that the doctrine will not long survive the destruction of its foundations." P. 41.

In the chapter on the Inspiration of the Scriptures, the only rational view of the subject (that "which is openly professed by the Unitarians alone") is noticed but " in passing," and no justice whatever is done to it (pp. 46-48), while" verbal and literal" inspiration figure largely in Mr. Foxton's pages, and Heinfetter's "naïve theory," that the obscurity of the Scriptures arises from our "having lost the sense conveyed by the expression and omission of the Greek Article," affords a charming opportunity for banter. Then M. Dacier, a Catholic and devout admirer of Plato, is quoted as maintaining that the Platonic and Christian ethics are identical,-Dr. Priestley as declaring that the doctrine of the Atonement is not in the Scriptures,-Isaac Taylor and Dr. Hampden as granting that the doctrinal system of the Church has grown up since scriptural times;-all this by way of discrediting inspiration;-and we are then given to understand, in a very loose way, that inspiration is to be conceded to the Grecian sages; to Plato, to Fenelon, to Thomas à Kempis and Wesley; to Moses and the Jewish prophets; to Zoroaster, Confucius, Christ, Paul, many of the Christian Fathers, Mahomet, St. Bernard, Wicliffe, Luther. "These, then," he sums up, 66 are the inspired of the world." We call this evading or beclouding the question, not clearing it. The chapter may be taken as a strong protest against "Bibliolatry," if such protest be wanted; but as a discussion of the Inspiration of the Scriptures, it is anything but complete, satisfactory, or even just and rational.

"Miracles and Prophecy" form the topic of the third chapter,-in which "the miraculous accounts contained in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures" are studiously ranked together as one class of phenomena, without any discrimination of the age or character of those very various records in which they are written; and it is roughly and loosely said, that "there is hardly a single miracle recorded in these writings that may not receive the most simple and natural solution." Magnetism, magic, middle-age miracles, Swedenborg, the demon of Socrates, Whiston's belief in extreme unction, are loosely called in aid of his apparent theory (for the theory is not very explicitly stated), that Christ did not profess to work miracles, but that his apostles reverentially ascribe such works to him; this supposition, he says (p. 95), "does not impeach the honesty of the Evangelists, nor (considering their age and country) is it any great reflection on their understandings "! He omits all reference to the moral character and design of the miracles of Christ, and thinks he "tests fairly the soundness of the orthodox argument" for miracles, by supposing a modern case at Hampstead or Highgate, destitute of all moral purpose or fitness (p. 101). He, however, repudiates "the coarse and undiscriminating criticism of most of the French and English Deists, which explains the whole theory of miracles on the supposition of the grossest fraud acting on the grossest credulity," and anticipates "a great accession to the ranks of reason and common sense" from "disproving the reality of the miracles without damaging the veracity or honesty of the simple, earnest and enthusiastic writers by whom they are recorded." It is easy to talk in this general way; but we have never yet seen the particular application of these principles attempted, as regards any of the leading miracles of the Gospel history, in which the veracity of the

actors or narrators was not seriously impugned. And it is easy to talk, in fine general phrase, about "an event assumed, in one age, to be a miraculous deviation from the law of nature, being explained as in exact conformity with it, by the riper science of the next" (p. 88); while, if we come to close quarters and ask, by what law of nature, unknown in the Gospel age, but known at present, Christ walked on the water, or healed the sick, or raised Lazarus from the dead;-and how, if there be such a law of nature, it was known to Christ without miraculous inspiration guiding his mind to its perception;-it is then perceived that all this fine talk about miracles growing into natural events at the touch of science, has nothing to do with the personal powers of miracle claimed by Christ and his apostles, and can only explain any personal pretensions whatever by resolving them into the imposition of the wise upon the ignorant,-though it may explain many popular traditions of miracles not personally wrought, such as the angel troubling the water of Bethesda, and perhaps the sound in the sky which occasioned some present to say it thundered, and others that an angel spoke to Jesus (John xii. 29). We may even admit what our author says of the temptation of Christ and the visions of St. Paul and Peter (as of the Hebrew prophets too), that they may be "resolved into mental abstraction ;" but this, again, is a perfectly separate matter from the assumption of the personal power of working miracles; and the real question is confused, instead of being elucidated, by this mode of treating it. But our author confesses in a note (p. 107) that he regards miracles as per se incredible.

