Archdeacon Farrar's Advice [pp. 116-123]

ARCHDEACON FARRAR'S ADVICE.
tained will of God. Again, even though these warring religions
should cease hostilities and ape the unity and amity of an organic body, would Christianity be benefited? Would not the
infidel world denounce such action as a grand conspiracy against
truth, as the last resource of imbecility and decrepitude? Men
are too discerning to "tolerate" such " toleration " or listen to
the pretensions of mock unity.
What the archdeacon says o "freedom" is meaningless. He
tells us that "it is the aim of all ambitious ecclesiastical tyrannies, whether of new presbyter or old priest, to load the minds
of men with secular chains." Who would expect such nonsense
from the scholarly divine? He might as well assure us that it is
the property of fire to burn as that it is the aim of tyranny to
oppress. Evidently his mind was confused just here. Was he
afraid to speak of ecclesiastical institutions that are not tyrannies? Or did he dimly apprehend that the church in America
cannot forge "secular chains"? But even Homer sleeps, perhaps dreams, and, it may be, ultimately dotes.
" Lastly," the writer tells us, " there must be progress."
What does he think of Macaulay, who says that neither natural nor revealed theology is a progressive science? Archdeacon
Farrar blames the church for " having tried to preserve when it
was her duty to improve." It is painful to hear such words
coming from a Christian. The churches have pretended and still
pretend to teach the word of God. The writer himself refers
to them as "communities in the midst of which the pure word
of God is preached." How could they "improve" the pure
word of God? If they have it, is it not their duty to" preserve"
it? If they have it not, why do they pretend to it? Why do
they counterfeit the Gospel to the deception of immortal souls?
God's word is always the same. Men must neither add nor
diminish. His laws, like his creative and conserving power,
are adapted to all times and all climes.
Nowhere is the inconsistency of Protestantism more apparent
than in the means which the archdeacon suggests for its stability. It is a mighty evil that can so disintegrate revelation and
confound the common sense of clear minds. Theology is not a
progressive science. As seen in Protestantism it is eminently
retrogressive. We do not blame Archdeacon Farrar. The
fault lies with the cause he maintains. In maintaining it he
has, no doubt, made the best of a bad matter.
I 23