Dr Turner also floats hypotheses and speculations not obviously (to a non-academic reader)
connected to Tractarian facts. Granted, all his speculations seem designed to offer
alternatives to the supernatural. Granted, he anchors his musings in cited authorities and
research. Granted, he invites readers to do further reading or research into areas only
sketchily linked to Newman's age by Turner. Might, nonetheless, the speculative one tenth of
Turner's NEWMAN be either unconscious popularizing or, more charitably and plausibly, be
instead a crafty bait for his intended secular readers at major research universities? 

On the one hand, younger peers are explicitly invited to rise above at least the grossest,
most tunnel-visioned of the M'Choakumchildisms which they were taught in graduate school and now for the first time and as a good secular career choice to take 19th Century English
religion seriously. On the other hand, Dr Turner's flights of speculation (sometimes tucked
away in associated end-notes) may carry a subliminal message to secular academicians.
That is, the fact that dead white Englishmen were personally sincere about their religion need
not compel living, positivist, tenure track academicians today personally to believe that the
eminent Victorians were right in holding their non-provable superstitions. 

Again, Turner's peers may well, in deference to their accepted secular norms and methods,
try to understand whatever they are writing about as if there is and can be no discoverable
divine intervention in human affairs.  People who see John Henry Newman as a trusted guide
to holiness may, however, be grateful to Turner if he persuades more such secular scholars
to study Newman, for whatever his or their reasons. For Newman has lain in meaner
Procrustean beds. 

Should Turner's peers rise to what may be the intended bait of Turner's speculations, might
they not in time find enough creative and constructive in 19th Century religion to make them
forget the bait and rather approach Newman both more traditionally and more
broad-gaugedly and more multi-facetedly than they would have done if Turner had not
written JOHN HENRY NEWMAN: THE CHALLENGE TO EVANGELICAL RELIGION? This
does not mean that all people who study Newman must either believe or disbelieve in his
religion or that God did not in fact personally guide Newman and other Tractarians. It will,
nonetheless, be to Turner's unique credit, if he persuades even a few of his most sceptical,
worldly, agnostic colleagues that Newman and other eminent Victorians are worth studying,
no matter how much their great contributions must for method's sake be positivized,  naturalized and over-simplified.