FRASER’S MAGAZINE., __SEPTEMBER, 1864.

DR. NEVVMAN’S ‘APOLOGIA.’

HE controversy between Dr.Newman and Mr. Kingsley has

raised questions of infinitely greaterimportance than any which relate tothe combatants themselves. Of thedetails of the controversy we donot mean to speak. Each disputantis fully able to take care of himself,and nothing is more difficult than togive a compressed account of a dispute in such a way as to do justiceto both sides, or indeed to either.The main questions at issue areof a different character. They aredeeply interesting to the community at large. And upon those questions, all transitory and personalmatters being waived, we feel deeplythat Mr. Kingsley was right, thoughhe expressed himself incautiouslyand clumsily; and that Dr. Newmanwas wrong, though he managed hiscause with great skill. Mr. Kingsley’s original accusation was as

follows :—‘ Truth, for its 0am sake',had never been a virtue with theRoman clergy. Father Newman informs us that it need not, and on thewhole ought not to be; that cunningis the weapon which heaven hasgiven to the saints wherewith towithstand the brute male force'ofthis wicked world,’ &c. It wouldbe more bold than wise to-under—take the defence of these loose andgeneral statements as they stand.Truth, in the sense of veracity,‘ha.salways been recognized as ayirtueby all moralists ; and though therehas been a considerable differenceof opinion as to the cases in whichdeviations from truth are justifiable,there is nothing to show that either

VOL. Lxx. N0. ococxvn.

in theory or in practice Dr. Newmanhas maintained any doctrine on thissubject which honest men may not,and indeed have not, held. If, andin so far as, Mr. Kingsley meant to‘ call him a liar,’ as Dr. Newmansays he did, we think he was' wrong.Neither Dr. Newman’s-life nor hiswritings sustain such a charge.

There is, however, another question between the parties. Besidesvindicating his individual moralcharacter, Dr. Newman attempts tomeet another and a wider charge.In his general answer to Mr. Kingsley, he says that many Protestantsstart with the suspicion ‘ that ourcreed is actually set up in inevitablesuperstition and hypocrisy.’ He,on the. contrary, affirms that this isnot so ; that the system of Romanism‘ is in no sense dishonest ;’ and thatits ‘ upholders and teachers, as such,have a claim to be acquitted intheirown persons of that odious imputa

>tion.’ Of course no one makes these.imputations in the terms in whichDr. Newman states it. No doubtmany Roman Catholics, especiallythose who have been born andbrought up in it, hold their creedwithout superstition or hypocrisyj;but Dr. Newman’s account of the

principlesby which he has been

guide , and his statement of theconclusions at which he has arrived,appear to us to prove to demonstra

-' tion, that he at least—and he issurely a favourable specimen of Protestants who have become Romanists—has been brought to accept superstition by sophistry. He may be

an-_honcst man, but his system isr

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

6:5

7 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

266 [September,Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologia.’

dishonest. This distinction is plainenough. The difference betweenmind and mind is so great that it ishardly possible to say what may ormay not be honestly believed byparticular people. -It is no doubtpossible that evidence which mostmen would reject with contempt,and that arguments which to mostmen would seem childish, mayhonestly appear conclusive to others.When, therefore, it is asserted thata system is dishonest, or that aman is intellectually dishonest, allthat is meant is, that the system issophistical; that the man’s mind hasin fact taken a tortuous course;that the arguments to which it givesway are such as might have been

accepted by a mind in search, not ofthe truth, but of proofs for a foregone conclusion; and that the evidence with which he has been satisfied is hot such as would generally be

required by reasonable men to support the propositions at which it ispointed. This of course may be

morally wrong; but no one can saythat it is so in a particular case.No one can pretend to dive into themind of another person, and passsentence upon the way in which hehas managed his own intellect.Human critics can look only toresults.

