with him in all his views, or sympathise with his remarks on the relation which it bears to the natural evidence for the Being and Perfections of God, and the ordinary method of stating the truths of natural theology. He admits that there is a natural evidence for God; for he says expressly, "In speculative or natural theology, we infer from the works of nature the existence of an Almighty Being, the Creator of man and the material world. The inference is strong, and it is aided by the convictions of our moral faculties." He admits that this natural evidence is recognised in Scripture itself; for "in the introductory chapter to the Romans, St Paul asserts the fundamental principles of natural theology-the existence of God, and the knowledge of God from reason and nature." But he denies that this natural evidence could lead us to the knowledge of a personal God. "For the belief of a personal Creator, it is essential that the Creator should reveal himself personally to man. The creature cannot distinguish the Creator from his works, without direct information from himself." "Men of leisure and science may amuse themselves, and confound others, by endeavouring to scan the first cause of nature. But their Deity terminates only in some imaginary power or principle-'the first great cause least understood.' They cannot demonstrate the Divine personality." "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth his handiwork; still it is a sentiment, a perception, a principle, a conviction, not a person which nature brings to us." "Until the Creator is embodied in the Redeemer, men cannot personify their Maker. It is a power, a principle, not a person whom they worship." "Unless our Maker became incarnate, we could not have apprehended him as a person. The personality of the Deity is manifested by the incarnation of Christ."+ That the incarnation of Christ affords an additional-a more vivid-and a most impressive proof of the Divine personality, we cordially ackowledge; but we cannot admit that nature furnishes no proof of a personal God, and still less that a personal God was not known till after the ascension of Christ. Nor are we disposed to blame the alleged omission of the doctrine of Christ's Creatorship in treatises on natural theology; since we hold it to be perfectly legitimate to consider God in the first instance ovoiwows, before we proceed, in the second, to consider Him"Tarinas." The doctrine which affirms the Redeemer to be the Creator of the world, must rest entirely on revelation, for "it belongs exclusively to revelation to certify a fact of which reason could furnish no certain data ;"|| and in arguing with infidels, who deny the authority of revelation, we may warrantably urge the natural evidence, without employing the peculiar doctrines of Scripture; for Paul himself, when he argued with idolaters, "was content with the general doctrine of the existence and providence of one Supreme Deity."§ We have said enough to indicate the points on which we cordially agree with Mr Grinfield, and some of those on which we are disposed to differ from him.

* Pp. 6, 67.
P. 18.

† Pp. 7, 11, 17, 20, 35,
§ P. 64.

Pp. 20, 21, 22.

The treatise of Mr Ragg is devoted entirely to a statement of the Evidences of Natural and Revealed Religion. Its title "Creation's Testimony to its God"-is scarcely commensurate with its contents, as it embraces much more than Nature's testimony, and may be recommended as a compendious, but comprehensive, summary of the proofs which are usually adduced in favour both of Theism and of Christianity. It abounds in acute reasoning, and is written in a popular, rhetorical style. It is the more interesting, as being the work of one who "started in life as a humble mechanic; whose means of culture have been those of self-culture only, and who has hitherto possessed no opportunities of study, save in the hours which are usually devoted to relaxation and repose.' It appears, too, that in early life he had been exposed to evil influences, and had imbibed sceptical opinions. In these circumstances, the present work, evincing as it does much mature reflection, and a vast extent of reading, is in the highest degree creditable to Mr Ragg; and we rejoice to learn that it has already reached a second edition.

Christ and Other Masters. Part II. "The Religions of India." Cambridge. 1857.

In a former number we gave a brief account of the first part of the work. It is written by the Christian Advocate at Cambridge; and is designed to offer an historical view of "The Chief Parallelisms and Contrasts between Christianity and the Religious Systems of the Ancient World, with special reference to prevailing Difficulties and Objections." The Second Part is entirely devoted to the Religions of India. According to the general outline of his plan formerly announced, Mr Hardwick has still a wide field to traverse,-and we shall reserve our remarks until we have an opportunity of examining he succeeding portions of the work.

