66

THE WORK OF GOD IN THE SOUL.

87

race, or His subordinate workings with Christians and His special communications to the members of the New Covenant. Salvation" is to be considered (exclusively) as God's work in the soul." But whether it be not just as much God's work if carried on with the instrumentality of those faculties which He originally conferred, may be a question. Again, the Oxford writers dwell much on the necessity of a belief in mysteries not level to our understanding (of which my father says that they cannot run counter to our reason, because they do not move on any line that can come in contact with it, being beyond the horizon of our earthly faculties). But the question is whether our Saviour ever spoke of any operations on men, the effects of which they were not enabled plainly and clearly (if their hearts be well disposed) to judge of. The operations themselves are not our concern, any more than the way in which God created the earth, and all that is therein. The operations themselves belong to that heaven which none can understand but He that is in heaven, and which consequently I cannot believe that God ever meant us to understand, the symbols which the inspired writers employ on this subject being more probably intended to convey a notion of the desirability and accessibility of heaven than of heaven itself. Whately truly says, in relation to subjects of this kind, that a blind man may be made to understand a great deal about objects of sight, though sight alone could reveal to him what they are.

To return to my theme. It is an undoubted truth that the manner in which God operates upon man is and must be as unintelligible to man as the way in which God created him at first; but does it flow from this truth, or does it appear from the tenor of Scripture, that Christ, who constantly appealed to the reason and the will of His hearers (as Newman himself urges against the Predestinarians), ever spoke of divine operations on man, the effects of which

he might not judge of by intelligible signs? The Syrian was commanded to bathe in a certain river, and how it was that bathing in that river could heal his leprosy, it was not given him to know. But was he commanded to believe that he had been healed of leprosy, while to all outward appearance, and by all the signs which such a thing can be judged of, the leprosy remained just as before? Surely it is not from the expressions of Scripture, but from the supposed necessary consequences of certain true doctrines, according to a certain mode of reasoning, that the non-intelligibility of the effects of God's working is contended for. Newman himself urges that Baptism is scarcely ever named in Scripture without the mention of spiritual grace; that Baptism is constantly connected with regeneration. And then I would ask, is not spiritual grace generally mentioned in Scripture, either with an implication or a full and particular description of those good dispositions and actions which are to proceed from it, and which men may judge of, as a tree from its fruits? And is regeneration ever mentioned in Scripture in such a way as to preclude the notion that it is identical with newness of life? and is not newness of life, according to our Saviour and St. Paul, identical with doing justice and judgment for Christ's sake, doing righteously because of feeling righteously? Are we ever led by the language of Scripture to suppose that regeneration is a mystical something, which, though it may, and in certain circumstances must, produce goodness and holiness, yet of its own nature need not absolutely do so; which may exist in unconscious subjects, as in infants, acknowledged incapable of faith and repentance, which might, as to its own essence (though the contrary actually is the case), exist even in the worst of men? In short, that regeneration is the receiving of a new nature, a more divine, and yet not better or more powerful nature. Surely here are words without thoughts. What notion have we of a divine nature which

does not include or consist of the notions of goodness and power? Newman illustrates the subject by the case of devils, who, he says, have a divine but not a good nature. To elucidate the obscure doctrine of regeneration by reference to evil spirits is like attempting to brighten twilight by the shades of night, and is a perfect contrast to the proceeding of our Saviour, who was accustomed to explain "the kingdom of heaven" by parables and stories about things which His listeners daily saw with their eyes, and handled with their hands.

In the same spirit of being mysterious above what is written, Newman and his fellow-labourers in the Oxonian vineyard are wont to contend that preachers are bound to preach the gospel, as a blind servant is bound to deliver a message about things which he can never see, as a carrierpigeon to convey a letter, the contents of which it cannot understand. They are not to preach for the sake of saving souls, nor to select and compose from the gospel in order to produce a good effect, nor to grieve if the gospel is the savour of death to those who will not hear. In short, it would be presumption and rationalism in them to suppose that their intellect or zeal was even to be the medium through which God's purposes were to be effected. What God's purposes are in commanding the gospel to be preached, and sending His only Son into the world, they maintain that we cannot guess (as if God had not plainly revealed it Himself throughout the Bible). They are merely to execute a trust, to repeat all the truths of the gospel, one as much and as often as the other. For what practical result of such a principle can there be, unless it be this, that a clergyman is to preach as many sermons on the Trinity and the Incarnation as on faith and hope and charity, and the necessity of a good life, along with its details. Yet Newman is the very man who would accuse such a proceeding of irreverence, and too great an exercise of intellect.

V.

Graphic Style of the Old Testament Narratives.

To the Same.

September 30th, 1837.-I think Herby is more struck with Exodus than with Genesis, for the former is even more strikingly objective than the latter, and the account of the various plagues arrests the attention even of the youngest mind. The most objective passages in Roman and Grecian history unfortunately are not the really important ones and the hinges of great events; they are biographical episodes or anecdotes, for the most part; as the striking off the heads of the poppies, the death of Regulus, and much of what relates to Alexander, the Roman emperors and their private follies. But in the Old Testament a great battle is won by the Israelites because Moses sits upon a stone on a hill, and has his arms held up on either side by Aaron and Hur. The whole history is a series of pictures. If you make pictures of Roman history, you must imagine the postures, the accessory parts, all the detail of surrounding objects; but in the Bible they are made out for you. Thus you can call to mind the main course of events in Jewish history by means of such pictures impressed upon the memory; but Roman history could not correctly be represented in any such manner. A series of its most picturable scenes would not recall the march of the principal events.

Married Happiness.

Marriage, indeed, is like the Christian course-it must either advance or go backwards. If you love and esteem thoroughly, the more you see, and do, and feel, and talk together, the more channels are opened out for affection to run in; and the more room it has to expand, the larger it grows. Then the little differences and uncongenialities that at first seemed relatively important, dwindle into nothing

THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION.

91

amid the mass of concord and tenderness; or if their flavour still survives, being thus subordinate, like mustard or other condiments which would be intolerable in large proportions, it adds a zest to the whole dish.

VI.

Conservative Replies to some Arguments of the Radical Party-The British Constitution not originally Popular but PaternalAn appeal to Universal Suffrage not an appeal to the Collective Wisdom of the Age, but to its Collective Ignorance-" The Majority will be always in the right;" but not till it has adopted the views of the Minority-Despotism of the Mob in America regretted by many Americans-English Government not a mere machine for registering Votes-How are the People to be trained to a right Exercise of their Liberties?

To Mrs. H. M. JONES, in reply to a Political Essay by Dr. PARK. "The British Constitution is founded on public opinion." The institutions and forms of government in which this idea is more or less adequately manifested have been wrought out by public opinion, yet surely the idea itself is not the result and product, but rather the secret guide and groundwork of public opinion on the point in question, as embodied in definite words and conceptions. But what public opinion was that which moulded our admired policy, and fashioned the curious and complicated mechanism of our state machine? Did it reflect the minds and intellects of the majority? Or was it not rather the opinions of the best and wisest, to which our aristocratic forms of government gave both publicity and prevalence?

Surely we have little reason to say that public opinion, taken at large, is necessarily just and wise by virtue of its being public,-necessarily that to which the interests of the nation may be safely entrusted. If we identify it with the opinions of the majority at all times and on all subjects, it cannot be identified with the collective wisdom of the age. Like foam on the surface of the ocean, pure if the