Images de page

lute giant above moral pigmies, whose orthodoxy, too, is in so instances as questionable as his own. In two things Colenso an undoubted advantage over the most of his opponents—first command of temper ; and, secondly, in the possession of a theor the Pentateuch, whether valid or not. Not for a moment, not single sentence, does the "best abused” man of the day lose dignity, or discover either odium or animus. What a contras the raving philippics, the vile insinuations, the uncharitable con sions, the downright falsehoods, which have been uttered aga him in effusions, many of them coming from respectable or emii names, and which thus, on our cheeks at least, have served deepen the blush kindled for the sake of our common Christiar In a controversy such as this, it is of vast importance to hari approximately complete theory of the whole case, whence to o down upon particular passages and points. Now this, while most of his opponents entirely want, disagreeing, too, for the r part, with each other even as to their fractions of general princi Colenso undoubtedly has. We do not vouch for its accurac originality; we do not hold it ourselves, even less, as we have : do we think Colenso the man qualified fully to unfold it, but we it to be consistent with itself to solve many, though not hitherte the difficulties connected with the subject, and to give to the bis an immense vantage ground in the discussion. Nay, we say m if he can apply his idea of the Pentateuch being a composite of various authors and ages successfully to the solution of all phenomena of these books, philosophers, and Christians too, sht hesitate ere they summarily reject it.

As it is, the state of the discussion is, we think, the follow and we perceive the following shades of opinion to prevail :-T is first the class—a very large one, although not perhaps the i intelligent—who maintain that the bishop has been driven or the field, annihilated, or, as the Quarterly Review has it,“ tur fragments"-an opinion against which Colenso, feeling himself totus teres et rotundus, very naturally protests, as he comes ward with a third lengthy volume in his hand, and challenges comers to refute it. Another class—rather small, we imagine number, although considerably distinguished by talent, and wi may stand typified by the Rev. Mr. Houghton, of Salop, who ginally replied to Colenso, but who has recalled his answer declared themselves converts to his general views. A third have all along treated the whole controversy altogether with sil or sneering contempt, and this class has been curiously compoun of orthodox and of heterodox thinkers, both united in imagin themselves either exalted on altitudes, or immersed in profundit too high or too deep to permit of their occupying themselves with si 'a trivial matter. But there is another class still, who, feeling t

ubject, although not vital, is of great interest—that Colenso has I some real perplexities—that, in particular, in calling attention : Hebrew numerals, and showing the necessity of their reduche has done good service—and that the entire critical question erence to the Hebrew Bible demands new and thorough ination, are on the whole thankful for the controversy the Bishop ised, and look forward with calm fearlessness to its results. uile Colenso, by his ready calculations and dashing swiftness vement, has been frightening weak believers, and a class a of the day has called “ignorant evangelicals,” out of their ety, a mightier spirit and a nobler has been summoned from mb, and is now again seen walking through the world. This + Benedict Spinoza whose defamed and abused name was bugbear to Christian children, aud who was often plunged ly, by professing Christian divines, into the fires of that“ Other

Hard indeed was the fate of the noble Jew; cast out of nagogue, he was rejected by the Church. He had, shall we ce another Zaccheus, mounted a wild fig-tree to look at Christ i new angle, and through a philosophic chiaroscuro; but, no authentic Jesus passed by and said to him, “ Come down ; I must abide in thy house." Men are too often judged by mere systems and their immediate effects, and not by the its and feelings which led them to build up their systems, the sublimer and ultimate results to which their systems So far as Spinoza was a victim, he was the victim, not of ssion or of sinister motive, but of thought—the irrepressible etual tendency of his nature, which led him into the very of abstraction. It is very vain for inferior men to rebuke tendency in minds of Spinoza's rank. It is like saying with voice to the ocean, “Ilitherto shalt thou come, and no furor with human voice telling the perpetual hills to bow. No there is a point where the mightiest must become a little efore the mysteries of the universe, and end in the wonder hich he began; but some have to travel far ere they reach int--the interspace of inquiry is shorter or longer in proporthe depth and strength of the inquiring faculties. The tenof the highest philosophical minds has usually been towards me of unity, and Spinoza at least was not satisfied till all ances subsided in the mighty and awful ONE “whose goings ave been from of old--from the Eternal Obscure." He where, so far as we remember, called himself a Pantheist, has repeatedly acknowledged the Divine authority of Moses hrist, and of the main principles of the Jewish religion ; is doctrine did undoubtedly tend to the absolute unity stance as the great dim substratum of all appearances, is been called a negativist, but this is a mistake; he does indeed what he deems some needful negative work as a pr minary, but his great aim, after getting rid of the “beggarly ments," is to fasten on great unchangeable principles. Moses se God is fire; Jesus said, God is love; Spinoza said, God is law. ] supposing he identified God with law, that law to him never cea to seem Divine, although he was disposed to substitute for words “the Lawgiver” those of the “ Lawgiving God." Spin felt that law, like light and all other forms of matter, was petually pouring out from a present Deity as from a fountain, thought that it was in this sense that God was the “ living Gi Whether true or not, the idea is certainly sublime, and has seer so to the poet, who, assuming it for the nonce as correct, has dited the following verses :

Sublime Spinoza, glorious Sadducee,
Actæon-like, who Nature naked saw,*
Yet fled not at the vision-met the hounds
Springing immortal at his mortal head,
And soothed them by his magic power to sleep.
The awful veil of Isis his to lift
And die not, but with earnest, patient eye
To meet the mystery that was within-
Secure because he knew that eye contained
In miniature the wonder he beheld,
And God-like gazed at and reflected God.
The modern Moses, who, through clouds and storm,
The awe of Heaven, Earth's howl, the laugh of Hell,
Went up alone the rugged mount of truth,
And found a Law of stone upon the top-
Divinely cold, stern, kind, unchangeable,
And brought it down to men who, mad in mirth,
Loud in idolatry, and fierce in hate,
Mocked him, and cried, “No veil upon thy face;
“Where is the glory of thy great compeer ?
“ Atheist, begone ! back to thy clouds

