nearly as possible the same results. The factors, therefore,
have been as deliberately framed as the totals; and we cannot,
then, take these totals as mere Eastern superlatives, as we
certainly may when we are told that David slew 40,000
Syrian horsemen ; or that Pekah slew in one day 12O,Ooo “sons
of valour” of the kingdom of Judah ; or that the men of Judah,
fighting with Jeroboam II., smote down of his warriors
5OO,OOO chosen men. The Bishop is thus more than justified
in saying—he was bound to say—that these numbers were
woven as a thread into the whole story of the Exodus, and
cannot be taken out without tearing the whole fabric to
pieces. He was justified also in expressing thankfulness
“that we are no longer obliged to believe, as a matter of fact,
of vital consequence to our eternal hope, the story of the
I862 THE PENTA TEUCH - MTS MA 77 ER. 519
Midianitish war.” The obligation had sprung simply from
the hypothesis or assumption of the perfect veracity of the
Mosaic history; with the fall of the hypothesis the supposed
duty fades away.
A few minds might, it is true, put aside the obligation as
imaginary and unreal ; but the idea that there was such an
obligation had exercised a most injurious influence on many.
It had led Bishop Butler to urge that particular acts, which
would otherwise be in the highest degree immoral, ceased
to be immoral under a Divine commission to do them. It
had led Dr. Arnold to regard robbery, pillage, burning, and
massacre, as a merciful recompense to the Canaanites, who
would be swept away to make room for tribes who are
described as being not much, if at all, better than they. It
had led to gross blasphemies against the Divine Nature,
which was represented as sanctioning in one age or country
that which was condemned or prohibited in another. But
all these curious pleadings vanish into air when we really
look into the story and there find
“ that I 2,OOO Israelites slew all the males of the Midianites,
took captive all the females and children, seized all their
cattle and flocks (72,OOO oxen, 61,000 asses, 675,OOO sheep)
and all their goods, and burnt all their cities and all their
goodly castles, without the loss of one single man, and then
by command of Moses butchered in cold blood all the
women and children’’
with the exception of 32,000 girls who were kept as prizes for
the Conquerors. This alone is enough to show that we are
reading a narrative whose veracity may be put much on the
* In a despatch dated November 16, 1878, Sir Bartle Frere urged as a
plea for the raids and incroachments of the Boers against the Zulus that
the former had “a sincere belief in the Divine authority for what they
did,” based upon “the old commands which they found in parts of their
Bible to exterminate the Gentiles and take their lands in possession.”
52O M.I.A.E OF BISHOP CO/CAEAVSO. chap. x.
same level with that of the story of Ali Baba and the Forty
Thieves ; and it becomes a superfluous, as it is assuredly a
loathsome, task, when we turn to calculate the numbers
thus slaughtered, and find that they amount to 48,000 women
and (say) 20,000 boys, and that to these must be added a
like number of men put to death, all this being done by
12,OOO Israelites, who must, further, have carried off IOO,OOO
captives, eight at least to each man, and driven before them
at the same time 808,OOO head of cattle. In dealing with
horrors, as compared with which the tragedy of Cawnpore sinks
into nothing, it is satisfactory to find that the chronology of the
campaign is as impossible as are its incidents. Aaron died,
we are told, on the first day of the fifth month of the fortieth
year of the wanderings, the year also of the Midianitish
expedition. During the month of mourning which followed
his death nothing was done. For the war in which they then
engaged with the Midianitish king Arad another month
probably must be allowed, and a fortnight at least for the
journey from Mount Hor, by the way of the Red Sea, to
compass the land of Edom, when they were plagued with
fiery serpents and Moses set up a serpent of brass. The nine
encampments next mentioned must have taken up another
month, while another must be allowed for the crushing of
the Amorite king Sihon and the destruction of all his cities.
Scarcely less than a fortnight would have been taken up with
spying out Jaazer and driving thence the Amorites, and
another month for the destruction of Og, king of Bashan, with
all his cities and all his people, not one being left alive. This
computation brings us to the first day of the eleventh month,
the very day on which Moses is said to have addressed the
people in the plains of Moab. But into this period must be,
further, crowded the following events: the march to the plains
of Moab, the journeys and prophesyings of Balaam, the sojourn
of Israel in Shittim with its attendant debauchery, the death
1862. 7THE AEEAVTA TEUCH - ITS MA 7'7"EA’. 52I
of 24,OOO by the plague, the Second numbering, and the
Midianitish war.
The picture revealed to us by this examination of the
Mosaic narrative is, , indeed, astonishing, and furnishes a
marvellous comment on the words which the Bishop cites
from its orthodox defender Håvernick.
“If the Pentateuch would fully maintain its right to the
position which it claims as the work of Moses and the
commencement of the sacred records of the covenant people,
it must fulfil the requisition of showing itself to be a work
Æistorically true—containing a history which shall vindicate
itself by critical examination, as maintaining invariably
the character of perfect truth in reference to the assumed
period of its composition.”
Instead of this, we find a series of incidents absolutely im-
possible in themselves, a series of narratives which contradict
or exclude each other, and a reckoning of population in which
several sets of factors have been very deliberately framed to
suit certain preconceived totals. We have, further, a history
which, professing to tell us of wanderings spread over forty
years, is absolutely silent about thirty-seven of those years, and
thus leads us to think that the forty years are as little to be
depended on as the numbers, armour, and weapons of the
6OO,OOO warriors who march from Rameses. In this mighty
labyrinth of contradictions and impossibilities nothing has
been said as to the suspicions which must attach to the ages
reached by patriarchs and others. We have no warrant
whatever for the fancy that the duration of human life has
diminished or that it ever was greater than it is now ; and
this suspicion throws additional uncertainty over not merely
a part, but the whole, of the history. There is, lastly, the
obscurity attaching to the whole of the Egyptian sojourn.
Where or what was Goshen It lay far away to the east of
522 JLIFE OF AP/SA/OP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. X-
the river, and formed the best or fat of the land ; but in the
country known to us as Egypt, the only fertile part is the
strip affected by the annual inundations. This strip has no
pasture; and the Israelites were strictly herdsmen. From
Herodotus it would seem that the region commonly known as
Goshen was in his time, and had always been, little better than
a salt marsh. The Misraim of the Pentateuch is a country of
horses and horsemen : Egypt had none. The former had
lions: the latter had none. In the former the tillage is de-
scribed as that of laborious hand work with artificial irrigation :
in Egypt the work was done by the river. The contrast
might be carried much further; and perhaps at the worst it
may show only that the compilers of the narrative were but
little acquainted with the country which they were professing
to describe. But we may fairly suspect that there are diffi-
culties in quarters where we may be least disposed to look
for them, and all of them force us to the same conclusion that
throughout the narrative of the Pentateuch we have no firm
standing-ground.
But the very discrepancies which run through these books,
as they have come down to us, are of themselves conclusive
evidence that the books are not the work of one hand. It is,
quite impossible that one and the same man should at the
same time write off a story which describes in parts the
doings of a scanty band, and in others the doings of an im-
mense multitude or even nation. The 600,000 warriors,
implying a population of at least two millions, were not called
into being by the man who speaks of a clan or tribe with
three priests, a tabernacle with a length and breadth of
only a few feet, and a court capable of accommodating,
when most densely thronged, only some four or five thousand
persons. If then the books, as we now have them, are com-
posite, it is quite certain that the story which speaks of the
Hebrews in Egypt as a very small society of slaves must be
1863. 7THE PAEAV7'A TEUCH - Z 7'S MA 7'7"EA’. . 523,
much older than the record which represents them as a
mighty people. It becomes, therefore, not less certain that,
whatever portions may be the writing of Moses, he had nothing
to do with the more pretentious descriptions ; in other words,
that he can have been concerned at the most with a very small
portion of the Pentateuch. Were it otherwise, we should have
to charge him with deliberate falsification in the numbering
of the tribes and in all the records which are affected by this
numbering. On the other hand, if he had nothing to do with
these later additions, all that we need necessarily to conclude
is that the original narrative, whatever it may have been, was
not regarded by the later compilers as possessing a character
too sacred to allow of their meddling with it. In their hands
the earlier traditions have undergone a treatment precisely
corresponding to that of the old Greek or Roman traditions
which have been moulded into the narratives of Herodotus.
or Livy.
The contradictions in the story of the Pentateuch lead,
therefore, directly to questions of authorship; and to these
the Bishop had to address himself in the second and the
subsequent portions of his work. There surely can be no
need even to state that no one, having finished one account
of any incident or event, would go on without the break of a
line to give another and a totally different account of the
same event. Yet this is just what we find in the first two
chapters of the Book of Genesis—in other words, in the two
accounts of the Creation. On almost every point the two
narratives contradict each other. In the first, the earth
emerges from the waters, and is therefore saturated with
moisture: in the second, the whole face of the ground is dry
and needs to be moistened. In the first, the birds and beasts
are created before man : in the second, man comes before the
birds and beasts. In the first, all fowls that fly are made Out
of the waters: in the second, they are made out of the ground.
524. M.I.A.'E OF BASA/OP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. X
In the first, man is created in the image of God : in the Second,
he is made of the dust of the ground and is merely animated
with the breath of life; and only after his disobedience God
is represented as saying, “The man has become as one of us,
to know good and evil.” In the first, man is made lord of
the whole earth : in the second, he is merely placed in the
garden to dress and to keep it. But more particularly, in
the first, man and woman are created together,
“as the closing and completing work of the whole Creation—
created also, it is evidently implied, in the same kind of
way, to be the complement of one another. In the Second,
the beasts and birds are created between the man and the
woman. First, the man is made, of the dust of the ground :
he is placed by himself in the garden, charged with a solemn
command, and threatened with a curse if he breaks it ;
then the beasts and birds are made, and the man gives
names to them ; and lastly, after all this, the woman is
made, out of one of his ribs, but merely as a helpmate for
the man.” 1 -
Two narratives in more pointed antagonism could scarcely
be found anywhere. They cannot, therefore, come from the
same hand. But on looking further we see that in the first
narrative the Creator is always spoken of by the name Elohim,
in the second always as Jehovah-Elohim, except in one pas-
sage only, iii. 1, 3, 8, where the writer seems to abstain, for
some reason, from placing the name “Jehovah” in the mouth
of the serpent.
Contradictions of the same kind may be seen in the
accounts of the Deluge. In the one, two of every sort of
beasts, birds, cattle, creeping things, are to enter the ark:
in the other, the number two is confined to unclean beasts,
while all other creatures are to be taken by sevens. But
here too we find that the former account exhibits only
* Pentateuch, Part II. p. 172.
1863. 7THE ARAEAV7.4 TEUCH - ITS MA 7'7"EA’. 525
Elohim; the other has Jehovah as well as Elohim, though
not the compound form Jehovah-Elohim. We thus have, at
least, two writers, the Elohist and the Jehovist, of whom the
former is manifestly the older. The noting of these facts
leads us to mark, further, certain peculiarities of these writers.
Thus the Elohist uses the expression El Shaddai, “Almighty
God,” which the Jehovist never employs. The latter
repeatedly uses Israel as a personal name for Jacob : the
Elohist never. So, again, where the Elohist speaks of Padan
or Padan-Aram, the later writer speaks always of Aram-
Naharaim. That the Elohistic document, as compared with
the later additions, is one of very considerable antiquity, we
may most reasonably infer; but it is certain that it was not
regarded by the later writer, or writers, with any exaggerated
or superstitious reverence. They dealt with it, manifestly,
as they pleased. What, then, is the ultimate conclusion ?
Clearly this, at least, that Moses was not the later of these
two writers. But is Moses himself an historical character?
In great likelihood, yes. Traditions relating to his career
as a deliverer of his countrymen out of captivity recorded,
beyond doubt, the profound impression made on the national
mind by the circumstances of that deliverance," and we may
well believe that the lessons taught by that simple narrative
may have been to the full as striking, instructive, and edify-
ing as any of those which Mr. Maurice found, or thought that
he found, in the Pentateuch as it has come down to us.
But there is no lack of other signs which point to a later
age than that of the Exodus for the composition of some
parts, at least, of the Pentateuch. Before a sanctuary exists,
we hear (Exodus xxx. 13, &c.) of the “shekel of the sanc-
tuary.” A mighty strong west wind—in the original Hebrew,
a wind of the sea, that is of the Mediterranean Sea—takes
away the locusts from Egypt, and casts them into the Red
* Pentateuch, Part II. p. 185.
526 A/FE OF BISHOP COZENSO. CHAP. X.
Sea ; but the Mediterranean Sea winds would blow, not over
the land of Egypt, but across Canaan. Hence this passage
was written by some one settled in the latter country, and
therefore not by Moses. In Deuteronomy xi. 29, 30, Moses
speaks of the Canaanites which dwell in the champaign over
against Gilgal beside the plains of Moreh; but according to
the Book of Joshua the name Gilgal was not given to the
place till the people had been circumcised after entering the
land of Canaan." The same remark applies to the name Dan
as a local designation ; and from the Book of Judges we learn
that the name was given at a time when there was no king
in Israel. These words were, therefore, written by some one
living after the establishment of the monarchy; and therefore
the passage in the Book of Joshua which relates the changing
of the name of the city of Laish into Dan was not written by
Joshua. So in Genesis xxxvi. 31, mention is made of kings
that reigned in Edom, before the reign of any king in Israel.
This passage, therefore, could not have been written at the
earliest before the days of Saul. In the first of the books
which bear the name of Samuel, ix. 9, we are told that the
person then called Roeh, a “seer,” had in earlier times been
known as Nabi, or prophet. But in the Pentateuch and the
Book of Joshua, the word Nabi alone occurs, Roeh being never
found. Therefore, if the statement in the Book of Samuel be
correct, these books cannot have been brought into their pre-
sent shape before the days of Samuel. For the marvel of the
sun standing still over Gibeon and the moon Over Ajalon,
Joshua x. 13 is said to refer to the book of Jasher. Is it
possible that Joshua could appeal to another book as testi-
mony for an event in which he himself was primarily and
personally concerned 2 But the injunction of David to teach
the men of Judah the use of the bow is also referred to the
book of Jasher. Therefore the passage in Joshua referring to
* Pentateuch, Part II. p. zoo.
1863. THE PEWTATEUCH - ITS MATTER. 527
this book was written not earlier than the reign of David. In
the Book of Numbers (xxi. I 3–I5) is a curious passage in-
forming us that Arnon is the border of Moab, between Moab
and the Amorites, and referring to the book of the wars of
Jehovah for what he did in the Red Sea and in the brook of
Arnon. But the information about Arnon as the border of
Moab would have been notorious for those for whom Moses
was writing ; * and the song referred to, evidently as an
ancient one, could only just have been composed, since it
refers to events which had happened, according to the story,
only a few days before. This passage, therefore, was not
written during the life-time of Moses.
The Bishop has thus clearly shown the history of the
Pentateuch to be an impossible narrative, and exhibited un-
mistakably its composite character. The two accounts of the
Creation and the Flood cannot have come from the same
writer at the same time ; nor is it conceivable that a leader
and lawgiver, such as Moses is represented to have been, can
have put together an artificial chronology, and invented a
series of factors, inconsistent with each other, yet all yielding
the same impossible total for the Israelites of the Exodus.
Nor must it be forgotten that, for the position assumed by the
more pronounced Bibliolaters who poured out the vials of
their wrath upon the Bishop of Natal, the proving of a single
contradiction or inconsistency is as fatal as the proving of a
hundred. But, instead of occurring in units or in tens, they
are as thick as autumn leaves in Vallombrosa. Historians
writing in a later age can seldom play faultlessly the part of
a contemporary eye-witness and chronicler. Some writer in
Genesis (xii. 6, xiii. 7) is careful to state that the Canaanite
and the Perizzite were then in the land ; another in Deutero-
nomy reminds the reader that Moses declared the law in the
land of Moab on the other side Jordan—both showing thus
* Pentateuch, Part II. p. 205. --
528 J.IFAZ OF BISAIOP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. X.
that they lived and wrote after the expulsion or destruction of
the Canaanites, and after their settlement on the west side of
Jordan. Another in Leviticus (xviii. 28), writing according to
the story during the sojourn in the wilderness, warns his
countrymen so to live that the land may not spue them
out as it had spued out the natives which were before them.
The name of the city of Kirjath-Arba was changed to Hebron
after the conquest by Caleb in the days of Joshua ; yet the
author of the Pentateuch (Genesis xiii. 18) is acquainted with
its later name. The blessing of the tribes by Moses is one of
the most striking and not least important passages of the
Book of Deuteronomy: yet it is introduced by a notice which
cannot have been written by Moses himself, and which tends
at the least to throw a doubt on the genuineness of the blessing
itself.
Had the Bishop proposed to himself a work of destruction
only, his task would have been at this point ended. He had
shown that, as a history, the Pentateuch was untrustworthy
from beginning to end, and that throughout it bristled with
impossibilities. He had shown that a legislation which is set
forth as applying to the wanderings in the desert must have
been put together long after the settlement in Canaan. He
had shown still more that frightful massacres done in cold
blood under the alleged sanction and command of God Him-
self are historically impossible, and had their origin either in
the extravagances of popular tradition or in the imagination
of the compiler.
Thus far he had been moving on sure ground. The in-
consistencies cannot be explained away : the contradictions
cannot be removed, and therefore the superstition which
worships the letter of the Bible rests absolutely upon no-
thing, and is, in fact, a wild and absurd dream. But the
Bishop could not rest here. He was not bound to show how
the Pentateuch assumed the shape in which it has come down
- ~~~~~ : x-z-z-z-r ‘re-wrºvirus-strºrº - * --------, * .------, ºr * * - - . ... ---, -, -na --~~~~~r---- tº . . ; ---…- : --~- - . . ~~~.-- -, --
*
1863. . THE PENTATE UCH - ITS MA TTER. 529
to us; yet, if the task were practicable, it would bring before
us an instructive chapter in the history of the human mind.
He felt, therefore, that he ought to see whether these books,
when compared with other portions of the Old Testament,
might not reveal the secret of their composition ; but he was
conscious at the same time that he was entering now on the
field of conjecture, in which the conclusions reached must
remain in greater or less degree matters of opinion.
M
M
WOL. I.
CHAPTER XI.
THE PENTATEUCH : ITS COMPOSITION.
ON this portion of his task, the Bishop entered with cheer-
fulness as well as with energy; and on the whole the lapse of a
quarter of a century has justified his confidence. The founda-
tion of the inquiry was laid in the distinction traced between
the Elohist and Jehovist writers of the Pentateuch. The
matter contributed by the former amounted, as he believed,
to about one half of the Book of Genesis, a small part of
Exodus, still less of Numbers, a very small portion of Deu-
teronomy, and about the same of Joshua.” Now, it is perfectly
clear that if in these portions of the Pentateuch the word used
for God is Elohim, and that this word is adhered to until
we reach the narrative of a special revelation of the name
Jehovah, the writer of these portions must be older than other
writers to whom this name is familiar. This special revelation
we have in the third and sixth chapters of the Book of Exodus.
The declaration that to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, God had
made himself known under the name of El Shaddai, but that
by the name Jehovah he was not known to them, cannot, he
insisted, be explained to say
“anything else than this—that the name Jehovah was not
known at all to the Patriarchs, but was now for the first
* Pentateuch, Part II. p. 228.
1863. THE PENTATEUCH - ITS COMPOSITION. 53I
time revealed as the name by which the God of Israel
would be henceforth distinguished from all other gods.” I
Of this, it is not too much to say, there can be no question.
But it is astonishing to find that the declaration is not borne
out by the record.
“We come at once,” the Bishop remarks, “on the contradictory
fact that the name Jehovah is repeatedly used in the earlier
parts of the story.”
It is used not merely in relating events which the writer
might describe under forms familiar to himself and to his
hearers.
“It is put into the mouths of the Patriarchs themselves. It is
known to Eve, to Lamech, and to Noah ; to Sarai, Rebekah,
Leah, Rachel ; to Laban and Bethuel ; even to heathens, as
to Abimelech, the Philistine king of Gerar; and, generally,
we are told that as early as the time of Enos, the son of
Seth, ‘then began men to call upon the name of Jehovah,”
though the name was already known to Eve, according to
the narrative, more than two centuries before.”
Attempts have of course been made to reconcile these
discrepancies; and in the effort Kurtz can bring himself
to say:-
“It is not expressly said that the name Jehovah was unknown
before the time of Moses, but merely that in the Patriarchal
age God had not revealed the fulness and depths of His
Nature to which that name particularly belonged.”
But it is expressly said, “By my name Jehovah I was not
known to them.” Even the learned Jewish critic and com-
mentator Kalisch can speak of the following as the “only
possible” explanation :-
* Pentateuch, Part II. p. 230.
532 I/FE OF BISAMOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. XI.
“My name Jehovah has not been understood and compre-
hended by the Patriarchs in its essence and depth, although
it was even in their time occasionally mentioned.”
It is mentioned, not occasionally only, but constantly, and in
phrases which imply as full a connotation as any in the Book
of Exodus. “Abraham believed in Jehovah, and He counted
it to him for righteousness.” “I am Jehovah, the God of
Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac ; the land whereon
thou liest, to thee will I give it,” &c. “And Jacob vowed
a vow, If God will be with me, then shall Jehovah be my
God.” But wherever, throughout the Book of Genesis, this
name is put into the mouth of any one, the writer is the
Jehovist.
“In fact, the Elohist never uses the name Jehovah in his
narrative till after he has explained its origin,” and he
“represents the name as having been first announced to
Moses and the Israelites at the time of the Exodus. .
The Jehovist uses it freely all along; and, without giving
any account of its first introduction, he puts it in the mouth
of Eve. . . . The question now to be considered is, which
of these two writers gives the true account Or, rather, is
either statement correct 2 Does not the very existence of
this discrepancy suggest the possibility of neither version
being the right one 2 May it not be possible that the
Elohist wrote at a time when the word was quite new and
fresh-coined ; when it had only just been introduced, per-
haps by himself, as the national personal name for the
Divine Being, with the view of drawing more distinctly the
line of demarcation between the people of Israel—now first
gathered under a king, and no longer living in scattered,
separate tribes—and the idolatrous nations around them 2
May not the Elohistic writer, wishing to inforce the
adoption of this strange name, have composed for the purpose
this portion of the Mosaic story; while the later Jehovist—
writing when the name, though not perhaps even yet in
1863. THE PENTATE UCH: ITS COMPOSITION. 533
every-day use, was beginning to be more generally known,
and was, at all events, familiar to himself—uses it freely
from the first ; without perceiving, or at least zwithout feeling
very strongly, the contradiction thereby imported into the
narrative.” + -
Without going further, the evidence already adduced seems
to show that the name could scarcely have originated in the
way described in the sixth chapter of Exodus; and it is
indisputable that, whenever or by whomsoever it may
have been introduced, it was not regarded as a sound so
sacred that it could not be used or uttered. That is quite
a late superstition ; and when this extravagant notion had
taken root, the word practically went out of use ; but in all
the earlier ages of the Hebrew history both Jehovah and
Elohim were freely employed in the composition of proper
names. The question of the introduction, or, rather, of the
origin, of this name is of great interest, and, not less, of great
moment. It may be part of the Hebrew verb “to be,” “pro-
bably the third person present, or the same tense of the
Hiphil form.” But, if it be so, then it is a pure Semitic word,
and the name is proved to be the inheritance of all tribes
speaking Semitic dialects, and notably of all Canaanites
and Phoenicians. Accordingly we find the name in common
use among those tribes, and taken over from them by the
Greeks, in many of whose mythologies Semitic names have
been largely embodied, and so ingeniously transformed
that the borrowing is not at first sight perceptible. But
Melikertes is Melkarth, Adonis is Adonai, Athamas is
Tammuz, Palaimon is Baal-Hamon ; and with scarcely less
certainty Jehovah, Jahve, is not only the Iau of cuneiform
inscriptions, but the Iakchos of the Dionysiac mysteries. At
the time of writing the Second Part of his work on the Penta-
teuch, the Bishop had concluded that Samuel was the first to
1 Pentateuch, Part II. p. 262.
534 A./FE OF BISA/OA COLEAVSO. CHAP. XI.
form and introduce the name," perhaps in imitation of some
Egyptian name of the Deity which may have reached his
ears. Later on, in his examination of the New Bible Com-
mentary, he regards its connexion with the Greek substantive
verb as established ; and if the account of its introduction
cannot be accepted as historical, the partial displacing of the
name Elohim for that of Jehovah or Jahveh is precisely
parallel to the displacement of the Vedic Varuna by Dyaus,
and of Dyaus again by Indra. But the existence of the sixth
chapter of Exodus as part of the distinctively Elohistic
narrative in which that name has been used proves con-
clusively that there were reasons for giving a solemn sanction
to the substitution of the new name ; and the name, so in-
troduced, was carried back by the later Jehovistic writers to
the very earliest times. Some have affected to feel astonish-
ment at the possibility of their doing this without perceiving
the contradiction which they were introducing between their
own statements and those of the Elohist. The answer lies in
the frank admission that they should have seen it ; and the
author of the Jehovistic narratives of the Creation and the
Deluge, or the revisers who pieced the Elohistic and Jehovistic
narratives together, ought to have seen that they were going
in the teeth of the Elohistic story. But they have not seen
it. So, too, the immense body of devout readers of the Bible
in later ages and in our own day ought to have seen these
“obvious discrepancies.” But they have not. It is no less
wonderful that the Ptolemaic system of astronomy should
have held its ground, although Aristarchus of Samos had set
forth a heliocentric system differing inappreciably from that
of Copernicus and Newton. But so it was. We cannot reason
back from the discernment of the critical eye to dulness of
vision which looks only for edification.”
These, however, are not the only difficulties connected with
* Pentateuch, Part II. p. 339. * Ib. p. 265.
1863. THE PENTATE UCH: ZTS COMPOS/TIO/W. 535
the alleged Mosaic introduction of the name Jehovah. From
this time the word is employed in the historical books as the
ruling name for God, and is clearly exhibited as the name by
which the God of Israel would be especially and commonly
known to His people. But in this case it would be found in
common, if not in altogether exclusive, use, in those books
which do not deal with history. Instead of this, we find it
used very rarely, if at all, by
“most eminent writers, who must have been familiar with the
name and must have used it, if it was really common in
those days,” 1
and of these writers the most noteworthy are the authors of
the Psalms, which in the Hebrew are divided into five books,
and of which seventy-three are ascribed by their titles to
David. Of the fourteen Psalms which have inscriptions re-
ferring to events in his life, eight are said to have reference
to events in his earlier years; and six of them (the remaining
two will be dealt with presently) exhibit the name Elohim
forty times, and Jehovah six times. Surely the Bishop is
justified in holding it to be inconceivable that such a man as
David should during a large portion of his life have been
writing Psalms in which the name Jehovah is hardly ever,
sometimes never, employed, if the story of the giving of the
name be historical, or if it was known to him that this name
was first revealed to Moses by God Himself, as the name by
which He chose to be addressed, the proper name of the God
of Israel, “This is My name for ever; and this is My me-
morial unto all generations.” If in addition to these six
Psalms we take the other twelve of the Second Book which
are ascribed to David, we find Elohim occurring in them
seven times, on an average, to Jehovah once, and in nine to
the exclusion of Jehovah altogether.” The phenomena of the
* Pentateuch, Part II. p. 268. * Ib. p. 277.
536 A./FAZ OF AZSA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XI.
sixty-eighth Psalm are still more significant. That it belongs
to David's age, and not to any earlier one, is clear from the
mention of the hill in which Elohim desires to dwell for ever, of
the temple at Jerusalem, of the sanctuary, of the holy places,
while its martial tone seems to prove that it cannot be brought
down to the days of Solomon, and the expressions which
speak of Judah and Benjamin as joined with the princes of
Zebulon and Naphthali point not less clearly to a time anterior
to the division of the kingdom.
“This Psalm contains Elohim thirty-one times, and Adonai,
lord, seven times, as well as the ancient name Shaddai once,
while Jehovah appears only twice and Jah twice.”"
But the emphatic way in which this name Jah or Jehovah
is introduced in the fourth verse, seems to force on us the
conclusion that it was only then for the first time coming into
use, instead of having been employed generally for nearly
half a millennium. Further yet, the Psalm opéns with the
very words which are said to have been used by Moses to
greet the ark when it set forward on its march, the only
difference being that in the Book of Numbers the name is
Jehovah, in the Psalm it is Elohim; and surely the Psalmist
could never have made this change had he drawn “his lan-
guage from So sacred a book as the Pentateuch, according
to the ordinary view, must have been.” But if the passage
from Numbers was written after the Psalm, and at a time when
the name Jehovah had come into common use, we can readily
understand, and discern, the motive of the adaptation. The
Psalm is, further, instructive as to the form in which the
popular traditions of ancient events in Jewish history were
still found—the dropping heavens, the clouds dropping water,
the trembling of Sinai, and, still more, the flight of the armed
warriors and bowmen of Ephraim, of which the Pentateuch
* Pentateuch, Part II. p. 292. * Ib. p. 293.
1863. THE PEAVTA TE UCH - ITS COMPOS/TZOAV. 537
seems to have preserved no record, unless the passage in
Deuteronomy i. 44, is taken to refer to it. The whole Psalm
is, indeed, a magnificent poem. By Hupfeld it is described
as “the most spirited, lively, and powerful,” by Ewald as
“the grandest, most splendid, most artistic,” of the whole
series. But if it be such, it becomes “almost incredible that
its author . . . . should have been willing to borrow two
sentences from two ancient documents.” + In short, the Psalm
belongs manifestly to the time of the removal of the ark to
Mount Zion, the only time which, according to Hupfeld, suits
certain of its features. It must, therefore, be regarded, in
De Wette's words, as “among the oldest relics of Hebrew
poetry, and of the highest originality;” but on this very
ground its evidence against the historical trustworthiness of
the story in Exodus becomes the stronger. What, then, is to
be said of the two Psalms, xxxiv. and czlii. (out of the eight
already mentioned), which are said to have been composed by
David at a time long preceding the transference of the ark
to Jerusalem, in which, together, the name Jehovah is used
nineteen times, Elohim not once 2 Of these two Psalms the
former is ascribed to the time of his expulsion from Gath by
Achish ; yet its tone, as Hengstenberg notices, is singularly
quiet, and we have here the alphabetical arrangement which
occurs only in those Psalms which are not called forth by
particular occasions, but framed for the purpose of edifying
others. But if the title be inaccurate, we have no reason for
ascribing the Psalm to David at all. It is in all likelihood the
composition of an old man who bids children approach and
learn from him the fear of Jehovah. But we have, the Bishop
adds,
1 Pentateuch, Part II. p. 297. The Bishop remarks that “both these
passages are in close connexion with the context, and have all the appear-
ance of being part of the original effusion,” the conclusion being “in fact,
that the Psalm was in all probability written first, and the passages in
question copied from it by the later writers.”
538 JLAFE OF AP/SA/OP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XI.
“a Psalm composed by David, according to the title, on this
very occasion, Psalm lvi., and in a very different tone—one
of anguish and fear quite suitable to it; and in this we
have, as we might expect, Elohim nine times, Jehovah
Once.” +
In the other Psalm, likewise, we have nothing to fix it, as
the title affirms, to the time of David's sojourn in the cave of
Adullam ; but there is another Psalm, lvii., which seemingly
was composed at this time, and this contains Elohim seven
times, Jehovah not once ; and it is surely most unlikely that
“on the very same occasion David should have written two
Psalms, in one of which he never uses the word Jehovah,
while in the other he never uses the word Elohim.”
The general conclusion can scarcely be withstood. *
“It seems absolutely impossible that, while other persons
(as the history teaches)”—Eli, Samuel, Jonathan, . . . .
Naomi and Ruth, Boaz and his reapers, Hannah, Abigail,
nay, even the heathen Philistines, were using freely the
sacred name Jehovah, yet David himself used it so sparingly
that in several of his Psalms it appears not at all. It is
true, the history puts the word in David's mouth much
more frequently than Elohim—that is to say, the history
represents David as using constantly the name Jehovah,
and scarcely the name Elohim at all, at the very time when
he was hiding in the wilderness, and writing, apparently,
Psalm after Psalm in which Elohim occurs continually, and
Jehovah scarcely at all.” ”
But the sixty-eighth Psalm suggests a comparison with the
Song which bears the names of Deborah and Barak, a con-
junction which seems of itself to show that it cannot be, as
the title avers, “the unpremeditated effusion of the moment
of triumph.” This song is thoroughly Jehovistic, and, if it
be genuine, seems to render it inconceivable that
* Pentateuch, Part II. p. 298. * Ib. p. 328.
1863. 7A/E PENTA TEUCH - ITS COMPOSITION. 539
“David should have used [the name] so sparingly till a late
period of his life; ”
but on the other hand there are signs pointing apparently
to an early date. There is no mention of Judah, or of Levi,
of the priesthood or of the sanctuary; but the disarming of
the Israelites refers seemingly to the times of Samuel and
Saul, and some passages of the Song are identical with others
in the Psalm. It follows
“that either the Psalmist was acquainted with the song of
Deborah and borrowed expressions from it, or that the
writer of that song drew his ideas from the Psalms of
David. . . . Which, then, of these two poems was first
written ? We reply, without hesitation, the Psalm. For
it is far more probable that a later writer might change
Elohim into Jehovah, than David change Jehovah, the
covenant name of the God of Israel, into Elohim ; more
especially in the last clause, in which he has actually
written, ‘before Elohim, the Elohim of Israel,” where the
other has, ‘before Jehovah, the Elohim of Israel.’”
The general result of the whole inquiry thus far is that the
earliest portions of the Pentateuch—in other words, the first
Scanty beginnings of it—were written four centuries at least
after the supposed time of the Exodus. In the framing of
this sketch it is in a high degree likely that Samuel may have
taken the chief part ; but it is actually impossible that his
narrative should be a mere invention of his own brain. The
charges of fiction and pious fraud which, as some will have it,
would thus be brought home to him, are ludicrous. We might
with equal reason set down the early Greek and Roman tradi-
tions as the invention of Herodotus and Livy, or of the ruder
chroniclers who may have preceded them. The discovery of
the composite character of the Pentateuch is spoken of by
Hupfeld as
54O JLIFE OF BISA/OA COLEAVSO. CHAP. XI.
“not only one of the most important, and most pregnant
with consequences for the interpretation of the historical
books of the Old Testament, or rather for their whole
theology and history; but it is also one of the most certain
discoveries which have been made in the domain of criticism
and the history of literature. Whatever the anti-critical
party may bring forward to the contrary, it will maintain
itself . . . . so long as there exists such a thing as criticism.”
This discovery, and therefore this fact, the Bishop adds,
“it becomes us as true men, and servants of the God of Truth,
to recognise, whatever may be the consequences, however it
may require us to modify our present views of the Mosaic
system, or of Christianity itself.”
The share of Samuel in the work may not be great, but it
is none the less important ; and those portions of the first four
books and of the Book of Joshua, which do not belong to
him, or perhaps it should rather be said to the Elohist, were
composed by one or more writers living
“in the latter days of David and in the early part of Solomon's
reign, with the exception of some interpolations, of which a
few smaller ones occur in Genesis, but larger ones in Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, and Joshua ; and these interpolations
belong to the Deuteronomist, who may fairly be regarded
as one of the most remarkable personages in all Jewish
history.”
At the outset a comparison of his work with that of his
predecessors forces on our notice the fact that, whereas in the
earlier books the priests are invariably called the sons of
Aaron, never the sons of Levi, in Deuteronomy they are
always called sons of Levi or Levites, never the sons of
Aaron ; and, in fact, in this book Levi, not Aaron, is men-
tioned as the root of the priestly office and dignity. Is it
* Pentateuch, Part II. p. 355.
1863. THE PEAWTA TE UCH: JTS COMPOS/77OAV. 54. I
conceivable that, in the inappreciable interval which separates
the time of the Book of Numbers from that of the Book of
Deuteronomy, Moses should have changed so completely,
“not only his tone and style, but his very phraseology, so as
up to this point of time to have called the priests invariably
by one particular designation, and then suddenly to drop it,
and call them ever afterwards by another ”?"
This fact connects itself with others. Not One of the
prophets speaks of the priests as the Sons of Aaron, and the
first Jeroboam is censured not for making priests which were
not of the sons of Aaron, but because he made priests which
were not of the seed of Levi. It is, then, at once clear that
the Deuteronomist and the prophets felt themselves in no
way bound to abide by the statements or the terms of the
first four books of the Pentateuch. A signal instance of this
disregard occurs in the Deuteronomistic version of the fourth
commandment, which gives a wholly different reason for the
observance of the Sabbath, although both the Deuteronomist
and the earlier writer profess to give the identical words spoken
by Jehovah Himself at the very same point of time.
The Bishop concludes his summary of results obtained in
his first two Parts with the assertion that the main conclusions
are established beyond doubt, although
“as to the details we can only feel our way along with the
utmost caution, with continued labour, and constantly
repeated survey of the ground travelled over.”
Few fallacies are more widely spread, few more mischievous,
than the notions which infer the general worthlessness of
critical methods from differences of opinion among the critics.
The fact of their differing is enough for their opponents ; the
subject-matter of their differences is prudently and carefully
kept out of sight. This plan has been diligently followed in
* Pentateuch, Part II. p. 360.
542 JAAA OF AP/SA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XI.
almost all controversies—in those which are concerned with
the age and authorship of the so-called Homeric poems, with
the Greek and Roman myths and traditions, not less than
with those which have gathered round the Hebrew Scriptures.
Thus Mr. MacCaul would triumphantly dismiss as rubbish
all the investigations of writers whose opinions were opposed
to his own, on the ground that they were not unanimous.
“Hupfeld condemns Knobel. Ewald condemns Hupfeld and
Knobel. Knobel condemns Ewald and Hupfeld. If
Knobel’s criticism is correct, Hupfeld is worthless. If
Ewald be right, the others must be deficient in critical
acumen. They may all be wrong ; but only one of the
three can be right.”
He forgot, as the Bishop remarked, to draw attention to
the fact that these critics are all agreed as to the main points,
and differ only as to details." Still less did he care to admit
that the fact of their differing is a strong proof of their in-
dependence of each other and of the truth of that judgement
in which they are all agreed. The argument may be turned
with equal ease against those who maintain the ordinary
view. Kurtz condemns Hengstenberg, and Hengstenberg
condemns Kurtz.
The alarm felt as to the results of these investigations is
perhaps not so deep as it was when the Bishop published his
own thoughts about them. Certainly, it is not so widely
spread. It is, therefore, the less necessary now to reproduce
his earnest and cheering counsels to those who were charging
him with robbing them of the Bible ; but it is as necessary
as it was then to mark their true charity and tenderness.
“It is not I,” he said, “who require you to abandon the
ordinary notion of the Mosaic authorship and antiquity
of the Pentateuch. It is the Truth itself which does so.”