It must also be observed thatit is difficult to connect the notionof dishonesty in any form with Dr.Newman. His Apologia is a winning,and in some ways, a touching book.It is full of courage and straightforwardness; every word that the author says of himself and his opinionshears upon it the stamp of truth.The vigour and spirit with which,in his old age, he stands up for hisgood name; the price which he setsupon the good opinion of the worldat large; his anxiety to be freedfrom the most odious of all imputations on the character of a'straightforward Englishman ; the simpledignity with which he tells thestory of his life—all these things gostraight to the hearts of his readers.Almost all of us, he seems to think,are to be damned to all eternity;but with amiable inconsistency hewishes for our good opinion. Hewould like us to think kindly of

him in hell fire. Moriturossalutat. We have no intention tosay a word inconsistent with therespect due to an old and distinguished man, who appeals so

manfully to the good feeling of hiscountrymen; but high as Dr. Newman’s personal character is, we cannot read his book without feelingthat his theology is dangerous so

phistry, calculated to serve no otherpurpose than that of drugging theminds of men who care more forpeace of mind than for truth, andwhose ultima ratio is found not intheir reason, but in their fears ortheir fancies. It is the duty of everyone who thinks thus, to take op portunities of proving it.

With these observations we proceed to consider Dr. Newman’shistory of his own mind, and thegeneral defence of his opinions withwhich that history concludes.

After a short account of his childhood, he says :—‘ When I was fifteena great change of thought took placein me. I fell under the influenceof a definite creed, and received intomy intellect impressions of dogmawhich, through God’s mercy, havenever been effaced or obscured.’About this time he became ‘conscious of an inward conversion,’which had a deep influence over-him. He also received at the sametime the Calvinistic distinction be

tween the elect and the world, whichwas subsequently transmuted intothe kindred Catholic doctrine ‘ of thewarfare between the city of Godand the powers of darkness.’ Fromthis time also he gave ‘ a full inwardassent to the doctrine of eternalpunishment,’ and conceived that itwas the will of God that he shouldlead a single life. At Oxford helearnt a number of other doctrines.‘ Mr. James,’ he says,

‘ taught me thedoctrine of Apostolical successionin the course of a walk, I think,round Christ Church meadows.’ Helearnt baptismal regeneration froma book of Archbishop Sumner, andcame, to some extentfunder the influence of Blanco White and Dr.Whately. He also read Butler’sAnalogy, by which he was confirmedin a notion—which he had been inclined to as a boy—as to the un

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

6:5

7 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

1864.] 267Dr. Newman’s ‘Apobgz'a.’

reality of material phenomena, andfrom which he learnt the doctrinethat Probability is the guide oflife—‘ doctrines,’ he says, ‘whichhave led to a charge against meboth of fancifulness and of scepticism.’ The general result of hisreading and social relations wasthat, in 1827, he ‘ was beginning toprefer intellectual excellence tomoral, and was drifting in the direction of liberalism. I was rudelyawakened from my dream at theend of r827, by two great blows—illness and bereavement.’ It wouldhave been curious to know preciselywhat changes illness and bereave—ment made in his opinions, and whatwas their logical justification; buton this point we are left in the dark.In 1827 and 1828 he became intimatewith Mr. Keble and Hurrell Froude.From Mr. Keble he got in a more emphatic form than before the doctrineof probabilities, of which we shallhave more to say hereafter; and byassociating with Hurrell Froudehe appears to have learnt, or at anyrate to have fortified and expanded,his extreme indignation against allliberalism, religious and political.Wherever he got these views he

certame held them; for speaking ofthe Revolution of 1830, he says, ‘Ibelieved that it was unchristian fornations to cast off their governors,and much more sovereigns whohad the divine right of inheritance.’As to England, ‘The Whigs hadcome into power; Lord Grey hadtold the bishops to set their housein order, and some of the prelateshad been insulted and threatenedin the streets of London. The vitalquestion was, how were we to keepthe Church from being liberalized?’Dr. Newman was at this time en—

gaged in writing a book about theArians, and he brooded over thecontrast which appeared to him toexist between the position of theChurch of England and that of theante-nicene Church. He wentabroad with Hurrell Froude, and hisstate of mind,during his journey wascharacteristic. ‘1 found pleasurein historical sites and beautifulscenes, not in men and manners.. . . I had fierce thoughts againstthe Liberals. . . It was the success

of the Liberal cause which frettedme inwardly. I became fierceagainst its instruments and itsmanifestations. A French vesselwas at Algiers; I would not evenlook at the tricolour. On myreturn, though forced to stop a dayat Paris, I kept in doors the wholetime, and all that I saw of thatbeautiful city was what I saw fromthe diligence.’ He returned toOxford in 1833, full of the notion ofsetting up a Church party. Hewas full of zeal. ‘I had a supremeconfidence in our cause; we were -