Inspiration a Reality; or, Vindication of the Plenary Inspiration and Infallible Authority of Holy Scripture, in Reply to a Book recently published by the Rev. J. Macnaught, entitled "The Doctrine of Inspiration." By Rev. JOSIAH B. LOWE. London: Longman. 1856.

IT is hard to say what opinions in theology and religion may or may not be held within the communion of the Church of England, and under a public profession of her authorised standards. Looking to her past history and to recent proceedings, it is not difficult to find instances of the extremes of opposite views upon vital points avowed and advocated within her pale; and this variety of theology and comprehensiveness of communion are by many regarded as a matter for admiration rather than regret in her character as a Christian church. But assuredly the latitude of opinion thus allowed by her constitution or her discipline does sometimes run to the very

verge of licentiousness, and furnishes occasion for painful thought to men who love the truth and are jealous for its interests.

One of the most startling of the recent examples of the toleration granted by the English Church to variety of opinion within her pale, is to be found in the work lately published by Mr Macnaught on the subject of inspiration. Mr Macnaught is a clergyman of the Church of England, and holds it to be quite consistent with his position and profession, as such, to publish an elaborate work, the sole object of which is to put right what he calls our "childhood's thought of inspiration," and to demonstrate that the word of God, of which he is a minister, is to a large extent, and in many respects, not to be believed. The greatest curse to religion, and the most inveterate enemy to religious progress, is, as he tells us, the commonly received notion of the infallibility of the word of God; and for the purpose of demolishing this wicked and mischievous idea, he rakes together all the refuse of infidelity, whether home-grown or foreign, for the purpose of shewing how well nigh in every page the Bible contradicts itself, or runs counter to the first principles of morality, and the most certain informations of reason. Mr Macnaught has profited largely by the pages of Strauss; he has learned much from De Wette; he has sat at the feet of Theodore Parker; he is deeply read in Francis Newman; he has imbibed sympathetically the principles and theology of Maurice. And deriving his materials and spirit from such quarters, he has done his best to prove that the Bible has no title to be believed other than any book, the product of human genius or learning. According to Mr Macnaught it abounds in errors of every kind. There are in it errors scientific, errors historical, errors in morals, errors in religion, errors in matters of fact, errors in point of argument. He informs us that "the broad distinction between canonical and uncanonical writings is one set up by the dogmatic definitions of man." He assures us "that the Pentateuch, instead of being written under the miraculous dictation of God, was compiled by some unknown author during the times of the Jewish monarchy." He does "not for a moment entertain the groundless supposition, that the Scripture writers had an insight into the world's future history at all more deep than is the forecast of thought to which every studious and reflecting man may now attain." Sometimes the Bible "contradicts astronomy, geology, chronology, and, above all, itself," sometimes it "contradicts the clearest principles of morality and religion;" and again it "contains errors in history, morality, and even religion." We have in it the narrative of a deed " scripturally approved" the proper name of which is " treachery and murder, most base, foul, and unnatural." We have in "Scripture a hundred other discrepancies amounting sometimes to positive and irreconcileable contradictions." "In the first sixteen verses of Stephen's speech, we have seen six contradictions of the Old Testament History." There is "a hopeless discrepancy between Hosea's real utterance, and that which Matthew represents him as having uttered." Paul's noble argument in the fifteenth chapter of 1st Corinthians is a "strongly marked case of mixed

moral and religious error." In short, Mr Macnaught's work on inspiration is not very far behind the Life of Jesus by Strauss, or the popular atheistical catechisms of Holyoake, as a convenient handbook of infidelity in the way of furnishing a ready-made supply of Scripture discrepancies and difficulties; the author having with hearty goodwill and much labour, if not skill, gathered together and served up afresh all the objections which the learning and ingenuity of modern infidelity have brought against the Bible, and which it is truly a weariness of the flesh to meet with, having been urged and answered so often before.

