DEAN FREMANTLE'S ALLEGED HERESIES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12551, 3 January 1903, Page 10

DEAN FREMANTLE'S ALLEGED HERESIES.

GENERAL AMAZEMENT AND STRONG STRICTURES. (From Oun Own Correspondest.) LONDON, November 15. In a recent ' letter I referred to tho astonishing pronouncement by the Very Rev. the Hon.. Dean Fremantle of Eipon which appeared to repudiate some of tho doctrines which have always been accepted as vital 'truths.of the Christian faith, including the Virgin birth of the Redeemer, the reality of His miracles, and the resurrection of the body. These remarkable utterances were made by the Dean of Ripon in an address on "Natural Christianity," delivered at- a recent meeting'of'the Churchmen's Union, and naturally.produced a tremendous sensation, and elicited a storm of adverse criticism, Perhaps the most - important refcronce to the speech was made by the Bishop of London, who said he entirely repudiated the teaching about miracles which !\vas said to havo been given. "I say, added the Bishop, "'said lo have been given,' as it is obviously unfair to judge an utterance by a short,' compressed account in a newspaper. If, however, such teaching is correctly reported, I repudiate it in the name of the Christian Church." A direct reference to Dean Fremantle elicited a general denial of the accuracy of the report. This, however, was deemed by no means an adequate answer in view of the gravity of the utterance's attributed to him,-for it was dear that he must have said something bearing more or less resemblance to the words quoted, and so a very earnest appeal was made to him to stnto what he really did say, or lo explain what he rcully did mean. Accordingly the Dean lies issued a curiously vague explanation of his position. He says:—" The object of the reporter seems, to have been to make a sensation, not to'gjyc the facts. He chose out- just the things.which might, when dissevered from their context, rightly cause alarm.' He did not. give the other side of them, which was.expressed in the paper. Ho did not record tho full recognition of the divinity of our ■' of Whom,' tho paper said, 'we are all. I trust, enthusiastic followers.' Above all, he gave- no idea whatever of the argument of the paper. That argument was .that.the words 'nature' and 'natural' had been misused; they had been made to mean only Nature in its lower developments, whereas the true nature of man is only found in Christ, and the true nature of Ihe "■world in its highest ideal, to which the Creator is' guiding it by working iu it and through it. Thus the laws of Nature cannot be separated from God nor from Christ. . "That there -arc difficulties in some matters connected with tho manifestation of God in Christ it would be untruthful not to admit, especially in those of the Virgin birth, in some of the 'wonderful works,' and in the Resurrection. But in the first of these; 'though the facts (1) that it is never mentioned in Iho New Testament except in the first two chapters ot St. Matthew and St. Luke, and (2) that is was not a part of 'the creed of Nicaca to make it of less authority (as in the parallel case of the words ' descended into hell'), yet tho accounts might be understood without any violation of biological law. The incarnation and divinity of our Saviour stand on 'the firm -ground of what Ho did and thought, and what He has been to mankind. As to the last point, that of the Resurrection, tho views of Bishop Hcrsley, of Go-alburn, 1 and of Bishop . Weslcoti, which have so often been urged by Canon M'Coll, as well, as by myself in Ripon Cathedral and elsewhere, wero followed—namely, that the Resurrection was not a return to the mortal conditions of this life, but n manifestation of the spiritual state and the 'spiritual body.' As to the 'mighty works', cf our Lord, iii some cases wc could see (hem to be' instances' of the power of a Majestic Presence and Personality over weakened and hysterical frames; and possibly other cases might bo.similarly.accounted for. But since in "all things,/even (ho commonest, there is an clement.of the unknown, we must expect that this would bo the case still more in the works of Christ Himself. If wo could know everything, no doubt all would appear quite natural according to the higher conception o£ Nature, for which the writer Is contending. This is brought out in the late Duke of Argyll's great work, "The Reign of Law.' "The same, method may he adopted as to Christian doctrines. All are in harmony with'.law.- The divinity of our Lord is best understood by the fact that there is an operation of the Divine Spirit in the world generally, and in every man; but in Christ it is unique and: complete. ' God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto Him.' Redemption is the deration of man to his higher ideal, his' true nature. Election is the vilsin fact that certain men are called out above others to he, like Christ Himself, . workers' and sufferers for their fellows. Episcopacy is the following out of the priuoiole which God has imposed upon human life, and there inust in every society, be ono responsible head. Ami so with other doctrines, Finally, .the. Christian life is Ihe common life of men raised lo it? highest state of righteousness and love by union with' ono perfect life; and the Church.is human-society transformed by the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ. I hopo this ( mode of presenting Christian truth may help to clear away difficulties which are widely felt,-and may not excite the personal controversies which havo so often hindered- tho progress of' truth." Needless to'say, this exceedingly vague . reply has-not-at all dispelled.the prevalent, feeling of indignation that an ordained ' clergyman should, while professing such i views, still continue to remain a high tligm- . tary of the Church and draw its emolu- ] incuts while virtually repudiating its teaching and doctrines. But it now appears that this is no new departure on the part, of Dean Fremantle, for in "The Now Information," an essay contributed by him to the Fortnightly, Review, may bo found these strange passages:— "Wc must'he content henceforward to ■ bo Christian ■Agnostics." '"We-ere all.alike in the admission of a I great object of thought, to which the 1 name of God • has been commonly . given." "The clergy now prefer only a general ( adherence to tho formularies ofwwo- k ■ ship." i ."The clergy should not bo required to r make any subscription at all"—i.e., any profession of belief at their ordi- • nation. . "God may bo considered rather after tho analogy of Force or Law." ; 3f course tho answer to his more recent « ittorances is manifestly that, granted an s jinnipotcnt-personal Doity, tho power to f iiispend or abrogate the laws established by ~ dmself must of necessity bo possessed by iuch a Deity. But it will bo seen from the lassages .which', I have reproduced ■ from y he Dean's earlier paper in the Fortnightly j itovicw that he practically discards ■ alto- c ;etlicr the idea of a personal God, mid a lefincs the Deity merely, as " analogous to t Force' or 'Law,' and as simply 'a great ibject of thought to which the name of - ' God" lias been commonly given,!" • i: In what- respects this differs from "pure r itheism haa, not been explained by the j, )eim of Ripon or his friends. It is not iasy to detect any .definite difference beyond i mere variatioirof the-form of words. a .A-new and. somewhat disagreeable, light t vas cast upon this curious case yesterday i >y the publication in various leadingLLo- t lon papers of. the following, paragraph:— Q 'We understand that • the report of ihe )can of ■ Ripon's • address last week was ° Abmittcd to tho Dean by tho reporter be- c ore being published, and was approved-bye li'm as giving a fair idea of what ho had p aid about the "Virgin birth of Christ, the f] Cow Testament miracles, and the Rcsurrecion. Yet the Dean in his telegram on ifonday declared the report to ho 'abso- » utely -untrustworthy and misleading.'" si To-day brings a fresh phase of the situa- |, ion. Dean Fremantle, confronted with the act that the report which he denounced .. iad been submitted to him and approved ofore publication, responds with what bears y painful resemblance fo another shuffle, a rd seems .very."thin" at that. He tele- g raphs: "Report shown me in confusion f meeting breaking up. My corrections ot made. See printed letter for causes of D laccuracy." That printed letter being the >> rib already quoted, in which he virtually a easseiis the same extraordinary views, al- g ,eit wrapped up in more "padding," his B| roceedings certainly do appear deplorably mvorthy and disingenuous. a , • . ■■■ • ri