kind' being in sin and misery for ever (of which there is not the shadow of a hint in the Scriptures), were true.

The discussions of the Atonement' (pp. 90, &c.) and the 'Fall' (pp. 94, &c.), afford illustrations of our general observation at the outset. Identifying the doctrines of theology with the truth of the Scriptures, Mr. Newman gave up the latter, because he found he could not retain the former. The study of the 'Bampton Lectures' of the Bishop of Hereford would have preserved him from such an error. We carnestly recommend this great work to our readers, and especially to those young men who may not see how Mr. Newman could avoid the conclusions to which he has come.

What we have called the Second Division of this book, records a connected series of inquiries, beginning with the errors in the genealogy of our Lord given by Matthew, and ending with the total abandonment of the Bible, except as an aid to devotion. Of course little more than results can be given; but these are announced in such rapid succession, that the first effect is perfectly overwhelming. More deliberate examination, however, shows that it is not the weight of these objections to the Bible, but, partly, the velocity with which they strike the reader's mind, and, partly, the closeness with which they are linked together (as Mr. Newman himself has shown, pp. 216-219), that gives the process its seeming force of conviction. Now, as we cannot inspect the chain link by link, it will be sufficient for our purpose to break it here and there, by showing that in some places the conclusions do not follow from premises, and, in others, the facts are imaginary. Neither Mr. Newman, nor our readers, must suppose that we admit the soundness of what our narrow limits compel us to leave unnoticed.

But we must first call attention to the fact, that the ultimate conclusion is to some extent anticipated in the earlier division. of the book. Difficulties respecting the Old Testament and the Gospels arose in the period of the Youthful Creed' (pp. 7, 23). The historical side' of his religion caused our author some sad embarrassment, while striving after a more primitive Christianity' (p. 54). And before Calvinism' was fully 'abandoned,' he discovered that his religion had always been Pauline' (p. 102). We cannot pass by this discovery without remarking how strangely Mr. Newman has misconceived the religion of Paul. He dwells upon the apostle's resolving not to know 'Christ after the flesh' (p. 103), and says that of Jesus in the flesh, Paul seems to know nothing beyond the bare fact, that he did humble himself to become man, and pleased not himself' (p. 180). And he takes no notice of the expression of earnest determination to know nothing at Corinth save Christ, and him

crucified; nor yet of his frequent appeals to Christ as an example in Christian duties. The extent of this misconception may be appreciated by the following astounding testimony: I can testify that the Atonement may be dropt out of the Pauline religion without affecting its quality' (p. 103). The Atonement dropt out' of his religion who makes that fact the centre and sum of all Christian truth! But, however Mr. Newman has misconceived Paul, he has not misrepresented his own feeling, which was that of deep distaste for the details of the human life of Christ; '-he did not wish for vivid historical realization' (p.102),—and with such feelings he set out on the inquiry, which ended in the discovery announced under the form of the truism -history is not religion.' We do not see how an inquiry so begun could well have had a different conclusion.

The first results are thus stated:- The farther I inquired, the more errors crowded upon me—in history, in chronology, in geography, in physiology, in geology' (p. 217). Mr. Newman has omitted astronomy, gardening, medicine, and a host of other branches of knowledge. But what has all this to do with the real question before us? The Bible does not undertake to teach human science, but, as old Galileo said, 'the way of salvation.' Mr. Newman does not actually say that, because of these errors in matters upon which it does not pretend to instruct men, it proves itself incapable of instructing them upon the subjects which it was given to reveal ; but the use he makes of these scientific mistakes produces that impression on the minds of his readers. The only fair conclusion would have been, that the form in which he had held the infallibility of the Bible was a mistaken one; the conclusion actually drawn was, that, because of these errors, it was to be suspected of containing more, and upon questions of a totally different kind!

The inquiry passes on to Morals.' Mr. Newman had made another discovery-that the science of ethics, like all other sciences, had its own independent basis (pp. 74, 81); and proceeded on this ground to condemn many things recorded in the Old Testament-amongst which is mentioned the command to Abraham to slay his son' (p. 114). We never knew that all that in the Old Testament was written for our learning,' was also written for our admiration; nor that Deborah's praise of Jael proved the unfitness of the Bible to teach the commonest morality; and respecting the offering up of Isaac, we discern that there is another reason for reprobating it, since the sacrifice was not actually performed-it was attempted, in obedience to a voice in the air' (p. 149)-of which we must speak afterwards. Mr. Newman proceeds: Paul and James agree in extolling his obedience as a first-rate fruit of faith' (p. 114); or 'as indicating

a praiseworthy faith' (p. 150). Of Paul it is also said, 'He praises Abraham, but he certainly would never have imitated him' (p. 150). The purport of all this is seen at page 218, where the writer says, 'When I was thus forced to admit that the Old Testament contained immorality, as well as error, and found nevertheless in the writers of the New Testament no indication that they were aware of either; was it wrong in me to suspect that the writers of the New Testament were themselves open to mistake?"

What will be thought of this confident challenge, when we say, and challenge Mr. Newman to disprove our assertion, that Paul does not once allude to the sacrifice of Isaac as a proof of Abraham's faith; and that James, who does allude to it, dwells most emphatically on the passage, which Paul referred to solely, in which Abraham, old and childless though he was, yet believed, on the promise of God, that his posterity should be as the stars in the sky for multitude? In the Epistle to the Hebrews there is, indeed, a eulogy upon Abraham's faith in offering up his son; but it is accompanied by the explanatory remark, accounting that God was able to raise him up even from the dead;' which would have unfitted it for Mr. Newman's purpose, even had he not expressly stated that he did not regard this epistle as the work of Paul (pp. 100, 140).