And yet the Bible, though not to be believed, is inspired of God, and though full of error of all sorts, comes to us under the sanction of his Spirit. It is really inspired, although not according to "our childhood's thought of inspiration," but according to the most recent theory of Mr Macnaught. According to his definition, inspiration signifies "that action of the Divine Spirit by which, apart from any idea of infallibility, all that is good in man, beast, or matter is originated and sustained." In other words, he gives us to understand that the peculiar inspiration of prophets and apostles, is the same as that ordinary providence of God, by which He, through his Spirit, sustains, actuates, and controls all his creatures, and all their actions. With one stroke of his pen, Mr Macnaught abolishes the deep-laid and well-known distinction between the ordinary and the supernatural operation of the Spirit of God, confounding or identifying the two; and making the miraculous inspiration of God through his Spirit, the same thing as the common and ordinary providence of God through his Spirit. And hence it very plainly and necessarily follows, that instead of calling the Paradise Lost, or the Novum Organon works of genius, "the far truer and grander mode of speaking would be to refer their creative power of thinking to Him, who alone made Milton and Bacon to differ from ordinary writers, and thus to call their books works of the Spirit of God written by divine inspiration." Nay, Mr Macnaught carries out without hesitation, his theory to its proper and necessary result. "Everything good in any book, person, or thing is inspired, and the value of any inspired book must be decided by the extent of its inspiration, and the importance of the truth which it well (or inspiredly) teaches. Milton and Shakspeare, and Bacon, and Canticles, and the Apocalypse, and the Sermon on the Mount, and the eighth chapter of the Romans, are all inspired." And this inspiration extends to the irrational as well as to the rational creation, to inanimate as well as to animate things. We have inspiration in "the instinct of the owl." The "fattening of the cattle," is the result of the same inspiration as that which moved holy men of old to speak with wisdom not their own. "The rise of a fountain and the course of a stream" can be traced to the same inspiration that dictated the prophecies of Isaiah or the revelations of John. It is "one and the same divine inspiration," which is seen in "the streams among the hills, in the grass, and in the herbs," and that is manifested in the Apostle, when he speaks of the mysteries of the third heavens. VOL. VI-NO. XIX.

Р

With Mr Macnaught nothing is common or unclean, and "the mechanical tact and animal life" of man exhibit the same inspiration of God, as is seen in the Sermon on the Mount and the eighth chapter of the Romans.

Now, in regard to this silly and melancholy exhibition, we have space to make only two remarks. In the first place, Mr Macnaught's book would be of no importance at all, looking only to its own merits and its own ability for evil, were it not that it derives an adventitious importance from the position he occupies as a clergyman of the Church of England, and from the silent sufferance which its doctrines have experienced from those officially called upon to deal with such cases. In this respect, it is certainly a significant and painful symptom of the state of matters in the English Church. But in the next place, we are not disposed to look upon the publication of such a work as an unmingled evil. It may hold up before the eyes of not a few, the legitimate and true result of certain principles as to the divine authority of Scripture, which have found too much countenance in recent times. Mr Macnaught's theory of inspiration is not his own. It is laid down in the Theological Essays of Mr Maurice, although not with the same plainness of speech or explicitness of illustration as Mr Macnaught has bestowed upon it. It is substantially the same theory as is advocated in Coleridge's Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit. And all these writers are but the disciples of Germany, and indebted to the German school for their theology of inspiration. We suspect that many have lent a willing ear to this modern doctrine of inspiration, without in the least being aware of the consequences to which it necessarily tends. And we believe that it may have the effect of opening the eyes of not a few to the errors involved in it, when in such a book as that of Mr Macnaught's, they are enabled to see the fully developed results to which it conducts.

We welcome Mr Lowe's publication as a valuable and timely antidote to the errors of Mr Macnaught's work. It bears somewhat the marks of the haste with which it has been composed. But it embodies much valuable and important truth, and is fitted to awaken attention to the mischievous tendency of Mr Macnaught's theory.

The Song of Songs shewn to be constructed on Architectural Principles. By PETER MACPHERSON, A.M. Edinburgh: Shepherd & Elliot. 1856.

WE desire to draw attention to this little work designed to illustrate the peculiar principles on which the Song of Solomon, and other poetical books of the Old Testament, may have been arranged. The theory embodied in it is extremely ingenious, and well deserving of the attention of biblical scholars who have given their thoughts to the subject of the structure of Hebrew poetry. It is the first-fruits of the intelligent devotion of a young student to such inquiries; and whatever may be thought of its success as an attempt to solve a somewhat difficult problem, it is in itself a contribution to biblical studies of an interesting kind.