The SOUL, her SORROWS and her ASPIRATIONS. An Essay towards the Natural History of the Soul, as the true basis of Theology. By FRANCIS WILLIAM NEWMAN, formerly Fellow of Baliol College, Oxford.

THE author of this work, in a note (p. 54), refers to Morell's "Philosophy of Religion," lately reviewed in our pages, and tells us of "the intimate practical agreement which he finds with him on subjects of so deep interest and first-rate magnitude, as intuition, inspiration, revelation, and certitude." He does not tell us whether he is as much satisfied with the reasonings by which Mr. Morell sustains his conclusions, as he is with the conclusions themselves. One of his contemporaries, however, possessing as "intimate a practical agreement" with this writer as himself, and "accepting the fundamental idea of his book;" yet does not hesitate to let us know, that, in his judgment, Mr. Morell has utterly failed to establish his conclusions, and that his reasoning throughout the entire volume is miserably weak and confused. We refer to a writer in the "Prospective Review," the organ of the English Unitarians. Nothing, of course, could be more acceptable to this school of theologians than any well-sustained theory by which they might be able to explain away the authority of the Word of God, and get rid of it as a ground of ultimate appeal. It would then be no longer needful for them to put passages from the Scripture writers on the rack, in their attempts to prove that they do not teach the doctrines of the divinity and atonement of Christ. These doctrines might be in the Bible; it might be quite clear that every one of the New Testament writers believed them; but if they were not infallibly inspired, and if our basis of religious certitude is to be, not what was taught and written by them, but an indefinite something in the consciousness of the age, then the difficulty is gone; the belief of apostles is then of but minor importance. The age in which we live has in it an inspiration and an authority superior to theirs, and presents us with a surer guide than that "sure word of prophecy, whereunto," Peter tells us, we do well to take heed." Then, in such writers as Morell and Newman, and in the pages of the "Prospective Review," we possess guides whom we

66

may safely follow, as they conduct us to conclusions which were never dreamt of by those who could say, "but we have the mind of Christ."

We had no doubt that Mr. Morell's work would be hailed with delight by Unitarians, but we confess we did not expect to meet with so frank an acknowledgment of the utter inconclusiveness of his reasoning as has been given us by a writer of this school. "In the preface to his sermons," he remarks,* "Bishop Butler has suggested that it would be a great improvement in the mode of writing books, if authors would merely state their premises, and leave the reader to draw his own conclusions. Mr. Morell, in the present work, has adopted a plan the very reverse of this. has expressed his conclusions distinctly enough, but left the connexion with the premises from which they must be deduced, as well as the premises themselves, often very obscurely indicated. We fear objectors will pro

He

nounce his work an unsustained affirmation throughout, and allege with some show of reason, that so much stress may well be laid on intuition, since it appears to be the only ground on which the assent of the reader is expected." The writer then tells us that he will endeavour to supply "the wanting links of Mr. Morell's argumentation," and to this task he devotes the remainder of an article, in which, to our minds, he but succeeds in making darkness more visible, and confusion worse confounded.

We may add here, that we have been surprised at the coolness with which some, from whom we had hoped for better things, seem to look on such attempts to invalidate the grounds of our belief, and overthrow the authority of the Bible. We are at a loss to account for the blindness which seems to have come over them, and are greatly mistaken if they will not find it necessary by and by to retrace their steps, and take their stand on principles which they now seem almost willingly to relinquish. The points at issue are vital. They lie at the very foundations of our Christianity. If, at the bidding of this school of writers, the church is to be unmoored from the rock of the Divine Word, and to follow the leadings of a light and inconstant age, Prospective Review for May, 1849. Article, Morell's Philosophy of Religion."

we shall find her, by and by, drifting away among shoals and quicksands, where truth and piety will be wrecked together. We do not hesitate to say, and we think that ere we have brought this article to a close we shall be able to make it good, that the system for which it is now proposed we should exchange our Christianity is but infidelity under the guise of spiritualism.