On the subject of Prophecy, he devotes some very needless pages to the disproof of "particular providences," which he says are implied in prophecy as well as in miracles. Now, though miracle may involve particular providence (so to call it) as far as regards the miraculous work, prophecy involves no such specialty as regards the events predicted. The whole specialty of prophecy is in the seer's mind; the events predicted follow their own laws, whether a seer predicts them by ordinary foresight or by inspired foreknowledge. There seems a confusion of mind in this part of Mr. Foxton's book; but the jumble gives him occasion for some clever comments on the yet prevalent notions of divine judgments interpreted according to national or political partisanship. Mr. Foxton has also omitted to trace the more comprehensive scriptural meaning of prophecy, as applicable to all religious teaching, and has too readily taken up the orthodox restriction of it to inspired foretelling.

As to the Divinity of Christ (Chap. IV.) we have already hinted that Mr. Foxton takes this doctrine, not itself scriptural even in phrase, but confessedly a doctrine of inference, as an undoubted doctrine of the Gospel, and then refines it away into what is an undoubted fact of human nature, the consciousness of the "ever-present Deity in the human soul."

The believers in the deity of Christ will think this a sheer evasion of their doctrine, and the self-reflective worshiper of God in his own conscience will be loth to encumber his pure faith with such monstrous and inappropriate verbiage. Still let words have a meaning; and let not those who reject the meaning, retain the words. It is no advantage either to sincerity or to charity,-but the reverse.

Chap. V., "On Doctrines and Articles," proves plainly enough," that

H

1

the voice of the Church, even when dogmatizing on her most vital doctrines, is hesitating and uncertain; and that she is often in contradiction with herself." Hence Mr. Foxton advocates a universal faith, not founded on dogmatic articles. He truly says with Fichte, "The foundation of our faith is in our consciousness,-this is the true basis of a Catholic creed, for to this alone will the awakened souls of men at last appeal. The truth of Christianity to every individual mind depends on its being the true interpretation of this inner conviction;" but he goes on, with Fichte, to speak less rationally when he says, "all his conviction proceeds from the heart, and not from the understanding." We must quote one brief passage from this chapter, with a view to making a remark not connected with the subject of the chapter, but with the principles of Scriptural Criticism involved in the antisupernatural theory. The passage is this: "The scholastic doctrine of original sin is clearly at variance both with the spirit and the letter of the teaching of Christ himself, even should we succeed in torturing it out of the philosophical writings of St. Paul. He who exhorts us to strive for a perfection equal to the Divine Nature itself, and proposes the innocence of childhood as the model for our imitation, cannot be supposed to have inculcated the despairing doctrine either of imputed or inherent depravity" (p. 175). Excellent! But how comes one who invalidates the integrity and credibility of the Gospel narratives by his theory of the traditionary growth of all their supernatural statements, to appeal thus to the letter of the teaching of Christ? It is questionable whether, on his theory, there can be any certain knowledge even of the spirit of Christ's instructions; but to appeal to the letter of them, is more in accordance with our principles of textual criticism than his own. It is an involuntary tribute to the credibility of the Gospel history, and to the necessity of appealing to the letter of the written narratives in order even to reach the spirit of Christianity. It is a virtual repudiation of the fantastic idea of building a spiritual Christianity on the denial of the general integrity of the literal memoirs of Christ. This by the way.

The 6th chapter, on "Prospects and Conclusion," we have sufficiently noticed in expressing our unmitigated abhorrence of its dishonest maxims. Had this chapter stood first, we should not have cared to read any more. Having read the others first with no little interest and with admiration of many parts, we have scarcely been able to recal these feelings sufficiently to give the above brief outline of their contents, after finding that the conclusion of the whole matter is so hollow and unmanly a conformity to a confessedly "corrupt religious system." E. H. H.

THE SEA OF LIFE.

UNTHINKING man fancies there is no other evil than that he expects to vanquish, forgetting that after his victory he will be in the situation of the rapidly sailing vessel, before which there is always a rising wave, while a sinking wave is always behind-that we have ever before us a height we hope to surmount, and behind us a depth out of which we fancy we have arisen. JEAN PAUL.

MEMOIR OF THE LATE REV. ROBERT ASPLAND.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

THE repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts was the certain harbinger of the repeal of the Catholic disabilities. During the close of the year 1828, and the early part of the following year, the agitation of the question of Catholic Emancipation shook society in England, and especially the religious portion of it, to its very centre. In common with the whole Unitarian denomination, Mr. Aspland felt that he was bound by moral obligations which had derived new force from the admission of Protestant Dissenters to their civil rights, to labour with his whole strength for the acquisition of the same advantages for the Roman Catholics of England and Ireland. Immediately after the celebration at Freemasons' Hall, he was summoned to attend a meeting at the Duke of Norfolk's, in St. James's Square, consisting of gentlemen professing various forms of religion, to consult on the expediency of forming an association for the advancement of religious liberty. Mr. Charles Butler, Mr. Blount, Col. Stonor, Mr. Isaac Lyon Goldsmid, Mr. Montefiore, Mr. John Bowring and Rev. W. J. Fox, were present, but no practical details respecting the proposed association were then agreed upon; and before another meeting could be got together, it was apparent that the object of their solicitude was virtually secured.

