Page images
PDF
EPUB

"A grand entertainment, entitled Joseph and his Brethren," according to some handbills, was acted on October 26th, 1880, by the Primitive Methodists in a Durham pit village. Apropos of this acting in Durham it has been remarked: "If the pitman be religious he is commonly a very glowing coal of Primitive Methodist fervour; he preaches, and plays and sings with as much vehemence as he wields the pick; more grim and more fervent than the Yorkshireman."

The same piece found favor at about the same time among the iron workers of Staffordshire, at Briarley Hill, being placed on the stage by the Primitive Methodists there.

But of all places where the drama was acted Sheffield bore the palm, for here there was an attempt to give it a more artistic turn, the dresses being made more appropriate and more care being taken with the manner of recitation. Of course it was impossible to cloak the strong dialect of the district. With all this the piece could hardly have been better received than it was in the country places, for every where the story touched the hearts too deeply to be injured by the telling. While none of the listeners had a notion of any part being grotesque, Jacob foretelling the Messiah with all the circumstantiality of a later prophet, and saying, "as it is written he shall tread the wine press alone,” seemed quite natural to them.

The wonderful furore which seized the working class mind (says an eye-witness), very unreasonably roused the hostility of the regular theatre, for the class frequenting "Joseph and his Brethren were not play-goers generally, and there could be no rivalry, seeing that the poor artisans were "nowhere" as actors, and could never clash with the attractions of the regular stage. However, they interfered, and before the Court succeeded. The poor people, legally, had not a leg to stand upon for the hall where the piece was performed was not a licensed place for stage performances, and what was more, the libretto had not received the Lord Chamberlain's imprimator. The authorities expressed themselves afraid of the Holy Scriptures being brought into disrepute and positively forbade such representations. Should people wish to act them privately, and if nothing were charged for seeing them, no objection would be made. This was fifteen years ago. Occasionally, as we have seen, the drama has been acted, and for money, in country places. Probably to the insignificance of the localities and the rarity of the performances is

due the fact of their having been overlooked. Considering that there was nothing in the way of scenery and very little to attract the eye ever crowded audiences composed of deeply attentive working people showed that the performances touched an unmistakably sympathetic chord. There can be no doubt that there are many of the higher classes imagining that there was nothing of the kind nearer than Oberammergau who would have been extremely interested by witnessing a Yorkshire mistery.

Impressed with these reflections, and desirous of ascertaining whether the authorities who had the guardianship of morals on the stage were really against such performances the following enquiry was addressed to the Lord Chamberlain's office by the present writer:

"Whether I, or any one else, can nowadays place dramas taken from the Old and New Testaments (the libretto and the acting being perfectly moral), on the stage, charging money for the exhibition. Of course the previous steps required in the case of secular pieces, more or less suited to raise the moral tone of the people, would have been taken."

A courteous and decided answer was returned:

"I am desired to inform you that no such pieces as your letter appears to contemplate will be licensed for representation at any theatre or any other public building licensed for dramatic representation in Great Britain."

Let any one think for a moment of the pieces which either on account of the words, the acting, or what is suggestive to the mind offend against morals or good taste that have passed the dramatic censorship in not very remote times, and he may realize the oriental proverb, old at the time of our Lord's using it, about "Straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel !"

I. S. A. HERFORD.

ARTICLE VI.-IS THEOLOGY A PROGRESSIVE
SCIENCE?

LEARNED and excellent men answer in the negative. They are quite sure of it. They can give us their reasons. Theology rests on no quicksand of experiment and theory, like the common sciences. It is built on the rock of Revelation. It is not human, but Divine. It comes from Him who has made no mistakes and can make no progress.

The Book, moreover, of which theology is a digest, has been, for centuries, an open book. The best Christian scholarship of each successive age has shone with full light upon it. Men to whom its original languages were vernacular have expounded it. Whole libraries have been written upon it. Physical science has owed its progress, largely, to the discovery of "fresh fields and pastures new." Disclosures of material objects and .facts and phenomena, before unknown, have widened its domain. But no such discoveries remain to be made in the Scriptures. They are old "placers" which scores of generations of miners have worked.

