DR. COLENSO AND THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.

THE publications of Dr. Colenso, coming upon the Essays and Reviews, are such a portent in the quiet Church of England that it is no wonder Church people don't know quite how to take them. Convocation, indeed, happily for its comfort, is provided with a form which it has just used upon a similar subject matter, the chief merit of which consisted in its being perfectly harmless and utterly unassailable, for the simple reason that it has no real effect and can mean nothing in particular. The Bishop of Capetown, being wholly unprovided with instructions, dealt with his offending brother as a sentry might do with an intruder who could not answer his challenge. He fired his musket, resolved not to be wanting to his service, though he might kill a man contrary to law. Our Bishops at home, here and there, on occasion or without it, have inhibited, or prohibited, the offender from the pulpits of their dioceses. This is a matter of domestic discipline, and, as we believe, any Bishop could exclude a stranger from his pulpits for wearing n beard, or for being an Irishman, or for no reason whatever except that he was not a pleasant person. But with all Bishops there arrives a time when they must take a serious and deliberate view of any scandal or novelty in the church, whether they wish it or not ; and when, accordingly, they cannot be charged with needless interference, even if they do not please all. The Bishop of Lincoln, at his triennial visitation, could not leave out Dr. Colenso, though, as he says, he did not give his vote for the censure of the Essays and Reviews. His abstinence in convocation was not without reason. He considered the sentence justifiable, and in proper form, as being directed against the book, and not pretending to touch the authors. So far all was right. But the Bishop thinks the sceptical movement of the last century was defeated; not by convocation, but by the arguments of learned divines, and that we had better confine ourselves to the weapon that really did the work. He would rather see the Essays and Reviews combated than condemned, and it is to fair controversy rather than to convocation that he looks for the true defence of the church from Dr. Colenso and other freethinkers.

But while the good Bishop shows a just preference for rational methods of defence over censures, denunciations, and such brute thunder, he pronounces a judgment which assumes that there is not even a word to be said in extenuation of the offence or mitigation of the penalty. A foregone conclusion, of course, we expect. The writers of the Essays and Reviews are at least audacious and irreverent, and have shown a positive pleasure in shocking pious English prejudices. If they have escaped condemnation, it is by covering their meaning with a film of words and suggesting rather than expressing what they wish to convey. So, rigorous justice is all they must look for from our spiritual authorities. Dr. Colenso would be sorry to think he was not more plain-spoken and intelligible. Whatever he says has the merit of entire openness and undeniable perspicuity. There is no reserve in his case, and as little reserve need there be in the opinion expressed as to the character and the drift of his speculations. But if, as the Bishop says, this is a matter of argument, and the business is to be done by sound learning and just criticism, we may venture to ask why the Bishop confines himself to a summary allegation of error and to the generalities appropriate to any attack and defence. He talks about heresies, schisms, and infidelities. He describes them as favored by the temper of the times, borne onward on the current of political ideas, or colored and illustrated by amiable qualities or high position. They are "an unexpected blow" or a secret mine at, "the foundation of the truth." Error, he says, has the start, and refutation follows closely. The fallacies have a bold exterior, and the theories look strongly built, Then a champion is raised up with special gifts for the occasion, who unravels specious sophistries, and drives the enemies of truth into despair and oblivion. What has happened a thousand times before will happen again. The clergy have only to do their duty and stand their ground, while a few, of greater ability, and leisure, will do battle in their behalf against their boastful assailants. The result to be expected is of course all that could be desired ; and the Bishop looks confidently to an early day when the late outbreak of scepticism will be a thing of the past, like the infidelities and errors of Toland, Whiston, and Clark. The Church will be as it was, and a rugged excrescence in the stem will be all the remains of a controversy that vainly threatened, for the hour, the destruction of the tree.

What is all this, however, but a censure as vague, as summary, and, therefore, as idle and as void of significance as that of Convocation ? We cannot think this the right way of dealing with writers who, even though it be called sophistry, use a sort of reasoning, and one of whom, at least, is doing his best to be learned. If this is a matter for controversy—and the Bishop says that it is—the first condition of controversy is to enter as much as possible into the position and the arguments of the antagonist, and to make every needful admission. It is pure waste of time and temper to dispute that which must be admitted afterwards. But is there not a particle of truth on the side of these writers ? Have they not a leg to stand upon ? Is there not a bit of sound material in the edifices doomed, as we are told, to an early demolition? The Bishop could hardly have delivered a stronger condemnation, had the objects of it set out, from the beginning, with the intention of overthrowing and utterly exploding Christianity, and had been utterly reckless as to the character of the statements and principles employed for this purpose. But is it even prudent to start with so ill an opinion of the foe, and so utter a contempt of his tactics and his arms ? The Bishop appeals to learning, ability, and leisure. There are many who may consider themselves addressed in this appeal, and who may also take the Bishop's word for the great case and happy conclusion of the task to which he directs them. But if myriads of divines, commentators, textuaries, linguists, chronologists, and other scholars have not employed their time very idly indeed, there is an immense variety of opinion admissible, and indeed inevitable, upon the sacred text ; upon names, dates, places, and numbers ; upon the authorship and date of the several portions; upon its revision and arrangement ; upon other matters, all comprised in the history of that " letter " with which the spirit itself is emphatically contrasted. Upon such a controversy it is hardly safe to start with the assumption that all the truth is on one side, all the error on the other; and that it is necessary to prove every Word in Dr. Colenso's publications to be utterly and maliciously wrong. Such an assumption is contrary to the teaching of Scripture itself, which professes to contain a story full of anomalies and scandals, and only to be deciphered by those who possess the Divine key. It nowhere compels faith in every word of a mass of literature with which few can pretend to more than a mere cursory acquaintance, and the original of which is hidden deep in dead languages, perishable MSS., and much-varied texts. It invites inquiry, but promises a more valuable and satisfactory result than the acceptance often thousand particulars in which we are only indirectly and remotely interested.—Evening Mail.

The Brisbane Courier 14 January 1865,