Pentateuch, Part II. p. 366
1863. THE PENTATEUCH - ITS COMPOSITION. 543.
The internal evidence is absolutely conclusive against any
idea of the inviolable sacredness of any "part of the Hebrew
Scriptures, down, at least, to the time of the Captivity. There
is no sign of the Mosaic Law having been venerated, obeyed,
or even known for many centuries after its alleged promulga-
tion. The Decalogue is never quoted by any one of the
psalmists and prophets. The Levites are mentioned only
once in the Psalms, once in the late Isaiah, thrice in one
chapter only of Jeremiah, and in no other of the prophets
before the Captivity.
“Aaron is mentioned once only by all the prophets. Moses.
is named twice only before the Captivity, and referred to,
though not named, in Hosea.” "
As to the main conclusion he had no hesitation.
“It may be—rather it is, as I believe, undoubtedly—the fact
that God Himself, by the power of the Truth, will take
from us in this age the Bible as an idol, which we have set
up against His will, to bow down to it and worship it. But
while He takes it away thus with the one hand, does He
not also restore it to us with the other ? not to be put into
the place of God, and served with idolatrous worship, but to
be reverenced as a book, the best of books, the work of
living men like ourselves—of men, I mean, in whose hearts
the same human thoughts were stirring, the same hopes and
fears were dwelling, the same Gracious Spirit was operating,
three thousand years ago, as now.””
But here the inquiry has brought us to a point at which the
scene is shifted. A mass of evidence has shown that the
Tetrateuch, or first four books which bear the name of Moses,
contains passages which cannot have been written for many
ages after the supposed time of his death. How is it with the
fifth book 2 Have we any reason for thinking that this book
* Pentateuch, Part II. p. 375. * Ib. p. 381.
544 I/FE OF BISPHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. XI.
is more strictly and completely Mosaic than those which pre-
cede it To a certain extent the question is simplified by the
fact that it is beyond all doubt the work of one and the same
hand, the exceptions being so small as to be insignificant.
The introductory discourse is interrupted here and there with
geographical and other details, which look like pieces of patch-
work, and with remarks which treat events of the previous
weeks as incidents of a long past age ; but otherwise the unity
of the book remains unbroken, while in matter and in style it
is as unlike any of the so-called Mosaic books as any two
books on the same subject could possibly be. The other
books are filled with long historical narratives, with directions
for the construction of the sanctuary and its furniture, with
the functions of priests and the ritual of the altar. But,
lacking almost wholly all such details, the Book of
Deuteronomy,
“almost from beginning to end, is one magnificent poem, or
collection of poems, wholly devoted to inforcing, in tones
of earnest and impassioned eloquence—now with the most
persuasive and touching tenderness, now with the most im-
pressive and terrible denunciations,—the paramount duties
of morality and religion.” "
When Mr. Rawlinson speaks of “plainness, inartificiality,
absence of rhetorical ornament, and occasional defective
arrangement” as being the chief characteristics of the Penta-
teuch, he certainly cannot be speaking of the Book of
Deuteronomy. What he says applies strictly to all the other
books; but it is precisely the contrast between the common-
place style of those books, and the “spirit and energy, the fire of
holy zeal, the warmth of imagination,” running through the
whole of Deuteronomy, which impels us irresistibly to the con-
clusion that it cannot be the work of the author or authors of
* Pentateuch, Part III. p. 393.
1863. THE PENTA TEUCH & JTS COMPOS/TWOAV. 545
J - - - - - ------------------- ~~~~irrº -- ~~
the Tetrateuch. It is of no use to plead as an argument for its
Mosaic authorship that, as his long life's work drew towards
its close, the guide and lawgiver of the Israelites may, while
he stood on the verge of the unseen world, have risen to a
higher discernment of spiritual realities and have been carried
away by thoughts which found their natural expression in one
unbroken strain of sublime and most earnest eloquence. It is
useless, because all the other books of the Pentateuch contain
a multitude of passages which could not have been written
during the age of Moses, or for many generations later, and
because the same remark applies to the Book of Deuteronomy
also ; so that, although the substantial unity of that work is
proof of its having come, with these exceptions, from one
author, that author certainly was not Moses. In the other
books the priests are always, as we have seen, styled the sons
of Aaron, never the sons of Levi ; in Deuteronomy they are
always the sons of Levi, never the sons of Aaron. It is
impossible that any one author could on such a subject as
this so completely change his form of expression in the
interval of a few days, or weeks at most. Again, the Deutero-
nomist confines all sacrifices to one place ; the other books
prescribe their being offered in all places where Jehovah
records his name. The former, although enjoining the observ-
ance of the other three great feasts and the Passover, makes no
mention of the feast of Trumpets, or of the Day of Atonement,
although the directions in Numbers xxix. are said to have
been laid down by Jehovah Himself only a few weeks before
this address of Moses. There are, further, a number of senti-
ments, statements, and expressions, occurring repeatedly in
Deuteronomy, which are found very rarely, many of them
nowhere, in the rest of the Pentateuch, while many expres-
sions common throughout the other books are never found in
Deuteronomy. Thus the Bishop gives thirty-three expres-
sions, each found on the average eight times in that book, but
WOL. I. N N
546 AZAZE OF A/SAIOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XI.
not occurring even once in any of the other four books.
Without going further, therefore, this fact at least is proved,
that the author of Deuteronomy, whoever he may have
been, was not concerned in writing the main portions of the
rest of the Pentateuch.1
That he lived after the other writers is manifest from his
references to passages in the story of the Exodus recorded
in the other books, and especially to the laws about leprosy
in Leviticus. If, then, the Elohistic and Jehovistic portions
of the Pentateuch could not, as we have seen, have been
written earlier than the days of Samuel, David, and Solomon,
the Deuteronomist cannot have lived earlier, and may have
lived later, than the time of Solomon. Are there, then, any
others of the later books of the Old Testament which exhibit
any striking agreement with the language and the spirit of
the Book of Deuteronomy 2 If the latter speaks only of the
priests the sons of Levi, never of the sons of Aaron, the
same formula is invariably used by Jeremiah. Both Jeremiah
and the Deuteronomist use the word Torah in the singular
only, and apply it to the whole Law : both confine all sacrifices
to the one place which the Lord chooses. Of twenty-three ex-
pressions, again, which occur on an average eight times each
in Deuteronomy and never once in the Tetrateuch, all but
six are found repeated more or less frequently in Jeremiah,
and of these remaining six four are partially repeated.”
Already, then, we have evidence enough to justify a sus-
picion, perhaps a strong suspicion, that the author of
Deuteronomy and the author of the prophecies of Jeremiah
was one and the same person.
But the history of the reign of Josiah brings before us an
astonishing and mysterious event, which, if it occurred in the
history of any other people of the ancient world, we should
certainly submit to a very rigid scrutiny. The Book of the
* Pentateuch, Part III. pp. 404–6. * Ib. p. 4II.
1863. THE PENTATEUCH; 17's COMPOSITIow. 547
Law, we are told, was found in the House of Jehovah—a book
either unknown or forgotten. Of its contents the king knew
nothing, and it was evidently to him a new revelation, when
he read in the ears of the people all the words of the Book of
the Covenant which both king and people had all along been
bound to keep but of which both had thus far lived in total
ignorance. A multitude of questions come crowding upon
us. The book was found in the Temple; but if it was written
by Moses, where had it been lying during the interval of more
than eight centuries 2 Not certainly in the ark itself. There
the priest Hilkiah could not have found it, inasmuch as he
dared not to look into it; and we have, further, the plain
statement in the history (I Kings viii. 9) that there was
nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone. Nor could
it have been lying outside the ark, for then surely it would
have been named among the things brought into the Temple
by Solomon.
“At all events,” the Bishop adds, “it would have been well
known to David and Solomon and other pious kings, as
well as to the successive high priests, and we should not
find them so regardless of so many of its plain precepts as
the history shows them to have been, e.g. with respect to
the worshipping on high places and the neglect of the
due observance of the Passover.” "
But the book, further, itself gives the command, “Take the
Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant
of Jehovah your God, that it may be there for a witness
against thee; ” and the suspicion thus grows almost to cer-
tainty that the writing of the book, the placing it, and the
finding it were pretty nearly contemporaneous events, and
that if there was no king before Josiah who turned to
Jehovah with all his heart and soul and might according to
* Pentateuch, Part III. p. 416.
IN IN 2
548 A./FE OF AP/SA/OP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. X1.
all the Law of Moses, it must have been because there was
no king before him who had ever seen this portion at least of
the Pentateuch. No one probably will venture to say that
the whole Pentateuch was now found, or that the whole could
have been lost. It was clearly some book which could be
read off at a single sitting. The scribe Shaphan read the
whole of it to the king, and the king read the whole of it
in the ears of the people. The whole Pentateuch certainly
could not be read in a day; but the book now found is called
the Book of the Covenant ; and in Deuteronomy we read,
“These are the words of the covenant which Jehovah com-
manded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land
of Moab.”
But the whole narrative of the finding of the book shows
that a searching reformation was needed, that there were some
few at least who were determined to carry this reform, and
that a resolute attempt was made to carry it out. The
popular and national religion (whatever may have been that
of David, or Solomon, or even of Hezekiah) had been thus far
a gross, sensual, and cruel idolatry, under which familiar
spirits and wizards found a shelter and a home, and the
people abandoned themselves to images, idols, and all abomi-
nations. On this vast system of superstition the earnest and
passionate denunciations of the prophets had made no real
impression. Something more, therefore, must be done, if
the social and political order of Judah was to be saved from
the catastrophe which had swept away the kingdom of
Israel. The Mosaic and Levitical codes, if known at all,
were a dead letter ; or, rather, we have no warrant whatever
for declaring that the main body of the people knew any-
thing about them, or had ever heard of their existence. But
immediately after the discovery of the book a strong effort
was made to put down the popular idolatry, and to celebrate
a Passover as a means of bringing together the whole body
1863. THE PENTA TEUCH: JTS COMPOSITIO/W. 549
of the people. With singular and studied minuteness we are
told that never from the days of the Judges that judged
Israel, nor in all the days of the Kings of Israel, nor of the
Rings of Judah, was such a Passover held as this of the
eighteenth year of King Josiah. But not less astonishing than
the discovery of the book is the fact that no such Passover, so
far as we can see, was ever held again, even by Josiah;
“nor is there the least indication that the other two feasts
were kept by Josiah with similar solemnity in that same
year.” +
What reason can be given for this fact except the further
fact that the people were not prepared to accept the religion
of the prophets, and that the zeal of the king himself had
been cooled by his becoming acquainted with the real circum-
stances of the discovery ? Anyhow, neither king nor people
received anything more than a mere passing impression of
the Divine authority of the law set forth in the Book of
the Covenant. The latter, like the book of Exodus, insisted
on the Divine command that all the males of the Jewish
nation should appear thrice each year before Jehovah their
Elohim; and this command was never obeyed at all even
by Josiah. From all these circumstances what conclusion is
to be drawn 2 Five years only before the discovery of the
Book of the Covenant Jeremiah had felt himself called to
undertake the prophetical office; and certainly no prophet
had ever entered on his life's work with a deeper sense of
responsibility, and a more overwhelming assurance that unless
there were a change for the better, the fabric of Jewish
Society must speedily be overturned altogether. But what
could he do P. The prophets Joel, Hosea, Amos, Isaiah,
Micah, had all spoken, and seemingly to little purpose.
* Pentateuch, Part III. p. 419.
55O JAZE OF AP/SA/OP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XI.
“Their words had not availed to keep back the people from
those deadly sins which had already brought down upon
the Ten Tribes a fearful judgement, and threatened before
long a yet more terrible woe upon Judah and Jerusalem.
What if the authority of the great Lawgiver should be
brought to bear upon them 2 And since the Law Book, as
it then existed, was not well suited for the present necessity,
with its long details of the lives of their forefathers,
as well as its minute directions about artistic and ceremonial
matters—what if the very spirit of the older Law should be
summed up in a powerful address . . . such as he would
have delivered if now present with his people, and put
into the mouth of the departing lawgiver.”
But if such a thought arose, as we are bound to suppose
that it did arise, in the mind of the prophet, this thought
would most assuredly assume for him the form of a Divine
command.
“All question of deception, or fraus pia, would vanish ; and
Huldah too, in like manner, if she knew of what was being
done, would consider, not whether it was right or wrong to
speak to the Jews in the name of Moses, but what might
happen, since those threats of coming judgement, thus
spoken, were uttered by Divine inspiration, and, therefore,
were certainly true.”"
This, if the report of the narrative may be received as
correct, is precisely what she did. Her words make no
reference to Moses. She does not even refer, as Josiah refers,
to the disobedience of their forefathers. She speaks merely
of the judgements impending for the present misdoings of
the people and their rulers, and without implying that the
book discovered was an old one, the work of Moses, she
confines herself to declaring that the evil threatened should
Surely come to pass. The step, accordingly, was taken. The
book thus found was read to the king, and by the king read
* Pentateuch, Part III. p. 428.
1863. THE PENTATEUCH: JTS COMPOSI 77OAV. 55 I
to the people. The impression made was vivid and keen ;
but it was not lasting, and, as we have seen, the zeal even of
Josiah himself seems to have been chilled by the discovery
that the warnings and promises of the Deuteronomist came
from a teacher of his own age and not from the lawgiver of
whom the book spoke as having died upon the mountain
of NebO.
But if the Book of Deuteronomy is not the work of the
author or authors of the Tetrateuch, we may safely infer that
an examination of its contents will exhibit contradictions with
the earlier narratives ; and this is, in fact, the case. The dis-
courses of this fifth book are said to be uttered in the hearing
of all Israel, a population, according to the older story, of some
three or four millions ; and beyond doubt the phrase is not to
be interpreted as denoting only the chiefs and elders of the
people, for the lawgiver himself in his address is represented
as saying, “Ye stand this day, all of you, before Jehovah
your God, your captains of your tribes, your elders and
your officers and all the men of Israel, your little ones, your
wives, and the stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer
of thy wood to the drawer of thy water.” The writer never
thought of historical impossibility, as he never thought of
geographical incongruities, when, speaking of an unknown
country traversed for the first time, he mentions that “there
are eleven days’ journey from Horeb by way of Mount Seir
unto Kadesh-barnea.” But, further, he makes Moses address
the generation which came out from Egypt, whereas, if the
Tetrateuch is to be trusted, they had all died during the forty
years' wanderings. In the earlier story, the appointing of the
seventy elders to lighten the toil of Moses takes place before
the giving of the law at Sinai : in Deuteronomy it takes place
a year later, when they are just about to leave Horeb." In
Deuteronomy, again, the sending of the spies is a suggestion
* Pentateuch, Part III. p. 433.
552 JAPE OF BISA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XI.
of the people, which pleases Moses well : in the Book of
Numbers (xiii. 1, 2), it is an express command of Almighty
God. Of the long sojourn in the wilderness the other books
have very little to tell us; in Deuteronomy a period of seven-
and-thirty years is dismissed in the single phrase that they
“abode many days in Kadesh” (i. 46). In all the books the
Israelites are depicted as an idol-loving people ; but the cha-
racter of their idolatry in the Tetrateuch is not the character
of their idolatry in the Book of Deuteronomy. In the latter
they are mentioned as being addicted to the worship of the
hosts of heaven, which in the historical books (2 Kings xvii.
I6) is first named as one of the sins for which the Ten Tribes
were carried into captivity,” and seems to have been first
generally practised in Judah in the reign of Manasseh, the
grandfather of Josiah. The latter king made, indeed, a
vigorous effort to suppress it ; but the denunciations of
Zephaniah and Jeremiah show that it revived again even
during his life-time. Nor must it be forgotten that this
worship is nowhere mentioned in the Tetrateuch, and that
the phrases which describe it are found only in the Book of
Deuteronomy.
But, in truth, the mind of the Deuteronomist was not set
upon the avoiding of discrepancies. He is thinking of his
own time when he represents Moses speaking of the Israelites
as dwelling in a land from which great nations had been
driven out before them, “as it is this day”; and again and
again he insists that the men who listened to the recapitula-
tion of the Law were the very men who had witnessed the
giving of the Law at Sinai. The covenant, he says, was made
“not with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us
here alive this day” (Deuteronomy v. 2–5); and again, “I speak
not with your children, which have not known His miracles and
His acts which He did in the midst of Egypt, . . . . but your
* Pentateuch, Part III. p. 444.
1863. THE PENTA TEUCH - / 7'S COMPOS/77OAV. 553
eyes have seen the great acts of Jehovah which He did "
(Deuteronomy xi. 2-7). -
Nor is the writer careful about other things, as to which it
might be supposed that the popular feeling would be most
sensitive. He gives the Decalogue as it is given in Exodus :
but he assigns a totally different reason for the observance of
the Sabbath day. If some of the marvels mentioned in the
other books are not to be found in Deuteronomy, others are
introduced which are not found in the Tetrateuch, among
these being the wonderful preservation of the shoes and
clothes of the Israelites. Later superstition hit upon the
notion that the garments of the children grew with their
growth: it is sufficiently remarkable that such durability was
imparted to their raiment that the men of one generation
could hand them on as good as new to those of another. In
Deuteronomy ix. 3, the writer speaks of the rapid extermina-
tion of the Canaanitish tribes, forgetting that a little while
before (vii. 22) he has forbidden this destruction." In Exodus
(xxxiv. 29), the two stone tables with the Decalogue graven
on them are in the hands of Moses before any receptacle has
been made in which they may be placed. In Deuteronomy
(x), the ark is actually made before Moses goes up into the
mount to receive the second tables. But the Bishop urges
that the account in Exodus renders this impossible.
“Not only is there nothing said about the ark in Exodus
(xxxiv. I), where he is commanded to make the tables;
but it is only after coming down with the second set of
tables that Moses summons the wise-hearted to come and
make the ark.””
In Deuteronomy (x. 6, 7), the death of Aaron is described as
happening before the separation of the Levites; according to
the Book of Numbers the separation takes place nearly forty
* Pentateuch, Part III. p. 452. * /ö. p. 454.
554. A./FE OF BASA/OP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XI.
years before his death." In the former Aaron dies at Moserah:
in the latter he dies on Mount Hor, some five stations beyond
Moserah. In the former the tribe of Levi are set apart to
bear the ark: in the latter the duty belongs to the sons of
Kohath, not to the Levites generally. While, again, the Deut-
eronomist (xi. 6) mentions the destruction of Dathan and
Abiram, he says nothing of Korah, manifestly because he
knows no distinction between priests and Levites, and there-
fore sees no great wrong in a Levite seeking the priesthood
also.
But it is in Deuteronomy that for the first time we hear of
Jehovah choosing one special place out of all the tribes to put
His name there. The earlier kings, no doubt, thought of
attracting the affections of the people to Jerusalem ; but the
idea of making attendance at Mount Sion compulsory three
times a year could hardly have arisen in an age when Solomon
sacrificed and burnt incense on the high places, and especially
at the “great high place” of Gibeon. The great prophets of
Israel are never spoken of as going up to Jerusalem to keep
the Passover ; and the most pious kings (Asa, Amaziah,
Uzziah, Jotham, and others) brought their offerings to other
altars than that erected in the Temple, which they could not
have done if this exclusive law had been then in existence, or
if, on the supposition of its existence, it had been regarded as
of Mosaic origin.” The growth of a tendency to visit Jeru-
Salem on occasions of extraordinary Solemnity is undeniable.
The erection of the tabernacle on Mount Zion seems to have
been contemporaneous with the discontinuance of the older
sanctuaries at Ramah, Bethel, Mizpeh, &c.; and the acts of
Jeroboam show with sufficient clearness how great for him
was the need of counteracting the impulse which might draw
his subjects to the sanctuary of the rival kingdom. The com-
mand that all males should go up to Jerusalem yearly at each
* Pentateuch, Part III. p. 456. * Ib. p. 467.
1863. THE PENTA TEUCH - ITS COMPOSITION. 555.
of the great feasts seems rather to point to a time after the fall
of the Israelitish kingdom, when there remained only the
small centralised kingdom of Judah. In fact, there is only
one indication of the rule having ever been acted upon ; and
this solitary instance was, as we have seen, at the great Pass-
over of King Josiah, when this very Book of Deuteronomy
had just been found in the Temple. Nay, further, the best
kings of Judah, after the setting up of the ark at Jerusalem,
are spoken of in the Books of Kings, without any very strong
words of censure, as allowing the people still to sacrifice in
the high places.
“It can hardly, therefore,” the Bishop urges, “be believed that
the strongest commands of the Book of Deuteronomy to
utterly destroy all the high places of the heathen and sacri-
fice to Jehovah only at Jerusalem could have been read and
studied by these pious princes, much less copied (as Deutero-
nomy xvii. 18–20 directs) by each of them with his own hand,
when seated on the throne of his kingdom. More especially
does this apply to the case of Joash, who began to reign
when seven years old, and for the greater part of his life was
directed wholly by the high priest Jehoiada.”
The condition of the Levites in the Book of Deuteronomy
is another point which presents a perplexing contrast with
the pictures of the Tetrateuch. In the latter they are spoken
of as about to be settled in forty-eight cities as their exclusive
possession, and as being abundantly supplied from the free-
will offerings and sacrifices of the people. In Deuteronomy
they are depicted as being likely to be in a very necessitous
condition and living as stragglers in the land, in “any of the
gates of the people,” in a state of utter poverty and depend-
ence," which is compared with that of the widow, the stranger,
and the fatherless. The Book of Numbers speaks of them as
intitled by the command of God Himself to all the tenth of
* Pentateuch, Part III. p. 473.
556 AZFE OF BASA/OA' CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XI.
Israel for an inheritance. No such claim is ever even hinted
at in Deuteronomy, where the Levite is pointed out as
an object for pure compassion, as, in short, a stranger and
Sojourner within the gates of others.
“And all this . . . . is supposed to be said by Moses only a
few months after the laws had been laid down by Jehovah
Himself, which provided for them abundant supplies of
food, and cities of their own with their suburbs, thirty for
the Levites, twelve for the priests.”
With this picture of the impoverished state of the Levites, the
statements of the historical books are in close agreement. In
the Second Book of Kings the number of the priests is ex-
tremely small. In the days of Josiah there was a “chief
priest,” some “priests of the second order,” and “others who
are keepers of the door.” In the time of his son Zedekiah there
were only five priests ministering in the Temple; nor is this
Surprising when we remember that three temples of Solomon
might have been placed on the ground now occupied by the
church of St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields in London. It is true
that the Chronicles speak of David as attended at Hebron by
4,600 Levites and 3,700 priests of the sons of Aaron (1 Chron-
icles ii. 26–28); but it is also true that the historian of the
Book of Kings (I, iv. 4) makes mention only of two priests after
the transference of the ark to the tabernacle on Mount Zion.
The fact is that the chronicler cared nothing for truth when-
ever it clashed with his purpose. His very design was to
exhibit as real a state of things which had no being except in
his own brain ; and it was as easy for him to attach ten thou-
sand, as to attach ten, priests to the Solomonian temple. He
could, therefore, with the utmost complacency, speak of David
as collecting for the temple which his son was to build a
hundred thousand talents of gold (£500,000,000), and a million
* Pentateuch, Part III. p. 485.
1863. 7A/Z PAEAVTATE UCH: /TS COMPOSITION. 557
talents of silver (£353,OOO,OOO), and at the same time declare
with cool effrontery that these vast sums (which, with the
contributions of David's great men, reach the stupendous
total of not much less than £900,000,000, a sum far exceeding
the national debt of Great Britain) were gathered together by
David in his trouble; nay, more, that this enormous mass of
gold and silver, which could have little or no value except as
a purchasing power, was exclusive of vast stores of timber,
and of brass and iron without weight, and all this for a
building which the Church of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields could
contain three or four times over."
But the priests and Levites, though their numbers were
thus scanty, were miserably poor and almost starving. The
earlier laws of the Pentateuch assign for their support the
tithes and firstlings. There is not the slightest sign that these
were paid ; and the inference follows either that these laws
were unknown to the people generally, or that, if known, they
were not regarded as of any special authority. Not Only,
indeed, were the priests wretchedly indigent, but the Temple
itself was often either disused or closed. The chronicler him-
self, not heeding the inconsistency of his words with his other
pictures of priestly greatness, draws a pitiable picture (2 Chron-
icles xxix. 7–16) of the uncleanness and desolation of the
Temple, thus admitting that the worship and the house of Jeho-
vah were, to say the least, very thoroughly unpopular ; and he
admits further that Ahaz actually shut up the Temple, which
* Lectures on the Moabite Stone, p. 341. This volume, published in
1873, is an excellent summary of the Bishop's critical work, prepared
especially in the hope that it might be found useful to teachers in day
schools and Sunday Schools, as well as to parents among the more
educated laity, who may wish to show their children the real nature of
these books which have had so prominent a part in the religious education
of the race. The account of the Moabite stone in the concluding lecture
would, at least, show them that there were other versions of the narratives
found in the more trustworthy of the historical books of the Hebrew
Scriptures.
558 M.A.E OA’ A3/SAMOA CO/CAE AWSO. CHAP. XI.
he could hardly have done if the Levites had possessed the
power which the chronicler ascribes to them. The reforms
of Hezekiah brought about a change for the better. The
priests now allowed that they had enough to eat (2 Chronicles
xxxi. Io), and, in place of the tithe which seemingly had
never been paid to them, they were suffered to share in the
sacrificial offerings of the faithful, in strict accordance with
the language of the Book of Deuteronomy, the composition
of which seems thus again to belong to a period later than
that of Hezekiah.
Differences between the statements of Deuteronomy and
those of the preceding books meet us, indeed, everywhere.
The writers in Exodus (xxiii. II) and Leviticus (xxv. 1-7)
enjoin that in every seventh year the whole land shall be
allowed to lie fallow, and enjoy its Sabbath without being
troubled by either ploughing or sowing ; but not one word is
said about the cancelling of debts for those who at the end of
the six years have been unable to pay them. The Deutero-
nomist (xv. 1-II) enjoins the release of insolvent debtors in
the seventh year, but says nothing of the duty of suffering the
land to lie idle. In short, the whole history of the Hebrew
people gives no indication that the law relating to the Sab-
batical year was ever once obeyed." Critics who wish to
uphold the traditional view plead that the Sabbath year was
prescribed by all lawgivers, although it was first carried out
in the post-Captivity time ; but this still leaves us facing
the alternative either that up to that time this law was
unknown, or that, if known, it was not looked upon as
authoritative.
It is true that Bishop Harold Browne faces such difficulties
with an almost light-hearted cheerfulness. The Israelites had
a strange way of hearing commands of the most solemn kind,
and not heeding them.
* Pentateuch, Part III. p. 496.
1863. THE PENTA TEUCH: ZTS COMPOS/7/OAV. 559
“We know that circumcision, the very bond of the covenant,
the initiatory rite of Judaism, was neglected till the people
came to Gilgal.”
But the negative in this case is not confined to the people.
The Bishop of Natal may well express his amazement at such
a plea as this.
“As if this fact itself, which Bishop Browne states so quietly,
did not involve a stupendous difficulty, as great as any
which I have set forth in Part I. For who can believe that
Moses, after having actually written the account, in Genesis
xvii., of the solemn institution of the rite by Almighty
God Himself; . . . . after having been expressly warned in
person of the danger of neglecting the rite by the occurrence
recorded in Genesis iv. 24–26; after having been again
reminded of his duty in this respect by the words pro-
nounced to him by Jehovah, on the occasion of the Pass-
over, on the very night of the Exodus, . . . . would yet,
under the holy mount itself, fresh from his daily com-
munings with God—when they rested for nearly twelve
months together in one place, and everything, place, time,
circumstances, combined to assist the discharge of this
primary duty—have allowed the people entirely to neglect
having their children circumcised, during all his life-time
for forty years together. The thing is utterly incredible ;
and no stronger proof of the unhistorical character of the
Pentateuchal story can be produced than the very fact
itself to which Bishop Browne appeals as helping him
partially out of his difficulty.”
If, however, there is anyone thing which in the historical books
is spoken of as a deliberate lapse on the part of the Hebrews,
it is the substitution of a visible and earthly monarchy for the
theocracy under which they are supposed thus far to have
lived. The thought of and the desire for this change are
spoken of by Samuel as a great sin, “Your wickedness is great
which ye have done in the sight of Jehovah in asking for a
560 ZIFE OF BISHOP COLEVSO. CHAP. XI.
J
king ; ” and his words extort from the people the confession
that they had added to all their sins this evil, “to ask us a
king.”
“Nay, Jehovah Himself is introduced as saying to Samuel
“They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me,
that I should not reign over them.’” +
But on the supposition that Deuteronomy is Mosaic, both
Samuel and the people had before them a law with which they
were bound to be acquainted, which spoke of this change as
one likely or sure to come, and which did not denounce the
thought of it or the desire of it as sinful or wrong at all. All
that the lawgiver does (Deuteronomy xvii. 14–17) is to add
certain cautions as to the policy which the Jewish kings Ought
to follow, while there is not a word to imply that the institu-
tion of monarchical government would in itself be an offence
in the sight of Jehovah. It is inconceivable that Samuel
should have spoken as he did, if the Deuteronomistic Law had
been known to him ; and inconceivable also that the people, if
acquainted with it, should not have adduced it as a complete
justification of their conduct, instead of abasing themselves
before him in an agony of humiliation ; and if it was un-
known both to the Seer or judge and to his people, is it possible
to resist the conclusion that in their age the Book of Deutero-
nomy was not written ?
But not only did the Deuteronomist speak of the establish-
ment of the monarchy as a certain event of the future; not
only did he prescribe the lines of their policy and forbid them
to form any connexion with Misraim : he further imposed on
each king the solemn duty of writing with his own hand “a
copy of this Law in a book,” “and it shall be with him, and he
shall read therein all the days of his life.” Well may the
Bishop ask:-
* Pentateuch, Part III. p. 509.
1863. THE PENTATEUCH - ITS COMPOSITION. 561
“What sign is there that either David or Solomon each made
a copy for himself of this Law, or that any of the best kings
did so—even Joash, as a youth, under the ‘direction of the
chief priest Jehoiada 2 If they did, pious kings as they were,
how is it to be explained that they completely neglected its
precepts in so many points, as we know they did, for
instance, in sacrificing at Gibeon and other high places, and
in not duly keeping the Passover ? On the other hand, if
they did not make a copy of the Law, why was this 2 Can
it be believed that they knowingly omitted to do so—that
is to say, that, having the Law itself, as is supposed, in their
hands, with prophets and priests to remind them of their
duties, they wilfully or negligently passed by so solemn, and
indeed so essential, a part of their duty to themselves and
to their people.”"
The supposition is not merely wild but ludicrous. Not
less than seventeen kings reigned over Judah before Josiah;
therefore, there should have been seventeen manuscript copies
of the Law preserved in the temple, or in the Royal archives;
and if the ungodly kings had disregarded the command, these
were but a small minority as compared with the number of
those who sought to obey the Lord all the days of their life.
There must, therefore, have been at least some ten or twelve
copies of the Law written out by the hands of their kings;
and perhaps not even the great Alexandrian library in its
palmiest days was so rich in manuscripts of any one work.
But the point is, not that the copies were fewer than they
should have been, but that the book which enjoined the
making of these copies was so lost as to be forgotten, or
unknown. Nothing can be more genuine than the expres-
sions of grief and shame on the part of Josiah, when he hears
for the first time words which had never fallen on his ears
before. As he listens to them, he rends his clothes. He is,
* Pentateuch, Part III. p. 512.
VOL. I. O O
562 AAFE OF AE/SAIOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. XI.
in fact, as well he might be, utterly bewildered; and he gives
his charge to Hilkiah the priest and others, to go and inquire
of the Lord on his behalf, and on that of the people, concern-
ing the words of this book that is found,--a charge that could
not possibly have been given with reference to a book of which
a large number of copies had already been made by the hands
of his predecessors. His mind is not troubled with any historical
difficulties; nor does he pause to reflect on the astonishing
and seemingly incredible fortune which had attended a Law,
or rather a series of discourses on law, uttered in the ears of
some three or four millions of people, discourses forgotten, it
would seem, almost the moment after their utterance, and,
to say the least, passing away without making the faintest
impression either on them or on their rulers. To his amaze-
ment, he must have found, as he read the book in the presence
of his subjects, that he was reading words with which, as King
of Judah, he was bound, as his predecessors had been bound,
to be familiar ; but even this pain was not equal to the agony
with which he discovered that this book imposed upon him a
gigantic work of reform, going down to the very roots of the
national life. If he had any regard for the Divine Law thus
made known to him, he must strike down abuses and abomin-
ations which were rampant everywhere. He must put a ban
on practices which the most righteous of the kings who had
reigned before him had either allowed, or by their own acts
sanctioned. The task was urgent : it was also all but over-
whelming. The young king braced himself to it with heroic
courage. The reforms enjoined were carried out to the utter-
most of his power; but it must soon have become mournfully
evident that the general establishment and the permanent
maintenance of the new state of things was hopeless ; and
the certainty of eventual failure seems to have weighed like
lead on the zeal even of one whose heart, in the words of Huldah,
was so tender as that of Josiah. The effort was made to hold
1863. THE PEAVTA TEUCH - ZTS COMPOSITWOAV. 563
a Passover in strict accordance with the injunctions of the
Deuteronomist; but it was not followed by another, and it
was left to the priestly minds of the exilic or post-exilic
time to draw out the ideal picture of a sacerdotal state which
is depicted in the impossible narratives of the Books of
Chronicles.
As then the Book of Deuteronomy belongs to an age later
by many centuries than that of Moses, it is merely absurd to
claim the authority of his name for particular passages in it,
as, for instance, for the promise that God would raise up a
prophet for His people like to himself. This utterance thus
becomes simply the expression of a conviction that God will
supply them with counsel and comfort, when they needed it,
by sending some prophet such as Moses, and that they will
never be without a Divinely instructed teacher, if only they
obey Him.” We are, in truth, dealing in this book with
imaginary commands issued in an imaginary past. Like the
writer in the Book of Numbers, the Deuteronomist enjoins on
the Israelites the setting apart of six cities of refuge after
their work of conquest shall have been accomplished ; but in
al previous passage the lawgiver is represented as having
himself set apart three of these cities, and so some critics
have been led to suppose that there were really nine cities of
refuge. In the history there is no indication that any such
cities ever existed;” and therefore we may infer that many
injunctions contained in the book were rather intended to
convey a lesson and a warning to his countrymen than to be
regarded as commands coming with a Divine Sanction.
Among these are the terrible sentence to be inflicted on con-
quered cities (Deuteronomy xx. IO-15), and the treatment
of stubborn and rebellious sons (Deuteronomy xxi. 18-21).
The idolatry of the one, the obstinacy of the other, typified
sins of which the Jews of Josiah's age were especially guilty ;
* Pentateuch, Part III. p. 517. * I. p. 521.
O O 2
564 A./FA OF AZSA/OA COAAAVSO. CHAP. XI.
and these passages might serve at least as a warning that
their offences deserved judgements not less severe. The same
ideal painting is seen in the narrative of the blessings and
cursings pronounced from the heights of Ebal and Gerizim.
This passage is, indeed, singularly confused and perplexing,
and the Bishop expresses his inability to explain it without
some extravagant assumption as to what the writer has
omitted to state. On the whole, he thinks it most probable
that the Deuteronomist departed from his original intention.
“In xi. 29, he meant the tribes to pronounce the blessings and
curses, and made the arrangement for that purpose in
xxvii. I I-13; but he then decided to place them in the
mouths of the priests, and make the people say “Amen’;
and this he actually did with the curses. But instead of
limiting himself in this way with respect to the blessings,
he has insensibly been carried away by his subject, and
poured out his full heart in the glowing and vehement
words of chapter xxviii. This chapter he has now left
without any introduction or explanation, without any
intimation of its connexion with the matter before or
after.” 1
Much speculation has been bestowed on the question of the
physical possibility of such blessings and curses being, in
such a position, so uttered as to be heard by the people and
duly responded to ; but it is obviously a superfluous task so
to treat details in the picture of an ideal scene.
The blessing of the tribes (Deuteronomy xxxiii.) and the
song of Moses (Deuteronomy xxxii.) are full, in like manner,
of statements pointing to the late age of the writer and ex-
hibiting marked points of resemblance and agreement with
the expressions and the style of Jeremiah. There is no
separate blessing for Simeon, because at the time when the
book was written the tribe of Simeon had long since been
* Pentateuch, Part III. p. 547.
1863. THE PEWTATEUCH; 17s conſpos/Trow. 565
absorbed in that of Judah ;” and Levi receives a eulogy
singularly at variance with the censure passed upon him in
the judgement of Jacob. Giving up the Mosaic authorship of
this song, Knobel holds that it was composed during the life-
time of Saul and David ; but there is nothing in the position
of the Levites in that age to account for the language here
addressed to them.
“They are nowhere even mentioned in that history, and,
indeed, if we were only to form a judgement from the more
authentic records of that age, there is no trace even of the
existence of the tribe as one set apart for religious duties.
Even when David had been ten years on the throne, we
find that the Levites were not employed at the removal of
the ark—at least not on the first attempt to remove it,
as appears on the testimony of the chronicler himself
(I Chronicles xv. 2, 12, 13).””
But the song seems to be the work of a priest, and Jeremiah
was a priest, the son probably of the chief priest Hilkiah ;
and he would naturally hold the Levites, if known as earnest
and devout men, in high estimation,
“as the guardians of the true faith amidst an idolatrous and
gainsaying generation. Well might the writer—a priest
himself—utter for his own brethren the prayer, ‘Let Thy
Thummim and Thy Urim—Thy truth and Thy light—be
ever with Thy holy one, whom Thou didst prove at Massah
(temptation), whom Thou didst justify at the waters of
Meribah (strife)”; i.e. whom Thou dost expose now, as
Thou didst then, to the rebellious, trying tempers, the
angry strife and turbulence, of an unthankful, unbelieving
people.”
The composition of the Book of Deuteronomy is thus
brought down to a late age, and is restricted within narrow
* Pentateuch, Part III. p. 578; see also above, p. 224.
* Ib. p. 585. -
566 JL/AWE OF BISAMOA CO/A2/VSO. CHAP. XI.
limits of time. If it was not written in the reign of Josiah
himself, it must have been written in that of his father or
grandfather. But in that case it must have been composed
by some one who hid the book away in the Temple a quarter
of a century perhaps before it was discovered there, and who
left the fruit of so much labour to the chances of the future.
“He must also have died without betraying his secret ; . . . .
nay without even making any provision against the possibility
of the book itself being neglected, destroyed, or lost, while it
lay unknown and unheeded in the Temple during the latter
part of Manasseh’s idolatrous reign.” " -
It is scarcely necessary to say that if the book had been
found and brought to Manasseh, its immediate destruction
would have followed as certainly as that of the roll which was
cut to pieces and burnt by Jehoiakim (Jeremiah xxxvii.).
