pressed in a paradox. The author is too honest by half with his dishonesty. He is labouring to make the reader believe that which he does not believe himself; and he is at no pains to conceal this. A tractate of a dozen or two of pages, expanding the manly, open avowal of Frederick Faber-that no man can honestly hold the opinions vulgarly called Puseyism, and remain a member of the Church of England,—would, we venture to say, have made far more converts to Rome from this class, than Mr. Newman's whole volume.

To prove that the author is not sincere in his support of the opinions he advocates, is a matter of no difficulty. We have merely to refer to such passages as the following, which are given almost at random; they abound in every section of the book:

"The theory of developments is undoubtedly an hypothesis to account for a difficulty; and such too are the various explanations given by astronomers, from Ptolemy to Newton, of the apparent motions of the heavenly bodies. But it is as unphilosophical on that account to object to the one as to object to the other."—(p. 27.)

"If this is, on the whole, a true view of the general shape under which the existing body of developments commonly called Catholic present themselves before us, antecedently to our looking into the particular evidence on which they stand, I think we shall be at no loss to determine what both logical truth and duty prescribe to us as to our reception of them. It is very little to say that we should treat them as we are accustomed to treat other alleged facts and truths, and the evidence for them, which bring with them a fair presumption of evidence in their favour. Such are of every day's occurrence; and what is our behaviour towards them? We meet thein, not with suspicion and criticism, but with a frank confidence. We do not in the first instance exercise our reason upon opinions which are received, but our faith. We do not begin with doubting; we take them on trust, and we put them on trial, and that, not of set purpose, but spontaneously."-(p. 148.)

"The application which has been here made of the principle is this,-that where a doctrine comes recommended to us by strong presumptions of its truth, we are bound to receive it unsuspiciously, and use it as a key to the evidences to which it appeals, or the facts which it professes to systematize, whatever may be our ultimate judgment about it.”—(p. 157.)

Again, in his concluding paragraph he says:

"And now, dear Reader, time is short, eternity is long. Put not from you what you have here found; regard it not as mere matter of present controversy; set not out resolved to refute it, and looking about for the best way of doing so; seduce not yourself with the imagination that it comes of disappointment, or disgust, or restlessness, or wounded feeling, or undue sensibility, or other weakness. Wrap not yourself round in the associations of years past; nor determine that to be truth which you wish to be so, nor make an idol of cherished anticipations. Time is short, eternity is long."—(p. 453.)

Now we ask, is this the language of a man whose foot is on the rock? Did ever writer who was thoroughly persuaded of the absolute truth of the opinions he advocated, take this method of recommending them? We make this appeal to the common sense of our readers, with the utmost confidence. We have no fear of the answer.

But we rather suspect that with the ecclesiastical authorities to whom Mr. Newman has now vowed obedience, the want of sincerity will be but a trifling fault, compared with the want of skill to conceal it, which he so strangely betrays in every section,—we had almost said, in every sentence.

We need scarcely explain that Mr. Newman professes to maintain the position, that the doctrines of Popery are developments of the doctrines of Christianity. We have already expressed our conviction, that Mr. Newman does not feel sure of this himself. We shall therefore waste neither word nor thought upon it, or on any thing he may bring forward in defence of it. We shall strictly confine our remarks to the unskilful manner in which he has handled his subject, and the consequent improbability that the book will answer its intended purpose.

The fatuous imprudence of Mr. Newman in this address to Protestants of every shade is strongly illustrated by the tone in which he everywhere speaks of the scriptures. We give an example

or two :

"St. Paul's Epistles, where we might expect an answer to our inquiry, concerning the effects of baptism,' contain no explicit statement on the subject; what they do plainly say does not diminish the difficulty ;—viz., first, that baptism is intended for the pardon of sins before it, not in prospect; next, that those who have received the gift of baptism live in a state of holiness, not of sin. How does doctrine like this meet the actual state of the Church as we see it at this day?"-(pp. 99, 100,)

"As far as the letter goes, of the inspired message, 'there is not one of us but has exceeded by transgression its revealed provisions, and finds himself in consequence thrown upon those infinite resources of Divine love which are stored in Christ, but have not been drawn out into form in its appointments.' Since then scripture needs completion, the question is brought to this issue, whether defect or inchoateness in its doctrines be or be not an antecedent probability in favour of a development of them."-(p. 100.)