Upon the subject of the admission of Roman Catholics to equal political rights with their Protestant fellow-subjects, public opinion was so nearly divided, that great importance attached to the course taken at this crisis by the Protestant Dissenters. Happily for their reputation as Christian men, their conduct, with some few exceptions, did not belie the pledges virtually given on their behalf by their representatives at the Repeal festival. Mr. Aspland had the advantage of the counsel of several of the leaders of the Liberal party, as to the mode in which most service could be rendered to the cause of religious liberty. It is regretted that a copy of the letter which gave occasion to the following interesting reply has not been preserved.

Lord John Russell to Rev. Robert Aspland.

"Woburn Abbey, Oct. 9, 1828. "Sir,-Although I think there is no one more capable than yourself of deciding on the best mode of proceeding towards our common object, yet I will not hesitate a moment in giving you my best judgment upon the subject. The Irish Roman Catholics are demanding loudly that an insult upon their faith should no longer be the test of fitness for civil office and legislative functions. The Brunswick Clubs as loudly require that this test should remain. The Government profess neutrality. They dislike violence on the one side as well as the other. They have no line of their own, or common object, but to preserve peace. Such is the state of the country and the Ministry.

"When the Catholics last year proposed uniting with the Dissenters, I earnestly advised the Dissenters against it. Policy apart, I thought it wrong to come to Parliament with a partnership of grievances, differing in motive, nature and extent. But now the case is altered. The Protestant Dissenters are among those who enjoy a monopoly of civil rights as against the Catholic. Will they, ought they to remain silent under such circumstances? While intolerant men proclaim their narrow principles, will not they assert their noble and beautiful principles?

"Now to your questions. I think you ought not to petition totidem verbis

for the Roman Catholic, but for the removal of all remaining oaths which require a declaration of religious opinion as a qualification for the enjoyment of civil rights. The last resolution of the Dissenting Ministers of the Three Denominations upon this head seems to me excellent. This form has the advantage of not adding to the clamour on one side or the other; it appears, on the contrary, a solemn record of a grave opinion on a question which distracts the country.

"I think this should be done by congregations, unless where, from other circumstances, larger bodies happen to be brought together. Petitions to the Legislature might be agreed upon, similar to several, I may say many, presented last year from Churchmen, praying generally for the removal of all religious disabilities. You may find several examples among the printed Petitions of the House of Commons. The time of petitioning should not be long before the meeting of Parliament.

"Likewise, where a general meeting is called for purposes of intolerance, in counties or towns, the friends of religious liberty ought to attend, and protest against such a purpose.

"Such a course, depend upon it, would not be unpalatable to Government. The Brunswick Clubs and Newcastle Letters are greatly so, and they would like a counterpoise. Besides, you know that on the Roman Catholic question itself the Cabinet is equally divided. The Unitarians, I know, are too firm in their principles to be shaken from their high ground of freedom by the intemperance of the Irish leaders. They know that discontent and contention are, to use a phrase of Bishop Hoadly, only the desperate effects of religious intolerance.' "I may perhaps state in so many words, though I have already implied it, that I am sure nothing can be more false than the suggestion lately made, that the Duke of Wellington wishes for a public expression of illiberal feeling. Besides, your opinions are not of yesterday or to-day; they are eternal, and should be universal.

"With every feeling of regard, I remain, your faithful Servant,

J. RUSSELL."

The advice given by Lord John Russell was followed by several public bodies in whose counsels Mr. Aspland had a share. The Committee of the Unitarian Association met, Dec. 11, 1828, and passed a resolution to the effect, "That entire and unrestricted liberty of religious faith and worship is the right of every human being, and that this right is violated by the establishment of any religious test of fitness for civil office." The Unitarian congregations throughout the kingdom were recommended to petition Parliament for the abolition of all religious penalties and civil disabilities. The United Committee which had conducted the application to Parliament for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, met for the last time on Monday, Dec. 15, 1828, and worthily closed their important and successful labours by expressing their desire "for the entire abolition of all laws interfering with the rights of conscience, and attaching civil disabilities to religious faith and worship."

Still, it was matter of notoriety that a small minority of Dissenting ministers in London were resolved to oppose to the last Catholic Emancipation. Under the influence of a fanatical hatred of Popery, they were unable to see the inconsistency of such a proceeding on the part of Protestant Dissenters, themselves but recently admitted to the free exercise of all their civil rights. The General Body of Protestant Dissenting Ministers of London met on January 20, 1829, at Dr. Williams's Library, to consider the expediency of issuing a declaration of