But if we allow that it may have been written in the life-time
of Manasseh by some one who outlived that king, it then
See IſlS eVeſl II, Ore
“difficult to account for the long and total silence with respect
to the existence of this book which was maintained during
seventeen years of Josiah’s reign, when the king's docile
piety and youth would have encouraged the production of
such a book, if it really existed, and there was such im-
perative necessity for that reformation to be begun as
soon as possible, with a view to which the book itself
was written.” ”
These considerations seem to prove that the book was in
process of composition during these seventeen years. The
youth of the king, his docility, and his deep religious earnest-
ness, gave special encouragement for any attempts to bring
about the indispensable reforms. It may not indeed have
been begun for some time after the death of Amon ; and
1 Pentateuch, Part III. p. 616. * I?. p. 617.
1863. THE PENTA TEUCH: JTS COMPOSITION. 567
although two or three years would more than suffice for the
actual work of composition, it was subjected, we may be sure,
to repeated revisions; and the corrections thus made, as fresh
ideas occurred from time to time to the writer, may in some
measure explain the frequent repetitions by which it is
characterised. But who then was the writer 2 The question
is one of subordinate importance, so long as the time of its
composition is precisely ascertained. That one who, in the
words of Knobel,
“took upon himself to make so free with the Law Book”
must have been an eminent man there can be no doubt ;
and
“he can hardly have disappeared so completely from the
stage of Jewish history, without leaving behind any other
trace of his existence and activity than the Book of
Deuteronomy.”
But we know that Jeremiah lived in this age, and that he
began to prophesy about four or five years before the book
was found in the Temple; and it is impossible for us to shut
our eyes to the many and striking points of likness and
even of identity between the words, phrases, style, and tone
of thought in the writings of the prophet and those of the
Book of Deuteronomy.
The time of the composition of the book is thus brought
into very close proximity with that of its discovery ; and the
question thus closed cannot be opened again on the plea
that evidence may yet be produced which points in another
direction. Such evidence, however, is furnished, it is said,
“by the fact that the Samaritans, while rejecting all the
other canonical books of the Jews, yet received the
Pentateuch complete, though, it is true, with very many
and important variations from the Hebrew copies.””
* Pentateuch, Part IV. p. 3.
568 AZFE OF BISA/OP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XI.
The inference drawn is that the Pentateuch in its entirety
must have existed long before the separation of the two
kingdoms, as otherwise the Samaritans would never have
acquired possession of it; and therefore that the Book of
Deuteronomy must have been written probably some ages
before the time of Samuel and Saul. The assumption is
really both arbitrary and groundless; but, even if it were
granted, it would still leave a gap of some centuries before we
can reach the age of Moses. It is further argued that the
antagonism of the Jews and Samaritans is itself proof that
the acknowledgement of the Pentateuch as an authoritative
code by the latter must be a fact belonging to a time
preceding the revolt under Jeroboam.
These arguments, however, are of no force. The Samaritans,
or inhabitants of the central district of Palestine, were a mixed
population, settlers introduced by the Assyrian king (2 Kings
xvii. 24) being mingled with such Israelites as had not been
carried into captivity. This mixed population, we are told,
did not “fear Jehovah,” and a captive priest sent to them
by the Assyrian king taught them how to fear Him ; but
nothing is said about his teaching them to keep the Law.
To this Law, as it was understood in his day, Hezekiah,
according to that chronicler, did what he could to bring them
into subjection. But his invitation to the Passover which he
sent throughout the country from Beersheba to Dan was,
within the borders of the old Israelitish kingdom, rejected
for the most part with contemptuous mockery, although it
was accepted by some belonging to the tribes of Asher,
Manasseh, and Zebulon. But if this story, coming as it does
from the chronicler, is in a high degree suspicious, and seems
to be altogether discredited by the fact that no mention is made
of these efforts of Hezekiah in the other historical books,
still there can be little doubt as to the reality of the reform
attempted by Josiah. This king, according to the more
1863. THE PENTA TEUCH: YTS COMPOS/77OA. 569
trustworthy historian (2 Kings xxiii.), assailed the sanctuary
of Bethel itself, breaking down and burning the high place,
and treating after the same fashion the other high places of
the Samaritan cities made by the Kings of Israel.
Thus, then, up to this time there is no sign of the Law of
Jehovah being practised or even known in Samaria, or of any
feeling of mutual animosity between Jews and Samaritans.”
The first symptoms of such a feeling were provoked about two
centuries later, when the Jews refused the offer of the Samari-
tans to take part in the work of rebuilding the Temple at
Jerusalem. The strictness with which the Law was now in-
forced in the latter city prompted missionary efforts to inforce
it also on the Samaritans; and perhaps with the sanction
of Sanballat himself the missionary priests were enabled to
introduce among them the Pentateuch, the only part of the
Bible recognised by them to this day. That the Samaritan
text was not constituted till after, and perhaps long after, the
return of the Jews from the Captivity, seems to be proved by
the fact that their text contains only the Pentateuch.” In
other words, it was received at a time when the Book of
Joshua had been already separated from the five Books of
the Law, and this separation is supposed to have been first
made in the time of Ezra. But, further, the Samaritan text,
where it differs from the Hebrew, resembles in many instances
the Septuagint version, the inference being that the Samari-
tans obtained their copies from the Alexandrian Jews of
Egypt, and that their text was not composed until nearly
three centuries had passed away from the time of Ezra.
If nothing more had been needed than to show that the
1 Pentateuch, Part IV. p. 7. &
* The subject is further examined by the Bishop, in the Pentateuch,
Part VI. chap. xxv. But his position is so completely established that it
is unnecessary to enter on the analysis of additional evidence, which can
only add strength to conclusions already incontrovertible.
57O I/FE OF BISHOP CO/CEAWSO. CHAP. XI.
Pentateuch has in no part the characteristics of genuine con-
temporary narrative, that the story is full of contradictions
and impossibilities, that it contains an elaborate civil and
ecclesiastical legislation which does not belong to the age to
which it is ascribed, and which was never carried out, the
Bishop's work would at this point have been practically at an
end. All this he had done with a completeness which left
scarcely a loophole for objections, and certainly none for
objections of any cogency. But it was necessary, further,
to show that the Pentateuch was in every part a composite
work.
Even in the Book of Deuteronomy, which, as a whole, was
beyond doubt the production of one master-mind, insertions
of other hands are plainly discernible. But in the Book of
Genesis there is no such harmony of plan or of style. It
is a patchwork of materials contributed by different writers in
different ages; and it became necessary, therefore, to prove
this in refutation of theories and notions which regarded it as
from beginning to end the composition of Moses. That the
two chief contributors are the Elohist and the Jehovist, the
former characterised by the constant use of the name of
Elohim for God, the other by the intermixture with it of the
name Jehovah, we have already seen. The narratives of
these two writers seldom harmonize, and often directly con-
tradict each other. The variations between the Elohistic and
the Jehovistic accounts of the Creation have been already
noticed ; and, except for the strange traditional notions which
blind men's eyes to facts, it would be scarcely necessary to say
anything about the conflicting details in the two stories of the
Noachian Deluge. In the Elohistic tale Noah is ordered to
take two of every living thing ; in the Jehovistic every clean
beast and every clean fowl is to be taken by sevens. On this
contradiction it is enough to cite the words of perhaps the
most learned of Jewish critics of the present century.
1863. THE PENTATE UCH: ITS COMPOSITION. 57 I
“All the attempts,” says Dr. Kalisch, “at arguing away this
discrepancy have been utterly unsuccessful. The difficulty
is so obvious that the most desperate efforts have been
made. Some regard the second and third verses as the
later addition of a pious Israelite, while Rabbinical writers
maintain that six pairs were taken by Noah, but one pair
came to him spontaneously. Is it necessary to refute such
opinions P. We appeal to every unbiased understanding.
The Bible cannot be abused to defy common sense,
to foster sophistry, or pervert reasoning, to cloud the in-
tellect, or to poison the heart with the rank weeds of
insincerity.” " -
Such contradictions as these are glaring ; but the task of
analysing a composite document, in which, although two
writers may have had the chief part in it, many fragments
from other sources have been imbedded, is both intricate
and subtle; and those who would appreciate the force of
the Bishop's method, and the general correctness of his
conclusions, must work their way patiently and carefully
through his chapters. But of the method it must be noted
that it starts with no assumption of the existence of charac-
teristic differences of style, followed by the assigning to one
writer those passages in which the name of Elohim occurs
predominantly, and those marked by the name Jehovah to
the other. In fact, the peculiarity has been deduced from
inspection of the two sets of passages already separated ;
and these passages have been discriminated, and assigned to
their respective authors by a rigorous process of deduction
from a great variety of similar peculiarities, detected upon
a minute examination and careful comparison of each pas-
Sage.” But although the handiwork of two writers can thus
be traced, there is no valid reason for supposing that the
Jehovistic narrative ever formed an independent connected
* Pentateuch, Part IV. p. 32. * Ib. p. 49.
572 M.I.A.E OF BISAIOP CO/CAE/WSO. CHAP. XI.
whole. The diligence of Hupfeld has recovered to the
Jehovist, by means of the internal evidence, many passages
which former critics had assigned to the Elohist ; but all
these taken together cannot be regarded as anything more
than fragments. They are not parts of a compact whole.
The Jehovistic passages about the Flood furnish no complete
narrative. They say nothing about the original order to
make the ark, about the collection of food, about the entry
of the animals into the ark, or their exit from it; and if there
are inconsistencies between this account and that of the
Elohist, there is nothing surprising in this. They
“might be looked for under the most favourable circumstances,
if the interpolator had had the prime narrative before him
in clear Roman type, in a printed volume. How much
more, it may be said, when we take into account the
difficulty of studying that narrative out of a long roll,
consisting of many sheets, stitched together, of papyrus and
parchment manuscript.”
Placing thus before the reader the whole of the Elohistic
narrative in the first eleven chapters of Genesis, followed by
the Jehovistic insertions in these chapters, the Bishop finds
himself compelled to compare both with the great book of
facts spread before us in the phenomena of the sensible world.
The legion of subterfuges and fictions by which the tradi-
tionalism of the last generation was kept up are now for the
most part dead. We may remember with amusement rather
than indignation the pleading that the strata of the earth
were simulations of age, purposely designed to mislead those
who might refuse to accept the chronology of Archbishop
Ussher ; that fossils instead of having been animated structures
had been formed under planetary influences ; and that the
mammoth which towards the end of the last century was
* Pentateuch, Part IV. p. 56.
1863. THE AAEAV7A TEUCH - MTS COMPOSITYOAV. 573
found in the ice of the polar regions, in such preservation that
dogs and bears fed upon its flesh, had never been a living
creature, but had been created under the ice, and there pre-
served instead of being transmuted into stone, and that all
organisms found in the depth of the earth are models created
in the first day to typify the living plants and animals to be
produced in the subsequent days of the creative week."
It is neither so profane nor so absurd to assert that the
Bible was intended by its writers to teach science. The books
of the Pentateuch assuredly claim to do so, and do teach it to
the full extent of the knowledge and the ability of the writers.
The argument that the Bible is exclusively a religious book is
characterised by Dr. Kalisch as a bold fallacy.
“With the same justice it might,” he says, “be affirmed that
the Bible, in describing the rivers of Paradise, does not speak
of geography at all, or in inserting the grand list and
genealogy of nations (Genesis x.) is far from touching the
science of ethnography. Taken in this manner nothing
would be easier, but nothing more arbitrary, than Biblical
interpretation. It is simply untrue that the Bible avoids
these questions. It has, in fact, treated the history of
Creation in a most magnificent and comprehensive manner :
it has in these portions, as well as in the moral precepts
of the theological doctrines, evidently not withheld any
information which it was in its power to impart.””
We have here then such chronology, such archaeology, such
geography, such ethnology, such history, as the writers had
acquired, or thought that they had acquired. What they had,
or thought that they had, they imparted ; and it would be
astounding indeed if their views and conclusions harmonized
with the knowledge gained during the millenniums which
have since passed away. It is not as though we had to
reconcile with this knowledge one statement only or two in
* Pentateuch, Part IV. p. 85. 2 Jö. p. 87.
574 I./FE OF BISA/OP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XI.
these ancient records. The process must be gone through
with all, and when we fancy that we have harmonized one, we
find that we have only made the contradiction more glaring
in another. The very plea that the Hebrew Scriptures were
not intended to teach science shows, if it be worth anything,
that the notions of Jews stood on the same level with those of
Greeks or Romans. The distinction of the waters above from
those below the firmament, the governing of day and night by
the Sun and moon, the stars being thrown in without any
special design at all, are fancies as truthful and instructive as
the speculations of Ionic and other philosophers that the stars
were lamps lit every night, and put out again in the morning,
and that the Sun was a disk of heated metal somewhat bigger
probably than the Peloponnesos. Of the real magnitude of
the sun, of the real distances of the fixed stars, neither Jew
nor Greek had the faintest conception. It would therefore be
a miserable waste of time to examine any of their statements,
were it not that these statements are made still to serve as
foundations for a mighty mass of superstitions. We read the
seemingly simple declaration, “To every animal of the earth,
and to every fowl of the air, . . . . I have given every green
herb for meat.” But we forget to ask how the beasts and
birds of prey were on their creation to be supported, their
teeth, stomachs, and their whole bodily conformation being
quite unsuited to the eating of herbs; nor do we heed the
geological record which shows us that ravenous creatures
preyed upon their fellow-creatures and lived upon flesh in all
ages of the world's past history just as they do now."
But if in Genesis we have a history, or rather two accounts,
of the Creation, it is not the only history of this mighty work
which has come down to us from ancient days. Egypt, India,
Persia, Greece, had each its story of Creation, and most of
them also of a deluge; and we commit ourselves not only to a
* Pentafetch, Part IV. p. 108.
1863. TAZAE PAEAV7.4 7E UCAEſ: Z7'S COMPOS/7”/OAV. 575
perilous but to a ludicrous position, if we assert that they
were all borrowed from the Jewish Scriptures. It is manifest
that they were not so ; and of intercourse between Jews and
Canaanites and some of these countries there is not a shadow
of evidence. The Bishop cites from Von Bohlen the Zend
representation of Creation ; * and it is quite open to any one
to say that the Hebrew story is grander and more impressive.
Longinus considered as sublime the expression, “Let there be
light, and there was light; ” but Von Bohlen remarks that the
Vedic phrase, “He thought, I will create worlds, and they are
there,” is not less sublime. It is, in fact, a phrase re-echoed in
the words of the Hebrew psalmist, “He spake the word, and
they were made.” If in some few points the Hebrew cos-
mogony seems to correspond with the geological record, the
same remark applies with greater force to some parts of the
Theogony which bears the name of Hesiod.
If, however, the geographical, ethnological, or other state-
ments in Genesis, or any other of the Old Testament
Scriptures, become absurd and contemptible when they are
brought forward as the highest scientific standards, they are
neither contemptible nor absurd when viewed in reference to the
knowledge of the writers. We shall not be greatly tempted
to laugh at the notion that the moon was probably of the size
of a large plate or salver, when we remark that it was an
hypothesis put forward to account for phenomena, and that
these hypotheses pointed to and insured the true growth of
mind, and led to the accumulated knowledge which is Our
inheritance. ;
According to Kosmas Indicopleustes, the earth was an
oblong, with a mountain inhabited by gods in the north, the
sea flowing round it on all four sides, with the Paradise in
India beyond the sea, toward the east. Under the intervening
sea, which was caused by the Flood, and crossed by Noah, the
* Pentateuch, Part IV. p. 113.
576 JL/FE OF AP/SA/OA' CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XI.
Euphrates and Tigris continue their course, and appear again
in the western world, while Gihon, the Ganges, becomes the
Nile in Egypt. In its essential features the geography of the
Second chapter of Genesis is the geography of Kosmas.
Nor is the zoology less hopelessly out of joint with facts
now known to all. In the Jehovistic narrative all living
creatures without exception are brought before Adam to be
named by him.
“But how could the white bear of the frozen zone, and the
humming-bird of the tropics, have met in one spot 2 or, being
assembled, how could they have been dispersed to their
present abodes P’’’
The Bishop may well speak of the handling of such a ques-
tion as this, as both a painful and ludicrous task; but he felt
that he had no alternative when the “harmony” of Scripture
with science was supposed to be established by the surmise
that those parts of the earth which are “far from the boun-
daries of man's first residence,” have become the scenes of
creative power at epochs subsequent to the six days' work, in
the teeth of the assertion that on the sixth day the heavens
and earth were finished and all their host; and that the
animals brought to Adam to be named must have been those
only in the neighbourhood of Paradise, in the teeth of another
assertion that he gave names to all the cattle and to the fowl
of the heaven, and to every animal of the field. The same
necessity compelled the Bishop to deal with the question of
the origin of species. All recent geological researches establish,
for instance, the fact that the sloths, armadillos, and large ant-
eaters, have, in Professor Owen's words, “ever been, as they
are now, peculiar to America,” as likewise “the two species of
orang are confined to Borneo and Sumatra,” and “the two
species of chimpanzee to an inter-tropical tract of the western
part of Africa.”
* Pentateuch, Part IV. p. 131.
1863. THE PENTATE UCH: JTS COMPOS/77OAV. 577
But, if this be so, what grounds have we for holding that
all types of the great human family are resolvable into one
only 2 For such a notion there is absolutely no warrant,
apart from an old Hebrew tale which is shivered into fragments
as we handle it. To adduce in Support of it the statement of
St. Paul, that God has made of one blood all nations of men
to dwell on the earth, is to bring in a wholly irrelevant con-
sideration. No one disputes this truth; but it would be not
less true to say, that God has also made of one blood all the
brute beasts of the world, and that we owe duties to them.
No one denies the humanity of the Bushman, the Andaman
islander, and the Australian Savage, and assuredly they have
a right not less than that of Englishmen or Germans to be
treated as men ; but the assertion of this fact is not the
assertion that they all descend from Adam, or rather, it should
be said, from Noah.
The superstitions which traditionalism has raised on the
story of the third chapter of Genesis are not less ludicrous
and painful, but immeasurably more repulsive, than any others.
Without attempting to determine the meaning of the very
peculiar phraseology of this chapter, the influences under
which it must have been written, and the lessons which it is
intended to inforce, the readers of the narrative jump to the
conclusion that it speaks of some ophidian creature, or of the
devil as disguised under its form. The Bishop cites at some
length the remarks of the highly orthodox critic Delitzch on
the subject. Few criticisms could be more contemptible.
Delitzch says that in the Elohistic story the brute animals
and other creatures are made before man, while man in the
Jehovistic tale is made before the animals. To reconcile or
get rid of these contradictions he actually commits him-
to the following astounding assumptions: (1) “the Creation
was a struggle between the Divine Creator and the might of
evil”; (2) the Evil one prevailed so far as to “mislead" the
VOL. I. P P
578 AZFE OF AP/SA/OA' CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XI.
animals created in the fifth day (i. 21), and in the sixth before
the creation of man (i. 25); (3) hence all these animals were
to be swept away with the vegetation created on the third
day (i. I2); (4) a new creation of plants and beasts and birds
took place on the sixth day after the creation of man ; (5)
the evil spirit tried to corrupt this last creation also, and
therefore “made use of a beast” in order to deceive the
WOIIla.11.
On such principles of interpretation the Hebrew Scriptures,
or any other writings, may be easily made to yield whateve
results we please; and there is no answering for the con-
clusions into which the speculators may be drawn. Delitzch
acknowledges that the descriptions given of the Deity are
anthropomorphic; that he walks in the shade in the cool of
the day, and puts together aprons from the skins of beasts ;
and that this anthropomorphic intercourse, which is itself the
consequence of the Fall, “culminates in the Incarnation.”
Having so stated, he plunges into a weedy sea. He has
already treated brute animals as moral beings: he now goes
on to say that sin may deform the body of a brute beast
even though it has been only the instrument of a spirit."
“The serpent,” he goes on to say, “was before made other-
wise ; now . . . . it is, as it were, the embodiment of the
diabolical sin and the Divine curse.”
But there is no “as it were * in the matter. It either is this
embodiment, or it is not. He has only just before said that
the serpents brought into existence before the creation of man
were all swept away, and another race was formed after man
came upon the scene, so that with these, at all events, there
was a second failure. But there is absolutely nothing more
than impudent assertion in the statement that the serpent
was not made as it is now. There is no deformity whatever
* Pentateuch, Part IV. p. 140.
1863. THE PENTATEUCH: ITS COMPOSITION. 579
in the serpent, and its shape is as wonderful and beautiful an
instance of adaptation of means to ends as is to be found in
any created organism. But we may multiply words to any
extent on the habits or the shape of serpents, and we shall be
as far away as ever from catching even a glimmer of meaning
from the narrative of Eve's temptation. If the tale is not genuine
history, it may be symbolical ; and if ever there have been such
things as symbolical narratives, this surely is likely, or rather
certain, to be one of them. We are well enough aware that
there has been, and that there is still, tree and serpent worship
in the world ; and they who have bestowed any thought upon
the subject, are also well aware that the tree so worshipped is
a stem or stock—in other words, it is a symbol or sign ; that
the tree is the serpent and the serpent is the tree in different
aspects ; that the garden is not only a geographical paradise,
but the garden of the human body, the field in which the
enemy sows tares; and that the tree is the Asherah or grove
for which the Jewish women wove hangings in later genera-
tions. But if these are symbols, then the whole language of
this narrative is symbolical. The transgression cannot be
committed by the man or the woman alone, and it is the
serpent which leads to the Asherah, the Phallos, or the Linga.
It follows that the biting of the heel and the bruising of the
head are also symbolical phrases, which like the nudity of the
serpent are somewhat disguised, perhaps not without purpose,
in the Septuagint, the Latin, and the English versions ; and
further that the death which is the consequence of the trans-
gression is not the physical change which we denote by that
word. In this instance Mr. Maurice's method of dealing with
the Old Testament led him right. He could not bring him-
self to believe, he could not allow any others to believe, that
when Adam received the warning of immediate death, the
sentence was not to be executed for many centuries. The
writer was not therefore speaking of that which is called the
P P 2
58o I./FE OF BISA/OA COLE/VSO. CHAP. XI.
death of the body; he was speaking of the only real death,
the death which is the wages of sin, of disobedience and self-
will.1
With this story of the temptation the Bishop had to deal
to show that, whatever it might be, it was not an historical
narrative. It might have been a happy thing for the progress
of English religious thought if he had been led to apply his
perfectly straightforward and incisive critical method to the
symbolism as well as to the history of this passage. But the
subject is one from which we may be glad to escape, although
sooner or later a thorough examination of it cannot be avoided.
Dr. Donaldson has thrown over it the veil of what is supposed
to be a learned language; but they who would have the origin
and meaning of the tale fully drawn out will find the task
admirably done in the pages of his Jashar:* Seen in this light
the narrative becomes a subject of Supreme interest. It is
found to be the expression of a theological philosophy which
has slowly taken a very definite shape. This philosophy has
its own difficulties; and the difficulties of the subject itself
may be insurmountable. We have, however, nothing which
is either ridiculous or contemptible. For utterances which
may excite a stronger feeling than that of mere disapproval
we have to turn to the comments of modern critics. Thus
Delitzch tells us that
“Man in consequence of sin needs a covering to hide his
nakedness. He himself has made the attempt to cover his
nakedness by his own contrivance: however, he has not
succeeded; before God he cannot present himself with his
vileness. Only God prepares for him a covering which may
serve for man to appear in before God, and that from the
skins of slain animals, and therefore at the cost of innocent
1 See p. 3OO.
* I may also refer the reader to my Mythology of the Aryan Nations,
Book II. chap. ii. Section 12.
1863. THE PENTA TE UCH - ITS COMPOSATZOAV. 584
life, at the expense of the shedding of innocent blood. This
blood was an image of the blood of Christ, this clothing an
image of the clothing of righteousness in Christ.”
Talk such as this may be meant to be orthodox ; but it is
(whatever the motive of the writer may be, and of this we do
not judge) rank blasphemy, and they who love the truth may
be grateful to those who provide the antidote. It is not here
only that the Bishop cites the words of Dr. Thomas Burnet,
long Master of the Charterhouse. Of the fig-leaf aprons Dr.
Burnet says:—
“Here we have the first step in the act of sewing, but whence
had they a needle, whence a thread on the first day of their
creation ? These questions may seem to be too free ; but
the matter itself demands that we act freely when we are
seeking the naked truth. When, however, they had made
to themselves girdles, God gave them, besides, coats made,
forsooth, out of the skins of beasts. But here again we run
into difficulties. To soften the matter let us substitute in
the place of God an angel. An angel, then, slew and skinned
the animals, or stripped the skin from innocent or living
animals. But this is the business of a slaughterer or butcher,
not an angel. Besides, through this slaughter whole races
of animals would have perished, for it is not believed that
more than two of each kind were created at first ; and one
without the other would have had no offspring.” 1
But in truth it is not a stray sentence here and there in
the book of Genesis which becomes in the hands of modern
commentators a fountain of perennial nonsense. The old
Hebrew book speaks throughout of men who start with living
for something like a millennium ; but the span of human life
has grown, and so has the standard of human size and weight.
It is absurd to waste time on attempts to explain or to recon-
cile. The wall is plastered up in one part, only to reveal
* Pentateuch, Part IV. p. 151.
582 M.A.E OF BISA/OP CO/CAEWSO. CHAP. XI.
many more and worse rents in another. The duration
assigned for human lives renders utterly uncertain the whole
history, down at least to the establishment of the Jews in
Canaan, even if all other difficulties could be removed. In
fact, however, the Jewish stories are found for the most part
everywhere else, and it is amusing to find Virgil fancying that
the process of diminution in the human height and bulk is to
go on, and that the Pharsalian ploughman centuries hence
would be astonished at the relics of men who had fallen in
the ranks of Cassius. The Great Pyramid may look like a
work of giants; but the entrance admits a man with diffi-
culty, and in the centre is, or was, a sarcophagus about six
feet long. -
Of the Noachian flood it is useless to say anything except
in reference to the strange temper which delights to waste
time by attempts to reconcile plain contradictions and account
for sheer impossibilities. The Bishop has examined these
attempts 1 with his usual patience, and shows that on any
hypothesis the whole story falls to the ground. No command
is given for the preservation of the fish; but the fresh-water
fish must have died as soon as the salt water of the sea
broke in, and the sea fish must have likewise perished as soon
as from the preponderance of the rain water the waters of the
sea began to lose their saltness. The same ignorance of facts
is shown by the incident of the olive-leaf which is brought,
plucked apparently fresh and green, from a tree which had
been immersed eight or nine months, under water many
thousands of feet in depth, if it was found by the dove at the
greatest height ever reached by a myrtle plant. We may be
forgiven if we turn with a feeling of loathing from the lucu-
brations of Dean Wilkins, who coolly calculates the animal
food needed by the beasts of prey at 1825 sheep, which are
accordingly to be stowed in the ark along with the pair or
* Pentateuch, Part IV. chap. xvii.
1863. THE PENTATE UCH - ITS COMPOSITIOA. 583
pairs to be taken in for the preservation of their kind. Others
in our own day, who have no difficulty in multiplying marvels
or natural impossibilities, have seen no reason why the beasts
of prey should not have been preserved in the ark in a state
of torpor; but neither, if this be so, is there any reason why
all other living things should not have been preserved in the
same condition, and thus all trouble in gathering food have
been spared to Noah and his children. If we turn to the
chronology, we find that there are forty days of rain at the
beginning, and forty days during which the ark rests after
grounding ; and this number of forty meets us everywhere—
in the fast of Moses, in the searchings of the spies under
Joshua and Caleb, in the forty years' wanderings in the
wilderness, in the reigns of David and Solomon. The figures
are not real in any instance, and it is but wasted toil to
prop up a history which has no foundations. This is the fate
of all attempts to show that the Deluge was partial, not
universal.
“It is,” the Bishop says, “just as inconceivable that the
worms and snails and grasshoppers should have crawled
into the ark from different parts of some large basin in
Western Asia as from different parts of the world. One
small brook alone would have been a barrier to their further
progress.””
But the language of the story points unmistakably to a
universal flood, in the destruction of all flesh and every living
thing, in the covering of all the high hills under the whole
heaven. Modern traditionalists go on to “reconcile” laws of
gravitation or any others with this old tale, and it is as easy
for them to suppose that a universal or partial deluge might
pass away leaving no signs of its occurrence behind it as to
assert that the appearances of stratification in the earth are
* Pentateuch, Part IV. p. 202.
584 JL/FE OF BISA/OA CO/LA2AVSO. CHAP. XI.
mere Snares placed by God Himself to deceive geologists.
But let the Deluge be reduced within the smallest limits, let
the species taken in be limited to twenty of clean animals
and sixty of unclean, and what is the result 2
“Let any person picture to himself what would be the con-
dition of a menagerie, consisting of four hundred animals,
confined in a narrow space under these circumstances for
more than twelve months We must first suppose, of
course, that Noah and his wife and children were occupied
every day, and all day long, incessantly, in taking to these
four hundred creatures, two or three times a day, their
necessary supplies of dry food and water, bringing fresh litter
and cleansing away the old. But shut up together closely in
this way, with scarcely any light and air, is it not plain that
in a very short time every part of the ship must have been
full of filth and corruptive matter, fever, and pestilence 2
But the ship may have been kept clean, and the air pure,
and the animals healthy, though shut up without light and
air, by a miracle | Yes, certainly, by multiplying miracles
ad infinitum, of which the Bible gives not the slightest
intimation—which, rather, the whole tenor of the story as
plainly as possible excludes—if this is thought to be a
reverent mode of dealing with Scripture, or at all more
reverent than a course of criticism of the kind which I am
now pursuing, while thus endeavouring to set the plain
facts of the case in a clear strong light before the eyes
of the reader.””
The modern traditionalist deserves no indulgence. For the
old Hebrew writer it should in all justice be remembered that
he was innocent of all conscious offence against truths or
facts of science; that he lived in a world of which he knew
nothing ; and that he fancied it to be a flat surface of no very
great extent, round, square, or oblong. But the story of the
Flood, like that of the Creation, is found in many lands, in
* Pentateuch, Part IV. p. 207.
* 1863. THE PENTA TEUCH - ZZ'S COMPOSI 77OAV. 585
some points resembling, in others wholly unlike, the Noachian
narrative. The dove and raven incident is found in the
legends of the Mexicans and the islanders of Cuba; and
Delitzch seizes on this circumstance as showing that these
..legends are all most probably derived from one primaeval
historical fact. The inference, the Bishop adds,
“would be justified, if the other chief details of the story were
found repeated in the legends; otherwise it might be just as
fairly argued that the primaeval fact involved also the
changing stones into men, which appears So prominent in
these South American legends as well as in that of the
Greeks.” 1
But, leaving the subject of the Flood and all that relates to
it, leaving also the lists of tribes and nations which give the
ancient notions of ethnology, we come to a point of greater
importance in the Hebrew language. The Pentateuch is
written throughout in pure Hebrew. When then was it
written ? and could it possibly have been written in this
dialect before, at, or soon after the time of the Exodus 2
What, in short, was the Hebrew language It was not allied
to the Egyptian, for Joseph's brethren when they stood
before the Supposed Egyptian ruler, address him through an
interpreter; but
“we find Abraham conversing freely with the Canaanite
King of Sodom, and with Melchizedek, the Jebusite King
of Salem.””
. So Rahab, in Jericho, is represented as talking freely with the
Hebrew spies, and the Hivites of Gibeon with Joshua. Could
...this language, then, have been the speech of men who had
been for many generations exiles in Egypt It certainly had
not been the language of Abraham when he came out from
Aram ; nor was it the language of Laban, who gives an
* Pentateuch, Part IV. p. 218. * /ö. p. 247. -
586 A./FE OF BASA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XI.
Aramaic name to the stone set up by himself and Jacob, while
Jacob gives to the same stone a Hebrew name of like signifi-
cation. But this shows that in Abraham's new home Hebrew
had become the mother tongue of his children and descendants,
that Jacob had retained it during his sojourn with Laban, and
used it again on his return to Canaan. But here difficulties.
come thick and fast. His wives, and all the servants, male
and female, which he brought with him, must all have been
Aramaeans, and therefore must have spoken the Syrian or
Aramaean tongue; and the young children, the eldest not
then above twelve, must have spoken Aramaic also. Thirty
years later they are settled in Goshen. In this short time,
then, they must have changed their language altogether, and
the Hebrew tongue must have taken upon them a hold so
marvellous that, going down into Egypt, and living there
under the circumstances described in the Book of Exodus,
they maintained this dialect for two centuries at least in
perfect purity; inasmuch as the books which are said to have
been written before, or soon after, this time, exhibit no inter-
mixture of any foreign element. Indeed, if we allow that the
Seventy souls who went down with Jacob into Egypt spoke
Hebrew, we can Scarcely suppose that they spoke pure
Hebrew. Yet the story of the Exodus, which is asserted to
be a contemporary narrative, is written in the purest Hebrew ;
and this purity has been maintained through a long period
of exile, in which they would be peculiarly exposed to the
influence of Egyptian speech, and afterwards through a long
period of servitude.
“It may, perhaps,” the Bishop remarks, “be alleged that the
language of the Pentateuch is sufficiently explained, if
Moses spoke and wrote Hebrew perfectly. Yet, how should
Moses—who for the first forty years of his life was brought
up in Pharaoh's house, in all the learning of the Egyptians
—who may of course have spoken Hebrew as well as Egyp-
1863. THE PENTA TEUCH: JTS COMPOSITIO/V. 587.
tian, but could only have learnt it from the speech of his
fellow-countrymen when they had already been living in
Egypt under the circumstances above described for 130.
years to the day of his birth—and who spent the next
forty years of his life in the deserts of Midian—have main-
tained all along the perfect Hebrew tongue, pure and
simple, without the slightest adulteration from any foreign
influences, neither vocabulary nor syntax being in the least
degree modified ?”"
That they should have maintained a speech learnt in
Canaan only during thirty (Pentateuch thirty-two) years,
“amidst the joys of their prosperous and the oppressions of
their miserable days in Egypt, without adopting a single
idiom or a single term, even the name of a common article
of food or dress, tool, implement, &c., from the Egyptians,”
must seem fairly incredible. But the special miracles invoked
by the defenders of the Noachian flood story may be
introduced here also. Nothing is said or hinted about any
Such miracle ; but, if it was wrought, for what end, the Bishop.
asks, was it wrought 2
“To maintain in its purity among the Hebrews the language,
not of the primitive home of the Hebrew race, but of the
idolatrous tribes of Canaan,” ” -
whom it is said they were solemnly commissioned to extirpate.
The Bishop notes this fact as a strong confirmation—many
no doubt will regard it as most cogent proof–of the con-
clusion that the Pentateuch was written
“not at a time when the tribes were just fresh from their long
Egyptian Sojourn, but at a much later period of their
national history, when the language of Canaan had become
after several generations the common tongue of the invading
Hebrew, as well as of the heathen tribes whom they deprived
* Pentateuch, Part IV. p. 261. * Ib. p. 262.
588 AAFAE OF AP/SAIOP COLAE/VSO. CHAP. XI.
of their possessions in Canaan, and whom they were un-
willing to acknowledge as brethren, although it is plain
the language of the Canaanites belongs to the same group
as that spoken by the collateral branch of the Hebrew
family in the ‘city of Nahor.’”
Philological facts, like most others, are stubborn things,
The evidence of artificial chronology is not less conclusive.
The Book of Genesis professes to give the life-time of the
so-called Patriarchs. According to the details thus furnished,
“Noah, Shem, Arphaxad, &c., in fact all of Abraham's
progenitors, were living during many years of Abraham's
life, and Shem, Saleh, and Eber outlived him. Shem,
Arphaxad, Saleh, Eber, Serug, Terah, were living at the
birth of Isaac ; and Shem and Eber lived, the one during
fifty, the other during nearly eighty, years of the life of
Jacob. Yet we do not find the slightest intimation that
Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob paid any kind of reverence or
attention to any of their ancestors, more especially to their
great ancestor Shem, who had gone through that wonderful
event of the Deluge (except indeed on the strange Sup-
position that Melchizedek was Shem), or that Abraham
ever paid a visit to Noah, who, however, is supposed by
some (without the slightest warrant from Scripture) to have
colonised the extreme East, China, &c., and so to have gone
Out of his reach.””
More than this, while the Patriarchs of the Deluge still
live, the kingdoms of Assyria and Egypt have risen to be
large, powerful, and populous. In fact, this chronology was
Set down (we can scarcely say that it was put together) simply
by way of magnifying the ancestors of the Hebrews. It
shows no method and no skill, and thus stands out in marked
contrast with the very skilfully framed chronology of the
early Roman kings.”
1 Pentateuch, Part IV. p. 282.
* Lewis, Credibility of Early Roman History, vol. i. p. 528.
1863. THE PENTATEUCH: JTS COMPOSITION. 589
On the supposition that we have in the Pentateuch a
really contemporaneous history, the treatment of these five
books in the later Hebrew literature becomes astonishing
indeed. The primaeval history of the Book of Genesis, on
which according to modern traditionalism the whole of the
so-called “scheme" of Christianity is made to depend, seems
to have passed clean away from the memory of the Hebrews.
Of the first man and of his fall, of the garden, of the forbidden
fruit, of the expulsion from Paradise, and of the Deluge, we
never hear again. -
“One single certain trace of the story of Adam's fall is,”
in Langkerke's words, “entirely wanting in the Hebrew
canon. Adam, Eve, the Serpent, the woman's seduction
of her husband, are all images, to which the remaining
words of the Israelites never again recur.”
“At all events,” the Bishop adds, “there is not the slightest
indication that in the teaching of the Hebrew prophets the
account of the Fall was quoted and dwelt upon. . . . And,
as to Noah, his name is never once mentioned, nor is any
reference made to the Deluge by any one of the psalmists
and prophets, except in the latter part of the Book of
Isaiah, and in Ezekiel, by writers undoubtedly living after
the Captivity.” "
It is not here only that we have this same phenomenon of
a general belief or dogma resting on no foundation. The
Pentateuch is supposed to have been the written Bible of the
Jews from the time of the invasion of Canaan, familiarly known
to the people, and beyond all things precious to their teachers
and rulers; and we have seen that the former were wholly
unacquainted with it, and that the discovery of the Book of
the Law filled Josiah with humiliation and shame. So we
have grown up with the idea that the poems to which we give
1 Pentateuch, Part IV. p. 286.
590 AZFE OF BISAIOP COLA2AVSO. CHAP. XI.
the name of Homer existed in their present form from pre-
historic ages, and that our Iliad and Odyssey were, in short,
the Bible of the Greeks. According to Colonel Mure, they
were the acknowledged standard or digest of early national
history, geography, and mythology. In the judgement of
Baron Bunsen they formed “the canon regulating the Hellenic
mental developement in all things spiritual, in faith and rea-
son, worship and religion, civil and domestic life, poetry, art,
science.” The claim advanced for. Homer here is the same
precisely with the claim urged for the Pentateuch; and for it
there is no more warrant in the one case than in the other.
Writers before the age of Perikles refer to a poet whom they
call Homer, but the poems of which they speak are not our
Iliad and Odyssey. Of these the Greek lyric and tragic poets
know nothing. The versions which they give of the ancient
mythical history are altogether different from those of the
poems to which we give the name “Homeric.” Only in the
rarest instances do the Greek dramatists take their subjects
from episodes included in our Iliad and Odyssey; and with
the pictures of personal character there given their own are
quite inconsistent. This fact could not escape the notice
even of Homeric traditionalists ; and to account for it they
have resorted to assumptions substantially identical with
those of the self-styled orthodox Biblical commentators. The
Greek Bible was too sacred a thing to be wantonly touched;
and the Greek lyric and tragic poets refused from a mere
feeling of reverence to draw their inspiration from the
“acknowledged standard or digest of early national history,
geography, and mythology.” This is a complete contradic-
tion and a not less complete delusion ; but the method followed
by those who seek to maintain it is as little creditable as that
of Dr. McCaul, or of Kurtz, or of Delitzch.