What claim to be new doctrines, therefore, are only old heresies, repaired and refurbished, or, to change the figure, Styrian rivers that, after long flowing through hidden channels, have emerged, in our day, to the light. History repeats itself. These are revolutions that are sure to go backward. And what better fate awaits the theories that swarm from the brains of the neologists of each new generation? What proof that, in perishing, they will leave the least residuum, of any value?

The canon of Scripture, moreover, was long since closed. Its Author, had He chosen, might have published an inspired quarterly or monthly magazine. He had infinite resources of new truth. Of fresh disclosures there might have been no end. But it was, evidently, no part of his plan to feed men's curiosity. The Athenians, who spend their time in nothing else but either to hear or to tell some new thing, reappear in

every generations. But the great want of mankind is not so much new knowledge as new character. The Socratic and Platonic theory that moral evil grows only from ignorance, that men are sour only because not ripe, is shallow and false. The roots of sin strike deeper. Larger stores of knowledge than we have in Scripture would only busy the brain at the expense of the heart. For the building of character and the guidance of life, only a few, sterling principles are required. Therefore it is, that the New Testament, though immeasurably more comprehensive in its reach than the Old, is less than one-third its length. And the entire book covers, with no need of "progress in theology," the entire duty of man.

New statements of old truths, of course, there may well be. Improved adjustments of these truths are quite possible. The doctrinal symbols of the earlier ages were colored by the general sentiment and the controversies of the time. Often, it must be granted, they were rather "dogmatic slogans" than calm statements of Christian opinion. But the changes required are of the form, not the substance. The old theology may be cast in new molds. But it must still be the old theology.

Once more. The applications of the ancient truths vary with modern emergencies. New opportunities impose new duties. New forms of sin arise. Advancing light increases obligation. That which seemed innocent is found to be wrong. Obedience to "kings," in this country, at least, is no longer required. So, with directions to masters and slaves—and, perhaps, to wives, to obey "in all things" their husbands. In the current use of principles, therefore, theology has new services to render. But, in its substance, from age to age, it abides unchanged. The coins may vary, but not the gold.

We have aimed to state fairly the case on the conservative side. Let us see what reply can be made.

Whatever jealous distinctions may be drawn between theology and other sciences, few will deny that it is a science. But what, then, is the meaning of this word? A sufficient definition for our purpose is-systematized knowledge. We collect, for instance, all facts and laws discoverable, in regard to the flora of the earth. Then, by classifying them, and studying the laws that govern them, we construct, in the course

of centuries, a science called botany. So with natural history, from the fauna of the globe, chemistry, from the elements and forces of which it takes cognizance, geology, from the rocks and their disclosures, astronomy, from the phenomena of the heavens.

In like fashion we construct our theologies. The Bible, like material nature, is an exhaustless field of research. As we gather the isolated teachings of Scripture and reason upon them, gradually arises a dogmatic system called theology.

Now, as the flora of the earth is one thing, and botany quite another, so the Bible is one thing and theology quite another. Time was when plants were classified by their size, the large and the small in different genera. But, later, came out the fact that the smallest blade of grass at our feet is of the same genus with the huge bamboo that towers above us. So with another science. Centuries ago were observed, on and within the earth's crust, singular forms which looked suspiciously like the remains of small shell fish. Forthwith theories arose and strove and chased one another out of existence. The deluge had brought the creatures up on the ground where their shells were left. But too many of them were found deep-bedded within the strata, to allow that hypothesis. Voltaire supposed specimens discovered on the Alps to have been dropped by pilgrims on their way to and from the shrines of saints. But unfortunately, to say nothing of those found within the rock-formations, others appeared where no pilgrim could have been. A third theory made the shells "freaks of nature," like the Old Man of the Mountain in Profile Notch, and Mrs. Grundy and other figures, in the Garden of the Gods in Colorado. But, as if in contempt of that brilliant suggestion, the fossils persisted in taking only one type-that of the shells of crustacea. None were knives, spoons, hooks, chains, or other such objects as might, from the theory, have been expected. So, slowly, the scientists felt their way along, till the fossils were allowed to be what and whence they evidently were, and the whole modern science of paleontology began to take shape. In like manner chemistry has had to struggle through the limbo of alchemy, and astronomy through that of astrology.

« PreviousContinue »