At page 125, Mr. Newman writes:

'One of the most decisive testimonies to the Old Testament which the New contains, is in John x. 35, where I hardly knew how to allow myself to characterise the reasoning. The case stands thus :-The 82nd Psalm rebukes unjust governors, and at length says to them, "I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High: but ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.' In other words-"Though we are apt to think of rulers as if they were superhuman, yet they shall meet the lot of common men." Well, how is this applied in John? Jesus has been accused of blasphemy, for saying that "He and his Father are one;" and, in reply, he quotes the verse, I have said, Ye are gods," as a sufficient justification for calling himself Son of God; for "the Scripture cannot be broken." I dreaded to precipitate myself into shocking unbelief if I followed out the thoughts that this suggested; and (I know not how) for a long time yet put it off.

This is just a specimen of the extraordinary manner in which Mr. Newman has been able to dispose of the historical side of his religion.' The most cursory glance at the passage shows that the expression, Ye are gods,' is quoted, not as a justification for calling himself Son of God,' but as a reply to the charge of blasphemy.' It was his accusers who stood upon the inviolability of Scripture, and that Scripture designated even

unjust rulers as gods. This answer of Jesus might have produced happier effects on Mr. Newman's mind, had he but looked at it a little closer before he formed his conclusion respecting it.

It is well known that demoniacal possession' was regarded as the cause of certain diseases in the time of our Lord; just as in all branches of human knowledge, before science comes marvel. Our author feels himself forced to draw conclusions of the utmost moment, most damaging to the credit of the narrators' (p. 128), from the accounts of the cures of 'demoniacs' in the first three Gospels! And thus, because these men held an erroneous medical theory, Mr. Newman suffered a breach' to be made in the credit of the Bible, through which a great flood of difficulties' poured in! Has he ever considered what would have been the consequences, if the writers of the Scriptures had been inspired with correct knowledge upon all the various sciences, of their ignorance of which he so unjustly now takes advantage against the Bible?

6

Mr. Newman is indignant at Dean Graves's defence of the Pentateuch (p. 138); what ought we to express at such reasoning as this? The book of the Law' is said to have been found in the reign of Josiah, under circumstances familiar to all our readers; Mr. Newman concludes from this narrative, that the book we call Deuteronomy was evidently then first compiled, or at least then first produced and made authoritative to the nation!' (p. 137.)

The Fifth Period opens with an investigation, which is thus concisely stated: 'Ought we in any case to receive moral truth in obedience to an apparent miracle of sense? or, conversely, ought we ever to believe in sensible miracles because of their recommending some moral truth?' (p. 145.) The Bible is charged with vacillations and contradictions' on this critical point (p. 147). And this is the evidence: 'I found in the Bible itself and even in the very same book, as in the Gospel of John -great uncertainty and inconsistency on this question. In one place, Jesus reproves the demand of a miracle, and blesses those who believe without miracles; in another, he requires that they will receive his doctrine (and submit to it as little children), because of his miracles' (pp. 145-6). Farther on he adds: The more I considered it, the more it appeared as if Jesus were solely anxious to have people believe in him, without caring on what grounds they believed, although that is obviously the main point' (p. 146).

We cannot tell why Mr. Newman did not apply to this case his discovery respecting the various significations of the word Tioris, which, at pp. iv. and 154, he speaks of, with no exag

gerated sense of its importance; for this would have saved him from the gratuitous injustice he has done to the words of our Lord. But respecting those inconsistencies,' in John's Gospel, we challenge Mr. Newman to produce the passages; there is nothing of the kind in all that narrative; and the passages in the other Gospels, which seem to have suggested the remark, are of such a kind, that if they were printed side by side, it would be apparent that under different circumstances, our Lord spoke differently respecting his miracles; and that the great purpose of miracles, to call attention to him as a teacher, is implied in all.

In reply to what is said in pp. 147, &c., and 181, &c., we only observe, that though we cannot know exactly what the evidence was upon which the apostles received what they have recorded for us, we can put to the proof all that immediately concerns us in the New Testament as divine truth. It is quite idle to talk about what evidence would compel a man now to receive a supernatural revelation; and worse than idle to suppose Paley engaged in cross-questioning an apostle. The impression left on the mind by these passages, and by some of a similar kind, is not at all favourable to Mr. Newman's impartiality in investigating these momentous questions; and on minds that can be unsettled they would tell more than all the arguments which the book contains.

To deny the possibility of such a communication as that which led Abraham to offer up his son, appears to us to be most unphilosophical; but to deny it by implication and innuendo (pp. 149, 150), does not deserve so respectable a designation as unphilosophical. By all who can see that in the childhood of the world God must needs deal with man in a different manner from that which is suitable to its manhood, the fact of the sacrifice being commanded by God will not be questioned; and it will be foremost amongst the circumstances of the case by which they pronounce the proceeding to be right or wrong. The extravagant charge against Abraham as (in heart and intention, though not in actual performance) not less guilty than those who sacrificed their children to Moloch' (p. 114), will fall to the ground through its own utter baselessness.

We can only glance at a few more points. Mr. Newman says I saw at length how untenable is the argument drawn from the inward history of Christianity in favour of its superhuman origin. In fact, this religion cannot pretend to selfsustaining power' (p. 159); and there is nothing in this history [of Judaism] which we can adduce in proof of preternatural and miraculous agency' (p. 161). At p. 188, he says: The Bible is pervaded by a sentiment, which is implied everywhere-viz., the