* I may refer the reader who wishes to see the evidence for these conclu-
sions to my Mythology of the Aryan Nations, Book I. chap. ix. ed. I878.
1863. 7 HE PENTA TEUCH: JTS COMPOSATION. 59 I
In neither case however is there any difficulty, if we will but
look facts steadily in the face. Thucydides quotes from
“Homer,” but he cites passages found in poems which are not
now commonly called Homeric. It could not be otherwise,
as our Iliad and Odyssey assumed their present form after his
time. So with the evidence before us on the composition of
the Pentateuch, it is
“impossible to believe that the devout prophets, priests, and
kings, and pious people all along, were thoroughly con-
versant with the written Law, were deep in the study of it,
and practising its precepts daily, were reminded annually of
its existence by the sacred ordinances, which the more
religious minds among them faithfully observed, and were
also summoned once in seven years to hear the whole Law
read at the feast of Tabernacles.”
But the fact of their ignorance is at once accounted for when
we remember that the story of the Fall was written not earlier
than the latter part of David's reign,
“and was known to them as only a narrative, written for the
edification of the people, by some distinguished man of that
age. Probably one or two copies may have been made of
it, or perhaps only one, which remained in the charge
of the priests, and may have been added to from time
to time.” +
But a great fascination leads some men to kick against the
pricks. The Pentateuch came in a late age to be regarded
as the work of Moses: therefore it was his work. Moses, so
Mr. Kingsley would have it, was
“far the most likely man to have written them of all of whom
we read in Scripture”; and “if Moses did not write the
Pentateuch, who did 2 ” ” .
* Pentateuch, Part IV. p. 291. * Zö. p. 294. See also above, p. 450.
592 J.A.P.E OF BASHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. XI.-
The authority which came to be ascribed to the so-called
Mosaic books has nothing to do with this question. The
book of Enoch was composed, according to Archbishop.
Laurence, in the latter half of the century immediately
preceding our own era. But this book, even in so late an
age, could
“acquire among the Jews in a very short time—within perhaps
fifty, or at most a hundred and eighty years—the reputa-
tion of a veritable authentic document, really emanating
from the antediluvian patriarch, and either written originally
by his own hand, or at least handed down by tradition from
those who lived before the Deluge.”
This is a matter really of vast importance for those who
adhere to the position taken by Bishop Gray and his Sup-
porters. The judge and his assessors, with the accusing
clergy at the so-called Capetown trial, all spoke in vehement
indignation against the reckless criticism—or, rather, profanity
—which dared to question the Mosaic authorship of the Pen-
tateuch, when this authorship was vouched for and guaranteed
by Christ Himself. To doubt this was to impute deliberate
falsehood to the eternal Son of God. The references to Moses
in the New Testament settled the question of the genuineness
and authenticity, as well as the canonicity, of the Pentateuch.
But the Epistle of St. Jude distinctly quotes a passage from
the book of Enoch as a prophecy of “Enoch the seventh from
Adam ”;" and St. Jude was, of course, in Bishop Gray's
belief an inspired Apostle. The book of Enoch is therefore
both genuine and authentic; and being thus apostolically
attested, it ought to be included in the Canon of Scripture.
Unfortunately it is not ; and Bishop Gray is therefore at
variance with those by whom the Canon was determined.
Pentateuch, Part IV, p. 31 I.
1863. Z}/E PEWTA TEUCH - ITS COMPOSITION. 593
This is the conclusion on the hypothesis that the Epistle of
St. Jude itself is genuine. Otherwise
“It would follow that a book (that ascribed to St. Jude)
received in the Church as canonical, could be regarded
also as apostolical, under a mistaken opinion as to its
authorship, and therefore that the fact of other books (as
the books of the Pentateuch) having been received as
canonical and ascribed to a certain author (as Moses)
is no guarantee of their having been really written by
him.”
It is scarcely necessary to say that the Second Epistle
bearing the name of St. Peter' must follow the fortunes of the
Epistle of St. Jude. Both the Epistles contain a considerable
amount of matter, of a most peculiar kind, which is verbatim,
or as nearly as may be verbatim, the same. But the influence
of the book of Enoch is not limited to these two Epistles.
“In the language attributed to our Lord Himself, in that of
St. Paul, especially in his early Epistles, . . . we can dis-
tinctly trace an intimate acquaintance with it and recognise
its forms of expression. But, above all, this is true of St.
John in the Revelation, where, it is plain, very much of
the imagery has been distinctly adopted from that of the
book of Enoch.”2
Nay (and this fact is of the greatest moment),
“almost all the language of the New Testament in which the
judgement of the last day is described,—the eschatology,
as it is called, of the New Testament, appears to have
been directly derived from the language of the book of
Enoch. The “everlasting chains’ in which the fallen
angels are “kept under darkness, the “everlasting fire pre-
pared for the devil and his angels,'—the “Son of man
sitting on the throne of His glory, choosing for the
1 See p. 288. * Pentateuch, Part IV. p. 323.
VOL. I. Q Q
594 AZFE OF AP/SAIOP COLAEAVSO. CHAP. XI.
righteous their ‘countless habitations,’ and destroying the
wicked with the word of His mouth, the “Book of Life’
opened before the Judge, earth, hell, and the grave “giving
up their dead,'—the joy of the righteous, the shame and
confusion of the wicked, who are led off by the angels to
punishment, the ‘new heaven’ and the ‘new earth,’ old
things having passed away,+the “furnace of fire' and the
lake of fire,'—all these appear in the book of Enoch ; and
the last, the “lake of fire, is manifestly a figure introduced
with distinct reference to the Dead Sea ; and accordingly,
in the same connexion, we find the angels which kept not
their first estate coupled with ‘Sodom and Gomorrha and
the cities about them.” Nay, those awful words spoken of
Judas, “It were good for that man if he had never been
born,' find their counterpart also in the language of this
book.” "
* Pentateuch, Part IV. p. 326.
CHAPTER XII.
THE PENTATEUCH : ITS GROWTH.
So far as the work of proving the composite and non-
historical character of the early Hebrew records is concerned,
the Bishop's task had been substantially brought to an end. But
other points remained which a truth-loving critic could not
allow himself to neglect. If several writers have had a hand
in shaping the Book of Genesis, the signs of the Deuteronomist
are also stamped on the Book of Joshua ; and therefore the
Deuteronomist must have lived after the days of Moses."
Words and expressions of a most marked and striking kind
occur in the Book of Joshua and in Deuteronomy, and no-
where else in the Pentateuch.” But these formulae occur only
in certain portions of the former book, and in the other parts
we have the peculiar phrases of the older writers of the
Pentateuch, which are never used by the Deuteronomist.” In
the original narrative of Joshua there is a good deal of matter
interpolated by the Deuteronomist, and some also by other
writers. It is impossible to reproduce here the tables in which
the Bishop has disentangled the conglomerate mass of the
Pentateuch. What has been said already can scarcely fail to
give a sufficient idea of the irresistible cumulative force of his
whole analysis and argument ; and it is therefore unnecessary,
* Pentateuch, Part V,p. 4. * 15, pp. 4, 5. * Ib. p. 6.
Q Q 2
596 I/FE OF BASHOP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
even if it were practicable, to go into the minuter details of
the investigation.
The results are very remarkable. More than a hundred
different formulae, each occurring on an average more than
ten times in Genesis, are found only in those portions of it
which remain after the removal of the Elohistic passages,
while with a curious accuracy these very formulae pass by all
the sections belonging to the Elohist ; and these in their turn
exhibit also their own peculiar phraseology, which we never
find repeated in the rest of Genesis. There is, further, a
wide moral difference between the several writers. With a
deep sense of sin and of its fatal consequences, the Elohist
speaks of a renewed blessing on the earth, and knows nothing
of any woe inflicted permanently on either man or woman.
The Jehovist multiplies curses and speaks of the sweat of
the brow, the very privilege and pledge of human health and
happiness, as a sign of man's guilt and shame.” We are not
surprised therefore, to find that those stories of impurity
which blot so many of the chapters of Genesis are all due to
the hand of the Jehovist. But from the Jehovist comes the
story of Joseph ; and the story of Joseph has been lauded by
Mr. Maurice as a fountain of the highest spiritual instruction,
while Joseph himself is for him all but the highest embodiment
of unselfish love. Yet it is hard to see this, the Bishop remarks,
in those parts of it which represent him as having lived for the
seven fruitful years in possession of all the power of Egypt,
yet never having sent during that time a single messenger into
Canaan to comfort his father's heart with the tidings of his
own existence, or to learn whether his father still lived, and
how he and his brother Benjamin fared.”
“It is just as difficult,” the Bishop adds, “to explain con-
sistently the fact that, when Joseph knew by his brothers'
1 Pentateuch, Part V. p. 33. * /ö. p. 39. * Ib. p. 41.
1865. THE PEWTATEUCH; 17:S GROWTH. 597
report that his father still lived, he, such a dutiful and loving
son, allowed his old father to remain for twelve months
longer in entire ignorance of his own fate, and made no
provision whatever to supply him or his family with food
during all that time amidst the straits of that terrible
famine, except by sending them, free of expense, as much
corn as the ten asses could carry. It is still more impos-
sible to believe that such a tender-hearted son and brother
could have left it to the mere chance of his brothers' coming
again in the following year, whether he should ever hear of
his brother Benjamin again, or, when they did come again,
could have made the attempt, by lying himself and teaching
his steward to lie, to steal Benjamin from his father, as he
himself had been stolen, and to send his brothers back to
Canaan to carry to the aged Patriarch the heart-breaking
tidings that his darling son was seized by the Governor of
Egypt and condemned to be treated as a slave for theft.”
What the Bishop says is, indeed, all true; but we can
scarcely blame the Jehovistic writer for not having perceived
it, when the eyes of critics thousands of years later are closed
to the real character of the tale. When he came to the story
of Joseph, he came within the charmed region of mythical
narrative. He found here certain materials ready to hand,
which the laws of mythical history would not suffer him to set
aside. The youngest and the darling son, the child of the wife
who was the heart's love of his father, Joseph is, like David in
his youth, unheeded, despised, or hated, by the crowd of his
elder brethren ; but, like David, he is the man born to be
prince or king. His coat of many colours, his visions of future
greatness, his temptations, the seducements of the maiden to
whom tradition gave the name Zuleika, the selling into slavery,
the false tidings of his death, his wisdom and sagacity, his
exaltation,-are all features which appear in a hundred popular
tales of all lands, of which the most familiar type is the youth
1 Pentateuch, Part V. p. 42.
598 JLIFE OF BISHOP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
who sits among the ashes, destined in the issue to dazzle all
men with his wisdom, his benignity, and his splendour. Seem-
ingly weak and often despised, he has keener wit and more
resolute will than all who are opposed to him. Slander and
obloquy are to him as nothing, for he knows that in the end
his truth shall be made clear in the sight of all men. His
brethren's sheaves shall be made to bow down before his own ;
the sun, moon, and the eleven stars shall be brought to do him
honour. This could not be, if he should be made known to
his kindred before the great manifestation. He is the revealer
of secrets; but his main function is to provide food from the
earth, to nourish, and to sustain. This is his mission from
his birth. He is Joseph, the “multiplier,” and his life-work is
to give fertility to a dry and thirsty land. This is the
character assigned to him from the first in the blessing of the
heaven above, the blessing of the flood that lies below, the
blessing of the breasts and of the womb."
In the Joseph story there is, then, the difficulty arising from
the laws of mythical narrative, to which the tale-teller finds
himself compelled to adhere; but in most of the other narra-
tives in the Book of Genesis there is the further difficulty
which arises from two or more sets of interpolations by later
writers.
“We often hear, for instance,” the Bishop says, “the character
of Abraham set forth as a model of excellence for the
imitation of all ages. But what Abraham P. Which of the
Abrahams whose doings are mixed up in such utter con-
fusion by the different writers concerned in the composition
of the story in Genesis 2 How perplexing it is to find in
the account of the father of the faithful the record of conduct
so mean and unworthy as that narrated in xii. I I-20, and
then to find, after an interval of twenty years, the very same
base act repeated by him. . . . But all this confusion and
* Goldziher, Mythology of the Hebrews, p. 166.
1865. THE PEAV7'A TEUCH - Z7'S GRO WTA. 599
contradiction is explained, when we consider that the story
of Abraham, as we now read it in the Bible, is not a simple
story by one single writer, but the composite work of two
or three, or it may be . . . . of even four or five minds,
writing each from his own point of view in very different
ages. The original Elohistic story, in its grand simplicity,
represents the Patriarch . . . . without any flaw. He
migrates of his own accord, . . . . carrying out merely the
purpose of his father; . . . . he dwells in the land of Canaan,
and there appears as the highly honoured servant of Elohim;
. . . he receives the promised son, and circumcises him.
His wife dies, and, with inimitable courtesy, he makes the
purchase from the sons of Heth of the burying-place in the
field of Machpelah; and then he dies and is buried by his
two sons. . . . And this is all the genuine original story of
Abraham. This is the real Abraham of the Bible, the
Abraham of the Elohist. . . . Abraham receives no promise
for his seed of all the land. But then, on the other hand,
his character is not lowered by having ascribed to him the
miserable subterfuge in the case of Pharaoh, or the still
more reprehensible repetition of this fault in the case of
Abimelech. All the additions which are made by the
writers to the original story are mere refractions and dis-
tortions of the character of Abraham as viewed through
their own atmospheres.”
But although there is abundant and irresistible evidence of
the fact that the Book of Genesis is a composite structure, there
is none for the notion that the several authors whose hands may
be traced in it were independent original writers. The matter
which they added was in each case merely supplementary to
the Elohistic story.” But when was this Elohistic story put
together ? Certainly not by a writer older than Moses, for the
first chapter of Genesis is beyond doubt the work of the same
writer who records the revelation of the name Jehovah to
* Pentateuch, Part V. p. 44. * Z. p. 67.
6oo IIFE OF BISHOP COLENSO. CHAP. XII.
Moses in the sixth chapter of Exodus. If the latter narrative
had been written by Moses himself,
“it is impossible,” the Bishop remarks, “to believe that any
other writers would have dared to obscure that fact, much
less to contradict it by inserting narratives in which the
name is put into the mouths of all the chief persons in the
history, from Eve downwards, and by observing”
that men began to call on the name of Jehovah in the days of
Seth. It follows that, if the Elohist was not (as he cannot
have been) Moses himself, he must have lived later than
Moses. Still the style of the narrative shows the simplicity
of the age in which he lived. He nowhere speaks of houses,
or of a priesthood, of a tabernacle or temple, or of regular
sacrifices. He mentions the precious metals only once, when
Abraham weighs out the silver for the Hittite Ephron.” In
his day Ephraim was the dominant tribe, and its power was
steadily growing. We are brought thus very nearly within
the limits of Samuel's life-time ; and to him certainly tradition
points as having concerned himself in writing history.” At
the same time these very facts seem to show conclusively that
it could not have been written in an age later than that of
Samuel. In the writer's time the Hebrews had no weapons,
no blacksmiths, no art. In David's reign we find ourselves in
a state of comparative wealth and splendour. But the tribes
are still all united. There is no enmity between Joseph and
his brethren. If the history could not have been written in
the days of David or Solomon, it must have been written in
those of Saul—that is, in the age of Samuel.” For the fact
that Samuel himself was the Elohist there is thus the strongest
likelihood ; but the rejection of this surmise in no way affects
the conclusions reached by the investigations of the Bishop.
1 Pentateuch, Part V. p 70. * Ib. p. 73.
3 Ib. p. 76. * Ib. p. 77.
1865. 7 HE PENTA TEUCH - ITS GROWTH. 6or
The Elohist may have lived in Samuel's age, and yet have
left no name behind him. It is possible, but it is by no means
likely. Nor are these the only signs which point to this
time. There is in his day no enmity between Esau and
Jacob—that is, of course, between Edom and Israel. In
Genesis xxxvi. the Elohist
“enters into a long account of the progeny of Esau, and the
different clans which sprang from him ; and . . . . exhibits an
amount of interest in their affairs only second to that which
he felt in respect of those of his own people. And it seems
impossible to suppose that such labour would have been
expended on the annals of these tribes . . . . at any period
after the time of David, when the feeling between the
Edomites and Israelites must have been very bitter.”
But further, in Genesis xxxvi. 31, the Elohist speaks of
kings who reigned in Israel. This implies that when he
wrote a king zwas reigning in Israel, and also that he was
reigning over all Israel, and we are thus again restricted to
the days of Saul, David, or Solomon, and the reasons which
debar us from assigning him to the reign of Solomon or the
later days of David have been already noticed. There are
other subsidiary arguments, most of them very strong. One,
especially, not merely points to the same time, but absolutely
demonstrates that the Book of Deuteronomy was unknown
to him. His narrative speaks of the change to monarchical
government as a great sin on the part of the people. The
language of the Deuteronomist is entirely different, and it
was part of the special blessing upon Abraham and Jacob
that kings should be born to them." º
With equal power and exactness the Bishop brings together
the evidence indicating the age of the Jehovist. He is later
than the Elohist, for he speaks of houses, and he gives to the
ark a window, roof, door, and three stories;” and the style of
* Pentateuch, Part V. p. 9o ; see also above, p. 560. * Ib. p. 96.
.6O2 M.IFE OF BISAIOP CO/CEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
these details, as compared with the directions given for making
the tabernacle, leaves little room for doubting that both sets
of directions have been recorded by the same author. The
great length at which he gives the story of Joseph, and the
generosity which he evidently means to ascribe to him,
seem to show that he must have been a man of the tribe of
Ephraim ; and in the latter part of David's, or the earlier part
of Solomon's, reign, an Ephraimite might easily be strongly
attached to the house of David.' Over the Bishop's analysis
of Jacob's blessings, which are full of indications of time, all
pointing in one direction, we must pass rapidly. The bless-
ing on Judah seems to have been written with reference to
David's time, and at a period when he was still exposed to
danger from within and without.” That on Simeon and Levi
looks much more like a curse than a blessing. Both are to
be separated and scattered ; and as a tribe the Simeonites
gradually dwindled away, until in the time of David they can
scarcely be said to have had any geographical existence.” The
sentence on Levi from Jacob's lips is as different from the
blessing by Moses as it can possibly be ; * but the latter comes
from the Deuteronomist, and was therefore written at a time
when the house of Levi was really held in high esteem and
honour, and was composed, perhaps, by one who was himself
a Levite and a priest. It is true indeed that there is one
passage in the First Book of Samuel, vi. I5,
“which seems at first sight to be a plain recognition of the
official position of the Levites according to the Mosaic Law.
But it will be seen that the Levites appear here
upon the scene very strangely and suddenly. Not a word is
said to introduce them, nor are they named in the history
for some centuries before, or for a century after this event.
Only in this one single verse they appear at the critical
* Pentateuch, Part V. p. 112. * Ib. p. 123.
* See above, pp. 224, 564. * Pentateuch, Part V. p. 145.
1865. TA/AE PEAVTA TEUCH - ZZTS GROWTH. 603
moment to take down the ark, which it was unlawful
(according to the law in Numbers i. 51) for any mere lay-
man to do. But it was just as unlawful for common Levites
to touch the ark.”
If it be said that these Levites were also priests, how
did they, if they knew the Law, dare to offer sacrifice in an
unconsecrated place 2 If it be said that the presence of the
ark made this exceptional act allowable, then how did they
dare to offer milch kine as a burnt-offering, when the Law
(Leviticus i. 3) declared that it must be a male without blemish P
The whole account is thus seen to be full of difficulties. In
looking down to the connexion of the verse with the context
we shall find that
“it is a later interpolation into the original story.”
In the preceding verse the men of Bethshemesh cleave the
wood of the cart, and offer the kine a burnt-offering to
Jehovah.
“And then after this, after the cart had been broken up and
burnt, we are told that the Levites took down the ark from
the cart, and placed it on the great stone on which apparently
the kine had just been offered, and it is added, the men of
Bethshemesh offered burnt-offerings and sacrificed sacrifices
the same day unto Jehovah, when we have just been told
that they had ‘offered the kine.” In short, the verse about
the Levites quite obstructs the flow of the narrative, and has
plainly been inserted by a later hand, in order to avoid the
appearance of a sacrilegious act in the original story.” "
But what bearing has the name of Jehovah on the date of
the several books of the Pentateuch On the one side we
have a writer in Genesis who uses for “God” only the name
Elohim, and who on reaching the sixth chapter of Exodus
1 Pentateuch, Part V. p. 155.
6O4 - AZAZE OF BISAIOP COLAEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
gives an account of the way in which a new name, Jehovah,
was revealed for the first time to Moses. On the other hand
we have the Jehovist not merely using the name from the
first, but using it as a name known to Canaanites and Philis-
tines, as well as to the Hebrews. It follows that there are at
least two writers concerned in the composition of the Book
of Genesis, and, further, that the Jehovistic writer did not
believe the incidents of the manifestation at the burning
bush related by the Elohist. But what was the motive of the
latter in framing this narration ?, Can it have been anything
but his knowledge that the name was comparatively new to
the Hebrews, and that they did not really know it before the
Exodus; that, although known at the time when he wrote, it
was still not in very general use ; and that he wished to com-
mend it to the people by means of this story This much is
admitted by those modern critics who have given most atten-
tion to this special subject. Among these the foremost are
Hartmann, Von Bohlen, and Von der Aa. Ewald holds that
in times anterior to the Exodus it was used only in the family
of the ancestors of Moses on the mother's side. The quali-
fication is ludicrously improbable, but it is an admission of
the unhistorical character of the story of the incidents at the
burning bush. He admits, further, that although Moses,
“according to a beautiful legend,”
changed the name of Hoshea into Joshua,
“in order to retain more firmly the remembrance of the new
religion, it still remained for some centuries not very much
used "
in the common speech of Israel. The fact, as the Bishop
insists, is incredible if Moses had really urged Solemnly
upon his people the adoption of this name, if he had used
it habitually in his legislation, and encouraged or required
1865. THE PENTATE UCH: ITS GROWTH. 605
its use by others." If Ewald be right, it follows that the
name was introduced in some age later than that of Moses;
and we have seen to what age all the evidence seems to
point. As to the name itself, Ewald admits that “it has
no clear radical signification in Hebrew,” and there is some-
thing like a complete consensus of critics that the Israelites
after their settlement in Canaan adopted the Phoenician name,
just as they also spoke, however they may have acquired
it, the language of the Canaanitish tribes. Whatever be its
origin, it was the most sacred and mysterious name of the
Phoenician sun-god ; and it is useless to shut our eyes to the
fact that the Israelites actually worshipped the Phoenician
Baal under this designation. Otherwise,
“what is the meaning of Jephthah's offering his daughter as
a burnt sacrifice unto JHVH 2 or how can we explain
otherwise the fact that they worshipped JHVH with idola-
trous rites and impure practices, not only in the high places
of Judah and Israel, but even in the very Temple at
Jerusalem P’’
The marvellous confusion in their religious history, as given
in the Books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings, is really due, in
the Bishop's judgement, to this cause:
“that while a few of higher mind among them had clear views
of the service which the Living God required, and
worshipped Jehovah in spirit and in truth, yet to the eye
of the multitude the name JHVH represented only the
chief deity of the tribes of Canaan, the “god of the land,’
and so they defiled their worship with all manner of
impurities.””
It is indisputable that even during the first eighteen years
of the reign of Josiah there were in the Temple itself at
Jerusalem vessels made for the sun and moon (Baal and
* Pentateuch, Part V. p. 275. * Ib. p. 284.
6O6 AAFE OF PISA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
Ashera) and for the host of heaven. There was also here a
grove (in other words a Phallos or Linga), for which the
women wove hangings; and in the worship of these symbols,
the priests, as a body, took part—nay, rather, we must say
that they maintained it. These abominations, on the dis-
covery of the Book of the Law, Josiah manfully set himself to
suppress. He hewed down the pole, or tree, or stauros, which
served as the sign of the fructifying power in Nature; broke
to pieces the altar, or foundation of stone, answering to the
Hindoo Yoni, on which the Ashera rested ; and at Samaria,
and elsewhere (though not at Jerusalem), he slew the idola-
trous priests, after a fashion which must have been a terrible
recompense for the human sacrifices offered up by those
priests themselves. Josiah's reform, short-lived though it was,
was trenchant, and it was short-lived because it was a very
shambles of butchery which he sought to cleanse. The worship
of the Phoenician sun-god demanded hecatombs of human
burnt-offerings, and the Israelites were not to be outdone in
the zeal with which they fed his altars with human blood.
That the passing through of children is, in every case where it
is spoken of, to be interpreted of their slaughter, the words of
the prophets leave not a shadow of doubt. With an earnest-
ness amounting to agony, Jeremiah speaks of the children of
Judah as building the high places of Tophet to burn their
sons and daughters in the fire (vii. 30, 31); as filling the Temple
courts with the blood of innocents; as raising high places to
Baal, “to burn their sons with fire, for burnt-offerings unto
Baal, which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it
into my mind” (xix. 4, 5). This was in the days of Josiah.
Unless we refuse all credit to the words of Ezekiel, things
were not much improved during the Captivity." The prophet
charges them with sacrificing their sons and their daughters
to be devoured (xvi. 20, 21); with slaying their children to
* Pentateuch, Part V. p. 289.
1865. THE PENTATEUCH - ITS GROWTH. 607.
their idols, and then coming red-handed to the sanctuary of
God (xxiii. 37, 39). We should know therefore what is meant
when we read that Ahaz and Manasseh made their sons.
to pass through the fire, even if Josephus had not told us
plainly that they made holocausts of them. We turn with
loathing from the pictures given of the fiendish brutality of
Mexican worship ; but we have scanty grounds indeed for
thinking that the religion of the Israelites as a nation, even in
the time of Josiah, was much less cruel and bloodthirsty.
What, moreover, are we to say when amongst the Levitical
laws in the Pentateuch we find statutes which imperatively.
insist on the slaughter of human victims? On the traditional
theories they are emphatically a scandal as great as any
which Jeroboam the son of Nebat set up in Bethel or Dan ;
but that the statutes are there is certain. The devoted
things, it is said, shall not be sold, and shall not be redeemed.
“Every Kherim, which shall be devoted out of man, shall not
be redeemed ; it shall surely be put to death " (Leviticus.
xxvii. 28, 29).
The Bishop's analysis has shown conclusively that the so-
called Mosaic legislation consists of enactments framed in
different ages and lands, many, if not most, of them having
never had any existence except on paper. These particular
enactments are perhaps among the oldest, and they were
carried out with ruthless exactitude, although prophet after
prophet pleaded that God had never issued any such com-
mands, and that it had never entered into His heart to do.
so. But these very expressions prove incontestably that the
people must have alleged some authority for the practice,
emanating as they declared from Jehovah Himself; and in
these Levitical statutes they had this authority. That the
practice should have gone on with lavish ferocity even after
the men of Judah found themselves captives on the flats of
608 A.IFE OF BASHOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
Babylon is melancholy and conclusive proof indeed that the
teaching of the Book of Deuteronomy had not been left as an
inheritance for the people nigh a thousand years earlier. In
short, we have really no adequate warrant for supposing that
the subjects of Solomon or Josiah were much, if at all, better
in this respect than those of Jeroboam or Ahab. The Bishop
cautions us against forgetting that
“we have no account of the doings of the people of Israel
from their own point of view, but only one written from the
point of view which would be taken by a man of Judah,
betraying often political as well as religious animosity.” "
The fact that Josiah himself, while he mercilessly slew the
idolatrous priests of Samaria, merely inhibited those of Jeru-
salem from performing sacred offices, can be explained
probably only on the supposition that he wished to be rid
of the priesthood as well as of the high places in Israel, so
as to concentrate the religious regards of the people more
thoroughly upon the Temple at Jerusalem. But while the
true state of religion amongst the children of Abraham is
thus brought before us, how startling a light is thrown on the
laws and discourses of the Book of Deuteronomy The
injunctions to throw down the altars, to burn the Ashera, to
defile the high places, instead of being commands issued to
an obedient people many centuries before, are seen to be
passionate pleadings for a reformation most urgently needed
still. The abominations denounced were not those of long
past ages, but impurities and iniquities which made the hearts
of all good and true men sink within them, even in the
Babylonish exile. With the bloodthirsty worship and foul
orgies of the people, the language of the prophets (i.e. of the
insignificantly small minority which lifted up its voice against
all these abominations) presents, in the Bishop's words,
* Pentateuch, Part V. p. 297.
1865. " THE PENTA TEUCH - ZZTS GRO W7A. 609
“a most wonderful and amazing contrast, and by that very
contrast, more forcibly than any blind dogma of Scriptural
infallibility could, they spoke God's word to man, and
taught Divine truth as they were ‘moved by the Holy
Ghost.’” + -
The efforts of the Elohist to raise his countrymen by
attaching higher thoughts of God to the name Jehovah was
a distinct step onwards in the education of the world; and
in the sincerity and purity of this effort there were very few
who came up to him.
“The Jehovist in the next age appears to have had less grand
and becoming views of the Divine Being, using frequently
very strong anthropomorphisms, and ascribing continually
to Jehovah human actions. Still later writers of the Penta-
, teuch appear to have made the worship of Jehovah to consist
chiefly in the punctilious performance of outward forms
and ceremonies, lustrations, and sacrifices, and the due
payment of tithes and firstlings. At last the Deuteronomist
breathed a new life into the dead letter of the Law, and
wrote the words of the second covenant, ‘the covenant in
the land of Moab,” which were to the records of the Penta-
teuch, as then existing, what the writings of the New
Testament are to those of the Old.”
The Pentateuch thus became the record of a nation's thought
and life through many centuries. No portion of it, perhaps,
was brought into its present shape before the time of Saul
and Samuel, and its latest parts were not put together before
the age of Manasseh or Josiah. To have proved these facts
is, of itself, to have done a great work; and the Bishop might
well have been contented with the thought that he had dis-
entangled the twisted chain of narratives interlaced one within
the other by the additions and insertions of successive writers.
But he has done much more. He has brought together the
* Pentateuch, Part V. p. 3oo.
VOL. I. R R
6Io I./FE OF BISA/OP CO/CEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
immense mass of evidence which points personally to Samuel
as the author of the Elohistic narrative. He has shown
between the thoughts and words of the Deuteronomist and
those of the prophet Jeremiah a closeness of agreement which
could not be exceeded if the Deuteronomist and the prophet
were one and the same person. The task taken in hand is
thus practically achieved. The Pentateuch is in no part the
work of Moses, and in no part is the narrative thoroughly
historical. It becomes therefore rather a matter of curious
inquiry than of necessary investigation to carry the analysis
further with the view of ascertaining whether there may, or
may not, have been more than two writers occupied with the
reduction of the Pentateuch to its present form. The Bishop
has carried on the analysis, with the result of finding, as we
have in part seen already, that, besides the Elohist and the
Deuteronomist, there was a Jehovistic writer distinct from both,
who is probably the same person as the second Elohist, and a
second Jehovist who made certain additions to the book of
the first. The Bishop shows the result in the following tabular
form :—
Contemporary
B. C. Prophet.
Elohist . . . . . . . . . . I IOO—IO60 . . . Samuel.
Second *} tº e º º a tº Ioéo—IoIO . . . Nathan.
Jehovist . . .
Second Jehovist . . . . . . IO35 . . . Gad.
Deuteronomist . . . . . . . 641–624 . . . Jeremiah.”
A discussion has been raised as to the date of the second
Jehovist, some critics contending that he belongs to a time
long subsequent to the Captivity. With the perfect candour
which characterises all his work, the Bishop, in the concluding
chapter of his Fifth Part, gives the whole of the argument and
evidence adduced for this conclusion. He returns to the
question again in the twenty-sixth chapter of his Sixth Part,
* Pentateuch, Part V. p. 181.
1865. THE PENTA TEUCH - ITS GROWTH. 6II
premising only that, as regards the great main question of his
work, viz. the non-Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, and the
unhistorical character of its narrative,
“it would be of no consequence whatever should a more
searching criticism decisively demonstrate the later origin
of some portion at least—if not of all—of the Jehovistic
passages in Genesis, or show that their composition
extended over two or three centuries.” "
A more searching and patient examination than that which
the Bishop devotes to this theory could not well be imagined.
His conclusion, resting on evidence which seems to leave no
room for doubt, is, that
“the Jehovistic passages, which form the main substance of
the original story of the Exodus,”
were written between IO6O and IO2O B.C.,” and that the
Elohistic passages are the oldest portion of the Pentateuch,
and the foundation, in fact, of the whole story.”
But he in no way bound himself to the assertion that these
contemporary prophets were actually the writers of the corre-
sponding sections of Genesis, although it is certain that some
such men must have written them.
If, however, the Pentateuch can no longer be regarded as a
contemporary historical narrative, its historical value is greatly
increased from other points of view. Bishop Browne had
charged Dr. Colenso not merely with denying the sojourn in
Misraim, the Exodus, and the conquest of Canaan, but also
with hostility to the Pentateuch itself. To these assertions
the Bishop gave “a direct and emphatic contradiction.”* He
had not denied any one of the points specified by Bishop
Browne. He had distinctly and repeatedly asserted them.
1 Pentateuch, Part VI. p. 539 * Ib. p. 574.
* Zb. p. 588. 4 Part V. p. 307.
R R 2
612 JLIFE OF BISHOP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
The charge of hostility to the Pentateuch resolved itself into
a charge of hostility to Bishop Browne's particular view of the
Pentateuch."
To this view he was indeed opposed utterly, as to a
view which distorted everything, and did full justice to
nothing, which made it impossible to avoid shiftiness of
interpretation, if not downright evasion and falsehood. The
amount of historical or other instruction to be derived from
the Pentateuch by Bishop Browne's method is poor indeed,
as compared with that which may be drawn from it by an
application of the true critical method.
“The beggarly condition of the Levites in the early days of
David as revealed in Genesis xlix. ; . . . . their increased in-
fluence in Josiah's time, as implied in the Book of Deutero-
nomy; the minute specifications for the building of the
Tabernacle, which read almost as if they were taken from
the working drawings of the Temple itself, by some one
who was personally concerned in the execution ; the in-
junction which commands human sacrifices (Leviticus xxvii.),
and the narrative in Genesis xxii., which, while not con-
demning—rather approving—yet seems intended to dis-
courage them,-all these, and a multitude of other similar
notices, require only to be freed from the restraints of
conventional, traditionary interpretations, and they will at
once become instinct with life and meaning. In short, the
whole Pentateuch, to the critical eye, is pregnant with
history; and the driest details of the Levitical law may
yield somewhat of interest and importance, or illustrate the
course of religious development in Israel.
“Thus I reverence with all my heart the Pentateuch as con-
taining some of the most ancient . . . writings in the world,
. . . though it contains also some of much later date ; as
conveying to us, directly, or by reasonable inference, a know-
ledge of some of the earliest facts in human history; . . .
above all, as recording, apparently, the first movements of
* Pentateuch, Part V. p. 308. See also above, pp. 415 et seg.
1865. THE PEAV7'A TE O/CH - ITS GROWTH. 613
a higher Divine life in the hearts of men of the Israelitish
race, from which our own religious life has been to a great
extent derived ; the kindling of that spiritual flame, which in
Israel's worst days was never suffered to be quite extin-
guished, but, fed from time to time with fresh supplies from
the Eternal Source, blazed out at length upon the nations,
bright and clear, in the full glory of the teaching of
Christ.” 1
The Bishop had, in short, achieved a work which entitles
him to the gratitude of his countrymen for all time. He had
brought light where traditionalists could only spread mist and
darkness. By them he was naturally opposed. The extreme
zealots of the party insisted that
“we must either receive the Verbal Inspiration of the Old
Testament, or deny the veracity, the honesty, the integrity
of our Lord Jesus Christ as the Teacher of Divine Truth.””
The more moderate could urge, as Bishop Browne urged,
that
“without overlooking the difficulties which modern science
has raised, we still may say that far more formidable prob-
lems occur in life and in religion than the apparent
inconsistency of the first chapter of Genesis with the now
generally acknowledged antiquity of the universe.”
The statement is not true, and it is unfortunate that most
of the assertions of such critics have to be met by a flat denial.
To these words the Bishop of Natal replies by saying
“that there is no analogy whatever between the things com-
pared, on the one hand, moral and religious difficulties
which perplex us in life; on the other hand, statements in
the Bible, which are flatly contradicted by scientific facts,
1 Pentateuch, Part V. F. 3IC.
* Canon M'Neile, cited in Part V. p. 314. See also The Great
ZDilemma, above, p. 303. -
614 AZFE OF BISAIOP COLAEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
and which yet are believed to be Divinely and infallibly
true.” I
Bishop Browne, however, had no scruple in arguing as
follows:—
“You know that your religion is of God; and, if so, most
probably some of it may not be quite clear to man. . . . If
the very subject makes it likely that there will be difficulties,
the mode of delivery, the way in which it all comes down
to us, make it also likely that there will occur parts
and passages which may be puzzling, and in which the
puzzles may be even inexplicable.” -
The puzzles of which Bishop Browne is speaking refer to
such difficulties as are met with in the stories of the
Patriarchs; in the process which in some four or five genera-
tions expands a troop of seventy persons into a nation of
three or four millions; in the mystery attaching to the main-
tenance of this nation, with its millions of cattle, for forty
years in a waterless desert. But it must be repeated again
and again, and too great stress cannot be laid on the fact, that
these, and any other like, things have nothing whatever to do
with “our religion,” ” and do not in the remotest degree affect
it. The remark is, therefore, altogether irrelevant; but this
is not all. The Bishop of Natal rightly adds:–
“The parts and passages of the Bible with which we have
here to do are not “puzzling’ at all, except on the fallacious
theory of their infallible accuracy. Once allow that in all
matters of this kind the Bible must give account of itself—
of its contents, its age, its origin—just like any other book,
and the mind will no more be harassed . . . . with these
innumerable and inexplicable “puzzles.' But what a fearful
responsibility do those take upon themselves who, in an age
like this of earnest inquiry and progress, not only do nothing
* Pentateuch, Part V. p. 314. * See p. 310.
1865. | THE PENTATEUCH - ITS GROWTH. 615
themselves to remove these dangerous fallacies, but by half-
uttered insinuations encourage—if they do not actually by
plain outspoken words lead on—the unreasoning multitude
to deride the honest endeavours to reconcile religious truth
with the certain results of Science, as the work of ‘minute
and clever criticism,’ near akin to the folly of atheism.””
We shall have to notice more fully, later on, the critical
method of Bishop Harold Browne, and more particularly the
spirit in which he deals with the subject. For the present we
need only cite the words quoted from him by Bishop Colenso.