“ And leave us to our games and gold again.”
But he no tables broke, no frown returned,
But smiled a sad serene and solemn smile,
Like that of sun smiling amid a storm,
Proclaiming peace in him-pardon to them.
Moses revived ? or rather shall we say
Last of the high priests entering the shrine ;
Thy brow unmitred and thy breast ungemmed,
No bells upon thy feet, and in thy hand
No censer burning with immortal fire,
But clothed in linen white and clean, a pen
Of ready writer gleaming in thy grasp,

Alluding to Shelley's “ Adonais," where he says of himself-
“He gazed on Nature's naked loveliness

Actæon-like, and then he fled astray
Followed by raging hounds, their father and their prey."

A parchment roll held in thine other hand,
Thy motion soft and slow, thine eye a beam
Of purest, clearest radiance—Spirit light!
The veil removes, rolls back, and Thou art left
Alone ; with what? with Nothing-Darkness, Death?
No! for amidst the empty, yawning gloom
Where erst the Shekinah of glory shone,
There slowly shape themselves these words of Fire;
"I AM, Thou art, and We are One, not twain;
"Time is Eternity, and God is Man,
“And Life and Death, and Law and All are One.
“The Soul of beasts and men, and worms and stars,
"Dwelleth in Thee, and Me, and all that are ;
"Life, Law, and Mind, are the great Trinal God."
Calmly the High Priest copies out the words,
And with a quiet sigh he leaves the shrine.

The Sanhedrim are met in conclave stern,
Severe in look, long-bearded, serpent-eyed,
Sitting in darkness; for the gloomy room
Has but one taper shining in the midst,
Black, waxen, wan,-it is Spinoza's sous !
And under it there stands a pail of blood,
And over it there towers an aged priest,
White-haired, white-bearded, girt for sacrifice.
He lifts the candle in his quivering hands,
And cries, “ Eternal curses on the soul
" This taper doth denote! may it be plunged
“In fires unquenchable, as I this plunge
“In human blood !-Down, down, thou Sadducee,
“Into Gehenna's flames for evermore!"
Slowly the candle droppeth in the blood,
And growls of savage joy pronounce “ Amen!"
See yonder man in haste leaving the spot,
With stealthy step and circumspective look.
He finds the Immortal sitting in his room,
Lost in the richest reverie of truth,
Rapt far above the sun in lofty thought.
He tells him of the deed of darkness done:
Spinoza smiles, as though Jove's statue smiled
From its lone Capitolian altitude
Down on the clamours of the crowd below,
And says, “Fear not, my friend; for Wisdom's child
“He shall be justified, and these--forgot.
“The Spirit they have plunged in night and blood

"Shall rise, and shine a star on God's own brow.” e charge of Atheism has been often brought, generally by the est, against many of the greatest of men,-against Socrates, , even Cudworth-against Kant, Fichte, and Hegel

, as well as st Spinoza ; and in every one of these cases has been false. t is Atheism? It is the belief in a mindless, heartless, disored, and blind on-rushing Materialism, called improperly the erse ; whereas the philosophic Idealism, as the creed of all

[ocr errors]

these thinkers should be called, is founded upon the perception the divine order in which all things move, the divine idea which a things reveal, the supremacy of thought and law to the mere ou ward shows and phenomena of things. In fact, the error that is their system lies in its tendency to the other extreme, not to Ath ism, but to All-theism; and instead of eliminating God from t creation, they seek to saturate it all with a divine element, repeatii to some degree the process described by Coleridge in his ode i Mont Blanc:

0, dread and silent Mount! I gazed upon thee
Till thou, still present to the bodily sense,
Didst vanish from my thought, entranced in prayer ;

I worshipped the Invisible alone! And so to the eye of these great spiritual seers the visible disa pears and the invisible takes its place, or rather matter becon a transparent veil, revealing the face of God. It is as when thi persons—the one non-scientific, the other a botanist-walk throu à garden. The one sees a number of brilliant objects bathed summer sunshine, and glittering with a thousand varied colour the other, behind all this, beholds the laws of the plants, their rel tions to each other, their metamorphoses,—all the history, in shor and philosophy, as well as poetry, of the garden. Spinoza, so i from being an Atheist, was said to be “drunk with God;" and all remember Schleiermacher's bold burst, “Sacrifice with me a lo of hair to the manes of the pure and misunderstood Spinoza. I sublime spirit of the universe filled his soul, the Infinite was! beginning and end, the Universal his sole and eternal love. Livi in saintly innocence and in deep humility, he viewed his being the glass of everlasting nature, and knew that he too reflected son thing that was not unworthy to be loved. Full of religion, full the Holy Spirit, he appears to us as dwelling apart from the wor raised above the vulgar, and master in his art, but without discip and without a school.”

Spinoza's mind was of a calm, clear, colossal character, 1 only flowerless in its products, but apparently of a nature which flowers are as incredible as miracles. Yet what maste depth and grim severity of logic! He is too dogmatic, hower and is altogether more à seer than a poet. Plato was a seer, pi poet, and so was Bacon. Spinoza rather resembles Aristotle strength and clearness, though not in compression. Some speaks of dry-light: Spinoza's is double-dried—the sun of Saha How different this great Sadducee of the Sadducees, as from point of view we may call him, from the inspired magnates of race,—Isaiah, David, Ezekiel, John! He seems the very invers of the dreaming Daniel. Not only do miracles and prophies resolve themselves with him into natural events, but the beaut

« PrécédentContinuer »