upholding that primitive Christianity which was delivered for alltime by the early teachers of theChurch, dzc. . . . I despised everyrival system of doctrine and itsarguments.’ He became, in a theoretical way, fanatical in his opinions.He said of heresiarchs, ‘ The heresiarch should meet with no mercy;he assumes the office of the temptcr.and so far forth as his error goesmust be dealt with by the competent authority as if he wereembodied evil. To spare him is a

false and dangerous pity. It is toendanger the souls of thousands, andit is uncharitable towards himself.’He adds, however, ‘ It is only fair tomyself to say that neither at this norat any other time of my life, not evenwhen I was fiercest, could I have evencut off a Puritan’s ears; and I thinkthe sight of a Spanish auto da j'e'would have been the death of me.At this point in his history, Dr. Newman gives an explicit account of theprinciples on which he proceeded.They were three in number.

1st. ‘First was the principle ofdogma. My battle was with liberalism; by liberalism, I mean theanti-dogmatic principle and its dcvelopments. This was the firstpoint on which I was certain . . . . . .

From the age of fifteen dogma hasbeen the fundamental principle ofmy religion.’

2ndly. ‘I was confident in thetruth of a certain definite religiousteaching based upon this foundationof dogma; viz., that there was a

visible church with sacraments andrites which are the channels ofinvisible grace." The institution ofbishops held a prominent place

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

6:5

8 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

268 [September,Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologia.’

in this body. ‘ I loved to act in the‘

sight of my bishop as if I was, as itwere, in the sight of God. . . . Iwas strict in observing my clericalengagements, not only because theywere engagements, but because Iconsidered myself simply as theservant and instrument of mybishop. . . . My own bishop wasmy pope. . . . My duty to himwas my point of honour.’

3rdly. The third point was thatthe Pope was antichrist. As tothis, Dr. Newman says his reasonwas convinced against his feelings ;

but his reason being convinced, hethrew himself into the theory withgood will, and rated the Church ofRome soundly on all occasions tillnear the time when he joined it.

These were the fundamentalprinciples of the Tractsfor the Times.The object of their writers appearsto have been to put the Church ofEngland into what they conceivedto be its true position. This implied, to use Dr. Newman’s wordsin another of his books,‘ ‘that theChurch should have absolute powerover her faith, worship, andteaching.’ It was intended to be themoral and religious sovereign of thecountry, and was to teach to allmen, with divine authority, a certainset of dogmas which it had receivedby direct tradition from the time ofthe apostles, and which Dr. Newman and his friends were to ex

tricate from the dust and rubbishwith which they had been encumbered by ages of neglect, usurp—ation, and heresy.

The account of this undertakingis the least interesting part of Dr.Newman’s Apologia. It tells minutely the history of his attempts toadjust his own view of what theChurch of England ought to be,with the facts which actually surrounded it. For three years allwent on prosperously enough; butafter handling various detachedpoints of doctrine, always with theresult that there was little real difference betWeen the teaching ofEngland and that of Rome, and thatthe errors of Rome consisted in certain modern innovations, he at last

came to consider the Thirty-nineArticles, and in the famous Tract90 set forth an ingenious theoryabout them, the gist of which was,that they were much less definitethan they were generally supposedto be. ‘ There was no doubt at allof the elasticity of the Articles. . . .

I wanted to ascertain what was thelimit of that elasticity in the direction of Roman dogma.’ The excitement which this attempt created issufficiently well known ; but thoughit was perhaps the noisiest event inDr. Newman’s career, it was farfrom being the most important. Itis, indeed, obvious enough that thepublic did not understand him, andthat, whatever might be the valueof his details, his principle was right.The Articles unquestionably are, andwere meant to be ‘ elastic,’ as hecalls them; but the true inferencefrom this fact was, that the Churchof England permits liberty of opi—

nion even to the clergy on many important points, not as Dr. Newmansupposed, that it has other sourcesof doctrine by which a vacuum maybe always avoided.