"So far seems certain, without intrenching on the doctrine of inspiration, that the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are developments of the writings of the prophets, expressed under or elicited by current ideas in the Greek philosophy, and ultimately adopted and ratified by the Apostle in his Epistle to the Hebrews."-(p. 103.)

"The common sense of mankind does but support a conclusion thus forced upon us by analogical considerations. It feels that the very idea of revelation implies a present informant and guide, and that an infallible one; not a mere abstract declaration of truths not known before to man, or a record of history, or the result of an antiquarian research, but a message and a lesson speaking to this man and that. This is shown by the popular notion which has prevailed among us since the Reformation, that the Bible itself is such a guide; and which succeeded in overthrowing the supremacy of Church and Pope, for the very reason that it was a rival authority, not resisting merely, but supplanting it. In proportion then, as we find, in matter of fact, that the inspired Volume is not calculated or intended to subserve that purpose, are we forced to revert to that living and present guide, which, at the era of her rejection, had been so long recognised as the dispenser of scripture according to times and circumstances, and the arbiter of all true doctrine and holy practice to her children. We feel a need, and she alone of all things

under heaven supplies it. We are told that God has spoken. Where? In a book? We have tried it and it disappoints."-(pp. 125, 126.)

We are much mistaken if the remarks on Protestantism which abound throughout the book, are not liable to the same exception. Such expressions as, "thus Calvinists become Unitarians from the principle of private judgment," are repeated far more frequently than the commonest prudence would have suggested as expedient. The danger of provoking thereby an examination which they will by no means bear, is no inconsiderable one. But, far worse than that, the irritation, the ill-feeling, the bitter pique, which betrays itself in the incessant introduction of these tirades against Protestants, is a disclosure absolutely fatal to the success of the book, and which ought at any expence of feeling to have been avoided. One specimen will suffice:

"Luther did but a part of the work, [the destruction of Romanism,] Calvin another portion, Socinus finished it. To take up with Luther, and to reject Calvin and Socinus, would be, according to that epigram, like living in a house without a roof to it."-(p. 137.)

The first chapter is "On the Development of Ideas." The three first sections are perplexing and puzzling enough. This in itself may be all very well: but the mistake is, that the writer makes it perfectly apparent that he has the design to puzzle and perplex the reader. Had the same materials been entrusted to the accomplished bishop of Melipotamus, we will venture to say he would have gone over the same ground, and arrived at the same conclusions, and left even an adverse reader astonished at his learning and charmed with his eloquence, if not convinced by his reasoning. Whereas we apprehend that even one favourably disposed to Mr. Newman, will rise from the perusal of this part of his work, indignant at the palpable grossness of the writer's attempt to impose upon him..

The same remark will apply to his "seven distinctive tests between development and corruption," which are mere colourable pleas to serve the matter in hand. The mode in which popery has changed, he calls development. The mode in which protestantism has changed, he calls corruption. He discovers seven characters of these modes, which he calls seven tests, and wishes to make the reader believe that these are universal tests of the nature of all possible changes; but the handling is singularly clumsy and unsuccessful.

To go through the following portions would merely be to repeat the same remark.

Chap. iv. sect 2, however, is a decided improvement upon the preceding portions of Mr. Newman's book. It is a sketch of the

heresies of the fourth century, from the fathers of that period. Using their rhetorical flourishes and exaggerations as colours, the writer makes the present state of Protestantism to sit for the picture. This part of the work shews some of the author's former dexterity.

We take this opportunity of speaking also with praise of the following passage.

"A school of divines indeed there is, dear to memory, who have not felt it" (that Romanism and Protestantism are two irreconcileable religions); "and their exception will have its weight,-till we reflect that the particular theology which they advocate has not the prescription of success, never has been realized in fact, or, if realized for a moment, had no stay; moreover, that, when it has been enacted by human authority, it has scarcely travelled beyond the paper on which it was printed, or out of the legal forms in which it was embodied. But, putting the weight of these revered names at the highest, they do not constitute more than an exception to the general rule, such as is found in every subject that comes into discussion.”—(p. 137.)