The book now before us presents many points that call for remark, but, within our brief limits, it is only on a very few of them that we shall be able to touch. The aim of the author is high. He entitles his book, "An Essay toward the Natural History of the Soul, as the true basis of Theology." We need not ask him, if, when he speaks of a "true basis of theology," he means to imply that our present theology is lacking in the quality of truth; for it is abundantly evident from the pages before us, that he would repudiate the larger portion of what now passes current among us under this name. We might charge him, however, with passing over a previous question, in assuming that the "Natural History of the Soul" must be the "true basis of theology." There is in this a gross begging of a fundamental question. It is taking it for granted that the Bible cannot be such a basis. Though everything in this book that possesses any measure of truth and value is taken from the Bible, yet Mr. Newman is here quietly endeavouring to elbow it from its place, that he may substitute his own speculations in its stead. We are to have his essay as a contribution towards a 66 true basis of theology," instead of the Word of God, as the only and the sure basis! Now, we think that in a country where, by the great majority of professing Christians, the infallible inspiration of Scripture is avowedly maintained, he should not presume thus to set aside its claims without having first proved that they will not stand the test of a fair examination. Mr. Morell's book has not settled this question; and ere Mr. Newman proceeds farther in his present course, he is bound, in all justice, to present us with a work in which the principles on which the treatise now before us is built, are legitimately deduced from premises whose truth cannot be impugned. The term theology means, strictly, knowledge regarding God. The first inquiry, therefore, should undoubtedly be, has God himself given us such knowledge? Does he speak to us regarding himself in the Bible? If not, then we are free to seek it where we are most likely to find it, whether in his works around us, or in the constitution and history of the soul.

We do Mr. Newman no injustice by these observations. A few extracts from his book will show that the Bible is regarded by him as but a collection of the experiences of good men who lived in by-gone ages of the world,

as possessing no Divine authority whatever; nay, that in his judgment, we have in the age in which we live, an inspiration as veritable as that of prophets and apostles, and, because of our superior logic and metaphysics, a guide whom we may more safely follow than men who "spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." We grieve to pen such a sentence as the following; but, on Mr. Newman's principles, this book of his now before us possesses as much Divine authority as any part of the New Testament writings, while Mr. Newman himself is as truly inspired as was the Apostle Paul. What else does he mean, when he says (p. 188) that Paul "never claims an inspiration differing in kind from other faithful Christians?" Or again, (p. 199,) when, after telling us that "there is no book in all the world which he loves and esteems so much as the New Testament, with the devotional parts of the Old," he goes on to say, "yet, after thirty years' study of it, I deliberately, before God and man, protest against the attempt to make it a law to men's understanding, conscience, or soul; and am assuredly convinced that the deepest spiritual mischief has occurred to the churches. Nothing short of a stifling of the Spirit of God (with few intervals) for seventeen centuries and a half, from taking the Bible (or New Testament) instead of God himself, as our source of inspiration. Paul certainly did not contemplate this. Who, then, is Paul, or who is Apollos? but ministers by whom ye believed?' Paul was an inspired man; but so, in his view, was Timothy, Philemon, Onesimus; so was the meanest Christian who was faithful." Mr. Newman thus tells us, what, with all our study of the writings of Paul, we have never yet been able to find in them, that this apostle regarded every faithful Christian as being as truly inspired as himself. Here is an important, a fundamental statement; the very point on which the whole controversy turns. Mr. Newman must have known, when penning this sentence, that it would startle many who might read it, and that, if he could but prove it to be correct, the question would at once be settled. Our readers then will ask, what proof does he adduce? We reply, none, literally none! He does not even indicate to us where proof may be found. He merely quotes the passage, "Who, then, is Paul, or who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed ?" in which the apostle is censuring the conduct of those who were forming themselves into parties under apostolic names, but which has no bearing whatever on the question. Now, we think we have a right to complain of this. He cannot surely expect us to receive so fundamental a statement merely on his dictum. Why does he venture on assertions which he knows will clash with the strongest convictions of many whom he is

addressing, without offering in support of them the least shadow of evidence?

