Phases of Faith | Page 3

friend contested the latter part
of the doctrine. Admitting fully that guilt is atoned for by the sufferings
of the Saviour, he yet maintained, there was no farther imputation of
Christ's active service as if it had been our service. After a rather sharp
controversy, I was sent back to study the matter for myself, especially
in the third and fourth chapters of the Epistle to the Romans; and some
weeks after, freely avowed to him that I was convinced. Such was my
first effort at independent thought against the teaching of my spiritual
fathers, and I suppose it had much value for me. This friend might

probably have been of service to me, though he was rather cold and
lawyerlike; but he was abruptly withdrawn from Oxford to be
employed in active life.
I first received a temporary discomfort about the 39 Articles from an
irreligious young man, who had been my schoolfellow; who one day
attacked the article which asserts that Christ carried "his flesh and
bones" with him into heaven. I was not moved by the physical
absurdity which this youth mercilessly derided; and I repelled his
objections as on impiety. But I afterwards remembered the text, "_Flesh
and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God_;" and it seemed to me
as if the compiler had really gone a little too far. If I had immediately
then been called on to subscribe, I suppose it would have somewhat
discomposed me; but as time went on, I forgot this small point, which
was swallowed up by others more important. Yet I believe that
henceforth a greater disposition to criticize the Articles grew upon me.
The first novel opinion of any great importance that I actually
embraced, so as to give roughness to my course, was that which many
then called the Oriel heresy about Sunday. Oriel College at this time
contained many active and several original minds; and it was rumoured
that one of the Fellows rejoiced in seeing his parishioners play at
cricket on Sunday: I do not know whether that was true, but so it was
said. Another of them preached an excellent sermon before the
University, clearly showing that Sunday had nothing to do with the
Sabbath, nor the Sabbath with us, and inculcating on its own ground a
wise and devout use of the Sunday hours. The evidently pious and
sincere tone of this discourse impressed me, and I felt that I had no
right to reject as profane and undeserving of examination the doctrine
which it enforced. Accordingly I entered into a thorough searching of
the Scripture without bias, and was amazed to find how baseless was
the tenet for which in fact I had endured a sort of martyrdom. This, I
believe, had a great effect in showing me how little right we have at
any time to count on our opinions as final truth, however necessary
they may just then be felt to our spiritual life. I was also scandalized to
find how little candour or discernment some Evangelical friends, with
whom I communicated, displayed in discussing the subject.
In fact, this opened to me a large sphere of new thought. In the
investigation, I had learned, more distinctly than before, that the

preceptive code of the Law was an essentially imperfect and temporary
system, given "for the hardness of men's hearts." I was thus prepared to
enter into the Lectures on Prophecy, by another Oriel Fellow,--Mr.
Davison,--in which he traces the successive improvements and
developments of religious doctrine, from the patriarchal system onward.
I in consequence enjoyed with new zest the epistles of St. Paul, which I
read as with fresh eyes; and now understood somewhat better his whole
doctrine of "the Spirit," the coming of which had brought the church
out of her childish into a mature condition, and by establishing a higher
law had abolished that of the letter. Into this view I entered with so
eager an interest, that I felt no bondage of the letter in Paul's own words:
his wisdom was too much above me to allow free criticism of his weak
points. At the same time, the systematic use of the Old Testament by
the Puritans, as if it were "the rule of life" to Christians, I saw to be a
glaring mistake, intensely opposed to the Pauline doctrine. This
discovery, moreover, soon became important to me, as furnishing a
ready evasion of objections against the meagre or puerile views of the
Pentateuch; for without very minute inquiry how far I must go to make
the defence adequate, I gave a general reply, that the New Testament
confessed the imperfections of the older dispensation. I still presumed
the Old to have been perfect for its own objects and in its own place;
and had not