Assuredly in none of the cited pages, nor "elsewhere," is he represented as doing what he states. I never thought he made exclusive claim to "Inspiration; " rather I thought that, whatever he deemed it, he made it only too cheap. He further says: "I have already noted how falsely he insinuates that I claim some exclusive inspiration, whereas I only claim that which all pious Christians and Jews since David have always claimed.”* Does Mr. Newman mean that he claims as much as the Apostles claimed, whether they did so rightfully or not? If so, he claims enough, and a good deal more than I should be disposed to grant him. The latest utterance of Mr. Newman on this subject that I have read, occurs in his preface to the second edition of his "Hebrew Monarchy," where he tells us that he believes it is an influence accessible to all men, in a certain stage of development! Surely it will be time to consider his theory of Inspiration when he has told us a little more about it. To my mind, if the very Genius of Mystery had framed the definition, it could not have uttered anything more indefinite.

Phases. Reply, p. 182.

SECTION XIII.

MR. NEWMAN'S REPLY TO THE NOTES RESPECTING "SLAVERY AND THE EARLY PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY."

66

ANOTHER remarkable passage in the new edition of "The Phases" deserves notice. Mr. Newman had asserted that the New Testament sanctioned slavery, and was, in fact, the "argumentative stronghold of the accursed system." I endeavoured to show that it does not sanction slavery; that it simply does not denounce it; that this caution, in the then condition of the world, was necessary, if the Apostles were to gain a hearing at all; and wise, since they would do more by quietly diffusing the principles which, if triumphant, must exterminate slavery, than by passionately denouncing it; that experience has shown that only amongst Christian nations is there any extensive or combined movement against slavery; - that hatred of it becomes more and more active in proportion as people become more and more Christian. I remarked that this was the only way, without perpetual miracle, by which any religious reformer could propagate his system; and that if any one were sufficiently in love with the new systems of spiritualism to go as missionary to the East to preach them, he would not, in addition, publicly denounce "the social and political evils under which the nations groaned; or that if he did, his spiritual projects would soon be perfectly understood and summarily dealt with." I added, addressing Mr. Fellowes, "It is vain to say, that if commis

sioned by Heaven, and endowed with power of working miracles, you would do so; for you cannot tell under what limitations your commission would be given: it is pretty certain, that it would leave you to work a moral and spiritual system by moral and spiritual means, and not allow you to turn the world upside down, and mendaciously tell it that you came only to preach peace, while every syllable you uttered would be an incentive to sedition."* On this Mr. Newman comments as follows: "This writer supposes he is attacking me, when every line is an attack on Christ and Christianity. Have I pretended power of working miracles? Have I imagined or desired that miracle should shield me from persecution? Did Jesus not publicly denounce the social and political evils' of Judea? Was he not 'summarily dealt with?' Did he not know that his doctrine would send on earth not peace, but a sword ?? and was he mendacious in saying, 'Peace I leave unto you?' or were the angels mendacious in proclaiming Peace on earth, good-will among men?' Was not 'every syllable that Jesus uttered' in the discourse of Matt. xxiii. an incentive to sedition ?' and does this writer judge it to be mendacity, that Jesus opened by advising to obey the very men whom he proceeds to vilify at large as immoral, oppressive, hypocritical, blind, and destined to the damnation of hell? Or, have I anywhere blamed the Apostles because they did not exasperate wicked men by direct attacks? It is impossible to answer such a writer as this; for he elaborately misses to touch what I have said. On the other hand, it is rather too much to require me to defend Jesus from his assault."+

My assault! I trust that that Name is safe enough

* Eclipse, p. 419.

† Phases, 2nd ed., pp. 106, 107.

from my assault. I must beg Mr. Newman to recollect that he wrote the preceding paragraph, not I. I admit, however, that "it is rather too much to require him to defend Jesus" from any assault; since his chapter on the "Moral Perfection of Jesus" shows that he is much better skilled in assailing Him. No; I shall not repair to my critic for any such purpose; if I wanted to palliate the conduct of the Pharisees, indeed, that chapter instructs me where to go.

"It is impossible," he says, "to answer such a writer as this." I think it is impossible to answer any writer by asking a number of irrelevant questions. But it is very possible to answer him; and so now for the questions of his catechism, taken seriatim.

1. "Have I pretended power of working miracles? Answer. Not that I know of; did I ever say he had?

2. “Have I imagined, or desired, that miracle should shield me from persecution?"

Answer. I cannot tell what he has "imagined or desired;" but I am sure I hope there is no need of a miracle to shield him from persecution.

3. "Did Jesus not publicly denounce the social and political evils of Judæa?"

Answer. He did not denounce the political evils, as is plain from His conduct with regard to the tributemoney, in which this consistent censor blames His " evasion ;" and from His answer to the man who wished Him to interfere about the "division of his inheritance: nor did He denounce any other social evils than such as followed directly from the perversions of the Mosaic law by its professed administrators, — the Scribes and Pharisees. The corruptions of that Theocracy which He came at once to vindicate and to abolish, He did denounce, and as a religious Reformer, most consistently

and justly. All the evils He denounced were directly involved in its mal-administration,- which had "destroyed the law of God by man's traditions:" and this may be seen by any one who considers what those evils were, from the "pretence of long prayers" and "making broad the phylacteries," to the "devouring of widows' houses" and the perversion of the fifth commandment. The Pharisees wished him, indeed, to go further, but He was too wise to be entrapped; a thing which it is strange Mr. Newman should overlook, since he has censured Him for His asserted evasion.

4. "Was He not summarily dealt with?"

Answer. He was; and would have been yet more summarily dealt with, and with less trouble to the Pharisees, if he had done that which Mr. Newman insinuates that He did, but did not.

5. "Did He not know that His doctrine would send on earth, not peace, but a sword?"

Answer. Yes; He knew that His religious doctrine would, and He told the truth.

6. "And was he mendacious in saying, "Peace I leave unto you?"

Answer. No; though Mr. Newman would insinuate that He was. He came to "bring peace," though he also came to " bring a sword;" " He came to bring peace, and He did not come to bring peace; which, though it be unintelligible to a man who is resolved that the same words shall always have the same meaning, is very intelligible to millions of Christians, who have perfectly well understood that Christianity may involve "the loss of all things," and yet fill the soul with a peace which overpays them all; and it is the less excusable in Mr. Newman not to see this, since our Lord explained the paradox, by telling the whole truth, of which Mr. Newman here sophistically gives