“Who would think of reading Nature only through a micro-
scope 2 The eye that was so cramped would be quick to
find flaws in the emerald and dust on the wings of a butter-
fly; but it could not look out on all the fair proportions of
the universe, nor see the harmony of God's creatures round
it. The lens of microscopic criticism is useful in its place
of duty; but blinding, rather than enlightening, when it is
the chief avenue by which light can find its way to
the eye.” º gº
So far as these words have any meaning (and some of the
clauses look very much like nonsense), this statement also is
utterly untrue. It is the naked eye only, surveying a multi-
tude of objects at will, which discerns, or may be tempted to
fancy that it discerns, blots and flaws. The microscope,
directed to some single object,
“will detect no flaws in the perfect works of God, and may
therefore be applied to them without fear. It does not find
dust on the butterfly's wings, but finds the apparent dust
to be beautiful feathers; whereas in man's workmanship it
does detect roughness and defect, and other signs of human
imperfection. Nor will it detect flaws or imperfections in
the infallible, eternal Word of God. Rather, the ‘lens of
1 Pentateuch, Part V. p. 315.
616 LIFE OF BISHOP COLENSO. CHAP. XII.
microscopic criticism” has never been applied to reach into
the moral and spiritual truth contained in the Bible, how
absurd, or else how misleading, to reason as if it could be —
but merely to examine the human element, the earthly
framework, of the Scriptures; and in being used to prove
its imperfections, it may be the means of delivering us from
an idolatrous worship of the mere letter of the Bible, others
(and how many in this day !) from rejecting altogether the
Divine teaching of God's Word in the Bible, on account of
its supposed identity with what is manifestly false.” +
But the upholders of traditionalism seem to be driven by
an irresistible necessity to settle a controversy as to past facts,
or to free themselves from the duty of foresight, by sheltering
themselves under the authority of our Lord Himself. On this
subject, as the Bishop of Natal notices, the Bishop of Ely
made large admissions.
“If Our Lord was perfect man, . . . His human mind could
have possessed only a certain amount of knowledge : the
absence of knowledge is ignorance, . . . and, therefore,
Our Lord as man must have been partially ignorant.”
But the Bishop of Natal had said that our Lord “may
have shared in the mistakes of the age in which He lived, as
regards the authorship of the Pentateuch "; and this statement
provoked a vehement protest from Bishop Browne.
“Ignorance,” he urged, “does not of necessity involve error.
. And there is not one word in the Bible which would
lead us to suppose that our blessed Lord was liable to
error, in any sense of the word, or in any department of
knowledge.”
Bishop Browne speaks as though the term “error” might
have a hundred meanings. He was bound in such a case
as this to give an accurate definition of the meaning which
he attached to the word. That ignorance involves liability
* Pentateuch, Part V. p. 316.
1865. 7THE AAEAVTA 7TEUCH*: ZTS, GAO WZZTAZ. 617
to mistakes in any matters as to which a person is ignorant
there is no sort of doubt ; and if Bishop Browne means
that our Lord's ignorance did not extend to any matters on
which He might be suddenly called to give an opinion, or
that He could reach full knowledge on any subject without
paying to it the amount of attention which the subject
needed, or without means of information or the power of
getting it, then assuredly he is asserting that Our Lord was
not perfect man. If then He had been questioned as to the
authorship of the Pentateuch, He could not have given an
answer without studying the Subject, and for this there was
no opportunity. But He was not questioned on the subject;
and if, on the hypothesis of this fact, He had spoken of the
Pentateuch as non-Mosaic, or of the Book of Deuteronomy as
the work of Jeremiah, His words would have been utterly
unintelligible to His hearers, and He would have been
frustrating hopelessly at the outset the very object of His
mission." But Bishop Browne insists that our Lord was
subject to all human infirmities, “weakness, weariness, Sorrow,
fear, suffering, temptation, ignorance,” while from this list he
excludes error and mistake. But what are error and mistake
but the merest human infirmities 2 Is there in them any
deliberate choice of evil?
“Is there sin,” the Bishop of Natal asks, “in a mistake
When a savage mistakes a string of beads for articles of
value, or a civilised Englishman mistakes mere paste for
diamond, is there any sin in this 2°
To say that a man has “made a mistake” is to acquit him
of all moral blame; but, although Bishop Browne does not
say it in so many words, he evidently thinks that any mis-
take with regard to the authorship or date of the Pentateuch
must be morally culpable.
* See, further, p. 307, note.
618 JZFE OF PASHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
“Christ was . . . sent for so high a purpose that we
cannot believe Him to have been in error as to that which
concerned the truth and the ground-work of the religion
which was before them.”
Neither the one nor the other was concerned in any questions.
relating to the composition of the Books of Deuteronomy or
Joshua. In thinking that it is so concerned, Bishop Browne
is, in the strictest sense of the term, in error. He is wandering
away from a right path into regions of fog and mist, where he
must become more and more liable to make mistakes as to the
meaning and nature of religion. Rather, in the Bishop of
Natal’s words,
“that intense longing, which pervades so many earnest hearts
in this our day, in all countries and in all classes, to find
a way for ourselves and others out of the narrow dogmatic
systems in which in our different Churches we have all
been more or less trained, into that Christianity of which
Dean Milman speaks, ‘comprehensive, all-embracing, catholic,
which knows what is essential to religion, what is temporary
and extraneous to it,' . . . is to my own mind a certain
proof that the Divine Educator Himself is here, and the
Spirit of God moving even now upon the face of the
waters.” 1
Of his fifth volume, which has now been passed briefly in
review, the Bishop might well speak in his preface as the
most important part of his work. It dealt to the traditional
theories a blow which will be found to be irretrievable; but to
these irresistible arguments he added a task of immense
labour, in a complete analysis of the whole Book of Genesis,
appended to this Part. The toil spent on this analysis would
not, he felt, be spent in vain. The document was at least a
record of facts which must be taken into account by all future
* Pentateuch, Part V. p. 320.
1871–79. THE PENTATEUCH: ITS GROWTH. 619
labourers in this field, and which could not fail to afford some
help to others in the prosecution of their inquiries."
The Bishop's letters to be cited hereafter explain the way
in which his task in its later portions expanded before him ;
so that two large volumes came to be needed when he had
supposed that one would suffice. Those of his opponents for
whom the use of all weapons was lawful or allowable were not
slow to avail themselves of this circumstance in order to throw
ridicule on his work. The commercial success which repaid
his toil in the earlier parts had tempted him on, they said,
further and further into ventures more and more rash, and to
oppress a dwindling number of readers with bulky tomes
which would not repay their cost. In some respects they
were not very wide of the mark. If the later volumes repaid
their expenses, they did not much more. The Bishop was
perfectly aware that he could expect no other result finan-
cially ; but few things throughout a life full of honour are
more to his credit than the devotion with which he did what
he found necessary to the full accomplishment of his under-
taking, without pausing to consider whether he himself should
derive any personal advantage from it. The excitement of
the war which followed the publication of his First Part had long
passed away; and he had no expectation that many outside
the scanty company of genuine students and scholars would
grapple with these later investigations. But, in spite of this
seemingly forbidding prospect, he persevered; and the
thinkers—by whom, after all, the intellectual activity of the
nation is directed—will be grateful to him for having
done so.
His Sixth and Seventh Parts are indeed volumes of formid-
able size ; but those only who take the trouble to examine
the conditions under which he worked, and the objects which
he set before himself, are qualified to judge whether they
* Pentateuch, Part V. p. ix.
62o AZFE OF BISA/OP COLA2AVSO. CHAP. XII.
could without injury have been made much smaller. It was, he
saw, far better not to do the work at all than to fail to do it
thoroughly. He had undertaken at starting to show that the
narratives in the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua were
not, as a whole, historical ; and the conclusion to which each
step in the inquiry brought him compelled him to extend his
examination to the whole body of the Hebrew Scriptures.
The general result is, indeed, astonishing. While traditionalists
of every school are cheating themselves with the notion that
in these Scriptures they possess records absolutely trust-
worthy, and dare to propound their notions as decrees to be
accepted by the world at large, the analysis of these docu-
ments reveals not merely that predominance of myth which
marks the so-called early history of all nations, but a vast
array of deliberately garbled facts, and, in more than one
instance, the dissemination of stories whose fictitious character
stands out as clearly as the noonday Sun in a cloudless sky.
Nor can it be too often or too strongly repeated, that these
fictions are brought to light, not in reference to signs, wonders,
prodigies, portents, miracles, or to any events or incidents of
an unusual sort, but in the most ordinary matters of every-day
life, which betray the working of very human and very in-
terested, as well as very unworthy, motives It would be a
mistake, therefore, to suppose that in these concluding volumes
the Bishop reaches results which materially modify his pre-
vious judgements. His readiness, nay, his eagerness, to admit
a mistake, so soon as the mistake has been clearly pointed
out, leads him occasionally to withdraw or to qualify some
statements already made ; but on the whole the amount of
retractation or correction is insignificantly small, and the
general result is simply that assurance is made doubly sure,
by the rigid scrutiny to which, in these concluding volumes,
the documents already examined in the earlier volumes are
subjected.
1871–79. THE PENTATEUCH; ITS GROWTH. 621
In the eyes of traditionalists, the Pentateuch exhibits a
most minute and elaborate legislation, political, religious, and
social, which challenges acceptance on the authority of Moses,
and of the Elohim in whose name he speaks; and which
therefore is held to be older than the conquest of Canaan,
older than the rule of the Judges, older than the establishment
of the monarchy, older than the fall of the kingdom thus
established. The Bishop's earlier volumes have shown that
this impression is in complete antagonism with facts, that this
legislation was unknown to the exiles who came out of Egypt,
unknown in the time of the Judges, unknown under the
early Kings, and known only in the slightest degree under
the sovereigns who ruled in Judah after the downfall of the
kingdom of Israel. His investigations proved that the Book
of Deuteronomy was composed, possibly in the later years of
Manasseh, but with immensely greater likelihood in the
earlier part of the reign of Josiah, and that the author of
it was a man whose tone of thought, whose language, and
whose religious convictions, were, to say the least, astonish-
ingly like those of the prophet Jeremiah. The path is still
more cleared by the discovery that portions of the Levitical
legislation may be traced home to the prophet Ezekiel ;
“that the account of the construction of the ark, tabernacle,
&c., in Exodus xxv. &c., connot possibly have formed part
of the original (Elohistic) story, but must have been written
at a later age than Deuteronomy, and, therefore, during or
after the Captivity;”"
that, further, this original story did not contain the Deca-
logue; that the latter is probably due to the Deuteronomist,
who is the author of both the versions of the precepts of the
Two Tables; and that the later Levitical legislation is later by
many centuries than even the Babylonish captivity. This
* Pentateuch, Part VI. p. vii.
1622 M.IFE OF BISHOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
legislation therefore claims an authority which does not
belong to it. It is not a code of laws imparted by God Him-
self to Moses, and therefore it can impart no sanction to the
elaborate ritualism which it enjoins. But on this sanction
depends confessedly the ritualism of the whole Christian
Church; and thus with these investigations the whole ritual-
istic system, as a system of Divine institution, falls to the
ground."
It has been said that the Bishop's conclusions are merely
negative ; that the old records are pulled to pieces, and
nothing is put in their place. It is not so. The notion
that negative conclusions are not a positive addition to our
knowledge is a thorough delusion.” They are so in every
instance in which the negative conclusion is established on
fairly adequate evidence. Every such conclusion is in all
likelihood a death-blow to some groundless fancy and belief,
or "even to some mischievous and even deadly superstition.
No garbled history has been more potent for harm than that
of the Hebrew chronicler, and the exhibition of the process
by which this history has been garbled is no work of mere
wanton demolition. It is a most righteous effort for the
suppression of error and the advancement of truth. To the
reproaches freely uttered against his supposed destructive
criticism, reproaches uttered as vehemently by men like Mr.
Stopford Brooke as by narrower thinkers, the Bishop con-
tented himself with replying that
“the central truths of Christianity—the Fatherhood of God,
the brotherhood of man, and the revelation of God in man—
... are confirmed by the witness which the Pentateuch,
when stripped of its fictitious character, gives of the working
of the one Divine Spirit in all ages.” 8
But if some decried the Bishop's work as merely negative,
* Pentateuch, Part VI. p. x. * See p. 441.
* Pentateuch, Part VI. p. xv.
1871–79. 7THE PEAVTA TEUCH - ZZTS GROWTH. 623
there were others who would gladly dismiss it as effete, if not
childish. It was convenient for some to do this. It was
especially convenient for the Bishop of Capetown, who
assured his clergy that the Bishop of Natal’s books had
been “refuted by one writer after another” in England, so
that “we now hear no more of them.” He found comfort in
the reflexion that these books -
“which, from their novelty and from the position of their
author, made at first Some stir, have in fact sunk into
oblivion.”
He here allows them at least the merit of novelty. He
had denied it to them before. The main contention of the
so-called Capetown trial had been that the Bishop's criticisms
were a farrago of old and worthless objections which had
been met and answered a thousand times. But to write such
books as those which Bishop Colenso wrote was in Bishop
Gray's opinion the easiest thing in the world.
“It costs little,” he said, “to start an objection,--to make an
assertion or a denial ; but it might require a volume to
refute objections and establish the truth of an asserted
position ; and who has the time for writing such books, or
who would purchase them and devote days and weeks to
lengthy discussions on the details of a thousand difficult
questions ***
“No one, Surely,” are the Bishop's dignified words of reply,
“but he who believes that he is serving God faithfully, by
using diligently the means which may have been at his dis-
posal for ascertaining, as far as possible, the truth of ‘those
things in which he has been instructed”; no one but he who
knows that he must “buy the truth’ at all costs of toil
of body or mind, of worldly loss, it may be, and of anxiety
and reproach ; . . . no one but he who, in dependence on
* Pentateuch, Part VI. p. xvi.
624 JC/FE OF BASA/OA' CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XII,
Divine support, is prepared, if need be, to make the sacri-
fices which the highest law of his being demands.”
The fact is that the sacerdotal crusaders, who were resolved
on trampling him down, were ready to take up any cry which
might answer their purpose. When the first Parts of the
Examination of the Pentateuch came out, it pleased Bishop
Wilberforce to treat their contents as merely “speculations,”
and to characterise them as both “rash and feeble.” Later
on he declared that
“the ever-changing play of life gives such new colour to old
difficulties, that old answers will no more meet new objections
than old firearms will suit modern battles.””
But the Bishop of Natal's orthodox antagonists felt and said
that whatever difficulties might be involved in the arrange-
ment or even in some of the statements of the Pentateuch,
they could fall back on an impregnable fortress in the historical
and prophetical books of the Old Testament. To these books
accordingly, in the concluding Parts, the Bishop more espe-
cially applied himself; the result being that these books are
shown to form a vast storehouse of evidence proving that
when most of them were written the Levitical legislation was
not yet in existence. The chronicler, indeed, stands self-
refuted. Dr. Irons with sufficient self-assurance insisted that
“the sacred author of the Chronicles” repudiated the notion
that he was writing history, and declared that they who sought
mere history must look for it elsewhere. No supposition could
be more groundless. His work is, for the most part, a history.
of the driest kind; and if it be not a history, it is nothing.
It is, however, history hatched in the writer's brain, and put
forth to further a particular cause which could not be furthered
otherwise, in plain English, to deceive. There is no use in
attempting to shut our eyes to this fact.
* Pentateuch, Part VI. p. xxii.
1871–79. THE PEWTATEUCH - 17's Growth. 625
“With the Books of Samuel and Kings before him,” says the
Bishop, “he cannot be freed from the great crime of deliber-
ately falsifying parts of history, except by supposing that
he did not believe them to be facts, while no reason can be
assigned for this disbelief, except that he did not choose to
believe them.” "
The chronicler belongs to a very late day indeed, to a time
not very long preceding the Christian era; and the Levitical
legislation, which it is his whole aim to inforce, was put
together when the stream of living prophecy had well-nigh
ceased to flow. The quenching of the prophetical spirit after
the Captivity is “a patent peculiarity of Jewish history;”
but the whole course of the post-exilic history renders this
fact
“intelligible and highly instructive, instead of its being, as it
used to appear, while it was supposed that the Levitical
system had all along co-existed with the prophets, an
unaccountable mystery.””
A generation or two may yet pass before the traditionalists
are compelled to admit this explanation ; but it is more likely
that the acknowledgement will come much sooner. The free
utterance of the Divine Spirit was, the Bishop adds, stified
beneath the mass of minute ritualism imposed by the later
legislators in the name of God.
In making this assault on the supposed authority of “the
Church” the Bishop was indeed doing the most important
part of his work. He was proving that the true history of the
Jewish people might be most clearly and effectually traced,
but that this could be done only by reversing the notions
drawn from the traditionary systems of interpretation. The
greatness of this work it would not be easy to exaggerate,
although, in the first exuberance of his animosity, Bishop
* Pentateurh, Part VI. p. xxviii. * 13. p. xxix.
VOL. I. - S S
626 A./FE OF AP/SA/OA CO/LAEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
Wilberforce had affected to dismiss it as “in all essential
points but the repetition of old and often-answered cavils.”
Such, emphatically, was not the opinion of the most eminent
among the Continental scholars and critics. Speaking of the
views prevailing in Germany, Professor Kuenen said with
justice that, when men like Ewald, Bunsen, Bleek, and Knobel
had one by one been brought by the English Bishop to the
necessity of revising their theories, there was “no reason
truly for calling his method antiquated, or his reflexions
obsolete.” Kuenen's judgement is, indeed, in its gravity and
its power, one which in mere fairness to the Bishop cannot
be suppressed. Having admitted that the first effect of the
Bishop's criticisms was to show the unhistorical character of
the Pentateuch, by showing that its narratives contradicted
the general laws of time and space to which every fact is
subject, he further allowed that the questions thus raised were
not to be settled by any suppositions that the accounts about
the Mosaic time were only exaggerations of half-historical
legends. His method, in fact,
“showed that just exactly those notices were the most un-
historical which professed to be authentic documents, and
were distinguished, to all appearance, by the greatest
accuracy. In other words, it is just the narrative of the
‘ Grundschrift,' or Book of Origins, which appeared least
able to withstand such a criticism as his. This is the more
remarkable, inasmuch as Colenso, in producing his diffi-
culties, took no account whatever of the distinction of
different documents. He was engaged exclusively with
the answer to the question whether the representation which
the Pentateuch gives us agreed with the demands of reality;
and lo! it is just the ‘Grundschrift” in which he finds them
[i.e. the difficulties]. . . . . The prevailing view as to the
origin of the Pentateuch had not prepared us for this: in
the oldest document we expected to find the truest copy of
the reality. But, more than this, how is Colenso's result to
1871–79. THE PENTATEUCH - ITS GROWTH. 627
be reconciled with the form of the notices of the
‘ Grundschrift'? When I read that the Israelites numbered
6OO,OOO warriors, and it appears afterwards that this
number must be exaggerated, I set this datum to the
account of the embellishing and hyperbolical legend. But
when there are laid before me two lists of musterings, as in
Numbers i. and xxvi., which define accurately the numbers
of each separate tribe, and at the end give nearly the same .
sum-totals, then the state of the question is entirely
changed. Then I must choose between one of two things.
Either my difficulties must disappear before the prime-
document which lies before me ; or, if this cannot be, then
I must deny that it is a prime-document, and must call it
by its proper name, a fiction.
“There is no third course possible. Well, then, Colenso's
criticism places us right in front of this dilemma. He him-
self does not feel what, as a legitimate consequence, follows
from his demonstration : in the subsequent parts of his
work he subjects himself, as far as regards the age and
character of the ‘Grundschrift, to the prevailing view. But
so much the greater impression does his criticism make
upon the attentive reader who is able to judge the weight
of his arguments. So, at all events, has it been with me.
I had myself formerly noticed some of the difficulties
presented by him. But, as they are here put together and
set forth with imperturbable calmness, they gave me at once a
presentiment, and brought me by degrees to the conviction,
that our criticism of the ‘Grundschrift' had stopped short
half-way, and, in order to reach its end, must go through
with its work.””
The attempt to analyse the enormous amount of materials
sifted and tested by the Bishop in these concluding volumes
would be a futile task. Nothing less than a careful and
thorough scrutinising of the whole can possibly bring home
to the reader the full force of the evidence on which his con-
* Pentateuch, Part VI. p. xxxii.
S S 2
628 I./FE OF BISA/OA COLA2AVSO. CHAP. XII.
clusions are in every instance based. But, without going at
length into details, we may follow him through the several
stages of the inquiry, and convince ourselves that the tradi-
tional notions regarding almost every portion of the Hebrew
Scriptures are at least as far removed from the facts as is the
Ptolemaic astronomy from the actual movements and
relations of the heavenly bodies in the Kosmos.
The very surprising likeness in style and language between
the Book of Deuteronomy and the prophecies of Jeremiah
threw a wonderful light on the alleged discovery of the Book
of the Law in the Temple, and rendered it in a high degree
likely that Jeremiah was the author of at least one of the books
of the Pentateuch. But the same likeness may be seen between
other books. Ezekiel lived in the same age and moved in
the same circle with Jeremiah.” It was therefore to be ex-
pected that the styles of the two would exhibit certain points
of resemblance ; and this is, indeed, the case. But Ezekiel
was by no means a servile imitator of the Deuteronomist;
and
“a careful analysis of Leviticus xxvi. shows that almost every
peculiar expression in this chapter finds either its counter-
part, or even its exact parallel, in Ezekiel ; while many of
these occur nowhere else in the whole Bible, and others are
found nowhere else in the Pentateuch.””
The reader who will examine the list of those parallelisms
given by the Bishop will see that they are of a most remark-
able kind. What inference can be drawn except that the
prophet Ezekiel is the writer of this chapter in Leviticus?
“It is surely,” he argues, “extravagant to suppose that a
writer so profuse and so peculiar, as this prophet is acknow-
ledged to be, should have studied so very closely this
particular chapter of Leviticus, out of the Pentateuch, as to
* Pentateuch, Part VI. p. 3. * Ib. p. 5.
1871–79. THE PENTA TEUCH - ITS GROWTH. 629
have become thoroughly imbued with its style and fami-
liarised with its expressions,—so thoroughly indeed as to
have actually adopted nearly fifty of them as his own, of
which eighteen, at least, occur nowhere else in the Bible.” +
A further examination shows that other portions of Leviticus
are due to the same hand, or, at least, to writers of the same
age and in close connexion with Ezekiel ; * and of these
passages, Graf (a writer whom the Bishop never names with-
out an expression of high respect, and whose early death he
deplored as a very serious loss to the world of modern
thought) declared that the points of likeness so laid bare
could not be accidental, but must lead “necessarily to the
assumption that Ezekiel himself was the writer,” as otherwise
we must infer
“that a writer, who is so peculiar throughout, has adopted the
style of these sections, or rather of one single chapter only,
to such an extent that he reflects this style in the whole of
his long work, without being for a single moment untrue to
himself” 3
But, if this inference be admitted, the further conclusion is
found to follow,
“viz.: that the whole of the priestly legislation of Leviticus and
Numbers, together with the description in Exodus of the
construction of the ark and tabernacle, &c., has been
written either in Ezekiel's time or after it; that is, during or
after the Captivity.” +
This conclusion is without any reservation maintained by
Dr. Kalisch, a Jewish scholar and critic whose authority on
all questions relating to the literature of his own people
stands pre-eminent. The Book of Leviticus, Dr. Kalisch
asserts, cannot possibly be the work of one author and of one
* Pentateuch, Part VI. p. 9. * Ib. p. II.
* Ib. p. 15. * Ib. p. 16.
63O LIFE OF BISHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
age, but is composed of various portions, written, enlarged, and
modified by different authors, in harmony with the necessities
and altered conditions of their respective times. Still more
pertinently, Dr. Kalisch adds,-
“The question then arises—Did Moses lay down any distinct
laws for public worship 2 And if so, are the precepts im-
bodied in the three middle books of the Pentateuch traceable
to his authority ? It is difficult to reply categorically to the
first point: history gives an unequivocal denial to the second.
It proves that many centuries after Moses the Levitical
ordinances were neither practised nor known.”
It is, indeed, abundantly clear that, so long as the tradi-
tional notions of the early origin of the Levitical law are
retained,
“the whole history of Israel must be confused and contra-
dictory; and clearly it will be impossible to reconstruct
that history with any confidence until it is decided whether
the Levitical legislation dates from the time of the Exodus
or not, -whether, in short, it is to be ranked amongst the
earliest, or amongst the latest, portions of the Bible. . . . .
In the one case we shall have, as in other nations, an orderly
progress, the people making gradual advancement in religion
and morals, . . . . and their history will now become
rational and intelligible, being stripped, not of all that is
supernatural and Divine, but of all that is miraculous, per-
plexing, and contradictory. In the other case it will be full
of marvels and prodigies, profusely lavished on a favoured
people or individual, performed oftentimes . . . . without
any adequate object or any proportionate results, as when
. . . . the Sun and moon stood still to allow of Joshua's
slaughtering more of the Amorites, when, after all, we are
told, “there were more which died with hailstones than they
whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.’” +
* Pentateuch, Part VI. p. 18.
1871–79. THE PENTATEUCH - ITS GROWTH. 631
Either, then, the institutions and practice of the Levitical
law originated in the time of Moses, or they did not. If they
did, how are we to explain the fact that we find not a trace
of these laws being observed or existing either in the more
authentic history or in the pre-Captivity prophets? We find,
indeed, full-blown stories of their observance in the Books of
Chronicles; but we may, even at starting, take the Bishop's
word for it that the Chronicles
“are utterly untrustworthy in respect of matters of historical
fact, when not supported by other evidence, and were
written long after the Captivity, when we find Dr. Kalisch
maintaining that they are certainly the work of one author
because they disclose throughout the same systematic re-
arrangement of history, and that this author deserves no
authority whatever, as a source of history, at least on
points connected with public worship.”
But this systematic rearrangement of old materials ought
surely to teach us a conclusive lesson as to the power of
the historical sense in the Jewish people as a whole. We
need say this with no invidious meaning. Greeks and Romans
may not have been, and probably were not, much better. But
this much at least such facts must make clear to us, that
nothing which earlier writers had set down was sacred in the
eyes of those who came after them. Nothing that they said:
or could say was invested with such authority as to make
others hesitate before they tampered with it. Thus the
Deuteronomist was certainly acquainted with the main narra-
tive of the Book of Exodus. In his own book, after describing
his descent from the mount with the two tables of stone which
he broke when he saw the people's idolatry, he goes on to say
that Moses fell down as at the first forty days and nights,
neither eating bread nor drinking water; that Jehovah desired
* Pentateuch, Part VI. p. 20.
632 JLIFE OF AZSA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
to destroy Aaron, and that Moses prayed for Aaron at the
same time; and again after speaking of their rebellions at
Taberah, &c., he apparently repeats the same account of the
fasting and intercession of Moses.
“But not a word is said in Exodus xxxii. about this fasting
after his descent for forty days and forty nights, or about
Moses praying for Aaron at the same time. On the con-
trary, Moses in Exodus xxxii. merely reproaches Aaron,
and he intercedes for the people before he comes down
from the mount, and Jehovah was pacified. . . . But this
very statement again is contradictory to the account which
follows.” 1
If, however, these contradictions show how little the
Deuteronomist thought of, or cared for, the authority of the
earlier record, it is clear that in this earlier record there are
now statements and narratives of which the Deuteronomist
was altogether ignorant; and it follows that these passages
“cannot have existed at all in that older document which he
had before him.” ”
In fact, we have proof here that these passages cannot have
been written before the Captivity; and this proof is only a
portion of that mass of cumulative evidence which shows that
the Levitical laws form the latest portion of the Pentateuch.
Thus to the splendid Tabernacle of Bezaleel the Deuteronomist
makes not even the faintest allusion.” But according to Mr.
Ferguson the measurements of the Tabernacle are exactly
half of those laid down as the dimensions of the Temple of
Solomon; and from the previous fact the inference precisely
contradicts Mr. Ferguson's conclusion. He thinks that the
Temple was copied from the Tabernacle: in reality the
measurements of the latter were suggested by those of the
1 Pentateuch, Part VI. p. 37. * Ib. p. 41. * Ib. p. 50.
1871–79. THE PENTATEUCH: ITS GROWTH. 633
former, and the description was framed deliberately, far away
in the land of exile, along with the details of all the ecclesi-
astical system," which there was no doubt a full intention of
carrying out on their return from captivity.” It was indeed
by no means impossible to carry them out within the narrow
limits of the restored settlement, in which there seems to
have been one priest to every ten laymen.” But without going
further we see that the ecclesiastical or church history of the
Jews runs in very different channels at different times, and that
the Hebrew Scriptures, as presented to us, are on this subject,
as on most others, self-contradictory, until we determine the
order in which they were written, and then the true course of
events becomes clear enough. The Levites and priests of
the Book of Judges are despised and homeless outcasts and
wanderers ; in the pages of the Chronicles, they are exalted
to a dignity loftier than that of the priesthood of Latin
Christendom, their office being fenced round by terrible
sanctions—“he that cometh near shall be put to death.” The
history of the Jewish kings shows that this separation from
the rest of the people is of later growth. *.
“If such ideas,” says the Bishop, “had prevailed in Israel in
earlier times, we may be sure that David, and Solomon in
his best days, would not have intruded on the priestly office,
as the history represents them repeatedly as doing, without
a word of reproof either from the historian himself, or from
the prophets or priests around them. Least of all can it be
imagined that Aaron, who was really the chief offender in
the affair of the golden calf, should have been rewarded
with such distinguishing pre-eminence as the later portion
of the Pentateuch assigns to him. Nor, indeed, is there any
sign that in the original story Aaron officiated as a priest at
all. To the end he seems to have continued merely to act
as an adviser, friend, and prophet, and, in his chief's absence,
the principal substitute for Moses.”4
Pentateuch, Part VI. p. 51. * 10, p. 60. 3 Ib. p. 61. * 10, p. 110.
!
.."
634 AAFE OF AP/SHOP CO/CEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
But it is not merely with reference to the priests and Levites
that the analysis of the Pentateuch reverses practically the
notions of all traditional schools of interpreters. It strikes at
the root of the commonly received ideas as to what is supposed
to be the earliest moral legislation. The Decalogue in its
present form, instead of having been delivered amid the
thunders and lightnings of Sinai, was unknown to any age
preceding that of Josiah. The passage in Exodus which
contains the Ten Commandments is an insertion of the
Deuteronomist."
Assuming, as the traditionary view does, that this passage
belongs to the original record,
“we should,” the Bishop insists, “have to suppose that Moses,
having heard from the Divine mouth, in the third month
of the Exodus, such phrases as ‘house of servants,’ ‘the
stranger that is within thy gates,’ ‘in order that thy days
may be prolonged on the ground,’, ‘the ground which thy
Elohim is giving thee, with other like phrases, never
employed any one of them again in his other writings,
or in the words ascribed to Jehovah, until, in his last
address, nearly forty years afterwards, he begins suddenly
to use them all freely in Deuteronomy.””
The supposition is incredible ; but the consequences of
rejecting it are far-reaching. Whatever may have been the
historical sense or conscience of the Deuteronomist, the fact
remains that the ten precepts in the Book of Exodus are his
bandiwork. That the writer of the Book of Deuteronomy is
the writer also of this passage in Exodus there can be no
question ; but it is quite possible or likely, as the Bishop
suggests, that he may have inserted this passage
“when he revised and enlarged the original story, and before
he decided to write the address of Moses in Deuteronomy.”
1 Pentateuch, Part VI. p. 147. * /ö. p. 148.
1871–79. THE PENTATEUCH: ITS GROWTH. 635
Admitting these facts, we can have no difficulty in
understanding
“how in that address he could venture to modify so re-
markably as he has done the language of the Fourth
Commandment, which is incomprehensible on the tradi-
tionary view, or even on the supposition that he regarded
this section as a venerable record of an older legislation.”
In fact, in modifying the precept he was doing nothing
“more than modifying his own work; but if we turn to what
is really the older narrative in Exodus, we find that not a
word is said about the people at Sinai having heard the
Ten Commandments, nor is there the slightest reference
to their having heard them in the chapters that follow.” +
If, again, there be one point more than another on which
stress is laid by what is generally supposed to be the Mosaic
lawgiver, it is the duty of all the males of the Jewish people
to go up yearly, for the three great feasts, to Jerusalem. The
historical books furnish not the slightest warrant for the
notion that such a command was known in the times of the
earlier kings, or was then in existence.
“In the age of Solomon, for instance, the wide range of his
territories made it simply impossible for the more distant
tribes to present themselves at Jerusalem, for the purpose of
keeping the feast of Mazzoth (Passover) in the very midst
of the rainy season, and just before the beginning of barley
harvest. . . . Thus just before the commencement of the
season of harvest, all the males, if this law had been in
operation in Solomon's time, would be asked to travel up
to Jerusalem at one extremity of the kingdom—chiefly, we
must suppose, on foot—a distance of more than a hundred
miles from the more distant places, whose inhabitants
would therefore consume the greater part of a week on
the journey each way.””
* Pentateuch, Part VI. p. 149. * Ib. p. 174.
636 LIFE OF BISAOP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
In other words, to attend these three festivals they must
spend Some six weeks yearly on the road. How, again, could
the males of the trans-Jordanic tribes attend at this season at
Jerusalem, since that river, we are told, overflows all its banks
at the time of harvest ? It is true that when David fled from
Absalom a ferry-boat carried over his household.
“But how little,” the Bishop asks, “could this have availed for
the I2O,OOO warriors, who, according to the chronicler,
lived in those days in the country under his rule beyond
the Jordan, or for a much more moderate estimate of its
male inhabitants 2 ”
In short, the Bishop adds, and he is most fully justified in
adding it,
“it is incredible that a law could be laid down by any sane
person, not to speak of the Divine Wisdom, which re-
quired the attendance at Jerusalem of all the males from all
parts of the land east and west of the Jordan, on a certain
precise day at the time of the Passover, on pain of death.” "
In subsequent chapters the Bishop gives the original story
as it is found in the Book of Exodus, in Numbers and Deu-
teronomy, and in Joshua, so that nothing remains beyond the
later legislation, which has thrust itself chiefly into the Books
of Leviticus and Numbers. For the student who is anxious
only to get at the truth, this restoration of the earliest narra-
tive is an immense boon. Every part of it is full of instruc-
tion ; but perhaps the most important remark relates to the
period of forty years assigned to the wanderings in the wilder-
ness. Of these wanderings the original story takes no notice.
The first mention of them comes from the Deuteronomist,
who speaks of their journeyings from the days of their leaving
Kadesh-barnea to the passage of the brook Zered as extend-
ing over thirty-eight years. But where did he obtain this
* Pentateuch, Part VI. p. 177.
1871–79. THE PENTATEUCH - ITS GROWTH. 637
datum of forty years 2 Not from any passage in the original
story, for while the Book of Numbers (xiv. 22, 23) declares
that they who came out of Egypt should not see the land
promised to their forefathers, it says nothing about a term of
forty years, and though this story may have involved the idea
of some additional wandering, it did not seemingly contem-
plate a very long interval spent in this way." Upon the whole,
the Bishop concludes that the Deuteronomist himself imported
into the story the exact number of forty years, which he is so
careful to define by means of the datum of thirty-eight years
in ii. 14, and the first day of the eleventh month of the fortieth
year in i. 3. It follows that the original story did not contain
this datum of forty years,
“ and intended no more than that the people should be
punished by having to go down to the Red Sea once more,
and make the circuit of Mount Seir so as to cross the
Jordan, instead of making directly from Kadesh into the
south of Canaan, as was at first proposed ; and this would
have been a severe punishment, since even the eleven days'
march from Sinai to Kadesh is spoken of as a ‘going through
that great and terrible wilderness’; where they had seen
how Jehovah their Elohim bore them as a man doth bear
his son. . . . . But for the circuit of Mount Seir only a
comparatively short time would be required ;” ”
and during this time Moses might well be supposed to prepare
Joshua for his future duties.
The extension of the wanderings for some short time led to
the choice of the favourite number of forty years; but even
when that number was chosen, there is no indication in Deu-
teronomy viii. that this period was a time of punishment,
during which every man of a whole generation was to be
cut off.
* Pentateueh, Part VI. p. 232. * Zö. p. 370.
638 ZIFE OF BISHOP COLENSO. CHAP. XII.
“The idea of such a doom seems not yet to have germinated
in the writer's mind when he composed this address.””
If we take the doom to mean that those who left Egypt as
fathers of families should not enter the promised land, this
was only saying that they should live out the usual term of
human life in the wilderness; and the discomforts of this time
were to be lightened by a series of marvellous incidents or
dispensations which should prevent their shoes from wearing
out or their feet from Swelling. The Suggestions thus made
might be worked out to any extent, but on examination we
find that we are dealing with mere amplifications or embel-
lishments. According to the narrative in Numbers (xxxiii.)
they made in the thirty-eight years only forty-two stations,
which after all cannot have been far distant from each other ;
and as
“they must have stayed on the average about a year at least
at éach of them, there would have been little occasion for
their foot swelling.”.”
If the more bulky volumes in which the Bishop brought
his examination to a close had answered no other purpose
than that of bringing to light the mighty mass of exaggera-
tion with which the Jewish history is overloaded, the toil
bestowed upon them would not have been wasted. We have
seen already some of the difficulties involved in the story of
the 600,000 Hebrew warriors at Sinai; but what are these as
compared with the gigantic hyperbole of the seven nations of
Canaan, each “greater and mightier” than the Hebrews, who
were to be conquered or driven out of the promised land 2
The Jewish warriors represented a population of about three
millions; the seven mightier Canaanitish nations would there-
fore furnish a population of some thirty millions at least, all
1 Pentateuch, Part VI. p. 383. * Ib. p. 384.
p p
1871–79. THE PENTATEUCH: ZTS GROWTH. 639
included within the limits reached by the kingdom of David
and Solomon. The extent of this empire Von Raumer
reckons as 500 square miles. On this Kuenen remarks:—
“Adopting this last estimate, which is certainly excessive, and
assuming further that Palestine belonged to the lands
most thickly peopled, and therefore had 6,000 inhabitants
for each square mile, we do not reach a higher population
than 3,000,000 souls.””
We may allow, further (what is, to say the least, unlikely),
that the population of Canaan at the time of the Exodus was.
as great as it was in the time of David. Still, this aggregate
of 3,OOO,OOO was made up of seven nations, greater and
mightier than Israel, and thus we are brought to the con-
clusion that the whole Hebrew people at the time of the
conquest cannot possibly have been much above 400,000, and
could not have furnished more than 80,000 warriors. In
other words, the history is untrustworthy from beginning:
to end.
We are compelled, therefore, to test every portion of the
narrative. We have seen that the account of the institution
of the Passover is riddled with inconsistencies; and we have
been brought face to face with the crowning difficulty that the
Levitical or Mosaic prescriptions with reference to it were
never carried out before the time of Josiah, or rather before
the time of the Captivity, and that they were not carried out
for the simple reason that they were unknown. It is quite
clear, therefore, that the origin of this festival, as given in the
Book of Exodus, is not to be taken as historical fact ; and if
it cannot be so taken, then how, actually, did it originate 2
In one point at least the story is clear, that the feast was
connected with the destruction of first-born children, as well as
of the first-borns of flocks and herds; and the track thus.
