The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-24 00:00:00

Referring to the Old Testament, he says :

"The beginnings of human history are themselves a
lesson, having the freshness of early dawn. There are forms
of evil against which prophets and the prophetical spirit
of the law carry on a warfare in terms almost too bold for
the way of life of modern times. There, more plainly
than in any other portion of the Scripture, is expressed
the antagonism of outward and inward—of ceremonial
and moral—of mercy and sacrifice. There, all the
masks of hypocrisy are rudely torn asunder, in which an
unthinking world allows itself to be disguised. There, the
relations of rich and poor in the sight of God and
their duties, towards one another are most clearly enun-
ciated. There, the religion of suffering first appears,—
' adversity the blessing' of the Old Testament as well as
the New. There, the sorrows and aspirations of the soul
find their deepest expression, and also their consolation.
The feeble person has an image of himself as the bruised
reed.' The suffering servant of God passes into the be-
loved one, in whom my soul delighteth.' Even the latest
and most desolate phases of the human mind are reflected
in Job and Ecclesiastes; yet not without the coleus asser-
tion, that ' to fear God and keep his commandments is the
beginning and the end of all things."

Now, we must contend that it is utterly unfair
and mean to select passages in which the grossly
erroneous practices of ordinary interpreters of Scrip-. 1
ture are dealt with as they deserve, and by appeal-
ing to conventional and ignorant prejudice to re-
present the writer as an infidel, without giving
also the statements which convey his full
and free meaning, and which thoroughly
qualify the invidiously chosen paragraphs. Mr.
JoWETT's main principles of Scripture interpre-
tation must commend themselves to every scholar,
and to every man and woman of common sense,
who reads the Essay. They are those which every
boy is taught from childhood, to apply to every
classical writer he studies; they resolve themselves
into this, that we are to understand a writer's lan-
guage not by the ideas and habits of our own age,
but by carefully endeavouring to understand and
appreciate those of the age in which the writer
lived. Indeed, Mr. JOWETT'S Essay is less an ap-
peal to theologians than to educated and reflective
persons generally; and we are much mistaken if it
does not produce a considerable impression on the
great mass of the intelligent laity ; for in that ap-
peal they will find that the Scriptures "properly"
interpreted contain the most beautiful and earnest
truths extant—such that Faith, Hope, Philosophy,
and Poetry will ever cling to with instinctive and
pure devotion.

It is somewhat curious to observe the psycholo-
gical obtuseness and conscientious toleration which
have occasionally distinguished our " spiritual pas-
tors and masters," and then set in contrast the vio-
lent and sensitive outcry from the clergy, high and
low, against these " Essays and Reviews." Not to

mention the Romish rites and. ceremonies—which

are as contrary to the Thirty-nine Articles, and as
abhorent to the English mind as any doctrines in
the Essays can be, and which Bishops
either encourage or view with passive in-
difference—our readers should know that it
was High Churchmen who first proclaimed in
this land the insufficiency of the Scriptures. We
will give two extracts, and let the reader judge :
(1.) "It is vain that you look into the Scriptures for a
full, clear, and succinct statement of the faith and practice
required of those for whose use they were written. The
articles of doctrine are scattered here and there without any
attention to order ; their meaning is frequently hidden under
the obscurity of the language : the advance of the sincere
inquirer is repeatedly arrested by apparent contradictions :
and it seldom happens that any two readers, after a patient
and impartial investigation, agree in the same decision.
Of all the possible forms under which a rule of faith could
have been published to mankind, the New Testament is, as
such, the most incongruous and confused. It is what no
sensible man would ever have adopted : and certainly we
ought not to attribute to the wisdom of God that which we
judge unworthy the wisdom of man."
(2.) " Scripture is not one book—it is as if you were to
seize the papers or correspondence of leading men in any
school of philosophy or science, which were never designed
for publication, and bring them out in one volume. You
would find, probably, in the collection so resulting many
papers begun and not finished—some papers systematic and
didactic, but the greatest part made up of hints or of notices
which assumed first principles instead of asserting them—
or of discassions on particular points, which happened to
require his attention. I say the doctrines, the first princi-
ples, the rules, the objects, of the school would be taken for
granted, alluded to, implied, not stated. You would have
some trouble to get at them ; you would have many repe •
tions, many hiatuses, many thing which looked like con-
tradictions ; you would have to work your way through
heterogeneous materials ; and, after your best efforts,
there would be much hopelessly obscure ; or, on the
other hand, you might look in vain, in such a casual col-
lection, for some particular opinions which the writers were
known to have held, nay, to have insisted on. Sucb, I
conceive, with limitations presently to be noticed, is the
structure of the Bible."
Let the reader look carefully at these two
quotations—what does he suppose is their parent-
age. The first is from Dr. LINGARD, the
Catholic historian ; the second is from Tract
85 of another celebrated series of Oxford Essays,
published in 1839, by a too well-known set of Ox-
ford clergymen. We ask is there anything in
the Essays more calculated to shake faith in the
Scriptures than what we have just quoted—nor
have we quoted unfairly, for the whole drift and
object of the writers is to depreciate the Scriptures,
that they may exalt the Church. They tell their
readers, what may be true f.ar ought we know,
that Scripture authority is not to be demanded for
articles of faith, " that a broad, comprehensive

view of Holy Scripture would most avowedly

be fatal to Church Doctrines ;" they instance
infant Baptism and Establishments of the
Church amongst other things. In fact, " Down
with Scripture, up
with the Church" is the grand
object of their argument. But we will not enlarge.
The proof is abundant to all who choose to seek it
_we only state two facts and ask one question-
1. In 1839, when the Scriptures were depreciated
to exalt the Church, bishops and clergy looked on
and were silent or favourable.
2. When, in 1860, the Scriptures are critically
discussed, and the result is depreciating traditional
interpretation and the hierarchy, that whole
hierarchy is up in arms.

Query--Is it zeal fcr the hierarchy or for the
Bible which calls forth these denunciations ?

The extravagant waste of time, labour, and money
consequent upon the mismanagement of our naval
affairs at the Admiralty, and especially in her MA-
JESTY'S Dockyards, monopolised the attention of
the House of Commons upon the first night of its
sitting (that is yesterday) after Whitsuntide. But
little good has come of these discussions, however,
beyond the advantages that may possibly result