In contradicting his assertion, we shall not follow his example. We shall at least endeavour to prove what we affirm. He tells us, then, that while "Paul was an inspired man, so, in his view, was Timothy, Philemon, Onesimus; so was the meanest Christian who was faithful." We pass by the two latter names, and take that of Timothy, concerning whom, from his position in the church, and his intimacy with Paul, some may think that the statement we are now considering, might be true. We shall prove, however, that even as regards Timothy, there is no foundation for it whatever.

Mr. Newman repeatedly refers to the peculiarity in the case of Paul. He says (p. 203), "I have already had occasion to remark, how entirely independent of external evidence Paul felt himself to be, when he preached for three years without caring to meet the apostles, whose senses could give the best external witness to the resurrection of Jesus: and that he thus kept aloof from them, he many years after deliberately boasted, as among the proofs that his gospel and his apostleship came direct from God." Mr. Newman then admits that Paul received his gospel direct from God. At all events such was the apostle's own belief. He could say (Gal. i. 11, 12), " But I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Paul thus regarded the Gospel which he preached as God's own truth, supernaturally revealed to himself, that he might teach it to others. We ask then, did this peculiarity exist in the case of Timothy? Could Timothy say of the Gospel, "I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ?" Paul in his second epistle to Timothy, charges him to "preach the word." Was the ground on which he thus charged him that affirmed by Mr. Newman? Did he say to him, "You were inspired as well as myself; you have received the Gospel as I did by the revelation of Jesus Christ;' go, therefore, and publish it." Our readers will find on consulting Paul's epistles to him, that the ground on which he was thus charged was none other than this, he had been taught the Gospel by Paul. "Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me," 2 Tim. i. 13. "The things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also," 2 Tim. ii. 2. "Continue thou in the things which thou hast learned, and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them," 2 Tim. iii. 14. How then could Mr.

Newman affirm that Paul regarded Timothy as being as truly inspired as himself? There was at least this great difference between them, that while Paul received the Gospel by direct revelation from heaven, without any communication with his fellow men, Timothy received it from Paul, and on this ground was counselled by the apostle to retain it for himself, and teach it to others. Timothy indeed was a spiritually enlightened man. As such the Gospel would commend itself to his conscience and heart, and he would have in himself the witness that it was Divine. So with "Philemon, Onesimus, and with the meanest Christian who is faithful." All of them have this same "unction from the Holy One." They can see "the glory of God as it shines in the face of Jesus Christ.” It is not because the truth of the Gospel has been proved to them by external evidence that they believe it. With us it is a first principle that a faith founded on external evidences merely cannot make a Christian. We believe that "except a man be born again, he cannot SEE the kingdom of God:" that the "things of the spirit," can only be "spiritually discerned." They can be rightly understood and relished only by a mind that has been enlightened and renewed by the Spirit of God. But this spiritual enlighten

ment, which is common to all Christians, is very different from what existed in the ease of apostles. We suppose that Mr. Newman will at once admit that no one since apostolic times has received the Gospel from the source from which it was communicated to Paul, "the revelation of Jesus Christ," or could have any warrant to charge others to preach the Gospel, because they had learned it from himself. How then could he affirm that the apostle Paul "never claims an inspiration differing in kind from other faithful Christians!"

And here lies the grand peculiarity in the case of apostles. They all, like Paul, received the Gospel by direct communication from heaven, or, in other words, were taught it by the Holy Spirit. They had indeed a previous acquaintance with the facts relative to the life and death, the resurrection and ascension of Christ. They had acquired this by their attendance on Christ. They had seen his miracles; they had listened to his discourses; they had conversed with him after his resurrection, and stood gazing after him as he ascended to heaven. But that system of doctrine which, under the designation of "the Gospel," they preached to the world, they had not fully comprehended till the marvellous effusion of the Spirit on them on the day of Pentecost. When they first began their attendance on Christ, they were all of them simple unlettered men, as ignorant as their countrymen of the nature of the dispen

would seem to imply then, what he calls Christianity, is what it has hitherto been usual to designate infidelity.