1 Pentateuch, Part VI. p. 383.
640 A/FE OF BISA/OP COLEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
*****- :- ~ ----
indicated must be followed, if we would reach any sound
conclusions on the subject. To this inquiry the Bishop
devotes himself in the twentieth chapter of his Sixth Part,
laying special stress on the fact that the pre-Captivity prophets
never make mention of this festival. Having first shown that
the name Pesach (Pascha), or Passover, is connected with the
feast of Mazzoth," and denotes the special sacrifice belonging
to that feast (the sacrifice of firstlings, not of brute animals
only, but also of men), he remarks that Mazzoth, like the
other two great festivals (Harvest = Weeks; Ingathering =
Tabernacles), was essentially an agricultural feast; that these
celebrations were not confined to the Hebrew people; and
that of these three the spring festival of the Passover
“was incomparably the most important, though the most
severe, solemnity, as the future blessings of the year
depended upon it.””
The conclusion forces itself upon us
“that the Pesach meant originally the ‘passing over’ of the
first-borns of man and beast to the sun-god, and that the
Canaanites, i.e. the Phoenicians and others, did actually at
this spring festival, on the fourteenth day of the month, i.e. the
eve of the full moon, sacrifice the first-borns to that deity,
from whom the Israelites adopted the practice of sacrificing
their first-borns to Jehovah,” ”
which lasted through the reigns of all the Kings, and against
which the prophets in vain raised their voice. These facts
speak for themselves, even if we had not the express assertion
that Ahaz offered up his son. It is unnecessary, therefore, to
go back to the narrative of the sacrifice of Isaac, although this
narrative proves that the practice was prevalent in the days
of the early Kings. The purpose of this story is clearly to
bring about the abolition of the practice by substituting offer-
1 Pentateuch, Part VI. p. 417. * /3. p. 422. * Ib. p. 424.
1871–79. 7 HE AEEAV7.47 EUCH - ZZTS GRO WZZTAZ. 641
ings of animals; but no blame is attached to the intention
of Abraham, nor are there any severe comments on those who
practised the rite, and assuredly the writer does not, like the
prophets of a later day,
“condemn it utterly as impious, and abominable, accursed in
the sight of God and man ; and it may be that his own
views were not yet sufficiently clear and decided to enable
him to do so.” +
But by the admission of the Jewish historians and prophets
the besetting sin of their countrymen was to copy all that was
idolatrous, superstitious, and vile in the worship of their
subjects or their neighbours. There is, therefore, absolutely
no room for doubt that the Pesach was celebrated with the
slaughter of the first-borns, and that, just because it was thus
commonly defiled with human blood, the pre-Captivity prophets
never name it. What then are we to think 2
“If the service of the Pesach had really been instituted in so
remarkable a manner and on such a memorable occasion,
and enjoined with such solemnity, as would appear from
Exodus xii., we might surely have expected one or more to
indicate it, at least by some incidental reference; whereas it
is, in fact, only once named by any prophet, viz. in Ezekiel
xlv. 2 I, written during the Captivity. The Pesach, however,
though not named by the original story, and only hinted at
by it as existing in the command for the dedication of the
first-born in Israel of man and beast, . . . had come
down, with a practice more or less corrupt, to the days of
the Deuteronomist; and he endeavours to quicken the
observance into a holy sacrifice for all Israel, . . . but
without the least allusion to the name having been derived
from the fact of Yahve’s ‘passing over' by the houses of
the Israelites. Down to his days, however, . . . the Pesach,
like other sacrifices, was offered whenever they pleased, in
* Pentateuch, Part VI. p. 425.
VOL. I. T T
642 I/FE OF BISHOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
any of their gates, i.e. at any of the sanctuaries scattered
throughout the land, . . . where, it can scarcely be doubted,
first-born children were actually sacrificed, being first slain
and then burnt, in the Deuteronomist's own time. To
provide against the unchecked continuance of these abomi-
nations, he now lays down the law that the Pesach shall in
future be offered by the whole people at Jerusalem, as it
was offered by Josiah's order for the first time in the history
of Israel.” 1
Throughout the history, indeed, we seem to have laws, and
no observance; institutions and no acknowledgement of their
working ; structures, and no hint that any one had ever
seen them.
“Not a trace of the existence of the magnificent Mosaic
tabernacle can be found anywhere in the more authentic
history.””
Elaborate injunctions are given for the keeping of the sabbati-
cal year; but there is “no sign that this law, which is mani-
festly an extension of the law of the Sabbath, was ever carried
out in practice before the Captivity.” & To a certain extent
it was acted upon after their return ; but not so the law of
the Jubilee, by which at the end of each half-century two
sabbatical years, during which the land was not to be tilled,
came together. A special Divine provision was to guard
them from any hurtful consequences of this seeming neglect;
but the result was not always happy. When Herod took
Jerusalem by storm, it was afflicted, Josephus tells us,
“with a cruel famine within, for now happened to be the
Sabbatical year, for it was at this melancholy conjuncture
and during the time of it our law prohibits us from sowing
any manner of grain.”
* Pentateuch, Part VI. p. 431. * Ib. p. 471.
* Ib. Hupfeld, quoted in Part VI. p. 492.
1871–79. THE PENTATEUCH - ITS GROWTH. 643
As to the observance of the Jubilee, there is no indication
whatever that it was ever really observed even after the
Captivity;
“and there is certainly not the slightest proof of its having
been celebrated before that event.” I
It becomes, therefore, a superfluous task to examine the legal
enactments for the remission of debts and the release of
debtors in connexion with an ordinance which never had any
existence except on paper.
Thus from the reputed history of the Exodus, and of the
conquests which followed it, the whole of the elaborate
religious, civil, and social legislation is summarily shorn
away. No portion of the narrative, it is found, will hold water.
Has it, then, any basis at all to rest upon 2 Adaptation is a
very mild term to apply to the process which has shaped not
a few of these stories, and given form to laws on which the
history not only of the Jews but of Christendom also has
turned. We have seen that the original story knows nothing
of the priesthood of Aaron, or of any order of priests at all ;
that the position of the priests (a mere handful in number)
was in the days of the earlier kings by no means pre-eminent,
while that of the Levites was altogether insignificant. Yet
the Levitical Law assigns a Divine sanction for the august
functions and the high privileges of both ; and on this subject
the following is the judgement of Dr. Kalisch, himself a Jew.
“It was God who singled out the family of Aaron as His
ministers, His representatives, and the teachers of His
Law ; and it was He who confirmed this election by
miraculous interference, the budding staff of Aaron, and
the fearful destruction of Aaron's opponents, Korah and
his associates. What is the true scope and import of these
* Pentateuch, Part VI. p. 495.
T T 2
644 AAFE OF BASHOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
statements? They imply the artful fiction of an author or
authors, who attempted to promulgate their own devices as
Divine or supernatural arrangements, and thus to awe an
impressionable nation into their acceptance and reverential
observance. If the laws of the priesthood had been repre-
sented as the work of human legislators, they would simply
have been a human failure, because they degraded the
people instead of elevating it. But as the pretended ema-
nation of the Divine Will they are both a failure and a
fraud; and to the weakness of human judgement is added
the offence of human arrogance and deceit.” +
But these laws, instead of being amongst the oldest, are
amongst the latest of the Hebrew Scriptures. When Jere-
miah, in the name of God, says, “I spake not unto your
fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them
Out of the land of Egypt concerning burnt-offerings,” it is clear
that he could not have so written if the sacrificial laws of
Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers had been actually laid down
in the wilderness, orhad existed in his time in the story of the
Exodus.” It is not less clear that Ezekiel could not have
“composed his rules for the regulation of the priesthood, their
office and income, if these subjects had been already fully
treated of in the middle books of the Pentateuch, nor in
any case could he have presumed to lay down laws at
variance with laws which were regarded as Mosaic, as even
Divine.” 3
To any portion of the Levitical legislation there is not, in-
deed, a single reference in any pre-Captivity writer; nor have
we any even to the Decalogue or the Book of Deuteronomy,
until we come to Jeremiah. But the very fact that this
prophet makes such very slight allusion to this book, with
which, from the very striking circumstances attending its
discovery and publication in Josiah's time, he must have been
1 Pentateuch, Part VI. p. 529. * Ib. p. 593. * Ib. p. 594.
1871–79. THE PENTATE UCH: ZTS GROWTH. 645
very thoroughly acquainted, and which, indeed, reflects every-
where his own language and tone of thought, is itself, as we
have already seen, a very strong confirmation of the conclusion
that he was himself the writer of it."
The real history of the Exodus may be so distorted and so
buried under a mass of arbitrary additions and perversions as
to be lost beyond recall. With this no critic has anything to
do. If we are dealing with the so-called history of the early
Roman kings, and if the scrutiny brings us to the conclusion
that none of it is trustworthy and much of it is mere fiction,
our task is really ended. If from the materials at our com-
mand we are able to reconstruct all or some of it, well and
good. If we cannot do so, no one can blame us for not
accomplishing or attempting an impossible work. But why
should the writer of the Exodus story, whoever he may have
been, have represented his countrymen as miserable slaves in
Egypt, and as having emerged from it to find their way back
to their old abode and dislodge those who were in possession
of it 2 Now, Josephus quotes from the Egyptian Manethon
a strange tale which describes an invasion of Egypt by men
of ignoble birth from the Eastern parts,” resulting in the
establishment of a dynasty of six kings, who reigned for about
two centuries and a half. Manethon further goes into a
mysterious story of shepherds and lepers, who are sent by
King Amenophis to work in the quarries, and, obtaining help
from the shepherds in Jerusalem, break from their prison and
Commit dreadful outrages, under the leadership of a priest of
Osiris, named Osarsiph, who, on going over to this people,
changed his name to Moses. At last, Amenophis came up
with one army, and his son Rameses with another, and
routing these shepherds, pursued them as far as the frontiers
of Syria.” The story is dark enough ; but in Kuenen's
judgement
* Pentateuch, Part VI. p. 596. * Ib. p. 597. * Ib. p. 599.
646 IIFE OF BISAIOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
“its agreement with the Israelitish tradition about the Exodus
is unmistakeable. The Egyptians regarded all foreigners
as unclean : it cannot surprise us, then, if they called the
nomadic tribes, who had escaped from their dominion, a
leprous people. Still less does it surprise us that they
ascribed their own defeat to the displeasure of their gods.
It is further remarkable that, according to this account also,
the harsh measures of the Egyptians, and in particular the
slavish service imposed by them, gave occasion to the
rebellion of those oppressed, and moreover that the dis-
tinction between the laws of Osarsiph and the Egyptian
laws, especially his aversion to the gods of Egypt, is also
here recognised. The Book of Exodus says nothing
about the help rendered by the Hyksos, as generally
the deliverance of Israel is viewed therein exclusively
from the religious point of view, and is represented as the
work of Yahve, and of Him alone. Yet we find in it some
small traces of an indication that the Israelites found sup-
port from the nomadic tribes of Arabia—that is, from the
Hyksos. In short . . . . we must hold that in Manethon's
narrative we have the Egyptian reading of the account of
the Exodus of Israel.” 1
“Such, then,” the Bishop adds, “was very probably the
"basis upon which the Scripture story of the Exodus has
been founded.”
We ought not, indeed, to assume that the Egyptian version
must necessarily be more true than the Hebrew. It is not
unlikely that the latter may in some points be nearer to
the truth of facts than the former; but there can be no
question that the motives for misrepresenting or distorting
events were much stronger with the Jews than with their
opponents.
“No doubt,” the Bishop remarks, “the Israelites on their
march to Canaan experienced formidable difficulties, per-
* Pentateuch, Part VI. p. 600.
1871–79. THE PENTATEUCH: ITS GROWTH. 647
haps in crossing an arm of the Red Sea, and certainly in
their passage through the wilderness. . . . It must be
observed, however, that in the original story there is no
sign of any very long period, such as forty years, having
been assigned to the wanderings.” "
It gives, in fact, no data of time, except the forty days
and nights twice spent by Moses on Sinai, and the three
days in Numbers x. 33.
“The people are carried on at once from Sinai . . . . under
the guidance of Hobab . . . . till they reach the southern
boundary of Canaan, when Moses sends forth spies to
search the land, . . . . upon whose return the murmuring
takes place; and, as a punishment for their offence, instead
of being allowed to march at once into Canaan and make
the conquest of the land, they are ordered to turn and go
back again into the wilderness by the way towards the Red
Sea, and so are obliged to pass around the Southern ex-
tremity of Mount Seir, and then turn again to the north,
coasting the land of Edom, and making their entrance into
Canaan from the eastern side. For all this a comparatively
short time was required, except that they are spoken of as
‘ dwelling’ at Kadesh. It is not said how long they stayed
at Kadesh. Perhaps they were supposed in the original
story to dwell there for a short time only, as they afterwards
‘dwelt’ at Shittim. At least, according to the data of the
Deuteronomist and the later legislator, as the story now
stands, the last sojourn can have lasted only for a very
short period, since after Aaron's death on the first day of
the fifth month, and the mourning for him thirty days, they
make the whole journey from Mount Hor to compass the
land of Edom, and make the conquest of the territories of
Sihon and Og—not to speak of the war against Midian—
and yet are addressed by Moses in the land of Moab on the
first day of the eleventh month. The extreme abruptness
of the narrative at this point (if the story is supposed to
1 Penſateuch, Part VI. p. 601.
648 AAFE OF BIS/ZOA' CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
make a sudden leap of nearly forty years between v. I
and v. 14 of Numbers xx.) and the utter absence of
all allusion to any events as having occurred in that
interval, seem to make it certain that no idea of so long a
wandering was entertained by the writer of the original
story.”
That a history so amazing in its incidents and so astounding
in its character during the first and last months should have
been interrupted by some eight or nine and thirty years
about which there was nothing to tell is past all belief. The
fancy rests on the solitary phrase of forty years, much as in
the old Hindu cosmogony the tortoise rests on the serpent,
and the serpent on nothing. But
“the fact that the Israelites abstained from disturbing Edom,
Moab, and Ammon, while they did not spare the Amorite
invaders of Moab, implies a special relation between Israel
and these peoples, such as that which Manetho's story
implies between the shepherd kings and the leprous
people.”
From this point we can see our way more clearly. The
historical works furnish abundant proof that the Canaanite
tribes were not extirpated. The conquests ascribed to Moses
and Joshua as the work of a few weeks were, therefore,
“effected in a much longer period, and by much more gradual
and every-day processes.””
But our knowledge of this distant time is bounded, never
theless, within narrow limits.
“How much of the original story may have been derived
from traditionary or legendary matter still floating in the
folk-lore of Israel, and how much is due to the writer's own
imagination, it is impossible to say.” ”
* Pentateuch, Part VI. p. 603. * Ib. p. 604.
* Ib. p. 614. That the deliverance from Egypt was effected under the
1. --r---- ºr--- ... — -- ~~~~
1871–79. THE PEAVTA TEUCH - ITS GROWTH. 649
If we believe that story, only the seventy who went down
into Egypt knew anything of the land of Canaan; and under
all the harassing and distressing conditions of a hard servitude
it is well-nigh, if not altogether, incredible that, when these
seventy had multiplied into a nation of three millions, any
knowledge of that country could have been kept up among
them. Yet they, or at least their leaders, are said to have in
many points a minute acquaintance with the land to which
they were journeying. But these pictures we have seen to
be fabrications of a later age ; and we have seen also how
scanty is the residuum of actual fact which by the largest
concessions can be allowed to lie at the root of the narra-
tive.
“When, further,” the Bishop adds, “we take account of the
possibility that these forefathers were never in the land of
Canaan at all ; that, in point of fact, they never existed as
individuals, but correspond to the mythical founders of
other nations, whose stories are for the most part composed
of fabulous narratives, which, as far as they have any his-
torical truth at their basis, shadow forth the doings of tribes
and generations, instead of persons, we may fairly conclude
that a very large portion, at least, of the stories in Genesis
are merely fictions, intended to support the notion that the
guidance of Moses, the Bishop had little doubt; but the narrative says
(and on this point there is, probably, no reason for mistrusting it) that he
died before they entered Canaan. As to Joshua, he found himself com-
pelled to speak more trenchantly. “He appears,” he said, “to be entirely
a mythical character, most of his great exploits having been recorded only
by the Deuteronomist in Josiah's time, and apparently from his own ima-
gination—not even from legendary traditions about him, if any could be
supposed to have been handed down vividly through the lapse of eight
centuries. For, surely, if such legends were current in the days of Josiah,
and retained so strongly in the recollections of the people that the
Deuteronomist could undertake the task of collecting them and recording
them permanently on parchment, we should find some trace of the renown
of this great conqueror in the Psalms and prophets; whereas his very
name is never once mentioned.”— Worship of Baalim, p. 9.
-------------------------, *
650 LIFE OF BISHOP COLENSO. CHAP. XII.
Israelites had an old outstanding claim upon the land which
they had seized,” "
Abraham having bought Hebron, and Jacob Shechem, these
two places being the chief centres of royalty in later days for
the kingdoms of Judah and of Ephraim.
But the record was of slow growth. After the completion
of the original story, in the early years probably of Solomon,
“the work remained untouched, and perhaps lay deposited
beside the ark in the Temple till the days of Jeremiah (the
Deuteronomist), who, as a priest himself, his father Hilkiah
being also, very possibly, the chief priest at the time, would
in that case have had free access to this venerable manuscript,
and (as we suppose) retouched and enlarged it throughout
in his own prophetical style, and ultimately inserted the
Law (in the fifth and following chapters of Deuteronomy,
as ‘the words of the covenant which Jehovah commanded
Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of
Moab"),”
the discovery of which led to Josiah's reformation. In such
records there must be much matter for instruction, and not a
little, it may be, for edification ; but the lessons inforced by
it must be absolutely antagonistic with the results of tradi-
tional interpretation. For any dogma, for any ritual or cere-
monial, for any forms of religious or civil government, these
writings become altogether worthless ; and with the demon-
stration of the unhistorical character of all these writings
the stories of marvellous incidents and prodigies are swept
away. That they should disappear is a cause for thankfulness,
not for regret. There will be no healthy thought and life in
Christendom until Christians generally are convinced, in the
words of Mr. Goldwin Smith, that, “if a religion is to be
judged not by its contents but by its evidences, it must be
1 Pentateuch, Part VI. p. 615.
1871–79. THE PEAVTATE UCH - ITS GROWTA. 65r
the lowest and vilest religion in the world.”" The examination
of the record has shown the traditional idol to be, like the
serpent thrown down by Hezekiah, Nehushtan, a thing of
brass.
“There is,” the Bishop emphatically insists, “no infallible
book for our guidance, as there is no infallible Church, or
infallible man. The Father of Spirits has not willed it
thus, who knows best what is needed for each individual
soul, as well as for that of the race.” ”
The consequences are momentous indeed. The foundations.
of ceremonial and priestly religion are laid in the Levitical
legislation; with the exposition of the true nature and origin.
of that law the system raised on it crumbles to its base, and
a vista is opened before us along which our eye is carried
through a series of reforms not acceptable to traditionalists.
The fact is that the snake of tradition has been scotched, not
killed. The Bishop quotes some words of Bishop Harold
Browne in reference to Church of England schools.
“We have not,” says Bishop Browne, “troubled their little
brains, as some people seem to think, with all kinds of
dogmatic theology, though, by the by, I don’t think people
know what dogmatic theology means. The fact that there
is a God, is dogmatic theology. The facts that there is a
heaven, a hell, that Our Saviour came down to save us, -
that is dogmatic theology. But we have not been teaching
them the meaning of Bishops and the Church ; and if I
went into our Sunday schools, and asked, What is the office
of a Bishop P the children would lift up their eyes and hands
and say, What does a Bishop mean * * * \
The statement is in the highest degree doubtful ; but if it
be true, then it would be altogether better that the children
should have some knowledge of early Church history, than
* See above, p. 363. * Pentateuch, Part VI. p. 626.
* Ib. p. 641.
652 AZFE OF BASHOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
g
that they should learn what Bishop Browne is pleased to call
the dogmas of a heaven and a hell, and the descent of a
Saviour to save—terms which, for all we know, may be left (as
they often are left) undefined, but of which the true meaning
was expressed before the Norman Conquest in the good
old English which spoke of Christ as the “Healer” and of
His work as “healing ” or making sound and whole. In
sober truth, no terms can be kept with this language of
Bishop Browne. It is equivocal, misleading, and false. The
office of the Bishop may be so explained as to bring in the
notion of apostolical succession “with its whole fitting
apparatus of the sacrificing priest and the sacramental sys-
tem;” and the dogma, as Bishop Browne terms it, of a
heaven and a hell is used to set forth not merely a righteous
judgement “to which the conscience of a child will witness as
surely as does the conscience of each one of us,” but
“the everlasting torments of hell fire, that horrible dogma,
which dooms to never-ending irremediable woe the vast
majority of men, women, and children, with whom they
meet upon their daily pathway; that blasphemous dogma,
which makes the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
the Father of mercies and the God of all consolation, into
a very Moloch, reigning through endless ages in glory and
blessedness, while shrieks and groans are ever resounding
from the bottomless abyss, the cries of young children, as
Bishop Wilberforce teaches, and, as some Fathers of the
Church have held, of little innocent babes among the rest.”
This term “dogmatic theology” is utterly absurd. It
applies to nothing but the result of human debates, and these
do not, and cannot, affect the realities of the eternal world in
which alone is our true life now and always. To tell children,
or to tell heathens, that they have a Father, a Redeemer or
Healer, and a Sanctifier, who is no respecter of persons, and
whose will is that sin shall be destroyed in all, is not to teach
1871–79. THE PENTATEUCH: JTS GROWTH. 653
dogma, or to impose on them the yoke of a dogmatic
theology. But so soon as we begin to deal in propositions and
demand assent to formulae (it matters not of what kind), the
weight of this yoke at once makes itself felt ; and sooner or
later the result must be revolt, not against the Law or the
Love of God, but against the system which has withheld men
from seeing the righteousness and the light in which alone
they can have life.
Eight years more passed away before the Bishop was able
to bring his long and arduous examination of the Pentateuch
to an end by the publication of his Seventh Part. The very
nature of the inquiry, and the conditions under which he
worked, made it most difficult, if not impossible, for him to
avoid a certain amount of repetition and some appearance of
prolixity. Whatever defects of this kind may be seen in his
volumes, it is scarcely necessary to offer an apology for them.
The superficial reader is not likely to discern them ; the
genuine student will not only not be offended by them, but
will at once understand why inferences or conclusions, hinted
at rather than worked out in the earlier Parts, called for more
systematic elaboration later on, and why in the later volumes
it became necessary to give the full evidence for judgements
which had been impugned as being unwarranted or arbitrary.
This remark applies especially to the later historical books of
the Old Testament, on which a flood of light was poured by
the analysis given in the Seventh and last Part of the Bishop's
work. No part of his task, probably, has been more fruitful.
It has shown us that in almost every instance the additions
made by the chronicler to the narratives in Samuel and Kings
have been made in the interest of the later ecclesiastical
system ; and we are further, in the Bishop's words, enabled,
“to trace his hand in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and
even in the Chaldee parts of Ezra, and to see that not only
654 M.IFE OF BISA/OP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
the whole of the narrative in Ezra, and much of it in
Nehemiah, but also decrees ascribed to Cyrus, Darius,
Artaxerxes, letters purporting to come from Tatnai and
Artaxerxes, the prayer of Ezra, and the Levite's prayer in
Nehemiah, are all pure inventions of the chronicler, as
much so as the letters of Hiram, Elijah, Hezekiah, the
speeches of David, Abijah, Jehoshaphat, Azariah, Hezekiah,
the prayers of David, Asa, and Jehoshaphat, the prophecies
of Shemaiah, Azariah, Hanani, Jehu, Jahaziel, Zechariah,
Obed, in the Books of Chronicles, all of which exhibit
plainly the chronicler's own peculiar style, just exactly as
all the speeches ascribed to different persons in Homer or
Virgil, Thucydides or Tacitus, exhibit one and the same
style, viz. that of the Greek or Roman writer to whose
imagination they are due.” +
The deliberate modification or invention of historical
incidents is an act on which it is not easy to look with indul-
gence. But it is the fault of the traditionalists if a harder
measure is dealt out to the chronicler than to other historians
whose veracity is supposed by many to lie beyond reach of
question. A large majority of Greek scholars would probably
put the trustworthiness of the Hebrew chronicler far below
the level of that of Thucydides; and yet in the pages of the
latter we have in the case of Themistokles a history not less
garbled than that of the priests and Levites in Chronicles,
and also the insertion of documents which are, beyond doubt,
sheer forgeries, and as to which the historian, even if he was
not himself the forger, cannot be acquitted of all responsi-
bility. There is no difficulty in the supposition that the
chronicler may have had access to the text of a published
decree of the Persian Sovereign. The only question is as to
the fact of publication. It is quite otherwise when Thucy-
dides professes to give us the exact text of a letter written by
Themistokles to Artaxerxes. He tells us that Themistokles
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. xii.
1871–79. THE AEAVTA TEUCH - ZZ'S GROWTH. 655
wrote the letter. If he did so, the original must have
gone to Artaxerxes. In this case we must (as I have
had to say elsewhere)" suppose one of three things—either
Themistokles kept a copy of it, or Artaxerxes sent back the
original, or allowed a transcript to be made. The last degree
of unlikelihood attaches to all these suppositions. The
original could be recovered only from the archives of Sousa,
and, apart from the unlikelihood that such documents would
be preserved at all, there is the far greater unlikelihood that
they would ever be given up to the king's enemies. If these
alternatives fail us, one conclusion only is possible—namely,
that the letter, as we have it, is a forgery. But this forgery is
made to further a falsification of history as glaring as any of
which the chronicler could be guilty; and it is only accident
which has made the results of his fabrication more mischievous
than those of the fictions to which Thucydides gave the sanc-
tion of his great name.
Since the publication of the Bishop's Sixth Part, the long-
promised Speaker's Commentary has been given to the world.
Of this we shall have to speak more particularly further on.
For the present we need remark only some of the admissions
which show the absurdity of Bishop Gray's or Bishop Wilber-
force's notion of the futility or the childishness of Bishop
Colenso's criticisms. These admissions are indeed fatal to the
popular traditional views, and therefore, although they come
from critics with an established orthodox reputation, they
have been kept carefully out of sight by the so-called Orthodox
preachers and teachers. Thus we have the admission
“that we have no correct record of the Ten Commandments,
as supposed to have been uttered by the Divine Voice on
Mount Sinai, in either of the two Decalogues given in the
Pentateuch, which “differ from each other in several weighty
* Lives of Greek Statesmen, i. p. 191.
656 LIFE OF BISHOP COLENSO. CHAP. XII.
3
particulars, especially in the reason assigned for observing
the Sabbath.” I
We have, further, the suggestion that all the Ten Command-
ments may originally have been uttered “in the same terse
and simple form, such as would be most suitable for recollec-
tion,” which appears in the first, sixth, seventh, eighth, and
ninth ; although both in Exodus and Deuteronomy the
Decalogue is put forth, with all its amplifications, as the actual
words of Jehovah on Sinai, and although the assigning of a
terse and simple form to a Divine utterance involves, on
examination, a wonderful profanity. Still more significant is
the assumption throughout this Commentary that, except in
respect of the Decalogue, Moses himself was the lawgiver, and
that the phrase “the Lord spake unto Moses” “does not
imply that there was any oral communication,” although, if .
there be oral communication to the extent of half a dozen or
of ten sentences, it is as easy to imagine the like communica-
tion to the extent of a folio volume. Nor is this all. The
Commentary declares that Moses simply prescribed certain
laws and institutions for his people, which he had not un-
frequently adopted from existing and ancient customs. One
of the most prominent instances of such legislation is the
loathsome and utterly futile law of jealousy, given in the fifth
chapter of Numbers. This law is introduced as being not less
emphatically “spoken by Jehovah to Moses” than any other,
and yet the Commentary says, point blank, that
“this, like several other ordinances, was adopted by Moses
from existing and probably very ancient and widespread
superstitions.””
Nothing more than this is wanted. These words should be
written up in letters of gold (if such a fancy may for a moment
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. xiv. * Zö. p. xv.
1879. THE PAEAVTA TEUCH: ZTS GRO W7 A. 657
be allowed) for all men to see not only that there was a full
justification for the work undertaken by the Bishop of Natal,
but that this work was triumphantly accomplished. If it had
not been for that work, it is not a matter of doubt, it is a
certainty, that these admissions in the Commentary would not
have been made. The only difference between the Bishop
and the Commentary is this, that the former worked and
spoke candidly and straightforwardly, while the latter makes
admissions, not less fatal to all the traditional notions, and
allows them to appear along with phrases which seem to lend
a weak colour to those notions, while really they lend none.
But admissions and qualifications are often of not less value
than direct acknowledgments of defeat, and these admissions
of the Commentary must be kept in the forefront, as justifying
the application of the same method to the narratives of the
New Testament as well as of the Old.
It is quite impossible to lay too much stress on this matter.
The writer in the Speaker's Commentary has treated as
derived from popular practices, or from popular Superstitions,
precepts which are said to come straight from God Himself.
If these do not come from God, are there any others for which
this claim can be urged 2 The commentators have used a
two-edged sword, and their weapon has left them helpless.
There is no so-called rationalistic conclusion which is not
thoroughly justified by their language. This horrible law of
jealousy, which, as we read it in the Book of Numbers, excites
an irrepressible loathing, was not peculiar to the Jewish or
Canaanitish tribes. A similar ordeal has been, and perhaps
is still, in vogue in Western Africa, and, it may be, in other
parts of the world. Of this the commentator is quite aware,
for he says:– -
“There is no evidence to show whether this usage sprang from
imitation of the Law of Moses, or whether Moses himself
VOL. I. U U
658 Z/FE OF APISAIOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
in this, as in other things, engrafted his ordinances on a
previously existing custom,”
that is, upon a “superstition,” which, according to the record,
was laid down or sanctioned by Jehovah Himself."
In the same story the regulations for burnt-offerings and
drink-offerings are said in the Book of Numbers (xxvii. 3, 8)
to proceed directly from God; but the commentator has no
hesitation in assigning the customs of other nations as their
origin, and in Saying that
“this practice would naturally betray itself in the language
now employed by Moses,”
or rather, according to the record, by God Himself.”
Still more, the commentators admit that others besides
Moses may have had a share in the legislation which bears
his name.
“It is,” we are told, “by no means unlikely that there are
insertions of a later date, which were written or sanctioned
by the prophets and holy men, who after the Captivity
arranged and edited the Scriptures of the Old Testament.”
The likelihood here asserted is nothing less than this, that
these holy men inserted in the Pentateuch passages which
they themselves had written, but which they meant to be
regarded by their countrymen in all future ages as portions
of a Divine revelation made of old to Moses; 3 and this is
admitted in a Commentary, which, it is no breach of charity
to say, was designed to exhibit the critical method of the
Bishop of Natal as childish, and his conclusions as absurd.
With irresistible force the Speaker’s Commentary has pro-
claimed that his method and conclusions are not merely not
childish and absurd, but are indispensable in any search
1 Pentateuch, Part VII. p. xv. * Ib. p. xvi. 3 Nº.
1879. THE PEAWTA TEUCH - ITS GA’O WZTAZ. 659
which is to guide us to the truth of facts. Critics do not
and will not agree in everything. If they did, we should be
compelled to infer that they were working and writing in
collusion ; but the substantial harmony reached by scholars
during the present century is astonishing, and the agreement
between the Bishop and Dr. Kalisch is in a special degree
satisfactory. Approaching the subject from a very different .
point of view, the latter was brought to the conclusion that
the laws in Leviticus are of later origin than the correspond-
ing enactments in Deuteronomy. On this point hinges, he
insists, the true insight, not only into the composition of the
Pentateuch, but into the entire history of Hebrew theology.
Hence, the Book of Leviticus did not exist, or, at least, was
not regarded as authoritative, in the earlier years of the Baby-
lonish Captivity; and the final revision of Leviticus and of
the Pentateuch must be placed probably at 400 B.C." It is
also highly instructive, and to the Bishop it was most satis-
factory, to find Kalisch asserting that the author of the “book
of Balaam ” was not the Jehovist, or Elohist, or final compiler
of the Book of Numbers, but one of the greatest seers of
Israel in the fresh and vigorous time of David, who wrote
after the conquest of Moab, “inspired by those glorious
triumphs which the last prophecy introduces with such pecu-
liar power and pride.” But the episode about the ass Dr.
Ralisch regards as a later interpolation, and “the more so *
as that passage interrupts the thread of the narrative, destroys
the unity and symmetry of the conception, and is, in spirit
and form, as a whole and in its details, strikingly different
from the main portion.” The Bishop could now speak of
“the very late post-exilic origin of the Levitical legislation
of the Pentateuch and Joshua, including both the laws and
the historical narrative connected with them, . . . . as an
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. xxvi. * Ib. p. xxvii.
U U 2
66o AZFE OF BASA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
established fact. . . . In short, not only are the composite
character of Genesis and its non-Mosaic origin ascertained
as fully by the researches of modern critical science, as the
main facts of modern geological or astronomical Science,
. . . but the composition of Deuteronomy in the age of
Josiah, and of the Levitical legislation during and after the
Captivity, as also the fictitious character of the chronicler's
variations and modifications of the older history in Samuel
and Kings, are points upon which there may be said to
be among Biblical scholars almost unanimous agreement,
whatever differences may still exist as to minor details.” "
Among these questions, of secondary importance would be
the age to be assigned to the Jehovist. The age of the
Elohist is a more serious consideration. The reasons which
led the Bishop to fix it in the life-time of Samuel have been
already laid with all practicable fulness before the reader. The
arguments which induced Kuenen to bring it down to the
Babylonish Captivity, or even to a later period, the Bishop
gave with impartial exactness in the Appendix (125) to his
Sixth Part. In the Seventh he returns (Appendix, I 52) to the
same inquiry, and with the same results. Even this scrutiny,
whatever be the issue, cannot affect the one question of the
non-Mosaic and non-historical character of the Pentateuch
which, at starting, the Bishop set himself to answer. But on
the whole he might well say that the theory rested on in-
sufficient evidence, while the indications of the earlier com-
position of the Elohistic narrative seem very strong indeed.”
For English students they can scarcely fail to be conclusive.
We have seen the havoc wrought by writers in the Speaker's
Commentary on the traditional beliefs. But some effort is
made to uphold these beliefs in the modified shape, that Moses
originally published the Decalogue in an abridged form (that
is, that he on his own responsibility abridged the utterances
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. xxix. * Ib. p. xxxi.
1879. THE PENTA TE UCAſ. ITS GROWTA. 661
of God Himself), and therefore that he communicated to them
the name Jehovah as that of the God of Israel, and must be
supposed to have exhibited great energy and ability in ruling
and instructing his people." To this (the traditional ground
being professedly abandoned on both sides) the reply is, that
the original story did not contain the Ten Precepts, that there
is positively no room for them, as the story goes on con-
tinuously in such a way as to show that the Decalogue could
not have been inserted in the original narrative, and that it
is really the work of the Deuteronomist. But there remains a
further inference of no small moment.
“If Moses did not publish the Decalogue in any form . . . .
(and no prophet makes the least allusion to it), and if he
was not the author of either the Deuteronomistic or the
Levitical legislation, it is obvious that his action as a
legislator, as exhibited in the original story, will be reduced
within very narrow limits, and will be confined, in fact, to
the series of primitive laws, the ‘words and judgements, in
Exodus xxii. 22, which must have been written, originally,
in the land of Canaan.””
In other words, even in the framing of these, he could have
had only a small part; and therefore the Bishop found himself
constrained to add -
“that it will advance greatly the criticism of the Pentateuch,
and assist materially towards forming a true conception as
to the civil and religious history of the Hebrew people, if
the notion of the activity of Moses is altogether abandoned,
and the name regarded as merely that of the imaginary
leader of the people out of Egypt—a personage quite as
shadowy and unhistorical as AEneas in the history of Rome
or our own King Arthur.” 8
Such was his mature conclusion after the lapse of seven
years from the publication of Part VI. During this interval
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. xxxi. * Ib. p. xxxii.
* Ib. , see also above, p. 649.
662 L/FE OF BISAIOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
he had “gone over the ground again and again,” with respect
to every part of his criticisms. On some of the questions
brought up by the inquiry critics were still divided. On the
great points they were at one. But he felt assured that
“no amount of thought and labour will be grudged, or will be
reckoned as wasted, by those who have been closely engaged
in this part of the work, which shall help in any degree to
clear the way for the more thorough knowledge of the com-
position of the Pentateuch, and the age and authorship of
its different portions—upon which depends so much the
progress of true Christianity in the world, the work of
missions among Mohammedans, Parsees, Buddhists, and
heathens, and (in one word) the future religion of the human
race.”"
For the purposes of scholarship and criticism, the contro-
versy had thus been brought to an end : and that this should
in so short a time have been the result shows that his work
was indeed an astonishing achievement. But the Speaker's
Commentary, which made concessions decisive of the real
matters in debate, made use at the same time of language
under cover of which it was hoped that the old beliefs might
yet be kept up amongst the multitudes, although in the eyes
of the learned they had been utterly discredited. It may be
said that such a method is highly disingenuous. If it be so,
they who have practised it have themselves only to thank for
the imputation. Assuredly their utterances do not redound
altogether to their honour; but they will work immense good
for generations yet to come. The orthodox students of the
next century will start with the declarations made by such a
writer as Bishop Lord Arthur Harvey, and will in greater or
less degree carry them out to their logical consequences. From
him they will learn that there is little difficulty as to the
authorship of the two Books of Kings, inasmuch as
1 Pentateuch, Part VII. p. xxxiv.
1879. 7 HE PAEAWTA TE UCH: Z7'S GROWTH. 663
“the Jewish tradition which ascribes them to Jeremiah is
borne out by the strongest internal evidence, in addition to
that of the language.”
These books, he urges, have a general character of trust-
worthiness; but their chronological details “are inexplicable
and frequently contradictory.” The very first date, that of
the foundation of Solomon's Temple, is “manifestly erroneous,”
and the evidence of its being an interpolation is wonderfully
strong. But if so, Bishop Harvey adds,
“it must have been inserted by a professed chronologist, whose
object was to reduce the Scripture history to an exact
system of chronology,”
and these insertions, he holds,
“are the work of a much later hand, or hands, than the books
themselves.”
These expressions, the Bishop of Natal tells us, are rather
strong to come with the sanction of theologians, some of whom
had declared that
“all our hopes for eternity, the very foundation of our faith,
our nearest and dearest consolations, are taken from us, if
one line of that sacred book be declared to be unfaithful and
untrustworthy.”
And here the Bishop of Bath and Wells has rejected scores
of sentences as interpolations, and as interpolations of matter
which is wrong, erroneous, and misleading.” This chronologist
in Graf's judgement lived in Josiah's time. Bishop Harvey iden-
tifies him with the Deuteronomist. The two views are easily
reconciled, if, as Bishop Colenso has shown, “the Deutero-
nomist was Jeremiah himself.” & The fact of this Deutero-
nomistic revision removes many difficulties which press on
readers who regard the whole narrative as the composition of
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 5. * Ib. p. 11. 3 Ib. p. 12.
