IN short, these favourite dicta of Mr. Newman's: that "an authoritative moral and spiritual revelation is impossible; that it cannot alter our à priori notions of the divine character; that man is capable of universally criticising the contents' of every presumed external revelation; and that not even a miracle can authorise any departure from some presumed fixed moral basis ' reconcilable with the heart-morality, and common conscience of human nature""-these dicta, I say, taken how you will, if supposed absolutely true, immediately involve us in manifold absurdities. Admit that man has a moral nature and moral capacities (as I for one fully admit), but capable of being warped in all sorts of ways from the true and the right, and needing apt instruments of education and culture; still more, admit that those capacities are originally corrupt; and then there is no difficulty about the matter; the various facts are harmonised but in that case any one can see that there is ample scope for an external authoritative revelation. Otherwise there is immense difficulty.

Let us assume, for example, the dogma about the "à priori notions of the Deity, which no revelation, it seems, can alter ;" and I ask, "Are they the same in all men or only in some men ?" In all men, I suppose it must be said, for we are inquiring about what is a characteristic

of Man, not the idiosyncratic felicity of this or that man. "Well, then, I should say, are these " à priori notions,” which nothing can alter, the same as their subsequent notions?" What a simpleton you must be to ask the question, would be the reply. Do you not see that men believe in gods of all sorts and sizes? In one-in fifty — in none? Do they not offer to them all sorts of sacrifices even including human ? "Of course," I should say; "something then must have altered the invariable à priori into the variable à posteriori notions." To be sure, must be the answer; historical religions, false miracles, pretended revelations -any thing can do it- a thousand things have done it. "It appears then," I think I should say ;-" it appears then, my friend, that these à priori notions, which nothing it seems can alter, any thing can, except an authoritative revelation from God: it seems that though a true revelation is impotent, any false one is omnipotent! You are very complimentary both to human nature and the Deity."

Take, again, the "principles of moral judgment" in man, (not in some Mr. Newman, but in man,) which are supposed to be such as to authorise and capacitate him to pronounce on any thing and every thing in a presumed revelation. Is it meant that these principles exist in all men or only in some ?—In all, it will be said, of course; for we are talking still about what is characteristic of humanity, not the peculiar privilege of some critico-moral Pope; and indeed who would consent to abide by such a decision, which itself would affirm the external authority, which the theory itself denies ?-Do all exercise then these critical faculties? and if those faculties do not "supersede," as Mr. Newman admits, external instruction, do they eliminate successfully the true only, and instinctively reject the false?-How can you ask the question, will be again answered? All the facts in

the world's history proclaim the contrary. Are not the vast majority of men at this moment-have they not been in all ages-bowing down to stocks and stones; worshipping all sorts of false deities, and honouring them with rites well worthy of them? Has there not been among vast communities for unknown ages, the easiest reception of the most hideous superstition, the most unshrinking, unquestioning perpetration of the most horrible cruelties and pollutions in obedience to even the falsest pretensions of priestcraft? Is it not the rarest thing to find men evincing any capacity for criticising the religious and moral systems by which their faculties have been swathed and bound from infancy? It is plain they do not.-It must be admitted, the objector will say. But then, is it because they would if they could, but cannot; or could if they would, but will not? If the former, or in the degree in which it may be true, they are to be pitied and excused; and it was in such pity that Christianity professed to come to their rescue; indeed the supposition affords ample scope for the offices of that external revelation which is so derided. If the latter, and men might universally and promptly exercise these faculties, but will not, Oh! what a blessed theory is this! "Truly," as Harrington says, "I think it makes man the most detestable beast that ever crawled under the cope of heaven.' It is no longer, I grant, of much consequence to discuss the "moral and spiritual" prerogatives of such a creature. In his regeneration he will want an authoritative revelation, and miracles too, with a witness.

If it be said, "Well, practically, all men have not their powers of moral and spiritual criticism sufficiently active to eliminate what is false in the systems presented to them from their childhood, but (as the produce of the silkworm is dyed by the food it lives on,) their religious sys

tem will be morally and spiritually what that of their immediate parents has been ;" then this is to admit that, practically, in the vast majority of cases, their moral and spiritual faculties are put hors de combat.

men

If it be further said; "Nay, but from time to time, individuals will arise in the course of 'progress,' who will indefinitely improve the moral and religious systems of man and extricate the world from its errors like Mr. Newman, for example; "-then this is to admit the incompetence of the spiritual and moral faculties of man in general, and at the same time the possibility and utility of what is so stoutly denied an external divine revelation; unless it be pretended that though man can perform this task, God cannot, which needs, I suppose, no refutation; or that though God can, man can do it better, which, I think, requires as little; or lastly, that man can and God has not performed it and will not, which requires proof. Whether any such revelation has been given depends of course on the appropriate evidence; but that it could be given, and with singular advantage, the preceding reasoning shows clearly enough.

Take, again, "the fixed basis of morality," "the common conscience and heart-morality;" is it, as before, an absolutely invariable standard, or a variable one that is spoken of? or is it a measure of India rubber that will hold three bushels or one? Whose "fixed moral basis?" That of the New Zealander, or of a Hottentot, or of an ancient Greek, a Roman, a Jew, or of a Hindoo, or of a Chinese, or of an Englishman? For all these have had very discordant notions on many points of morals, nd therefore (as well as for other reasons) about God. Or is every body in general meant, and nobody in particular? Will Mr. Newman allow that the moral judgment of the generality of his

countrymen will determine what they ought or ought not to believe (say) respecting the moral character of the Deity as determined by their "fixed moral basis:" and in spite of the depressing effects of the "Bible standard" on conscience, I do not think he will find, on the whole, any community more enlightened. Well, if so, the great bulk of them have had no difficulty in believing that God's command to Abraham, to sacrifice his son as a test of faith (which Mr. Newman compares to a sacrifice to Moloch), was not incompatible with what God might rightfully do. Will Mr. Newman say these are to be set aside as incapable of judging? What sort of test is this which appeals to the constitution of human nature, and first sets the bulk aside, and then the most enlightened of them? Will he say that he will take the spiritual élites of the race, the most devout of them? Still the same thing is evident; they do not see the incompatibility with the divine holiness which makes him so indignant. The ancient Jews, and modern Christians-those of them whom our critic himself admits to have given the world the best examples of spiritual religion-men like Paul and James, who, one would imagine, were not deficient in moral sensibility, both praise, as the most heroic virtue, that conduct of Abraham which Mr. Newman would denounce as a crime worthy only of a worshipper of Moloch to commit, in obedience to a command which only a Deity like Moloch could give; a singular scrupulosity, I should say, in Mr. Newman, if we reflect what strange things he does suppose his moral Deity to be capable of performing, as seen in a previous section! However, I think it may be said, not only that Paul and James could see no moral discrepancy in the supposed command, but that multitudes of men now, fully the equals of Mr. Newman in moral culture, in spiritual worth, in