THE

CHURCH QUARTERLY REVIEW.

NO LIX. APRIL 1890.

ART. I.—THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE CREED. The Foundations of the Creed. By HARVEY GOODWIN, D.D., D.C.L., Lord Bishop of Carlisle. (London, 1889.)

THE Bishop of Carlisle's book is composed on the basis of the new Apology; and undoubtedly it will do much to clear and define the principles and methods of this mode of defence. The book, in fact, means a great deal more than it expresses, and by following the lines it marks out, our younger theologians may in time construct a very powerful and popular Christian defence. The Bishop has especial qualifications for the task he has undertaken. His extensive scientific attainments put him in sympathy and touch with scientific men, and command the respect of outsiders; while his sound judgment, and appreciation of the worth and reach of an argument, his moderation of statement, and unfailing courtesy, disarm opposition. And if to this we add his deep faith in, and reverence for, our Blessed Lord, we see how he can also commend himself and his efforts to a different class of readers.

Nevertheless, we imagine, considerable surprise, and perhaps suspicion, will be created in some minds by the excision, from the purview of the book, of a great many doctrines and principles which are regarded by many as of a vital character. The Bishop specifies amongst these such absorbing questions as: I. The sufficiency of Holy Scripture; 2. Original or birth sin; 3. The justification of man; 4. Predestination and election; 5. The authority of the Church; 6. The sacraments. Thus the most cherished principles and convictions both of High Church and Low Church are set on one side as having no bearing on the discussion. Men will naturally ask: Are these things to form no part of the Christianity of the future? Is our faith to be limited, and confined simply to the statements of the Apostles' Creed? Perhaps there are

w

VOL. XXX.-NO. LIX.

B

expressions in the Bishop's statement of his position which might tend to awaken distrust. Yet we believe the suspicion to be quite unfounded; and that nothing is farther from the Bishop's thought than any such limitation, which would, in fact, be quite impracticable. We look upon the procedure rather as something which was absolutely necessary. It was a clearing of the ship for action. When a captain prepares his ship for battle, he removes a great many things which are necessary for the daily life and comfort of his crew; but he does not throw them overboard. He stows them away in a safe place, to be produced again when the turmoil of battle is over.

We would ask those whose minds may be discomposed to look again at the things excluded. Is there any one of them which could be argued or entertained, except on the presupposition of the truth of the Incarnation? Is it conceivable that any human being could take a particle of interest in them, unless he were first convinced that Jesus Christ is Lord? But this latter truth is precisely the difficulty of the present day. It is doubted or denied by a large class of people, and these doubts have extended to Christian people who wish to believe. It is more especially those who are perplexed by these doubts that the Bishop has in view; and it is mainly for their benefit and edification that his book is intended. Then, why encumber the argument by raising a number of questions that need not be raised-questions, too, which, in their manifold aspects, are calculated to awaken feelings and foster prejudices which would repel the neophyte ? Is it not much better to isolate the Incarnation, on which all else depends, and to argue it in perfect freedom, and apart from prejudice and party watchwords? We may be very sure that, if it is established, all else which is necessary will follow.

But, in truth, this exclusion of subordinate points has a wider import. It is necessitated by, and is part of the new system of Christian defence. Considerations such as we have given have long pressed on the minds of Christian apologists; and they have been intensified by the felt difficulty, and almost impossibility, of defending Christianity on the old lines. This has led to a complete change of front, and an entirely new method of Christian defence. It is a consequence of this new method, that each element in the Christian system must be defended on its own merits. It must either be directly established, or else shown to be necessitated by some element previously established. It is a consequence of this system, that a leading principle, such as that of the Incarnation, which dominates all others, must be taken and argued

by itself. Let us look for a moment at this new method of defence, and wherein it differs from the old.

In old times the whole Christian system was looked upon as enshrined in the New Testament; and the New Testament was looked upon mainly in the light of a revelation, or message from Heaven. As a revelation it of course must be proved to be inspired; and, in order to prove this, a certain course of reasoning had to be entered on. It was assumed that a revelation must have a seal or attestation to justify it; and the proper attestation was miracles and prophecy. Hence the apologist had to establish the truth of miracles; he had to show that, as supernatural works, they stand opposed to the order of nature; he had to make out that they are the handiwork of God; and he had to define and make clear their evidential function, as attesting a message from God. He had, in a similar way, to deal with prophecy as also proving the intervention of God. All these points having been satisfactorily established, a conclusion was then drawn as to the inspiration of Scripture, and the case was handed over to the theologian. It was the business of the theologian to draw out from Scripture and systematize the main elements of the faith. We thus see that the elements of Christian belief were not proved directly, but indirectly. Argument was used to establish the authority of a divine book; and the book was the guarantee of the doctrine.

If we look at this method from a broad point of view there is no doubt that in substance it was correct. It was also well adapted to the age in which it flourished, because it adroitly made use of principles which that age was willing to concede. For the same reason it is not adapted to our age, which refuses to concede the principles which are essential to it. How far the progress of discussion has carried us from their standpoint will be easily seen, if we bear in mind two things which they could always assume and which we cannot, viz. the existence of a personal Creator, and the possibility of miracles. But besides this there are other objections to the use of this method in the present day. One main objection arises from the immense extent of ground which it covers. Our forces are spread out over miles and miles of territory; and as a consequence there are many weak points, where an active and enterprising enemy can attack us and make a breach. And it is to be observed, owing to the nature of the underlying idea, even an insignificant breach, if not absolutely fatal, becomes disastrous. In consequence also of a gradual change in the intellectual attitude of the age, the proof of the essential

parts of the argument has become more and more difficult. Take, as an example, the case of miracles. They have to be defended as against science, which refuses to look beyond secondary causes; they have to be hedged off as against other alleged miracles; their evidential value has to be proved. All these, in the present day, are points of immense difficulty; and what is more, the apologist, in labouring to make out his case, becomes aware that he is committed to a one-sided view of the miraculous. He sees that if miracles are to be maintained they must be put in a different light, in which case they would not be serviceable for the object in view, viz. the attestation of a Divine message. But perhaps the hopeless character of this mode of defence will be most clearly seen if it is borne in mind that, to maintain the doctrine of Inspiration, we must cover the whole field of criticism both of the Old and New Testaments, and solve in an orthodox sense every doubt and difficulty which the ingenious fancy of the critic can raise.

The difficulties of this extended position have impressed upon apologists the necessity of concentrating our forces, and the only way in which this could be effectually done was by eliminating from the discussion the doctrine of Inspiration. Let it, however, be observed that this elimination did not mean rejection. It merely meant its transference from the sphere of apologetics to that of theology, and it must be evident to everyone that this is its proper place. How can we deal with the doctrine of Inspiration until we have made out the main dogmas and facts of our religion? The chief argument for Inspiration rests upon the Incarnation and the redeeming work of Christ, including the gifts of the Spirit; and it is clear we cannot deal with it satisfactorily unless we have arrived at a settled conviction with regard to these. To deal with it apart from these, as we must do in apologetics, is to involve ourselves in innumerable difficulties and to court defeat.

None the less, however, this elimination of the doctrine from apologetics was a thoroughly revolutionary measure. It not only changed the attitude of the apologist, but it altered completely the character and aspect of the questions. Under the old system the apologist started from the postulate of the supernatural. He could assume the existence of God and the possibility of miracles; and from these premises, which his age was willing to grant, he argued to a Divine record, on which was based the proof of the main doctrines and facts of religion. The modern apologist can make no