The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1875-12-19
SOME NEW hooks.


Macmillan a Co) Is substantially repetition
and expansion Of ideas presented by b'm IN his
Lherut1s sad Dovma, which appeared two
years $40. The body Of the book consists OF
articles written In reply to criticisms on that
work, and heretofore published In an English
PERIODICAL; to which has been added n preface,
Introduction, and conclusion. The whole. con
sequenly, lacks unity and directness, and "
eomewh { confusing to reader not familiar
with the sut Ject but 1t possesses all the grace
Of dictinn, suRRestlveness OF thought, and deli
cate literary feeling witch characterize Nr. Ar.
noId's productions and prevent them from being
dull, even when they are most unsatisfactory.
A large part OF the book is occupied with a
discussion OF tho crcdiiility OF miracles, the
canon Of Scripture. and the origin and anthem
ucity Of the fourth gospel, which seems to us
OF very little practical value. Most ~ Mr.. Ar
Doid's learning on these topics Ia confessedly
secondhand, only reproducing the results Of
the Lahore Of ADLER critics in the same field: and,
In controversy where the giants Of German
learning are engaged, men OF ordinary culture
hardly feel that there is place for them. when,
where, and how the books OF the Bible were
written and gathered together, how much OF the
gospels is to be aacrihed to one author and how
much to another, and what portions OF them nre
authentic and what are fables, are questions
present. One Of these days they may possibly be
settled beyond dispute, aud then the result Will
be accepted aud built upon like other facts OF ac
cepted knowledge; but IN the meanwhile they
lie out OF the range OF ordinary study. II IS only
In the other portion Of his work that Mr. Arnold
comes directly home to the common reader, and
s'ys things that arouse his serious attention.
This portion relates to the being and nature of
God. and to the manner In which he should be
thought of by educated men. MIR. Ainold's
proposition on the sur ject Ia repeated In differ
ent places, In different forms. but the following
passage gives It about as well as any:
We urge all whom the current theology both rcpular
tel ~e do not medal We urse them to ts~e thir
iund,iion Ia r.sdias a., ~ 81. ~. account 60
ourselves. lc makes for rishteou ness " instc ~
woe cannot We rs9 tc n to esess a as much
sole IN -eanE shoui OF The us" 80 lhe N"ra
a.. ny TTiih.ut srsi9s tncu selN,. what y r,el
con,c,irg some real but aisru,c knoNl"igc about
r.. -m,c y docs NOT nut y, n,rc nsr
God nothing more than effect on us. operative.
Elsewhere he recommends those who reject
the 3lhle. as at present translated to strike out
God " from the text where u occurs, and suo-
stitute 1.-THE Shining" aud see how much less
Objectionable the book would become. We
thus should read "Thc Shining IL our hope and
strength" 40 Shining, thou art nv Shining.
early will seek thee!' "rhe fool hath said In
his heart, there Is no shnine;" and SO On. Tots
ia to begin with; bat later on the word
- Etern " ~ To be used. and indeed II used 10y
Mr.. Arnold himself rs more truly presenting
tho real meaning Of the sacred writers. In
the Eternal put | NV trust" "Mv hote hath
been IN Thee, o Eternal have said, Thou art
nv Cod" "Ressed are the peoule whose God
Is the Eternal are some Of his readings from
the Psalms, and II must ne remembered that by
"the Eternal" he means. "a he often takes care
to repeat, eternal power, which Is not a
person.
The reason which, as we have seen. Mr. Ar
mold gives for thus doing violence To tong es-
tatlished religious phraseoloey, Is that God as
pes-on cannot he verified by human con-
| sciousness, whereas God as power working for
righteousness can be. He goes uDon the posi-
twist principle Of not accepting a thing which
csnnot be proved. There liz law or power
which m kes righteousness to be the best thing
for mAnh ind, he savs escw here. and IL Is we'll
known fact but that this law or power Is a
beng which thinks and wills Is not such a IA t.
| The mir clcs recouuted In the Bioe do not
establish Il, because they themselves are not
| well established Metaphysics cannot demon
sirate II. because they assume truth a mere
| ngment OF the Imagination. Experience does
not show II, because men usually do not see nor
| feel Goo as living. breathing person. There
fore, II il best not to talk about It fact at all
what Mr.. Arnold really means by spying that
God should not be spoken Of a person IL, IN {
he should not be spoken Of as man. His great
| objection to making God pers' n, who thinks
and lovea, Ia that we have no experience OF err
sons who think and love, excepting man and the
| inferior fnlmals. We, therefore, he says, TAX
the best thinking and loving Of the b'st man,
out OF II construct an ioea OF a magnined and
non-natural man. and then say that he is God
The very statement Of this origin OF the personal
conception Of God seems TO MIN TO be the best
demonstration Of It's absurdity, and he does not
| cond, scend to further refute II. VITA a Ike
contcmptuousness he dismisses the assertion of
| the Bible, that God made man In his own image
and likeness, merely remarking that men have
returned the compliment and made God I'm
their image. II does not seem to occur to him
that the test thinking aud loving Of the best
/ man Is no unworthy representation Of God,
aud that II man be Coos mrce, God must be
man.. "a certainly as that, IL a. b, b - a. His
mind appears to be so constituted that II revolt S
from thinking Of Goo as man but other peo-
pies minds are not all like his. For ourselves.
we do not hesitate 10 confess that the creep
| ton of God as the Infinite divine man. the in
| finite ideal, of which we finite men are imperfect
emuodiments. and who Is, IN the fullest sense. a
| person who thinks and loves, is not only not un-
reasonable, tut the most completely reason bile
| exclamation of the phenomena Of the universe.
| Furthermore, We say that Mr.. Arnold's "eternal
| mower, not ourselves, which makes for right
eousn, S." but which does not reside In nor
eman te fom person VINO thinks aud loves,
is NO God at all.
II isa sirnnc ut fact that In all the relations Of