664 A./FE OF BASA/OB CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
a single historian. It explains the shocking contrast between
the devout advice to Solomon put into David's mouth by the
Deuteronomist, and the bloody suggestions of kingcraft with
reference to Joab and Shimei in the older narrative." The
insertions and additions thus made to the original story in the
Books of Kings are traced by the Bishop with wonderful
patience and skill, to the immense benefit of all who do not
care for edification derived from unintelligible or impossible
narratives. The difficulties thus removed have been caused
by efforts to whitewash or exalt the character of personages
in the history. According to the Deuteronomist, Solomon
fell into idolatry, and multiplied his wives, in his old age. In
the older record there is no sign of the early piety from which
he is supposed to have declined.
“It fact, it is clear,” the Bishop says, “that he must have
married Naamah the Ammonitess, the mother of Rehoboam,
in David's life-time, if Solomon reigned forty years, and
Rehoboam was forty-one years old when he began to reign.
He doubtless married this heathen wife . . . with David's
consent ; and probably, while still young, added many
more such heathen wives to this one,—in all which there is
nothing surprising, since the Deuteronomistic laws which
forbid such marriages were not yet written. . . . . In short,
here we have another striking instance of the manner in
which the history of Israel is rendered perplexed and
contradictory by later additions which have been supposed
to be portions of the original narrative.””
The authorship of these books (the work which has brought
them into their present shape) may be ascribed, in the Bishop's
belief, in the full sense of the word, to Jeremiah,
“whose hand may be traced, not merely, ‘selecting, collecting,
modernising, but writing history throughout ; ”8
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 13. * I. P. 4I. 3 ſº. p. 45.
1879. THE A*EAVTA TE UCH - ITS GROWTH. - 665
and in truth, when we see brought together the whole work
of this earnest and devoted Servant of God, we stand amazed
at his energy and perseverance. His hand is seen almost
everywhere, and (whatever judgement our notions of literary
honesty may lead us to form of him) always with the same
purpose of weakening and crushing Superstition, and raising
his countrymen to higher and purer thoughts of God. But
everywhere, also, he had something to work upon, and he often
refers to older records, some of which are undoubtedly em-
bodied in the present Book of Judges. In this genuine old
matter, some of the most striking portions of the book are not
to be included. The vigour and the beauty of the song of
Deborah have led even critics so sagacious as Kuenen to
speak of it as certainly genuine ; but, as the Bishop remarks,
this argument would establish the genuineness of Macaulay's
Lays of Ancient Rome, or, at least, of some ancient source
from which they were translated. This song certainly points
to the golden age of Hebrew literature, in David's time, and
the fact that its opening verses are almost verbally identical
with those of the 68th Psalm cannot be disputed. It is
certain that one of these passages has been copied from the
other, and it was the Bishop's belief that the Psalm must be
the older composition.” &
But this song of Deborah, although brought down to a time
later than that of the 68th Psalm, still describes a condition
of society entirely different from that which the chronicler
would have us suppose was then already ancient. It names
all the other tribes except Judah and Simeon, but makes not
even an allusion to the tribe of Levi or the Aaronic priest-
hood, to the ark or to the tabernacle. Nor throughout the
book is there any sign of the priests or Levites acting as
judges (in accordance with Deuteronomy xvii. 8–13). Phinehas
is indeed once mentioned, but this is an interpolated passage
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 79. * Ib. p. 81; see also above, p. 539.
666 I/FE OF BISAIOP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
belonging most probably to the later legislation ; and, as the
Bishop remarks, if so eminent a person was really then living,
it is strange that there is no sign of his activity in Deborah's
Song, or in any other part of the book." Of Levites, the only two
mentioned are homeless vagabonds. The story of Jephthah
points indubitably to a time during which human sacrifices
were neither rare nor reprobated.” This of itself would not
go for much, for prophet after prophet down to the time of the
Captivity mourns over the slaughter of first-borns offered to
Moloch ; but although sacrifices of adults were sometimes
made, the holocausts were no doubt generally of infants, and
the burning of Jephthah's daughter would point therefore to
a somewhat earlier age. The absurd notion, that she was left
to live, but condemned to perpetual virginity, really deserves
no notice.” The idea that women were so devoted in Israel
is a mere assumption. Whenever women are mentioned in
connexion with the service of the sanctuary, their functions
are strictly those of the Hierodouloi of Corinth.
For the due understanding of the Hebrew history it is a
most unfortunate thing that the words Elohim and Jehovah
should not have been retained, wherever they occur, without
translation in the English version. The words “God” and
“Lord ” convey to us no contrast, and no very definite dis-
tinction ; and by the substitution of these words the story of
the Book of Ruth becomes strangely indistinct. That book, as
showing no acquaintance with the Deuteronomistic legislation,
must be older than the age of Josiah, and it belongs to a time
when religion was still strictly local. Thus, Naomi takes it for
granted that Orpah in going back to her people will return to
her Elohim, while Ruth declares that Naomi's people shall be
her people, and therefore Naomi's Elohim her Elohim.4 The
Elohim of Israel is a national deity, in no other way distin-
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 86. * See above, p. 607.
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 93. * Ib. p. 106.
1879. THE PAEAVTA TEUCH - ITS GROWTH. 667
guished from the Elohim of the nations round about. A few,
a very few, rose above this belief to the conception of a Divine
Ruler ordering and sustaining all things by the word of His
power; but the idea that the Semitic nations were marked by
any special monotheistic tendencies, while the tendency of the
Aryan races was to polytheism, is the merest Superstition. It
is an assumption which goes in the teeth of facts, and simply
reverses the truth.
The book which bears the name of Samuel points to a state
of society in every way unlike that which is depicted by the
chronicler as existing in his day. Eli and his two sons
appear to have been the only priests at Shiloh. Here there
was a house of Jehovah, which is called the tent of meeting ;
but as it had door-posts and doors it cannot have been the
tent described in Exodus xxvi-xxxvi. In this building
Samuel slept, contrary to the spirit, if not to the letter, of
the ordinance in Numbers," and, contrary also to the Law, the
lamp was allowed to go out. The song put into the mouth of
Hannah belongs to a later time. The idea of a kingdom,
according to the story, was not conceived till Samuel was an
old man ; but in this song Jehovah is spoken of as exalting the
horn of his anointed.” The comparison is forced upon us with
the songs of Zacharias and of Simeon, and the Magnificat of
the Virgin Mary. It is easy to see that of these three songs
the first is a magnificent ordination hymn, in which the child is
a young man admitted to the holy and blessed work of the
prophetical office; the second an expression of thankfulness
from one who has been permitted to see the accomplishment
of Some special Divine work; the third an utterance expand-
ing the thought that God resists the proud, and gives grace to
the humble. The whole narrative of the catastrophe in Eli's
family was, in the Bishop's belief, written in Solomon's time,
with the view of accounting for the violent expulsion of
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 116. * Ib. p. 117.
668 Z/EE OF BASA/OP CO LEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
Abiathar to make way for Zadok." The doom pronounced on
Eli's house was certainly not fulfilled. As Eli died when his
two sons were cut off, those of his house who survived that
event cannot have “consumed his eyes, and grieved his heart;”
nor did Abiathar, one of his descendants, and part therefore
of the “increase of his house,” die in his prime, since he was
David's high priest during all his reign. -
The Second Book of Samuel knows as little, seemingly, as
the First, of that exaltation of the priests and Levites which
in the later legislation and the books of Chronicles is repre-
sented as having been already achieved in the Mosaic age.
The contradictions and impossibilities thus introduced into
the narrative are disentangled by the Bishop in the eighth
chapter of his concluding Part. In the following chapter he
carries on the scrutiny through the First Book of Kings, and
with like results. Solomon dismisses Abiathar to the city of
Anathoth, and to his field there; and by Jeremiah Anathoth
is mentioned as a priestly city. But this is no proof that the
system of Levitical cities existed in this or any other age ; for
Nob (I Samuel xxii. 19) was also a city of priests, yet was no
Levitical city.” Nor must we fail to note that Solomon expels
the aged high priest and puts Zadok in his place “as coolly
as he puts Benaiah in the place of Joab.” - -
From the matter contributed by the Deuteronomist the
general story of Elijah and Elisha must be separated, as
containing -
“So many miraculous stories, many of them of singular
extravagance.”
No trace of such a style, the Bishop remarks,
“appears even in the exaggerated accounts by the Deutero-
nomist's hand of Solomon's wisdom and magnificence,
much less in the more sober historical accounts of either
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 119. * Ib. p. 156.
1879. 7THE PEAVTA TEUCH - ZZTS GROWTH. 669
* |
the earlier, or the later kings, where the only miracle
recorded is that of the shadow going backward on the
sun-dial—and this is merely a copy of Isaiah xxxviii. 7, 8.””
When we reach the time of Hezekiah, we still find a state
of things wholly unlike the pictures of the chronicler. When
that king wishes for the help of Isaiah, he sends to him
“Shebna who was over the house, and Eliakim the scribe,
and the elders of the priests; ”
but nothing is said about the high priest, though he must
have been included amongst these elders, and they are all
placed here below the civil officers, and are not named at all
as present at the conference with Rabshakeh.”
The Second Book of Kings brings us to events in which
Jeremiah was personally and closely concerned. Bishop Lord
A. Harvey notices it as remarkable that this prophet is never
once named in the history of the later kings of Judah, though
he filled so prominent a place in their reigns.
“This is indeed,” Bishop Colenso adds, “a very strong addi-
tional proof of the fact that we owe the Books of Kings to
his authorship, since no other writer could possibly have
passed over in utter silence so important a personage, more
especially when other prophets, Abijah, Jehu, Micaiah,
Jonah, besides Elijah, Elisha, and Isaiah, are mentioned by
name in the history.” -
But it was just at this time that the Book of the Law was
found in the Temple; and he must have felt that a hundred
questions would, either sooner, or in the dim future of the
ages, be raised about this wonderful incident. On the tradi-
tionary view, as Bishop Colenso remarks, the event is
amazing. How came Hilkiah not to have found it sooner?
The book was not brought to light by reason of any
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 180. * Jö. p. 201.
67o JL/FE OF EASA/OP COLA2AVSO. CHAP. XII-
disturbance caused by repairs in the Temple, for these were
not yet begun. Why, again, should Huldah be consulted in-
stead of Jeremiah 2 And why should not the latter be one of
the deputation sent to inquire of Jehovah about the matter
“The whole, of course, is intelligible enough, if Jeremiah him-
self was the writer of the book, and kept himself out of
the way—at Anathoth, perhaps—while the first news of the
discovery transpired ; though we may believe that he includes
himself among the ‘priests and prophets’ in whose ears Josiah
read the contents of the book.” 1
But what was this book 2 The question has been answered
already.” But Bishop Harvey, who had given up the chrono-
logy in the text of the Books of Kings as erroneous and
misleading, and had made other admissions wholly opposed to
all the traditional notions, suddenly turns round and asks us
to believe that it was the autograph copy not merely of
Deuteronomy, but of the whole Pentateuch written by Moses.
The fact, he adds, cannot be proved ; but
“it seems probable that it was, from the place where it was.
found, viz. in the Temple, and from its not having been
discovered before, but being only brought to light on the
occasion of the repairs; and from the discoverer being the
high priest himself it seems natural to conclude that the
particular part of the Temple where it was found was one
not usually frequented, or ever, by any but the high priest.
Such a place exactly was the one where we know the original
copy of the Law was deposited by command of Moses, viz.
by the side of the Ark of the Covenant, within the vail, as
we learn from Deuteronomy xxxi. 9, 26.”
This is pitiable indeed. The history of the Kings in the
reign of Josiah brings before us the discovery of a book under
very astonishing circumstances; and, for the fact that the
1 Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 205. * See pp. 547, 628, et seg.
1879. THE PAEAWTA TE UCH: /7'S GROWTH. 671
book ought to be in a certain place, we are referred, not to
any collateral corroborative evidence, but solely to an injunc-
tion given in the book itself. But what is involved in Bishop
Harvey's supposition ? He holds it likely—in other words, he
believes, or he professes to believe (for otherwise it would not
be worth while to take the likelihood into account)—that it
was the autograph copy of Moses, not only of Deuteronomy,
but of the whole Pentateuch. The book is spoken of as one
whole ; and of this book, when it is read to him, the King,
with grief and dismay, confesses his entire ignorance. He
had neither seen it before, nor heard of it ; he is simply amazed
at the fact of its existence, and the more so as it spoke of
impending judgements for the breach of laws and rules of the
issuing of which he was altogether unaware. There is not a
word to show that he was acquainted with one part of it,
and not with the rest. We are to suppose then that the
whole of the Pentateuch had been written by Moses, and that
he had left an autograph copy of it. We are to suppose,
further, that the whole of the Pentateuch had been lost. In
truth, there is no escaping from this conclusion. For let us
admit Bishop Harvey's belief to be right, and what must have
followed 2 If the early history of the human race, if the lives.
of the Patriarchs, if the sojourn in Egypt, if the religious,
ecclesiastical, and civil law styled Mosaic, were known to the
Israelites down to the time of Josiah, then unquestionably
the first four books of the Pentateuch were known to them.
What, under these circumstances, must have been the language
of Hilkiah and of Shaphan 2 If they had a spark of common
honesty, if they were not knaves or fools, must they not
have said—
“We have found in the Temple a manuscript which contains
all the books of Moses already in our hands, but which has
also another book of which we know nothing, have seen.
nothing, and have heard nothing” ”
672 AAFE OF BISA/OA CO/CEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
Had they taken to Josiah an autograph of the whole
Pentateuch, what must he have said, as Shaphan began with
the first chapter and read on with wearying persistency to the
end of Numbers—a task not of hours but of days P. As
the familiar words fell upon his ear, must he not have
said—
“Why do you read me all this 2 We know it all, and should
have acted upon it all already.”
If Bishop Harvey puts any faith at all in the story (and the
worst of it is that language such as his leaves us in doubt
upon the point), he must allow that, whatever the book was,
it was read through by Shaphan at a sitting, and its words
came to the King with the force of an electrical shock.
Shaphan read “the book,” the whole book, and the King
rent his clothes. But, on the supposition of Bishop Harvey's
notion being true, this is by no means all. Let us allow that
“the book” (only one book is spoken of) was “the Pentateuch.”
Then how long had the whole Pentateuch been lost 2 For a
space of time nearly equivalent to that which has passed over
England since the days of the Norman Conquest. During all
these centuries, if the written law and history had been lost,
as Bishop Harvey holds that they were, the Hebrews had had
nothing but oral tradition to trust to—the tradition of jealous
and disunited tribes, the tradition of severed and hostile
kingdoms. If, on the other hand, the Tetrateuch had not
been lost, and only the Book of Deuteronomy was found by
Hilkiah in the Temple, then how with any sense of truthful-
ness could Josiah have spoken as he is said to have spoken 2
The earlier books may present to us no language so magni-
ficent, so heart-stirring, and so touching, as that of the Book
of Deuteronomy; but, so long as he had these books, how
could he, on hearing the new book, have expressed such
surprise, anxiety, and dismay Is there one single injunction,
1879. THE PEWTATEUCH - 17°S GROWTH. 673
one single duty, on which stress is laid in Deuteronomy, which
is not set forth also in the other books 2 There is not
one. If we dare to say that they possessed the Pentateuch,
and that they paid no heed to it, we plunge, not into the mire
of folly, but into the Serbonian bog of falsehood. It would
follow then that all the upright judges, all the good kings, all
the God-fearing prophets, had, with one consent, treated the
words and the writings of their great and venerated lawgiver
with contempt, and had done so systematically for six, seven,
or eight centuries. - .
In the other books there were charges enough to think on
the Divine commandments to do them ; promises enough
of blessings which should follow obedience; and warnings
enough of punishments which would be the consequence of
violating them. Is it possible, is it conceivable, that upright
judges, godly kings, conscientious prophets and teachers, would
thus neglect books which it was their duty, and could not fail
to be their delight, to read and to know thoroughly 2 The
inference is irresistible. They seem to us to have neglected
these laws and to have contemned these books because in
their day these books had not been written, and these laws
had not been framed. In other words, this fact alone estab-
lishes triumphantly the whole work of the Bishop of Natal.
The other theory is absurd, is monstrous. Bishop Harvey
cannot believe, no man can really believe, that the whole
religious, moral, social, ecclesiastical, political legislation con-
tained in the Tetrateuch was put together, under the most
solemn of sanctions, only to be forthwith lost and never
seen or heard of again for some eight hundred years. The
high priest alone, it is said, could discover it in the days of
Josiah, because he alone had the right of entering the place
where it was found ; but, in the days of Moses, the Levites, it
would seem, if we are to believe the Deuteronomist, were
competent to handle it, and were bidden to place it “in the
VOL. I. X X
674 AZAZE OF AP/SAIOP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
side of the Ark of the Covenant of Jehovah Elohim”; and we
are to suppose that these Levites did so—Levites belonging,
according to the chronicler, to a powerful tribe invested with
the most sacred privileges, charged with the most solemn
functions—Levites who, instead of speaking of this injunction
of the lawgiver to these tribesmen, and keeping up the
memory of it among the laymen of the other tribes, forgot all
about it themselves, and left the whole Pentateuch to lie for
century after century forgotten and dead, as though it had
never been. Nay, according to the Book of Deuteronomy,
the Levites had been charged to place the book in the ark
“that it may be there for a witness against thee,” and this
purpose of the lawgiver, it follows, was frustrated as soon as
he had made an end of writing the words of the law in his
book. But we will suppose that the whole Pentateuch was
preserved through the life-time of Joshua. The dense ignor-
ance of the days of the Judges, and all the phenomena of
that time, are proof enough that neither rulers nor people
were then acquainted with it. Even thus, can we go on to
suppose that during all those ages no memory remained what-
ever of the book or books which had been written ; that not the
faintest tradition survived of the righteous law under which
they should have been living ; that neither judges, nor kings,
nor prophets had ever had the least wish to recover it, the
smallest thought of searching for it ; that during all the
changes and wanderings which the ark had undergone, and in
spite of all the ransackings to which the various tabernacles
had been subjected, no one had ever noticed, no one had ever
seen, this bulky and once precious manuscript, as it lay like
lumber in the case to which the Levites had committed it
hundreds of years before ? The whole story speaks for itself.
Joshua, at least, inherited the full spirit of Moses. He, at least,
surely obeyed the precepts of his master: he knew therefore
that the change spoken of by the Deuteronomist would come,
1879. THE PENTA TEUCH: ITS GROWTH. 675
that kings would reign in Israel, and that, by the special
charge of Moses, each king was with his own hand to make a
copy of the book discovered afterwards by Hilkiah in the
Temple. Surely he at least would make due provision for
insuring that the books could be so handed down as to enable
them to act on that command. Of such provision there is not
the faintest trace. Of the disingenuousness which may be
supposed to mark the dealings of Jeremiah or Hilkiah enough
has been said already; but if, in order to acquit them of that
which in their eyes was probably no offence at all, and on
which, perhaps, they never bestowed a thought, we multiply
absurdities, contradictions, and impossibilities, this is not to
exercise the office of the critic or the judge. It is simply
to lie.
It is time that this play-acting should come to an end. We
must look at facts as they are. Whether it were the Tetra-
t teuch, or whether it was only the one Book of Deuteronomy,
the discovery of this book, on the supposition of its being the
autograph of Moses himself, was a circumstance which would
permanently and profoundly impress the imagination of such
a man as Jeremiah. If this discovery was confined to the
Book of Deuteronomy only, the impression made on him
would, if possible, be even deeper, for this would be just that
setting forth of the Divine Law, in its life-giving and healing
aspects, which he most longed for. In the Tetrateuch the
ceremonial enactments might be held to weigh down, or to
put out of sight, the higher matters of justice, judgement,
and mercy; but this could not be said of the Book of
Deuteronomy. Yet, if we are to judge him from his own
words, the event made on him no impression at all. In his
prophecies he never appeals to this Book of the Law, and,
except in the one Passover held after its discovery, Josiah
himself seems to have made no effort to carry out its direc-
tions. It is the same with the prophet Ezekiel. He, therefore,
X X 2
676 A/FE OF AP/SA/OP COZAZAVSO. CHAP. XII.
as well as Josiah, learnt after a while the real history of
the book, which was, indeed, the result of the effort made to
bring about the reformation of a most horrible state of things.
Nor can we presume to say that it was unsuccessful. Many
efforts are not fruitless, of which no results may be manifest
for a long series of generations. It is our own fault, if of the
condition of the Temple in the time of the Kings we choose
to frame pictures which do not answer to the real facts. The
list of abominations there practised, as given by Jeremiah
himself, should be enough to remove all such illusions, and to
disabuse the minds of all of any notion that the Temple was
a pure Sanctuary,
“thronged with holy priests and faithful Levites and multi-
tudes of pious worshippers, resounding continually with
Sacred melodies, with psalms and hymns and spiritual
songs.””
The ritual there practised was purely pagan. There, at the
north gate of the House of Jehovah, the women wept for
Tammuz—that is,
“for the dead Adonis (Yahve) whom they will hail on the
third day as having come to life again.””
There the twenty-five men between the porch and the altar
worshipped the sun towards the east ; there the moon-
goddess Ashera was adored under the symbol of a stock, or
pole, or trunk, which could become a serpent, and from a
serpent revert again to the form of a tree; and there was
kept up all the apparatus of obscene rites which mark the
ancient mythical religious systems of all countries.
It is hard to imagine that any popular delusions could be
more thoroughly exposed than those which, before the Bishop
undertook his work, flourished in this country as to the
1 Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 216. * Ib. p. 219.
1879. THE PENTATEUCH: TS GROWTH. . 677
history of the Pentateuch. These delusions, it will be remem-
bered, were asserted by Mr. Maurice to be truths; and, if
these were removed, we could not, he contended, speak of
God as a smiter of tyrants, as a deliverer of the oppressed,
as a God of freedom, order, and justice. The Bishop's work
was indeed done effectually. More corroborative evidence
might be adduced for his conclusions; but the conclusions
could not in their main lines be overthrown, and the strength-
ening evidence was not lacking. They are borne out by an
examination of all the prophetical books. The prophecies of
Amos, of the first Zechariah, and of Hosea make no re-
ference whatever to the Ten Commandments, the Book of
Deuteronomy, or the Levitical legislation of the Pentateuch.
In Hosea, an Ephraimitish prophet,
“there is no allusion whatever to the ark as the centre of the
religious feelings of all Israel, or to the existence of the
Aaronic priesthood, or to the duty having been laid by
express Divine command upon all male Israelites to go up
to Jerusalem for the three great feasts,” +
or for other purposes. The same remark applies to the earlier
Isaiah,” to Micah,” Nahum,” and Zephaniah.” Of Jeremiah
enough may, perhaps, have been said already ; but, as throw-
ing light on the morality, the very thought of which so shocked
Mr. Maurice, we must not forget the prophet's own narrative
as given in the thirty-eighth chapter (24–27). Here Zedekiah,
the king, orders him to prevaricate, or rather to tell a down-
right falsehood ; and the prophet follows his directions. There
is nothing in this to disturb our judgement. We can surely
gauge the measure of veracity reached by Asiatics, and, we
may also say, by Europeans, to say nothing of Englishmen.
But
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 241. * Ib. p. 250.
* Ib. p. 255. * Ib. p. 256. * Ib. p. 258.
678 AZAZE OF AP/SA/OP CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
“it is very plain that Jeremiah knew nothing of the Levitical
legislation of the Pentateuch, with its multitude of com-
mands ‘concerning burnt-offering and sacrifice.” "
To the Ten Commandments he never refers, probably
because the framing of them in both forms was his own work.
In the same way Habakkuk betrays no acquaintance with
the Ten Commandments or the Levitical legislation ; but he
might refer to the Book of the Law which in his time had
been found in the Temple.
“There are, in fact,” says the Bishop, “some remarkable points
of resemblance between Habakkuk (iii) and Deuteronomy
(xxxiii.), which suggest the possibility that the Deutero-
nomist (Jeremiah) may have received and adopted this
blessing of Moses from the hand of his contemporary.””
Joel, however, knows nothing of either Deuteronomy, the
Levitical legislation, or the Decalogue. With Ezekiel we
hotice a change. -
“He insists very strenuously on the observance of the Sab-
bath, which for the exiles was a point of great importance,
since it helped to keep alive in them a sense of religion, when
at a distance from the Holy Land, and deprived of the Temple
Services. Ezekiel was a priest, and in spite of his strong
and healthy moral sense, or along with it, he shows a
marked tendency towards the practice of a minute ritualism;
but even his directions for ritual seem to show that he was
not acquainted with those in Exodus xxv., &c. If he had
these chapters before him, with their alleged Divine direc-
tions for the construction and arrangement of the sanctuary
and its vessels, not only would they have answered his
purpose effectually, but he would hardly have departed from
them so freely as he does.”
Further, his very denunciations of his countrymen for their
idolatry show that they had not been trained in the so-called
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 266. * Iff. p. 270.
1879. THE PENTATE UCH: ITS GROWTH. 679
Mosaic monotheism. According to him the progeny of
Abraham and Jacob, the chosen people of Jehovah, had always
been idolatrous."
“There never was a time . . . when they were not a rebellious
house, an idolatrous people. It need hardly be said that
this thoroughly agrees with the conclusions to which we
have been led by the closer study of the Pentateuch and
the historical books of the Bible.” ”
In the prophecies of the second Zechariah and of Obadiah,
and in the Book of Lamentations, there is neither reference
nor allusion to the Levitical legislation, to Deuteronomy, or
to the Decalogue. The prophecies of the second Isaiah
belong to a time not long before the end of the Babylonish
Captivity,
“when the triumphant career of Cyrus distinctly marked him
out, in the writer's view, and in that of his fellow-exiles, as
the conqueror of Babylon. This prophet was, therefore,
subject to the same influences as those under which Ezekiel
prophesied ; but he was clearly less imbued with the priestly
and ceremonial spirit. With him there is no special regard
for the Levitical order. All Israelites are to be called
“priests of Jehovah,’ ‘ministers of our Elohim.’ The true
Servants of Jehovah must be ready to suffer with, and for,
and through their brethren ; and he declares the blessed
fruits which follow from such a ‘taking up of the cross.’
But even in the chapters of the third Zechariah, written
after the Captivity, but before the Temple was finished in the
sixth year of Darius, there is no reference to the Decalogue
or the Levitical legislation. To the Law of Deuteronomy
there may be, perhaps, an allusion in the sentence which
speaks of the Israelites as making their hearts adamant
So as not to hear the law and the words which Jahveh
Zebaoth sent through his Spirit by the former prophets.” ”
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 279. * Ib. p. 280. * Ib. p. 293.
68o LIFE OF BASA/OP COLEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
It is much the same with the Books of Jonah and Malachi,
a younger contemporary, probably, of Nehemiah. In the
utterances of the latter it is not surprising to
“find great stress laid upon the punctual performance of
priestly duties.”
Nor would there be anything surprising if he had
“referred distinctly to the Levitical legislation, much of which
was already in existence in his time, though probably not
yet published. Nowhere, however, does he make any
allusion to that legislation, except (possibly) in ii. 7, or to
the Ten Commandments; though in iv., 4 he refers to the
Book of Deuteronomy, which was now nearly two centuries
old, reckoning from its discovery in the Temple in Josiah's
time, B.C. 624.” "
To the Daniel of the book which bears his name it might
be supposed that Ezekiel was referring when he spoke
of Noah, Daniel, and Job, as three men who should save
their souls by their righteousness. But the very order in
which the name occurs, and the fact that he is put forth with
the other two as a model of righteousness,
“is enough to show that the Daniel here meant must be some
traditionary character of a former age, and not a mere
stripling carried to Babylon in the third year of Jehoiakim,
and only permitted to stand before Nebuchadnezzar three
years afterwards—that is, just before the time when Ezekiel
himself, then probably a priest in mature life, was carried
away to Babylon.” ”
In this book there is no express reference to the Pentateuch,
and not even an allusion to the Decalogue.
The result of the whole examination of the prophetical
books is to show that from the oldest prophet, Amos, down-
wards,
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 297. * Ib. p. 298.
1879. THE PENTATEUCH; 17's Growth. 68 I
*
“there are traces of an acquaintance with incidents in the
lives of the Patriarchs or the story of the Exodus, derived
apparently from the original story, though sometimes vary-
ing from it, and then probably depending on mere legendary
tradition. But in no single passage is there the slightest
reference to the existence of the Ten Commandments,
supposed in the traditionary view to have been graven
originally by the ‘finger of Elohim upon stones, as the
basis of Jehovah's covenant with Israel at Sinai. Nor in
any of the earlier prophets is there the least sign of an
acquaintance with the Deuteronomistic or Levitical legisla-
tion. In Jeremiah we find plain evidence of a familiarity,
and, indeed, of a peculiar and intimate relation, in respect
of views generally, and language, with the Book of
Deuteronomy, which probably he himself had written, but
still no trace of the Levitical legislation. In Ezekiel we
first find indications of acquaintance with some portions, at
all events, of the latter, to which he appears to have him-
self contributed. And in the post-Captivity prophets we
observe signs of acquaintance with both these legislations;
but only in Malachi, iv. 4, and in Daniel ix. I I–I3, is any
mention made of the Law of Moses.”
Thus again it is made plain that the Book of Deuteronomy
was not known before Jeremiah's time, but was well
known to that prophet; and from the fact that, although he
quotes it,
“he never appeals to it, nor even names it, while the style of
his prophecies resembles remarkably that of Deuteronomy,
it can only be inferred that he was himself the writer of that
book. . . . In other words, Jeremiah was the Deuteronomist,
and therefore also the editor or compiler of the Penta-
teuch and Joshua, before the insertion of the Levitical
legislation.” -
From the examination of the prophetical books the Bishop
went on to scrutinise those which are styled historical. Of
682 LIFE OF BASHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
the Chronicles, and of the spirit in which they were put
together, something has been said already. The age of the
chronicler himself cannot be carried further back than about
B.C. 332, i.e. about two centuries and a half after the Cap-
tivity. Nothing is gained by attempts to determine all the
sources from which he may have derived information. For
some of his statements, and especially for some of his
genealogies, he may have had the help of other records.
besides those of Samuel and Kings; but there is no question
that he had these latter before him all along, and has fre-
quently copied their language almost word for word. These,
however, are matters of very minor importance. It is more
to the purpose to note the mistakes and blunders which point
out his incompetency as an historian, and the deliberate
misrepresentation of facts which proves that without corrobo-
rative testimony he cannot be trusted anywhere. Thus he
makes Hiram of Tyre send ships for Solomon to ports on
the Red Sea, in which case they must either have been dragged
across the isthmus of Suez, or gone round by the Cape of
Good Hope. A blunder not less glaring is seen in the state-
ment that Solomon's ships went to Tarshish for the gathering
of gold, silver, tusks, apes, and peacocks, once in three years.
Tarshish was not a town, but a region in Southern Spain, and
the voyage to and from Spain would have taken only a few
months; but, in fact, the Book of Kings (I, x. 22) merely says
that Solomon had at sea ships of Tarshish, in other words,
large merchant vessels, just as we speak of Indiamen. The
chronicler, knowing nothing, and caring nothing, for the
geography, has fallen into a blunder.” In fact, he does all
that he can to discredit himself. He seems to work on
more materials than those which were at the command of
the writer of the Books of Kings; but his ostentatious references
to ‘the words of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah
1 Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 315.

1879. THE PEAVTA TEUCH - ITS GROWTH. 683.
the Shilonite, the visions of Iddo the seer, as though these
were all independent works, mean probably nothing more
than certain sections in the First Book of Kings. Having
no historical conscience to restrain him, he amplifies at will
the barest statements of the earlier annalists. The simple
announcement that “there was war between Abijah and
Jeroboam, is thus expanded into the circumstantial tale that
Abijah fought with 400,000 warriors against Jeroboam, who
headed no less a force than 800,000 mighty men of valour.
To this huge host he makes Abijah from the top of Mount
Zemaraim address a long speech, though how, for such an
address, full of invective against the apostasy of the Israel-
itish kingdom, he would get any hearing, it is hard indeed
to imagine. They were not his own soldiers, and there is no
room here for the usual resource of supposing him to speak
to a mere deputation of elders or other representatives."
What little generalship there was, was on the side of
Jeroboam, who places an ambuscade in the rear of his enemies.
On Abijah's side shouts to Jehovah with blowing of trumpets
by the priests soon settled the day, the result being that of
Jeroboam’s army there fell down slain, not merely wounded,
5OO,OOO chosen men. This is “ecclesiastical history” indeed,
if a history may be so termed because it is spun out of the
brains of ecclesiastics.”
Except when he thus weaves fictitious additions to the
older narrative, the chronicler is an almost servile copyist ;
and the mere fact that the language of these additions differs.
widely from that of the Kings would not of itself prove that
these also were not derived from other sources.
“But these additions . . . . betray throughout the chronicler’s
own peculiar style.”
If he has taken them from another source he must have
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 318. * Ib. p. 319.
684 AAFE OF AP/SA/OA CO/CAEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
re-written them, and this would prove at least that he did not
regard these sources as equal in value to the history of the
Kings. More probably, the Bishop concludes, he had no such
source at all." So his work goes on with the same wearisome
monotony of invention. Thus, Jehoshaphat's standing army
is made to consist of I, I6O,OOO warriors,
“implying a minimum population of 1,480 to the square mile,
which is more than three times greater than that of any
other country in the known world.”
At the same time he makes this king, with an army about
twelve times as large as that of Great Britain, tremble through
fear of a motley horde of invaders who come from beyond
the sea, from Edom. “As for us,” he is said to cry out in his
dismay, “we know not what to do.” As to charges, the
chronicler sticks at none which will serve his own purpose.
Thus he represents Joram as compelling his people to idolatry,
whereas from the story of the Book of Kings, -
“it is plain that they were of their own accord idolaters. He
further describes Joram as dying by an incurable disease,
and as being buried dishonourably, not in the Sepulchres of
the kings; whereas the older narrative says nothing of the
illness, and declares that he was buried with his fathers.””
It is impossible to reproduce here the contradictions in-
volved in the chronicler's method of dealing with the story
of Athaliah, which the Bishop draws out in full detail ; nor is
it necessary to bring together further instances of his mon-
Strous and laughable exaggerations. It seems impossible for
him to be accurate anywhere. In the Book of Kings, Ahaz
is said to have offered his son as a burnt sacrifice. The
chronicler speaks of him as burning his children generally.
He deals in the same way with Manasseh,3 of whom he further
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 325. * Jö. p. 332. * 1b. p. 337.
1879. 7THE PEAVT-4 TEUCH - ITS GROWTH. 685.
speaks as being taken captive by the Assyrians, and carried
in chains to Babylon, where he repents, and is restored to his
sovereignty. After his return, Manasseh is said to have
strongly fortified Jerusalem, and put captains of war in all
the fenced cities of Judah. Of all this the historian of the
Books of Kings knows nothing. The incidents rest on the
sole authority of a man in whom the sense of historical truth
was dead. It is the same with the later and with the earlier
kings. On all that tends to reflect discredit on David's
character he is absolutely silent ; and the whole account of his
preparations for the building of the Temple rests, in the words.
of Graf, “on an imaginary foundation.” As to a genealogy,
it must be either an exact statement of fact, or it must
be worthless. The chronicler’s genealogies may be drawn
from other sources besides the earlier records; but, as they
come to us, they rest on the sole authority of the chronicler;
and “some portion of these notices are,” in Graf's judgment,
“so manifestly stamped with the character of being unhis-
torical, that the value of most of them can only be judged
by their agreeing or not with otherwise credible history;
and in many cases, in the absence of such a test, they must
remain doubtful.””
His numbers are always vast and the numeration always,
artificial. As the choristers consisted of 24 × I2 = 288, so the
king's body-guard consisted of twelve courses of 24,OOO men.
each. On this statement Graf emphatically says that,
“if anywhere, then certainly in this passage it is plain that
we have only to do with pure fiction. Not only are the
numbers in themselves fantastic, but Second Samuel and
First Kings know nothing whatever of any such body-
guard. How modest in contrast appears the small troop.
of Cherethites and Pelethites and the 600 Gittites whom
1 Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 377. * Zó. p. 379.
1686 IIFE OF BISAIOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
David in his flight from Absalom sent forward in advance,
2 Samuel xv. 18. Moreover, what a peculiar light does it
throw on the mode of preparing such imaginary and yet
apparently documental narratives, when we find that the
names are merely taken from the beginning of the list of
David's heroes, and follow nearly in the same order as
these.” 1
But the chronicler is convicted not of blundering, but of
downright lying, when among the chiefs who took each his
monthly turn with his 24,OOO men at the court in Jerusalem,
appears Asahel, Joab's brother, who was killed by Abner
in the very beginning of David's reign, while he still lived at
Hebron.”
Having thus examined the books which bear the chronicler’s
name, the Bishop turns to the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah,
which in their present form are due also to him. The Bishop's
scrutiny is directed to the ascertainment of the share which
the chronicler had in the actual composition of these books;
and it is scarcely necessary to say that the search brings to
light the same phenomena. Thus in Ezra thirty golden
chargers, thirty golden basins, making up with the silver
vessels a total of 5,400 gold and silver vessels, belong to a
temple which in King Zedekiah's time had only one chief
priest, two second priests, and three keepers of the threshold.”
The genuine passages are distinguished with but little diffi-
culty, among these being Ezra iv. 9–22. Here we have no
trace whatever of the chronicler's style, and the letters quoted
refer not to the building of the Temple of which v. 1–5 is
speaking, but distinctly to the building of the city walls,
without any reference or allusion to the Temple. The con-
tradiction to the chronicler’s own narrative is complete.*
The true history comes out in spite of his efforts to hide it.
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 385. * Ib. p. 386.
* Ib. p. 389. * Ib. p. 391.
1879. 7A/A2 AFAWTA 7TE UCH - Z7'S GA’O WTAZ. 687
The building of the Temple flagged or was for a time given
up ; but that this delay (of more than twenty-one years)
should have been caused by the laziness of the Jews themselves,
while Zerubbabel and Joshua were still living, was
“very abhorrent to the chronicler’s mind. And he has tried
to account for it by inventing a series of hindrances from
the enemies of Judah, suggested, very probably, by the
opposition which was really made seventy years afterwards
to the building of the walls, and in doing this he has involved
himself in the gravest inconsistencies.” "
But these things gave the chronicler no trouble. He can
forge letters from the Persian king, and also letters to him.”
Thus,
“of the whole Book of Ezra (except chapter ii.) only the
letters in iv. 9–22 appear to be genuine and of real historical
value. The rest is the composition of the chronicler, of
which some portions are manifestly fictitious, and the rest,
unsupported by any other evidence, and partly in close
connexion with these fictitious portions, can lay no claim to
be regarded as history.”
