[6] 'Neo-Christianity' in the _Westminster Review_, No. 36.--How true is what follows:--"The Bible is one; and it is too late now to propose to divide it. We shall only point out that the _moral value of the Gospel teaching becomes suspicious_ when the whole miraculous element is discarded. "We certainly do think that the Gospels assert a miraculous Incarnation, Resurrection, and Ascension; and that the Epistles teach Original Sin, and a vicarious Sacrifice. If this be doubted by our authors, it is sufficient for us to say that such is the impression they have created on all ages of Christians." "We desire that if the Bible, or any part of it be retained as Holy Writ, it be defended as a miraculous gift to Man, and not by distorting the principles of modern Science. Let the Essayists be assured that there exists _no middle course_; that there is no Inspiration more than is natural, yet not supernatural; _no Theology which can abandon its doctrines and retain its authority_." Lastly, with what sickening and almost Satanic power, does the same writer invite the Essayists and Reviewers to make shipwreck of their souls in the following terrible passage. And yet, who sees not that _on their principles_ absolute and professed unbelief is _inevitable_? He says:--"How long shall this last? Until men have the courage to bury their dead convictions out of sight, and the greater courage to form new. All honour to these writers for the boldness with which they have, at great risk, urged their opinions. _But what is wanted is strength_ not merely to face the world, but _to face one's own conclusions_. We know the cost. It must be endured. Let each who has thought and felt for himself, ask himself first what he _does not_ believe, and then, if wise or needful, avow it. Next let him ask himself what he _does_ believe, and pursue it to its true and full conclusions. Neither loose accommodation nor sonorous principles will long give them rest. It is of as little use to surrender the more glaring contradictions of Science as it is to evaporate discredited doctrine into a few vague precepts. That end will not be attained by our authors by subliming Religion into an emotion, and making an armistice with Science. It will not be obtained by any unreal adaptation; _nor by this, which is, of all recent adaptations_, at once the most able, the most earnest, and _the most suicidal_." [7] The Bishop of Exeter to Dr. Temple.