Here is truth--literal, undeniable truth, forcibly stated. Here lies the strength of Mr. Newman's case; and this, we repeat, should have been the thesis of his essay. We will only further remark, that had either the dexterity of the one quotation, or the hurtfulness of the other, been the characteristic of the work generally, it would have been no mean help to the cause of Romanism in England.

We are not disposed to include in the praiseworthy portions of this publication, the attempt to identify the Biblical criticism of the present day with that of the Syrian school of the fifth and sixth centuries. (Chap. v. sect. 2.) The thought itself is a good one, but Mr. Newman fails in the handling. The simple soul is so elated with the ingenuity of his own invention, that he half persuades himself to believe it! A grave error, of which, doubtless, a radical cure will be wrought in the course of the noviciate upon which he has just entered. There is no one point which the finished Jesuit is so careful thoroughly to master, as the truth or falsehood of the statements he has to make; because of the very different mode of treatment which they require.

A falsehood like that which Mr. Newman states, in the passages before us, is the most delicate essence in nature. To let it strut forward on the canvas, as Mr. Newman has done, is the height of imprudence. It should have been delicately hinted at, modestly shrinking from notice in the extreme distance. Instead of shouting it out at the top, of his voice, it ought to have exhaled through the import of his periods, in the gentlest of all possible under-tones. The reason of this necessity is obvious. The course Mr. Newman has pursued subjects his assertion to the most immi

nent danger of examination, a process which it will not bear, as he knows well, and ought to have remembered. That Biblical criticism, in the modern sense, or indeed in any sense, was a failing of the Syrian Christians of the fifth century, is a falsehood so gross, so farcically ridiculous, that it vanishes at the first movement of inquiry. A skilful Jesuit, we repeat, would have considered this, and taken care as far as possible to shelter it from the danger.

We are much mistaken if the following section (chap. v. sect. 3. p. 293.) will not be found liable to the same exception. It is an account of the second council of Chalcedon, from Fleury, profusely dressé, for the purpose of making it appear that Pope Leo decided against the Monophysites, in the face of the council, the fathers, and the scriptures. Here again the thought is bold; but the execution clumsy. Mr. Newman again falls in love with his own invention, and forgets, in the course of a very few pages, the caution with which it is needful to deal with it, and of which he is evidently conscious, for he sets out on the inquiry very heedfully. The passage, however, at the conclusion is much better: it is as follows:

"If then there is now a form of Christianity such, that it extends throughout the world, though with varying measures of prominence or prosperity in separate places;—that it lies under the power of sovereigns and magistrates, in different ways alien to its faith;-that flourishing nations and great empires, professing or tolerating the Christian name, lie over against it as antagonists-that schools of philosophy and learning are supporting theories, and following out conclusions, hostile to it, and establishing an exegetical system subversive of its scriptures; that it has lost whole churches by schism, and is now opposed by powerful communions once part of itself;-that it has been altogether or almost driven from some countries; that in others its line of teachers is overlaid, its flocks oppressed, its churches occupied, its property held by what may be called a duplicate succession ;—that in others its members are degenerate and corrupt, and surpassed in conscientiousness and in virtue, as in gifts of intellect, by the very heretics whom it condemns;-that heresies are rife and bishops negligent within its own pale; and that amid its disorders and fears there is but one voice for whose decisions its people wait with trust, one name and one see to which they look with hope, and that name Peter, and that see Rome;-such a religion is not unlike the Christianity of the fifth and sixth centuries."-(pp. 316, 317.)

Now this passage winds itself into the convictions of his readers as stealthily as a serpent; and had the whole book been like it in any reasonable degree, we have no doubt that the covert censure of his ecclesiastical superiors would have been changed for rapturous praise; and instead of the cold refusal to sanction his book, which Mr. Newman is compelled to record, the imprimatur of the Pope himself might have adorned its title-page.

We make the same complaint of the succeeding portion of Mr. Newman's book, chap. vi. sect. 1.-Scripture, and its mystical interpretation. The subject is one in which it does not at first