The chief importance of Tract 90seems to have been, that it openedits author’s eyes to the fact that thepublic at large were thoroughly opposed to him and his views, andthat, in trying to renovate theChurch of England upon his 'ownprinciples, he was going against thenature of things. A number of incidents and writings opened his eyesby degrees to the fact that this viamedm which he had been tryingto construct was a delusion. Hethought that he found! the prototypeof Protestantism in the Donatistsand Eutychians. He was shockedbeyond measure at the establishmentof the Jerusalem Bishopric, of whichhe says, with some truth and a gooddeal of humour, ‘1 never heard ofany good or harm it has ever done,except what it has done for me.’At last, what between the Eutychians and the Jerusalem Bishopric,he came, after a number of oscillations, to the conclusion that hisplace was in the Church of Rome.The objections to Rome, which had

* Lectures on A lican Dfiwlties, p. I 62."9

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

6:5

8 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

1864.] 269Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologz'a.’

formed one of three fundamentalprinciples of the Tracts for the Times,were overcome by the help of thewell-known doctrine of Development. As soon as he became a Roman Catholic, he found himself, so

to speak, at home; and there endsthe history of his religious opinions.

It may fairly be observed in general in this history, that though Dr.Newman got to Rome honestlyenough as far as anything like fraudwas concerned, yet the considerations which finally decided him wereof a sentimental rather than of arational kind. Whatever may havebeen the occasion, no doubt thecause of his change was his pro—found aversion to liberalism, andthe difficulty which he found inresisting it on his old principles.The argumentative value of a supposed historical parallel betWeenthe Donatists and Eutychians, andthe Protestants, or of the establishment of a fancy oifice like that ofthe Bishop of Jerusalem, was justnothing at all.

The irrational weight which heattached to such illustrations, for atmost they are no more, is howevercurious. It is exactly like someother isolated circumstances thathave necessarily been omitted inthis condensed sketch, and whichare nevertheless extremely characteristic of the temper of mind ofits subject. It is pervaded by astrange vein of something likeextravagance, which finds in themost ordinary incidents food forthe author’s love of the marvellous. For instance, when Dr. Newman was a middle—aged man, hefound his first Latin verse-book, andon the first page was ‘ a device whichalmost took away my breath withastonishment.’ This was a figure ofa cross, surrounded with somethinglike a string of beads, which he haddrawn under his own nanie. Heaccounts for this by supposing thatit may have been taken from sometale or religious picture.

During his journey on the Continent, in 1831 or 1832, he had a badillness in Sicily, of which he nearlydied. His servant asked for his lastdirections: he gave them, but said,‘jI shall not die, I shall not die; for

I have not sinned against light, Ihave not sinned against light.’ Headds, ‘I have never been able tomake out at all what I‘meant.’ Hemight as well be surprised at notbeing able to interpret his dreams.Before setting out on his journey,being still very weak, he burstinto tears. His servant asked whatwas the matter. ‘ I could onlyanswer, “I have a work to do inEngland.” ’ Is there anything sur—

prising in a man’s being hystericalwhilst weak from fever? His doetrine about angels shows the working of the same temper that noticesthese things. He ‘ considered themas the real causes of motion, light,and life, and of those elementaryprinciples of the physical universewhich, when offered in their developments to our senses, suggest tous the notion of cause and effect, andof what are called the laws of nature.’ He believed not only in goodspirits and bad, but in a middle raceof demons, who ‘ gave a sort of inspiration or intelligence to races,nations, and classes of men.’ In ahalf-serious half-humorous letter, hereckons John Bull in the numberwho, poor fellow! ‘is a spirit neitherof heaven or hell.’ In August, 1839,

he read a review by Cardinal Wiseman on the Donatists. He did notthink much of it at first; but afriend pointed out a quotation fromSt. Augustine, ‘ Securus judicat orbisterrarum,’ which he interpreted tomean ‘the deliberate judgment inwhich the whole Church at lengthrests and acquiesces is an infalliblepresumption, and a final sentenceagainst such portions of it as protestand secede.’ It does not seem tohave occurred to him that the whole

Church can hardly acquiesce in adoctrine against which a' part protests; but he would shrink fromsaying plainly that the majority arealways right. There was a timewhen the majority were Arians.He then goes on: ‘For a meresentence, the words of St. Augustine struck me with a powerwhich I had never felt from anywords before. To take a familiarinstance, they were like the “ Turnagain, Whittington,” of the chime;or, to take a more serious one, they

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

6:5

8 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

270 [Septembcnf Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologia.’

were like the “Tolle lege—Tollelege” of the child, which arrestedSt. Augustine himself. “Securusjudicat orbis terrarum.” By thosegreat words of the ancient father thetheory of the via media was abso

lutely pulverized.’ After a while hebecame calm, and determined to as

certain the logical value of the terrible quotation; but ‘ meanwhile, so

far as this was certain, I had seen

the shadow of a hand upon thewall.’