He is quite wrong, moreover, in asserting that in "proposing the propositions of Paul to the faith of others, to be tested by inward and spiritual evidence only," we shall "at least be in the true apostolic track." Did not Peter appeal to external evidence, when he said to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses?" Did he expect Cornelius and his company to believe on "inward and spiritual evidence only" when he said to them, "We are witnesses of all things which Jesus did, both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: him God raised up the third day and showed him openly; not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before of God, even to us," (Acts x. 39-41.) Paul reminds the Corinthians that he "delivered unto them first of all that which he also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures: and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once," (1 Cor. xv. 3—6); and evidently expected them to believe these things on the credible testimony which they had of their truth. The course of the apostles was to state the facts regarding the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, to give their own testimony in proof of them, and on the ground of those facts, to reason with their hearers concerning sin and righteousness and judgment. It was from the historical element that the spiritual element of their Christianity was deduced. So it must be with us. If our Christianity is to be identical with theirs, it must have the same basis. We can no more forswear history than they did. The facts of the history of Christ must be accepted by us as frankly as they were by them.

We think Mr. Newman is quite as mistaken when, after referring (p. 198) to such points of doctrine as the "Trinity and incarnation, the immaculate conception of Jesus, the Pelagian controversy, and other matters which divide Arminians and Calvinists;" he adds, "No one can read the New Testament with fresh eyes, and not be struck by the fact, that the apostles never encountered practical difficulty from the heathen or from the Jews on these points." We have no evidence, indeed, that the doctrine of the Trinity was exhibited by the apostles, as it has frequently been by theologians since; but that they held the Divinity of Christ, with the Divinity and personality of the Spirit, is most clear from their writings. But how does Mr. Newman happen to know that they "never encountered practical difficulty on these points?" It is evident that

Christ himself did. The Jews oftener than once took up stones to stone him, "because he said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." Nay, it was even on a doctrinal or theological point that he was condemned, as may be found by consulting Matt. xxvi. 63-66. Now, if we had as full accounts of the labours of apostles as we have of those of Christ, we should, no doubt, find that they had similar difficulty to encounter. Paul was accused at Athens of being

66

a setter forth of strange gods; because he preached unto them Jesus and the resurrection." As to the incarnation, John speaks of some, who "denied that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh." And we think that Mr. Newman might find, in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, that the other points of doctrinal difficulty he refers to were not quite so unknown in those days as he asserts. He makes a good deal of the circumstance that no part of the New Testament was written when the apostles first began to preach the Gospel. We can tell him, however, of another book, not so much esteemed by him as the New Testament, which did exist; and which the apostles appealed to as an authoritative book. He will find allusions to it in Acts xvii. 2. 11; 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16. He would have no authoritative book, though it is evident that both Christ and his apostles regarded the Old Testament as an authoritative book. We fear, however, that on one who forswears history, such arguments will have but little power.

As to the spiritual element in Christianity, we trust we are quite alive to its surpassing importance, and to the power which it gives us in dealing with the consciences and the hearts of men. In hundreds of pulpits throughout this country, those truths which are most purely spiritual are constantly and successfully preached. Those who preach them, however, do not " forswear history," nor even Scripture criticism, (as we see from this volume, Mr. Newman himself does not,) but gladly avail themselves of all the aids they can give them, in seeking to "commend themselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." They know that there are truths recognised by Christianity, and which are independent altogether of either history or criticism. It is not merely because the Bible teaches it, that they believe there is a God; that man is a fallen, sinful, and guilty creature, and that he has just reason to dread the displeasure of that Being whom he has offended. But on these and kindred truths they find new light shed from the Bible, and from the facts connected with the history of Christ, by the aid of which they are able to set them forth in a manner far more likely to reach the conscience and affect the heart. When they speak of God, and represent him