The Press.
London, England, 1855-06-02 00:00:00

SATURDAY,

with others less satisfactory—passages which
awaken a suspicion that our author is not so
far removed as we could wish from that class
of high-church writers who are just now court-
ing popularity by toying with liberalism—who
put their heads between its jaws to raise a
cheer from the mob, and comfort themselves
with the pleasant fiction that the beast is too
generous to bite.
Mr. Williams's views of the bearing of mo-
dern science upon scriptural statements, though
characterised by a similar tendency, are less
open to objection than those in which he ad-
vocates the cause of progress. We are not to con-
found inspiration with omniscience; we are to
consider the Bible as consisting of essential
and non-essential matter; the former being the
relation between man and his Maker, the
latter the incidental topics of geography and
science. No discoveries, therefore, of error in
the latter need shake our confidence in the
former ; and it is
strangely unreasonable for men to argue that they cannot
believe God ought to be worshipped in spirit and in truth
nn:ess they are also convinced that Cyrenius was President
of Syria, or that the Cretans were always liars.
The interests of religion will therefore, he thinks,
be best answered by dealing boldly and openly
with this question. We have nothing to fear from
the acceptance of modern discoveries—from
rejecting them, much. We cannot protect by an
outer fence the house which is founded upon
sand ; nor have we any power to roll back the
floods of knowledge which threaten its de-
struction. This doctrine, however, though
substantially that adopted by some of our
best divines, is one that requires to be ex-
pounded with the utmost delicacy. To loosen
the hold which the simple Bible narrative has
upon the hearts of the people is a dangerous
task. They cling to its literal interpretation
with the fund fidelity which early association
inspires ; nor do they see any improbability
that He who turned the Nile into blood, and
buried the heathen in a " darkness that could
" be felt," should also have divided the waves
of the Red Sea, or given life to Jonas when
engulphed by the monster of the deep. And,
after all, what are we to say ? Still we are met
by the old, but not because old less vital, ob-
jection—where are these theories to end? If
the preacher rejects the supernatural in one
case the congregation will do so in another;
and it will then be too late to blame them.
Where are we to draw the line? Face to face
with the gorgeous spectacle of modern civilisa-
tion stands the stern old Bible theory of guilt,
and sorrow, and corruption. The two can
never be reconciled. We may strain every
nerve to bring into unison man's views of pro-
gress and God's view of sin : to array the
miracles in the garb of philosophy, and to
coax the wary sceptic over to our side by ig-
noring the primeval curse, and listening to the
voice that whispers " ye shall not surely die ;
yet will our labour be fruitless. The truce be-
tween the two great antagonistic powers must
ever be unreal. We can make no compromise
between matter and spirit, between the tem-
poral and the eternal.

As long as we bear this truth in mind we
may perhaps, without danger, admit that
some steps are necessary to meet the
increasing discrepancy between the letter
of Scripture and the revelations of hu-
man science; and we have no doubt that in
addressing an uneducated congregation Mr.
Williams would have expressed himself much
more cautiously...than was necessary either at
Lampeter or in King's College Chapel. To
those tempted to carry their innovations too
far we recommend the twentieth sermon of
this volume, on the subject of " Gospel
Freedom."

We could have wished to add a few remarks
on Mr. Williams's opinion on the Jewish
scepticism, the relation of the Church to the
Bible, and also on the question of reason and
faith, so ably treated by Mr. Rogers. As none
of these, however, arc so peculiar to himself,
or so lengthily discussed, as the matters to
which we have confined ourselves, we regret
less the necessity of their omission—an omis-
sion, however, we strongly advise our readers
to repair for themselves by a perusal of the
series.