Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 3a

Dr. Tudor Jones' Use of Great Names

page break

Dr. Tudor Jones' Use of Great Names

Sir,—It seems to me palpable to thinking that "Inquirer" is more concerned as to how he can discredit Dr. Jones than as to the particular issue raised in the Jones-Jolly controversy. Why should it be any concern of Dr. Jones or of "Anything-arian" as to whether Dr. Driver, Canon Cheyne, and Dr. Raslulall can be regarded as honest men in continuing to call themselves English Churchmen, while entertaining views on Biblical literature and so-called Christian dogma more advanced and heretical than those entertained by the rank and file of Unitarians? This is a matter which concerns them and their Church. "Inquirer" must know, if he has read one or two of their many contributions to theological, philosophical, an ecclesiastical literature, that they are among the greatest "heretics" of the age, and that they, and many more scholars within the pale of the English Church, are regarded by English churchmen, more or less generally, as more heretical than Unitarians. Would "Inquirer," for instance, suggest that any of the three accepts the story of the "fall of man," or that of the virgin-birth" as fact ? Could they accept the popularly accredited view of the Atonement ? If "Inquirer" imagines they could he can know nothing of their work and influence as theologians or critics. Of course it is quite possible to explain the facts of sin and the consequent necessity of an atonement, without having to draw upon Biblical mythology or the metaphysics of the Dark and Middle Ages in this connection. As for Professor W. E. Addis, I am quite prepared to believe that he believes, or could believe, anything. He has played many parts in his day. He has boxed the ecclesiastical compass and circumnavigated the theological globe ! He began his career in the Church of England, then passed over to the Church of Rome became a priest—left the Church of Rome, married a wealthy lady, and though employed as Professor of Old Testament Literature in Manchester [Unitarian] College, Oxford, was never "required" to call himself a Unitarian. He preferred to call himself an Arian. He thereafter returned to the Church of England. This is a brilliant record ! The most memorable incident in his life was the fact that Canon Cheyne asked him to write the article on the "Gospel of St. John" for the "Encyclopaedia Biblica," and rejected it when written ! He had to go to Professor Schmiedel, of Zurich, to get the work done competently. Here are a few tit-bits from the writings of Dr. Rashdall :—

page break

"Supposing the question had been put to the bishops: 'Is it consistent with the doctrine of the Church of England to assert that the account of the Fall is a myth ?' I very much doubt whether the majority of them would have ventured to assert that it was"!

This is surely a high compliment to the Bishops of his Church ! . Again—

"The heretic [Gore] against whom orthodox pamphlets thundered in 1889, is now (next to Lord Halifax) the nearest approach to a theological Pope that the Anglican system can tolerate."

Rashdall commends R. J. Campbell's views of the Atonement. He cites the following passage from R. J. Campbell's book : "What is it that is slowly winning the world from its selfishness to-day and lifting it gradually into the higher, purer atmosphere. There is but one thing that is doing it, and that is the spirit of self-sacrifice. Wherever you see that you see the true Atonement at work." Rashdall adds: "I wish I could transcribe more of this admirable passage." Again : "At bottom I believe he (R. J. Campbell) is right in his way of representing the Divinity of Christ. He regards Christ as a full and finally sufficient revelation of God. Nor have I any quarrel with what he says about the possibilities of others with His (Christ's) help becoming like Him. All men are, in some degree, sons or revelations of God. Christ was so in a unique degree."

I commend the following to "Inquirer s" notice and hope he may find it possible to answer his query about "honesty" for himself and his Church : "Dr. Rashdall also spoke of the petition to Convocation. He said that the Royal Commission's proposal that questions of doctrine or ritual should be referred to the Bishops might well be viewed with alarm. If a majority of the Bishops were of a particular school, they might, for instance, decide that any clergyman not believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist should be ejected from his benefice. He thought it was the general feeling that certain psalms and hymns which were opposed to the Ethical spirit of Christianity should be excluded at the discretion of the officiating clergyman. Referring to certain Bible stories as being unelevating and unhistorical, he said he did not suppose that there were six Bishops on the Bench, who, in the privacy of their study, seriously believed that the walls of Jericho really did fall down. Other stories which should also disappear from public use were those of the murder of Agag, the horrible story of Jael, the narrative of Balaam's ass, the floating axe-head, and the anointing of blood thirsty Jehu. The services of the Church were cast in too archaic a mould for modern religious opinion." [The Liberal Churchman, Oct. 1907.] In an article on "Religion and History" by Rashdall in the same number of "The Liberal Church- page break man," I find : "It is clear to me at least that the most ultimate and fundamental truths of Religion must be independent of any particular revelation" (page 12). Again: "I would venture, therefore, to lay down that any truth of religion that is of primary importance must be regarded as independent of history, in the sense that it is independent of miracles." (page 14.)

The less you rely upon historical testimony and miraculous attestation the more you must emphasize the moral and religious consciousness" (page 15).

Again : "I do not think that Christianity must for ever stand or fall with the exact formulae of the Nicene Creed. Those formulas were a way of expressing in the language of the day the unique value which the Christian society attributed to Christ. They have not lost their usefulness for us, though we naturally interpret them to some extent differently from the men of the fourth century as of the sixteenth ! "What about your Nicene Creed now, brother "Inquirer."?

As to Canon Cheyne, it would be an easy matter to show that he is a greater heretic than Dr. Rashdall. Any of his many contributions to his own "Encyclopaedia Biblica" puts that beyond question.

Let me say, in conclusion, that of the "eminent scholars" enumerated by Mr. Jolly in his first letter only two were University teachers, and one of them a mere theological unknown quantity. All his great authorities (with the exception of two) belong to the non-University theological halls. I doubt if even the two most distinguished of them (Drs. Driver and George Adam Smith) have any claim to a place in the first rank of present-day Biblical critics and scholars. I am surprised that Dr. Jones failed to notice this. Dr. Jones is too modest to claim that the thinkers and critics whose names he enumerated are in fundamental agreement with him in theology, he rather claims that he is in fundamental agreement with them, and I challenge "Inquirer" to prove that so far as Dr. Rashdall and Canon Cheyne are concerned this is not the case.

I am, yours, &c.,

Anythingarian.
Free Lance Print