Perhaps, however, the most wonderful instance of the vivacity, andat the same time of the fiightiness, ofDr. Newman’s imagination, is to befound in a story which he tells withadmiration of Liguori. This emi~

nent man began life as an advocate.On one occasion he mistook thetenor of a document which was de

cisive of a cause in which he wasengaged. His mistake being pointedout, he at once admitted his error;but such was his fear of being ac—

cused of unfair dealing, that herushed out of court, exclaiming—‘ World, I know you now! Courts oflaw never shall you see me again 1’

after which he went into a monastery. Surely this was the conductnot of a man of integrity and judgment, but of a vain fool, who caredmore for what people thought ofhim than for what he really was.‘ This,’ says Dr. Newman, ‘is theman who is so fiippantly pronouncedto be a patron of lying.’ Whetherhe was or not, the man who wouldmake such a fool of himself, is justthe sort of man who would be likelyto lie for want of due sturdiness.It is impossible not to recognize inthese stories the passion for the marvellous rising to the surface, andready to burst out in a stream, ifsurrounding circumstances werepropitious. Being, as he is, a cultivated and educated Englishman ofthe nineteenth century, Dr. Newmanabstains from expressly attachingundue weight to these things,though he evidently hankers afterthem, or why tell them to the worldat all? But suppose he had been

St. Henry of Littlemore in thetwelfth century, are not these justthe sort of trifles which a zealousbiographer would. have magnified,

without conscious dishonesty,’ intoportents and miracles?

Such was the man, and such ishis history, up to the time of hisbecoming a Roman Catholic. Howfar does it bear upon the charge ofintellectual dishonesty ? We do notthink that there was anything dis~

honest in Dr. Newman’s relations tothe Church of England. The imputation under which he says belong laboured in popular estimationof having sailed under false colours,is certainly not true. It is clearenough that he was all along undera perfectly bond fide mistake as tothe nature and capabilities of the.

Church of England, and that it wasonly by a long and troublesome se—

ries of investigations that he discovered that his own principles werethose of the Church of Rome. Theintellectual dishonesty with whichhe is justly chargeable lies deeper.It lies in the way in which headopted and acted on the fundamental principles by which his wholelife has been governed, and whichhave at last led him to the opinionswhich he now professes. Read hisautobiography from end to end, andwhat is its leading principle ? Hatredto liberals and liberalism. And onwhat is this based? On an instinctive antipathy, imbibed apparently at fifteen years of age; waivedfor a short time; and under theinfluence of illness resumed andpersisted in without inquiry, without hesitation, with no better war—

rant than the impulse of a fiercemental passion, for nearly fifty years.What Dr. Newman means by the‘ principle of dogma,’ which was thefoundation of the movement of 18 33,and which he had held from 1816,it is not very easy to say with precision; but the nearest approach toan explanation of it contained inthis volume, is in these words (p.

120) :—‘ From the age of fifteen .

dogma has been the fundamentalprinciple of my religion. I knowno other religion; I cannot enterinto the idea of any other sort ofreligion; religion as a mere sen—

timent is to me a dream and a.

mockery. As well can there be filiallove without the fact of a father, as.

devotion without the fact of a 811- -

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

6:5

9 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

1864.] 271Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologia.’

preme Being.’ This seems to meanthat religion is a set of thoughts,feelings, sentiments, and habits ofmind excited by external objects, thedescription of which external objects constitutes dogma. Thus Godhimself is the external fact. Theproposition that there is a spirit,without’body, parts, or passions,whom we call God, is the dogma.Our mental relations towards God,and the sentiments with which weregard him, as excited by the contemplation of this dogma, are our

'

religion. Thus dogma is essential toreligion.