The examination of the Book of Nehemiah brings the Bishop
to the conclusion that a considerable portion of it is the genuine
work of Nehemiah himself, in which we may throughout discern
strong marks of his character as an individual, the rest being
due to the chronicler,
“who also appears to have borrowed from the acts of Nehemiah
ideas for his own more detailed accounts of fictitious doings
which he ascribes to Ezra.” +
The analysis of the Book of Esther is not less instructive.
It is written to account for the origin of the Jewish festival
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 394. * 16. pp. 398-401.
* Ib. p. 4Io. * Ib. p. 439.
688 JC/FE OF BISAIOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
of Purim, which was not one of the three great feasts of the
Mosaic Law. The writer
“has simply set before himself the antiquarian purpose of
explaining why this feast was called the feast of Lots, and
to this end he has composed a romance full of exaggerations,
contradictions, and impossibilities, and breathing a spirit
of narrow national pride and bitter hatred against other
peoples.”
The story is one of wholesale massacre designed for the
extirpation of the Jews, and carried out through the permis-
sion of the king by the Jews upon their opponents, of whom
they slay more than 75,000, though all fear of their enemies
was over. The whole thing is a ludicrous absurdity.
“The edict, showing the King's pleasure, the Queen's influence,
and Mordecai's power, had been issued nine months. There
is no sign that the people generally wished any harm to the
Jews, or made any attack upon them, the decree for their
extirpation being ascribed solely to Haman's wrath against
Mordecai, and Haman had been executed nine months
before the decree was carried out. But even this, it seems,
was not enough to satisfy the vengeance of Esther and
Mordecai, or rather of Esther alone, for without any prompt-
ing she makes a second request to the King, that the Jews
might be allowed another day of butchery; and the request
is granted, and on the second day 300 more are killed in
Shushan. . . . In short, the whole account is manifestly
fabulous. . . . Indeed, it is incredible that the King should
have issued the first decree at the request of Haman, sup-
ported by a bribe of IO,OOO talents of silver (£3,42O,OOO),
ordering the massacre of a whole nation of his subjects,
‘to destroy, kill, and cause to perish all Jews, both young
and old, little ones and women,” because their laws were
diverse from all people, . . . though they are not charged
with any acts of rebellion, and that this decree should have
been published nearly a year beforehand to all the people,
1879. THE PEAWTA TEUCH - / 7 S GA’O WZTAZ. 689
including the Jews themselves (as we may gather from
iv. 1–3). And it is still more incredible that when the
second decree was issued, 75,000 of his other subjects, men,
women, and children, should have been killed by the Jews,
without, it would seem, the loss of a single Jew—no such
loss, at least, is indicated or implied in ix. I7—19 ; and
without the whole population rising en masse to overwhelm
these blood-thirsty murderers who were butchering their
families, though they did not pillage their homes—espe-
cially as they would have been supported by the King's
first decree.”.”
This is by no means all ; but it becomes wearisome to wade
through the absurdities contained in a book which, according
to Bishop Lord A. Harvey, “does not in the least savour of
romance.” His remark applies with equal force to the story
of Robinson Crusoe and to De Foe’s “Relation of the appari-
tion of one Mrs. Veal the next day after her death to one
Mrs. Bargreave at Canterbury.” Both are almost inimitable
specimens of plausible fiction; and the practice of the art of
plausible fiction stretches back to many a century before the
Christian era. Traditionalists of every school seem to be
always falling into this miserable trap, even though the bait
may be of a sort to undeceive any but the most credulous of
mankind. But, as in the case of the Passover, the origin
assigned for the celebration of the Purim festival is not the
real origin.
“It is here stated that the name arose from Haman’s ‘casting
lots,'—for what precise object is not mentioned, but appar-
ently with that of fixing by lot a day and month for the
massacre. But this explanation of its origin is incredible,
not only because this incident of Haman's casting lots
would hardly have been chosen to give a name to a feast
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 445.
* See Sir Walter Scott, Miscellaneous Prose Works : Biographies.
“De Foe,” Appendix 2.
VOL. I. y Y
690 Z/FE OF BISHOP coºwso. CHAP. XII.
commemorating an escape of the Jews from a general
massacre, but because the whole story of that threatened
massacre is manifestly fictitious.”
The real origin of the feast may be found perhaps in the
missing portion of the memoir of Nehemiah, which the
chronicler, in the Bishop's judgement, has suppressed after
Nehemiah vii. 5, and
“which seems to have unfolded Nehemiah's plan for re-
peopling Jerusalem, B.C. 445, about a century after the
return from exile, or two centuries before the Book of Esther
was written, viz. by casting lots, as we may gather from the
Summary of the proceeding in question in Nehemiah xi. I,
‘and the rest of the people cast lots, to bring one of ten to
dwell in Jerusalem the holy city, and nine parts in other
cities,’ and then it is added, ‘and the people blessed all the
men that volunteered to dwell at Jerusalem.” This must
obviously have been a time of great excitement and com-
motion ; and it would be very natural that a festival should
be established, partly to commemorate the self-devotion of
those who were willing to leave their country homes and
lands for the public good, and partly to afford an oppor-
tunity for annual reunion with their brethren. This would
carry the institution of the feast as far back as the reign of
Artaxerxes, a few years only after the time assigned to it
by this writer in the reign of his predecessor. If it be
thought strange that a Persian name, ‘the feast of Purim,'
should have been given to a feast which originated at
Jerusalem, we may observe that the Persian word Pekha =
pacha or satrap, is used familiarly for a Jewish governor
in the Books of Nehemiah, Haggai, and Malachi.”
Few portions of the Old Testament writings have thus
escaped the scrutiny into which the problem of the Mosaic
authorship of the Pentateuch forced the Bishop to enter. To
what age or ages are these few remaining books to be
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 452.
1879. THE AREAVTA TEUCH - ZZTS GROWTH. 691
assigned 2 By general admission the Book of Job betrays
no acquaintance with the Pentateuch. From this fact Canon
Cook inferred that the book was pre-Mosaic; and in strict-
ness this would mean that it was written before the Israelites
came up out of Egypt. Is this a sufficient reason for refusing
to consider the post-exilic origin of the work 2 The Book of
Esther was undoubtedly written after the Captivity, and it
contains no reference whatever to the Mosaic institutions ;
and the same remark applies to the Book of Ecclesiastes,”
which Dean Westcott regards as post-exilic. Canon Cook's
conclusion was dismissed by Professor Kuenen as deserving
no consideration. The notion that the Book of Job was
written in pre-Mosaic times, or by Moses himself, is, he says,
so utterly at variance with all the results of critical inquiry,
that it cannot be worth while to judge and contradict it.” It
matters not to what later date it may be assigned, since it
proves that at the time of its composition, whenever this may
have been, the Levitical legislation was either unknown or
regarded as unauthoritative, and Mr. Cook himself admitted
that, whenever the writer may have lived, he lived under
circumstances which either kept him in ignorance of the
institutions peculiar to Mosaism, or made him to a most
remarkable extent independent of their influence.” But in
this book we have many words which are characteristic of the
Levitical legislation ; and also, by Mr. Cook's admission,
“many words and idiomatic expressions which occur in the
latest Hebrew writings.”
In the Book of Proverbs, in which certainly we should have
expected to find them, there are no signs of any acquaintance
with the Levitical legislation, nor is there any reference to
the Decalogue. The style of Ecclesiastes points to a time
long after the Captivity, when the Hebrew tongue was greatly
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 454. 2 /ø. * Ib. p. 456.
Y Y 2
692 AAFE OF BISAIOP CO/LEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
corrupted by Aramaisms. It may, therefore, have been put
together about 200 B.C., not very long before the time when
Antiochos Epiphanes mounted the throne of Syria and began
his attempt to Hellenize the Jews.
“The writer shows no sign of Jewish exclusiveness, no special
attachment to the Jewish worship and religion. . . . This
agrees with the fact that many Jews in the time of Antiochos
were indifferent to their own religion, and readily adopted
Greek customs; in fact, the revolt of the Maccabees was a
protest against such injunctions as those in viii. 2-5, x.
4, 20.” " -
For the Book of Canticles it is certain that Solomon at
least was not the author. An Eastern despot cannot have
written a poem which exhibited himself as an unsuccessful
lover. Here also, as in so many other books, there is no
reference to the Deuteronomistic or Levitical legislation or to
the Decalogue.
The Bishop's Seventh Part concludes with a more extended
examination of the Book of Psalms. It is full of interest and
most valuable ; but for the Bishop's main purpose it was in
no way necessary for him to enter into the inquiry. Bishop
Harold Browne wholly mistook the nature and aim of his
work when he thanked him for resting his case so largely on
the testimony of the Psalmists. The Bishop replied with
an emphatic protest against this “unfair and unwarranted
statement.”
“I have not rested my case at all upon the Psalmists. I
have only adduced the very remarkable phenomena in the
Psalms, with reference to the use of the Divine Name, as a
collateral evidence, confirming, as far as it goes, the view
as to the later adoption of Jahveh as the name of the God
of Israel, to which I had been led by entirely different
processes of reasoning.”.”
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 469. * Ib. p. 483.
1879. THE PEAVTA TEUCH - ITS GROWTH. 693
The general conclusions reached by the Bishop have been
already given," and in the concluding volume they are not
materially modified. The whole inquiry is brought to a close
in a chapter on the formation of the Hebrew canon of Scrip-
ture. The forming of this canon brings us down to times
later than the Christian era. The notion that it was com-
pleted and closed by Ezra
“is at once set aside by the fact that the Talmud . . . is not
only silent about this remarkable fact, although laying so
great stress on the services of Ezra, but especially mentions
the uncertainty which still existed respecting some of the
canonical books,”
and this cannot be reconciled with the idea of these having
been placed in the canon by the authority of Ezra.” The
wild notion that the canon must have been closed by Malachi
because he was the last of the prophets, is set aside not only
by the recognition of John the Baptist as a prophet, but by
the fact that in the Gospel of St. Luke, Zacharias, Simeon,
Anna, are
“introduced as prophesying exactly after the manner of the
ancient prophets of Israel.”* “To all appearance no clear
view was entertained as to what this collection should in-
clude, and no definite plan was followed in enlarging it.
So far as the authority of the writers of the Epistles bearing
the names of Jude and Peter may carry us, the book of
Enoch was virtually a canonical book which had a legiti-
mate claim for admission into the circle of the Hebrew and
also of the Christian Scriptures.”
The historical and prophetical literature of the Old Testa-
ment has thus been shown to be of immense importance in
* See above, pp. 534, et seq. ? Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 507.
* Ib. p. 508.
694 JL/FE OF BASA/OA COLEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
proving the very late date of the Levitical legislation and the
so-called histories of the chronicler.
“If these thoroughly dishonest products of the priestly or
Levitical mind in a very late age were removed from the
Bible, the amazing contrast between the provisions of that
legislation in the Pentateuch and Book of Joshua and the
actual facts of the history under the best kings, in the
earliest or latest times, would arrest the attention of most
intelligent readers, and they would be soon led of themselves
to the conclusion (without the evidence adduced for it in
Part VI.), that no such laws could ever have been laid
down in the wilderness, since no trace of them appears in
the practice of the age of David and Solomon.” "
The Bishop's work was thus completed ; and succeeding
generations will see more and more clearly how wonderful
that work was. From beginning to end it has strengthened
the belief of those who will not suffer the letter to crush the
spirit; but while strengthening their faith, it has dealt the
death-blow to all traditional theories and superstitions which
first cramp and finally destroy the proper action of the
human mind. Of few in the history of the world can it be
SO emphatically said as of him, that he sought for the truth
with single-hearted resolution, and that the truth made him
free. He had, what, after all, few have, the courage of his
opinions; and he was ready, therefore, to put before what are
called the masses the main substance of his examination of
the Pentateuch. But he would not do this until he had
challenged first the attention of the learned to the questions
for which he insisted on having a valid answer, if such answer
could be given.
“I should feel, indeed,” he said, “that, unless I had first
Stated at length, for the consideration and examination of
* Pentateuch, Part VII. p. 513.
1879. THE PENTA TEUCH - ITS GROWTH. 695
the learned, the grounds on which my conclusions are based
I should not be justified in bringing the discussion of these
questions in this form within the reach of the people at
large. But a long interval has now elapsed since my First
Part was published ; and I have sufficiently tested the
validity of my arguments by the character of the answers
which are given to some of them.”
He felt, therefore, not the smallest scruple in preparing a
People's Edition which should, within the limits of a single
volume, show them the real state of the case. The prepara-
tion of such a volume was a duty which he owed to the people
of England, and in a yet higher degree to the people of Natal.
The latter had heard him violently condemned by the Metro-
politan Bishop of Capetown, and it was right that they who
could not be expected to make acquaintance with his books
in the larger form, should be enabled to judge for themselves
as to the contents and as to the whole tone and spirit of his
work. In his advertisement to this popular edition he had
to refer again to the absurd Bibliolatry of men who, like
Bishop Bickersteth of Ripon, may have believed what they
said, and of others whose good faith in the matter was, to say
the least, uncertain. For the former there might be some
excuse when he asserted that the whole Bible, like its Author,
must be pure unchangeable truth, truth without admixture
of error; for the latter there could be absolutely none when
they contended that to deny the infallible authority of the
Bible was to depart from the faith. But so long as Bishop
Bickersteth and others who agreed with him could put forth
their ludicrous propositions, and the Bishop of Capetown
could enunciate the nonsense that
“the whole Bible is the unerring word of the living God,”
—a formula applied with equal earnestness to the Rig Veda
and the Koran,—the Bishop of Natal was bound to say:
696 IIFE OF BISHOP COLEAVSO. CHAP. XII.
“I hold it to be my duty, as a servant of God and a lover of
the souls of men, to do my utmost to counteract a system
of teaching which I believe to be erroneous and mischievous,
and one of the greatest hindrances to the progress of true
religion in the land.”"
1 Advertisement to People's Edition of the Pentateuch, 1864.
APPENDIX A.
See pages 279, 312.
“BISHOPSTOWE, August 7, 1861.
“My DEAR BROTHER,
“I thank you sincerely for your letter on the subject of my
. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. I cannot be surprised at
your writing so earnestly and seriously, holding the views which you
do on some of the points which I have discussed. But as you will
have learnt from my last letter, it is too late now to stop the publica-
tion of the book, even if I desired to do so. Whatever you may think
it right to say or do in the matter, I am quite sure that you will only
act from a sense of duty to what you believe to be the truth, which
compels you to set aside all personal feelings, in obedience to a
higher law. In writing what I have written, and publishing it, I, too,
have done the same, though conscious that I should thereby cause
pain to yourself and others whom I entirely esteem and love. It is
true that you have mistaken some of my expressions: others (forgive
me for saying it) you seem to have misjudged. But in respect of
others I am well aware that my views differ strongly from yours,
though I believe that I have said nothing in my book which is
not in accordance with the teaching of the Bible, or which tran-
scends the limits so liberally allowed by the Church of England
for freedom of thought on these subjects. I will now touch, one
by one, on the several points to which you have drawn my
attention.
“(1) I have no doubt whatever that the canonical books of
Scripture do contain errors, and some very grave ones, in matters of
fact, and that the historical narratives are not to be depended on as
true in all their details. I have never stated this publicly; but Surely
698 APPENDIX.
in this age of critical inquiry, every intelligent student of the Scriptures
must be aware of the truth of what I say. It is vain to deny what is
patent to any careful and conscientious reader, who will set himself
to compare one passage of Scripture history with another. And, I
must say, I had supposed that there were very few in the present
day, except in a very narrow school of theology, who would contest
this point.”
[Here follows a summary of difficulties involved in the history of
Hezron and Hamul. See above, p. 497.]
“Of course, the above are only a few instances, such as occur to
me on the moment, of a multitude of others, which may be found in
the Scriptures. And they are not mere discrepancies (such as that
one blind man is named in one place, and two in another) which may
admit of explanation, but absolute contradictions in matters of fact,
to deny the existence of which would, for me at all events, be dis-
honest and immoral, and most unworthy, as it seems to me, of any
..one who really values the general historical truth of the Scriptures.
“But I have nowhere said what you have assumed for me in
addition to the above, namely that “inspiration apparently is ex-
hibited not in the declaration of the very truth, which God has
revealed to our faith respecting Himself and the way of salvation
by Christ, but in the spirit and the life which breathes throughout
the Holy Book,’ &c. I say that ‘the very truth’ is ‘the spirit and
the life,’ and not the mere words in which that truth may be conveyed
to us. -
“With respect to the latter portion of your remarks on this subject,
I prefer using the language of the Consecration Service—namely,
that I am persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all
doctrine required of necessity for eternal salvation, which is identical
with that of the Sixth Article; so that both together express sufficiently
the mind of our Church. In this sense, of course, I do receive the
Holy Scriptures as the ‘rule of faith.” But I object to bind myself
to such expressions as yours, which are neither in the Bible nor the
Prayer Book, and may easily have a meaning given to them very
different from what either you or I intend by them. It would be
easy, for instance, for me to say that I believe the Bible to ‘contain
the unerring word of God’s revealed truth.” The question then would
be, What is meant by God's revealed truth? Is it the ‘spirit and
the life,” or the mere words of the Bible? And if the latter, as I
understand you to say, then are all the words of the Bible part of
A PAEEAVZ)/X. 699
God’s revealed truth ; for instance, the story of the birth of Pharez
and Hezron, above referred to? You once told me, I think, that
you held the genealogies in Chronicles to be the Word of God, and
therefore, I suppose, as inspired, “unerring words of God’s revealed
truth.” Now I cannot believe this. I imagine those tables to be
mere transcripts of family registers—perhaps not even that ; and
I know them to be full of errors and contradictions, which are not
in any way to be accounted for by mistakes in the transcription of
manuscripts.
“So, too, when you say that the dogmatic teaching of the Bible
must be received by all Christians, of course I can assent to this.
But then I believe that the dogmatic teaching of St. Paul in the
Romans is just what I have set forth in my book; and you judge
differently.
“I certainly do say, and will maintain, that to the man himself
there is but one lawgiver—the law within the heart—to which, in
some form or other, he must bring every question of morals or of
faith for judgement. One man has fully persuaded himself that the
letter of the Bible is the revealed Word of God. When his reason is
satisfied of this, his conscience tells him that at all cost of bodily or
mental pain he must hold to the letter of the Bible. Another's con-
science keeps him, in like manner, subject implicitly to the dicta of
his Church, when his reason is once satisfied that the Church has a
right to command him. And each of these will test his conduct
continually, by bringing it into comparison with the words of the
Bible or the Church, before the tribunal of his conscience. If his
heart does not condemn him in this review, he will be satisfied and
“have confidence before God,” though all the while his conscience
may really be injured by slavery to a defective judgement of his
reasoning powers. 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 ‘try the
spirits whether they are of God, to prove all things, and hold fast
that which is good,’ to ‘compare things spiritual with spiritual,'—
that it is a part of our glorious, yet solemn, responsibility to do this,
—that, having the Spirit ourselves, “an unction from the Holy One,
that we may have all things,'—having the promise that we shall be
“guided into all truth,' if we seek daily to have our minds enlightened
and our consciences quickened, by walking in the light already
7oo APPEAVZ)/X.
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. -
“(2) On the second point to which you refer, I believe that my
language is entirely in accordance with the Second and Ninth Articles
of our Church ; and I must say that I am surprised that you should
have remarked as you have done on this subject, when I have
written in my book as follows.”
[Here follow citations from pp. 65, 67, 68, 97, Ioë, II 2 of the
Commentary.] f
“But indeed there are innumerable passages in which my book
distinctly implies and expresses the belief that Christ suffered as a
sacrifice for original guilt as well as for actual sin of men.
“(3) With regard to the Atonement, I believe, of course, that I
have expressed the mind of St. Paul upon this point. I most
assuredly do not deny that our Lord was a true propitiatory sacri-
fice for our sins, as you say; for I have distinctly said (p. 68) that
‘we are privileged to look at Christ Jesus, through faith in His blood,
and behold in Him the propitiation for our sins, the object which,
makes us acceptable to God.' I have no less distinctly expressed my
belief that “we have redemption through His blood, even the for-
giveness of sins,’ for I have said (p. 69), ‘through that precious
bloodshedding the whole race has been redeemed from the curse.”
And I am sure that there are other passages where, in other like
words, I have said the same.
“But I deny that His was a vicarious sacrifice, in the sense in which,
I understand you to use the word; namely, that He endured in our
stead the weight of God's wrath, He bore the penalty due to our sins.
I believe that neither the expression nor the idea is Scriptural; nor
is either to be found in the Prayer Book. In the New Testament it
is invariably said that our Lord suffered or died hyper, on behalf of,
not anti, instead of, the children of men—the same expression being:
used as when the shepherd is said to lay down his life for, not instead
of, the sheep, or where St. Peter says, “he will lay down his life for
his Lord,” or where St. Paul says, “he is ready not only to be bound,
but also to die, for the name of the Lord Jesus.” . . .
APPENDIX. 7or
“When you say that my language is not always consistent with
itself, that it is in some places more evangelical than others, I must
respectfully contest this, and assert that my language is the same
throughout, as evangelical in one place as in another; though it is
not possible on every page to produce all that one would say upon
the great subject concerned, especially when the thoughts of the
commentator must follow those of the original writer. How it can
be said that I maintain that our Lord came to “release us only from
the power or dominion, not from the guilt, of our sins,’ with such
passages as I have written, not only on the pages you have quoted
(68, 94, 95, 161, 162), but in many others where the subject led to
it, I cannot conceive. . . . . *
“As to the former portion of the Second Article, I am sorry that
the expression is there used, “to reconcile the Father to us,’ because
it is not Scriptural, and it is liable to be misinterpreted. But these
words of our Church cannot be meant to contradict or set aside the
Apostle's own words, when he says that “all things are of God, who
hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ,’ that “God was in Christ,
reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses
unto them.” There is, of course, a sense in which a father displeased
requires to be reconciled to his child, though tenderly loving all the
while that he corrects him and manifests his anger towards him. I
have thought that our Lord came, at His Father's command, to
reconcile His Father and our Father in this sense to us; and I have
used this expression on p. 89, “one reconciled, or, rather, reconciling
Father and Friend.’
“(4) The Scripture teaches us that God is love. Being perfect
love, He must be perfectly holy, just, and righteous. And surely
my book in a hundred places speaks as strongly of God's loving
correction of the wilful and disobedient as of the loving delight in
the faithful and true. It cannot, I say confidently, be justly laid to
my charge that I overlook the holiness, and justice, and righteous-
ness of God, though certainly I do not hold the dogma that God
cannot forgive sin, even in an infant, without taking vengeance for it,
without inflicting on some one pain and bitter anguish as a penalty.
“I do hold that all men are justified before God, using the word
in the sense in which St. Paul uses it throughout this Epistle, not in that
which modern theologians may perhaps assign to it. I do not hold
that our justification depends on our faith, because that would make
it a matter of works, in direct opposition to St. Paul's teaching. Our
702 A PPA2AWD/X.
salvation is a totally different thing from our justification. Being
justified, we are to ‘work out our own salvation,’ and therefore for
this we must have faith.
“But with St. Paul the word ‘salvation’ means something very
different from the miserable notion commonly attached to the word,
of mere deliverance from a pit of woe. He means by it the being
saved from that Divine displeasure which is declared against all
wilful unfaithfulness, and which will be manifested upon us Christians
above all others, if we do not live according to the light vouchsafed
to us, and answer to the gracious end to which we have been called.
To ‘work out our salvation’ means, with St. Paul, to live faithfully as
becomes the children of God, who are privileged to know that they,
are justified and brought near to their Father's footstool, and being
prepared here on earth for His glory.
“I do not agree with your statement of my ideas about faith—viz.,
that ‘what faith does for us is to make known to us, to give us a
conscious assurance of what would be equally true, whether we have
it or not, that God looks upon us as righteous in His Son.” I do
not think that faith does this for us: it is the ‘conscious assurance ’
of something which in itself is true, whether we believe it or not,
the realising of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen.
The words, however, which you have quoted from p. 12 I entirely
abide by : I am certain that this is what St. Paul intends to teach in
this Epistle.
“I think you have not rightly read what I have said on p. 74.
It was not said, as you appear to think, that ‘justification consists
in being justified in one's own conscience.’ Quite the contrary. I
hold that we are justified in God's sight, whether we know or believe
it or not. -
“But when you go on to say, ‘If these views are true, I cannot tell
why we need to preach the Gospel to the heathen ; it seems to me
that you take away the great motive for doing so : they are, without
our teaching, accepted, righteous, justified, saved.’ I really hardly know
how to reply to this—not because I cannot reply to it, but (pardon
me for saying so) because I am amazed that it should be necessary
to make a reply to it.
“In the first place I have taught that neither they nor we shall be
‘saved' if we die in impenitence, each according to the light he has
received. But it is plain that you are speaking only of endless horrors
in the pit of woe, whereas I am thinking of the Divine displeasure,
AAAAZAWO/X. 70s.
which every human being will incur who lives unfaithfully in pro-
portion to the light he has received, and dies in impenitence. I
have said accordingly (p. 95), “We shall be saved from that
wrath by having our faults freely pardoned for His sake when
confessed and repented of.” . . .
“But have we no motive to preach such a Gospel as St. Paul's,
according to my views of it, to the heathen P To tell them that God.
loves them, that He, after whom they have been groping in the
darkness, has been caring for them all along, and now calls them near
to Himself, that they may know Him more fully and the rich treasury
of His love? Why, this is the very life and soul of missionary work.
It has been my joy for some years past thus to publish the Gospel of
the grace of God; and if you could witness the effect upon those
who heard the message, you would not doubt that it was at least as
effective as that Gospel ‘which is not a Gospel,’ which is so often
preached to them. Is the Gospel, then, only a means for ‘saving'
men's souls from endless misery P And because they who are faithful
with their fraction of a talent without it, may be as safe as, that is,
not more or less safe than, Christians with their ten thousand talents,
is there no work to be done among the heathen that the hearts of
our fellow-men may be gladdened and their eyes enlightened, and
their spirits filled with life, and, above all, that God’s gracious.
command may be obeyed and His name be glorified ?
“I do believe that my teaching on this subject in this book is ‘in
full accordance with the plain teaching of the Church which I am
pledged to guard and maintain as laid down in her Articles,’ and,
above all, with my consecration vow.
“(5) You have been long aware that I do not agree with those
who hold what is called the sacramental system, and that I regard
their views as unsound and unscriptural. But I have not spoken of
Sacraments as only signs, and not also ‘means of grace’ when duly
received.
“With respect also to the Lord's Supper, I have taught in this
book, and more fully in my Sermons on the Eucharist that we are
all partakers in like manner from our birth-hour of the benefits flow-
ing from the body and blood of Christ, which is the ‘free’ gift of
God, Set forth to us in that sacrament. But this sacrament, as the
Church Catechism teaches, is ordained for the continual remembrance
of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we
receive thereby; and coming to it faithfully, we shall be privileged to
7O4 AAAAAW/D/X.
draw continually by it, as a means of grace, more and more from the
Fountain of Life.
“Having my book on the Romans before you, and having so
recently had occasion to read with some attention my Sermons on the
Bucharist, I cannot conceive how you can find any just reason for
quoting against me the words of Articles 25, 28, and 29, the Com-
munion Service, Homilies, and Catechism, with which, as I believe,
the views which I have expressed in these publications as to the
nature of the two sacraments are in entire accordance. I cannot say
the same of the “sacramental system,’ which I believe to be opposed
to the Prayer Book. You say that these Articles, &c., exclude my
saying that all men are partaking everywhere, at all times, of
Christ's body and blood, whether in the sacraments or out of them,
whether they feed upon them by living faith or not. I have shown
more fully in my Sermons on the Eucharist my grounds for making
this assertion—viz. that all men have life, spiritual as well as bodily ;
that they could have no life (as our Lord tells us) without ‘eating
His flesh and drinking His blood'; that consequently they do par-
take of His body and blood, and so (as Waterland says) “our Lord's
general doctrine in John wi. seems to abstract from all particulars, and
to resolve into this, that whether zwith faith or without, whether in
the sacraments or out of the sacraments, whether before Christ or since,
whether in covenant or out of the covenant, whether here or hereafter,
no man ever was, is, or will be accepted, but in and through the
grand propitiation made by the blood of Christ.’ I know that you
do not agree in this view ; but I am at least not singular in
holding it.
“(6) I must confess that it does appear to me that you are finding
grounds of objection in my book which do not really exist, when you
say that my language on the Judgement “leaves you in doubt whether
I believe that God has appointed a day in which he will judge the
world in righteousness,’ and this, notwithstanding that I had written
thus, p. 48, ‘Whenever Christ shall appear, to visit and judge in
His Father's name, now amidst the affairs of daily life as well as on
the great day of future account. . . .
“There are other passages of a like nature. But I must say, with
all deference, that this is not the only suggestion made without the
shadow of a ground for it (except it would seem a presentiment or
prejudgement that so it must be) which has surprised me in your
letter.
A PPEAVZ)/X. 705
“(7) With regard to the eternal world, I have expressly refused to
carry out any scheme to its full and logical conclusions. I have
maintained no points at all upon the subject, but that He whose name
is Love will deal according to His name with His creatures. I have
said that I entertain ‘hidden hope ’—and I Say not even that—for
all ; and I am very far indeed from saying that the great majority of
mankind will be ‘saved' from God's wrath, because they are all
‘justified,’ though I dare not assert that such wrath will certainly
take effect in inflicting endless, unutterable woe ; and I have shown
abundant reason, as I think, for checking the utterance of that
fearful dogma, which so many profess to hold (though they never
boldly teach it, and follow it to its consequences), without any
authority from the Bible or the Church for holding it—I mean that
the wicked shall not only go into everlasting fire (as I have taught)
but shall remain there in helpless forment for ever and ever. You
would have stated my views upon this subject more correctly if you
had written thus, ‘You maintain these points—that the doctrine of
endless (not eternal) punishment of the wicked is not found in the
Bible or the Prayer Book—that all punishment is an act of love and
may be remedial—that our training and discipline may not end here,
but may extend to the next world, and, for aught we know, to infinite
other worlds beyond it—that our chastisement may be purifying—that
sin may be purged out from God's universe in some way of God's
wisdom—that, however, there is no purgatory, where penalties are
measured by time and intensity, and can be remitted by favour or
importunity. . . .
“I do not believe that my doctrine contradicts at all the language
of Holy Scripture, or the formularies of the Church, including the
Athanasian Creed, when perfectly interpreted." . . .
“As to the Athanasian Creed, it is notoriously a stumbling-block
to thousands of pious souls, not in the least degree because of the
doctrines set forth in the statement of the ‘Catholic Faith,’ but
because of the harsh language of the damnatory clauses. It is very
noticeable that in the oldest manuscript of the oldest commentary
(by Fortunatus) on this Creed (preserved at Oxford), the particular
clause which you have quoted, the second verse, is left out
altogether. Do you yourself really believe in the sentence of
sweeping condemnation contained in this verse, as ordinarily in-
terpreted, in the most obvious and natural sense of the words? Have
* See pp. 17–319.
VOL. I. Z Z.
706 - AAA’EAVO/X.
you not also reservations of your own, though not, perhaps, as
extensive as mine, by which you would except innumerable cases
from the judgement here pronounced, which at first sight would seem
to be included in one general doom of endless, irremediable woe?
I am sure that nine clergymen out of ten have ; and, at all events
that they will not dare to take this sentence of the Creed into the
pulpit and preach the doctrine which its words, taken in their most
simple and natural sense, obviously contain. . . .
“That God may guide us both in the path of duty, and teach us
to buy the truth at all cost, is the fervent prayer of, my dear
Brother,
“Yours ever affectionately,
“J. W. NATAL.”
The postscript of this letter consists of citations from Dr. Hey's
Lectures in Divinity, a book to which the special attention of candi-
dates for holy orders was directed by the Bishop of Ely, by whom
Dr. Colenso was ordained deacon and priest. These citations are
prefaced by the remark, “I find strange resemblances between his
language and some parts of my teaching to which you have so
strongly objected.”.
APPENDIX B.
LIST OF THE ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS FROM 1848 To 1870.
Archbishops of
Canterbury . . {
York .
Bishops of
London .
Durham .
Winchester .
Bangor
Bath and Wells
Carlisle
Chester .
Chichester .
Ely
Exeter
Gloucester and
Bristol.
Hereford . . .
|{
Jn. Bird Sumner .
Chas. Thos. Longley
Arch. C. Tait . G
Chas. Thos. Longley
Wm. Thomson
Arch. C. Tait . e tº e
John Jackson . . . . .
Hon. H. Montagu Villiers
Charles Baring
Charles R. Sumner .
Saml. Wilberforce
Jas. Colquhoun Campbell.
Robt. J. Eden (Lord Auckland).
Lord Arthur Hervey . . . .
Hon. S. Waldegrave
Harvey Goodwin .
John Graham .
Wm. Jacobson
Ashurst Turner Gilbert
R. Durnford tº tº
Thomas Turton . .
E. Harold Browne .
Henry Phillpotts .
Fred. Temple .
Wm. Thomson
Chas. Jn. Ellicott.
Renn W. Hampden
James Atlay e
*—- ––––––al-
appointed 1848.
55
22
55
I862.
I868.
1860.
I862.
1856.
I868.
1856.
I86.I.
1827.
1869.
1859.
1854.
1869.
I86O.
1869.
1848.
1855. .
1842.
1870.
1845.
1864.
1830.
1869.
I86 I.
1863.
1848.
1868.
708 --
A PAAAWD/X.
Bishops of
Lichfield .
Lincoln .
Llandaff.
Manchester.
Norwich .
Oxford
Peterborough
Ripon .
Rochester
St. Asaph
St. David’s .
Salisbury
Worcester
{
{
{
Sodor and Man
Jn. Lonsdale
Geo. A. Selwyn
Jn. Jackson. ©
Ch. Wordsworth .
Alfred Ollivant
Jas. Prince Lee
Jas. Fraser .
Hon. J. T. Pelham .
Sam. Wilberforce
Jas. F. Mackarness .
Geo. Davys.
Fras. Jeune .
W. C. Magee .
Rob. Bickersteth .
Jn. Cotton Wigram . .
Thos. Legh Claughton.
Thos. Vowler Short .
Joshua Hughes
Connop Thirlwall
Walter Kerr Hamilton .
Geo. Moberley
H. Pepys
H. Philpott.
Hon. Horatio Powys
END OF WOL. I.
RICHARD CLAY AND SONS, LONDON AND BUNGAY.
appointed 1843.
1867.
I853.
I868.
I849.
1848.
1870.
I859.
I845.
1869.
1839.
I864.
I868.
1856.
1860.
1867.
1846.
1870.
I84O.
I854.
1869.
22
22
35
I84I.
I86.I.
1854.
35
25
55
25
WORKS BY THE RIGHT REV. J. W. COLENSO, D.D.,
Late Bishop of Natal.
ARITHMETIC DESIGNED FOR THE USE OF
SCHOOLS: to which is added a Chapter on Decimal Coinage. Revised
Edition, with Notes and Examination Papers. I2mo. 4s. 6d. KEY, by
HUNTER, 53.
ARITHMETIC FOR THE USE OF NATIONAL,
ADULT, and COMMERCIAL SCHOOLS. In Five Parts : I. Text-
Book, 18mo. 6d. 2. Examples, Part I. 4d. 3. Examples, Part II. 4d.
4. Examples, Part III. 4d. 5. Answers, Is.
SHILLING ARITH METIC FOR THE USE OF ELE-
MENTARY SCHOOLS. 18mo, Is., or with answers, Is. 6d.
ELEMENTS OF ALGEBRA. Part I. 12mo. 4s. 6d.
KEV, 5s.
ELEMENTS OF ALGEBRA. Part II. 12mo. 6s.
KEY, 5s. -
ELEMENTS OF ALGEBRA FOR THE USE OF
NATIONAL and ADULT SCHOOLS. 18mo. 1s. 6d. KEY, 2s. 6d.
STUDENT'S ALGEBRA. Crown 8vo. 6s. KEY, 6s.
ELEMENTS OF EUCLID (the parts usually studied in
Universities), with Exercises. 18mo, 4s. 6d., with KEY, 6s. 6d.
GEOMETRICAL EXERCISES. I 8mo. Is.
GEOMETRICAL EXERCISES AND KEY. 18mo. 3s.6d.
PLANE TRIGONOMETRY, Part I. The Measurement
of Lines and Angles, the Numerical Values of the Trigonometrical Ratios;
with the use of Logarithms, &c. 12mo. 3s. 6d. KEY, 3s. 6d.
PLANE TRIGONOMETRY, Part II. Comprising the
Summation of Series, the Trigonometrical Solution of Equations, and a
large Collection of Miscellaneous Problems. 12mo. 2s. 6d. KEV, 5s.
THE PENTATEUCH AND BOOK OF JOSHUA
CRITICALLY EXAMINED.
PART I. The Pentateuch Examined as an Historical Narrative. Revised. 8vo. 6s.
PART II. The Age and Authorship of the Pentateuch considered. 8vo. 7s.6d.
PART III. The Book of Deuteronomy. 8vo. 8s.
PART IV. The First Eleven Chapters of Genesis. 8vo. Ios. 6d. -
PEOPLE'S EDITION of the above, in Five Parts, price Is. each, or complete
in One Volume, price 6s.
PART V. The Book of Genesis Analysed and Separated, and the Ages of its Writers deter-
mined. 8vo. 18s.
PART VI. The Later Legislation of the Pentateuch. 8vo. 24s.
PART VII. The *h and Book of Joshua compared with the other Hebrew Scriptures.
O. 24.S.
*** The Complete Work (Parts I.-VII.), A4 18s
LECTURES ON THE PENTATEUCH AND MOAB-
ITE STONE. 8vo. I2s. 6d.
THE WORSHIP OF BAALIM IN ISRAEL. Based
upon the Work of Dr. R. DOZY, “The Israelites at Mecca,” by Dr. H.
OORT. Translated from the Dutch, and enlarged with notes and appendices,
by the Right Rev. J. W. COLENSO, D.D.
London : LONGMANS, GREEN, & Co.
SERMONS BY THE LATE BISHOP COLENS0.
8vo. pp. viii. and 374. Cloth. Price 7s. 6d.
NATAL SERMONS. A Series of Discourses preached
in the Cathedral Church of St. Peter's, Maritzburg. Second Edition.
- 8vo. pp. iv. and 350. Price 5s.
NATAL SERMONS. Second Series of Discourses preached
in the Cathedral Church of St. Peter's, Maritzburg.
London : TRüBNER & Co., Ludgate Hill, E.C.
Crown 8vo. Price is ; by post, Is. 3d. -
FIRST LESSONS IN SCIENCE. By the Right Rev.
J. W. COLENSO, D.D.
London : WILLIAM RIGDwAY, 169 Piccadilly.
… *）
_· „. “, “ （ſ
•* •ș**
% （**）:
&
# * •
#... <！---* * · · · * * * -
» « · * *
*
}
--------- --& · · ·… •– → №-
}
«…i，







W
AJ -
OLE
LA
º
|SHOP
****
¿saeae:
&aerºesº！！！！！！！！！！
· · · · · · · -----···---···---· · · · · · · · ·
ſ a = ~~~~）=）=）…………–.…–……………–………）