Editing John Colenso (section)

===Religious debate===
[[File:Protests against Bishop Colenso (1862).tif|thumb|Anglican Clerics' protests against Bishop Colenso {{em-dash}} reprinted from ''The Times'', 18 December 1862.<ref>[http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article264673828 "Ecclesiastical: Protests Against Bishop Colenso"], ''The (Hobart) Advertiser'', (18 February 1863): reprinted from ''The Times'', (18 December 1862), p.&nbsp;3.</ref>]]
Through the influence of his talented and well-educated wife, Sarah Frances Bunyon, Colenso became one of only a handful of theologians to embrace [[Frederick Denison Maurice]], who was raised a [[Unitarianism|Unitarian]] but joined the Church of England to help it "purify and elevate the mind of the nation".{{sfn|Morris|1998|p=182}} Before his missionary career Colenso's volume of sermons dedicated to Maurice signalled the critical approach he would later apply to biblical interpretation and the baleful impact on native Africans of colonial expansion in southern Africa.

Colenso first courted controversy with the publication in 1855 of his ''Remarks on the Proper Treatment of Polygamy'',{{sfn|Colenso|1855a|p=}} one of the most cogent Christian-based arguments for tolerance of polygamy.{{sfn|Kaplan|1995|pp=11-12}}

Colenso's experiences in Natal informed his development as a religious thinker. In his commentary on St Paul's ''[[Epistle to the Romans]]'' (1861),{{sfn|Colenso|2003|p=}} he countered the doctrine of eternal punishment and the contention that Holy Communion was a condition to salvation. He also questioned the presence of a distinctly Christian Church in Rome, stating - "Was there, in fact, any Christian Church at Rome at all, at this time, distinct and definitely marked off from the Jewish community? There would seem to have been none whatever..."{{sfn|Colenso|1863|pp=8-10}} Colenso, as a missionary, would not preach that the ancestors of newly Christianised Africans were condemned to eternal damnation.

The thought-provoking questions put to him by students at his missionary station encouraged him to re-examine the contents of the ''[[Pentateuch]]'' and the ''[[Book of Joshua]]'' and question whether certain sections of these books (e.g., [[Noah's Ark]], [[Genesis flood narrative|the Deluge]], the [[Crossing the Red Sea|Crossing of the Red Sea]], [[the Exodus]], etc.), should be understood as literally or historically accurate. His conclusions, positive and negative, were published in a series of treatises on the ''[[Pentateuch]]'' and the ''[[Book of Joshua]]'', from 1862 to 1879.{{sfn|Colenso|1862}}{{sfn|Colenso|1865|pp=19–}} The publication of these volumes created a scandal in England and were the cause of a number of counter-blasts from those (clergy and laity alike) who refused to countenance the possibility of biblical fallibility.<ref>"We utterly refuse to recognise any such limit or distinction as that attempted to be drawn by those who, while denying the leading facts of the Pentateuch, claim to be regarded as believers in other parts of the Old Testament, or at all events as recognising or acquiescing in the authority of the New Testament. As we observed last week in reference to the theories of Messrs. Darwin and {{sic|Crauford}}, they directly assume the utter falsity of what both Testaments teach us; whereas our blessed Lord and the Holy Spirit, speaking by Evangelists and Apostles, as directly assume the truth of those events and circumstances which such men deny. To deny the Pentateuch is to deny every portion of God's word in which the facts of the Pentateuch are recognised and reiterated as real and true. He who denies the Scriptures of the Jews denies the Scriptures of the Christians, and is an [[infidel]] to both." ([http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article31818313 "A Heterodox Bishop"], ''The South Australian Advertiser'', (23 December 1862), p.&nbsp;3).</ref> Colenso's work attracted the notice of biblical scholars on the continent such as [[Abraham Kuenen]] and played an important role in the development of Old Testament criticism in Britain;{{sfn|Larsen|2004|pp=60–}} not only in relation to the [[theology|theological]]/[[doctrine|doctrinal]] issues of the Bible's [[Biblical inerrancy|inerrancy]], [[Biblical infallibility|infallibility]], and [[Biblical literalism|literalism]] (rather than [[Allegorical interpretation of the Bible|allegorism]]), and not only in relation to its increasingly-demonstrated scientific, [[Historicity of the Bible|historical]], [[Religion and geography#Research traditions|geographical]], and [[Chronology of the Bible|chronological]] inaccuracies, and the consequent [[Dating creation|controversies about the age of the Earth]],<ref>The [[Ussher chronology|opinion of Bishop James Ussher]], that the date of Creation was nightfall on 22 October 4004 BCE, had been popularised by its attachment to the [[King James Version|King James Version of the Bible]] (see, for instance, [http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/ussher.html Lindner, D. (2004) "Bishop James Ussher Sets the Date for Creation", ''Law2.umkc.edu'']).</ref> but, also, in relation to the precise accuracy of the translations-of-the-original presented in [[Bible translations into English|particular versions]],<ref>This, for example, became a significant issue in relation to the production of the [[Revised Version]] of the [[King James Version| King James Version of the Bible]] in the second half of the 19th century.</ref> as well as the separate question of how the Bible itself had developed {{em-dash}} and which parts (when written, and by whom) of which particular texts (and in what order) [[Biblical canon|should be included in the Bible itself]].

Colenso's biblical criticism and his high-minded views about the treatment of African natives created a frenzy of alarm and opposition from the [[High Church]] party in South Africa and in England.  As controversy raged in England, the South African bishops headed by [[Robert Gray (bishop of Cape Town)|Bishop Robert Gray]] pronounced Colenso's deposition in December 1863.{{sfn|Draper|2003|pp=306–325}} Colenso, who had refused to appear before this tribunal otherwise than by sending a proxy protest (delivered by his friend [[Wilhelm Bleek]]), appealed to the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]] in London. The Privy Council eventually decided that the Bishop of [[Anglican Diocese of Cape Town|Cape Town]] had no coercive jurisdiction and no authority to interfere with the [[Bishop of Natal]].{{sfn|Chisholm|1911}} In view of this finding of ''[[ultra vires]]'' there was no opinion given upon the allegations of heresy made against Colenso.  The first [[Lambeth Conference]] was convened in 1867 to address concerns raised by the Privy Council's decision in favour of Colenso.

His adversaries, though unable to remove him from his episcopal office, succeeded in restricting his ability to preach both in Natal and in England.  Bishop Gray not only excommunicated him but consecrated a rival bishop ([[William Macrorie]]), who took the title of "Bishop of Maritzburg" (the latter a common name for [[Pietermaritzburg]]). The contributions of the missionary societies were withdrawn, but an attempt to deprive him of his episcopal income and the control of St Peter's Cathedral in Pietermaritzburg was frustrated by another court ruling. Colenso, encouraged by a handsome testimonial raised in England to which many clergymen subscribed, returned to his diocese.{{sfn|Chisholm|1911}} A rival cathedral was built but it has long been sold and moved. The new [[Cathedral of the Holy Nativity, Pietermaritzburg|Cathedral of the Nativity]], beside St Peter's, honours both Bishop Colenso and Bishop Macrorie in the names it has given to its halls.

Songs were written by [[Samuel John Stone]] as a response to the schism within the Church of South Africa. It inspired him to write a set of [[hymn]]s titled ''Lyra Fidelium; Twelve Hymns on the Twelve Articles of the Apostles' Creed'' (1866). Among them was "[[The Church's One Foundation]]".