Matthew Arnold's Literature and Dogma [pp. 86-100]

1874.]
LF-rERATURE AND DOG3IA.
87
wanting iln he weok of so acconmplishe(d a an. They are ele ments of tscination anid power, and yet their influence must be
gre,atly res tricted by the associations in which they stand, and
the service to w.hichl thle a.re called.
We'ome uninvited to tlhe persal and discu',ion of the a,u thor's wlork. " For persons of this kind (w,ho receive the Bible
on the ground supplied either by popular theology or by meta physical theology) whllat we sa,y neither will h?ave, nor seeks to
have, any contstraining force at all." (p. 127.) We may, how ever, be permittedl to have aicnd to express a conviction in regard
to the Cteiree in which others, -initin the circle of the authlor's
purpose, shoiald boe constrained hy his 1reasonings.
Onie wordc more in reglard to the self-announced standpoint
and spirit of the author. It is his declared object to save the
Bible and its religion from the theologians. "The received theolo,gy of the churches and the sects... is itself now a hindrance
to the Bible rather than a helpp; nay, to abandon it, to put some
other construction on the Pible than this theology puts, to find
some other basis for the Bible than this theology finds, is indispensable, if we would have the Bible reach the people." (Preface,
p. xii.) The author writes as a Christian, zealous for thlie establi,shment in which he was broughlt up, regarding dissent "calnmost
droll; if it were not-... so extremely irreligious" (p. xi.), but
dilutlir a litle the lmeasure of scorn with whil-ch he s)eakls of
Evangelicals of Lis own Confess;.orn. Ai.nd( yet he slays (p. xix.)
"Miltdness anfd sweet reasonablens:OS is the one est.blished rule
for C bristi.an''lin d no th'r"ruie has it or can it have."
Obviously his daoing with th elois' d,;senter., and Evangelicals is not w ithin the tline of his Ehr:istian wxorking. So accompiisheidC a writer, ca,Lno bs bind to the injurious effect of
end,less iteratlion, especially w'ihen it taktes he- form of buiting person ai ts. H ving never reu a Sp,h bull-fi h t we draw upon
imragfi"s-"i,tion when xie try to confive of a wloudedl anid madSdenedl enid dlashring imore vildly at the F,S fcr o;tr the- red flag,
than (oes ti-is chi:mpion.of rLlnets and swee;t reatcnablehess" hiecn he ctchtes A,o- St,rt ofe c(3rtain obnoxionus e-lex'astics
0 +,i_(7 or of temtrofict t gtc,?t oformulas. What have
t,hee archbislops and bishops done, that Dr. Arnold should for
their sakes so mar a weei rnst elborate and pretentious thIeolog,ical essav? Will none su:+pect the author of a con