If this is Dr. Newman’s theory itis simple enough, though it neglectsthe possibility that the feelings inquestion might exist, and that theiroperation might be beneficial tomankind, even if there were noobject by which they were excited.A. man’s love for his family mightremain, and might restrain him frombad courses, even though his familywere all dead and gone in hisabsence. Religion need not be amockery, nor a dream, even if it hadno object. It might be an ultimatefact in human nature of which noaccount could be given, but fromwhich benefits might arise.

This, however, is by the way.The real objection to what Dr. Newman calls the dogmatic principle liesin the inferences which he seems tohave drawn from it

,

and in thecourse of conduct which he adoptedin connexion with those inferences.Grant that dogma is in the senseabove explained essential to religion,and how does it follow that theremust always be a set of perfectly truedogmas accessible to every religiousperson? Religion might be producedby dogmas inadequate and incorrect to a very great extent. A childmight feel true filial love to a manwho' was not his father at all, andhe might feel it although he had a

wrong impression, or an absence ofany impression, as to the specificnature of the relationship betweenparent and child. Indeed a parent’sown knowledge of the nature of hisrelation to his children is obviouslyinadequate and defective, thoughcorrect as far as it goes. In thiscase the filial sentiment would

correspond to religion. The proposition, A B is your father,would be the dogma, and the manhimself would be the fact. As hegrew up the child’s feelings towards

A B might remain unchanged,though the dogma itself would havequite a new meaning to him, andthough his belief in its truth mightbe shaken or altogether destroyed,or weakened by any degree ofdoubt.

Thus the proposition that dogma

is essential to religion, and the proposition that true dogmas are essential to religion, are entirely distinct.Good and beneficial religious feel—

ings may be created by an inadequate, or untrue, descriptionof God; and there is nothing absurd or inconsistent in the liberaltheory that it is a duty to be religious, and that it is also a duty topurify religion by scrutinizing andcorrecting the dogmas which exciteit. Throughout the whole of hiscareer Dr. Newman appears to haveneglected this obvious distinction,and to have assumed and acted onthe assumption that because religion

is good and dogma essential to it,

those who do not believe in thecomplete and absolute truth of someone set of existing dogmas, and thatin such a way as to renounce theright of ever doubting or examiningtheir truth, even if new evidence onthe subject should come to light,are the enemies of all religion, andought in logical consistency to beatheists. This is most unjust. Aliberal, as such, does not in theleast degree disparage the importance of dogma.‘ He holds, on theother hand, that to have completelytrue dogmas would be an inestimable blessing; that to have partiallytrue dogmas is better than to havenone; and that to extract the truthand reject the falsehood from thedogmas prevalent \in a given timeand place, is a duty of the highestimportance. The propositions whichwould be necessary to justify Dr.Newman’s fierce indignation againstliberalism—an indignation so fierceand irrational that he would notlook at the trieolour or walk aboutthe streets of Paris—would besomewhat as followsz—My dogmas

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

6:5

9 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

272 Z Dr. Newman s ‘Apologia.’ [September,’

are essential to religion. The liberals deny that my dogmas areabsolutely true. Therefore theliberals are the enemies of religion.That intemperate zeal usurpingdominion over an ingenious mindand a sensitive pathetic dispositionshould bring a man to such a conclusion is conceivable enough. ThatDr. Newman should have reachedthis conclusion after an impartialconsideration of the whole subjectappears to us incredible. ‘

Let us consider a little what thisdogmatic principle, fully carried out,implies. The ‘ principle of dogma,’ as

Dr. Newman understands, and hassince the age of fifteen years understood and maintained it

,

ap ears to be

the foundation of his cree , and notthe superstructure. A belief thatsomewhere or other there is and mustbe a collection of absolutely true dogmas precedes, as we understand him,the belief in specific dogmas. Hebelieves in the Trinity, the Incarnation, &c., because it appears clear tohim that some such doctrines theremust be, not on account of the evidence appropriate to each of them;for if he believed them on the evidence appropriate to each, he would,of course, have to examine that evidence, and might from time to timemodify his conclusions. This conviction he attained at the age of fifteen.Might not any other boy in anyother part of the world attain thesame conviction, and would not thislead either to the conclusion thatall religious dogmas, Mahometan,Buddhist, heathenish, &c., are true,or else that none of them are true?The dogmatic principle as he seems

to understand it must either provethe truth of all the dogmas of allcreeds, or be insufficient to provethe truth of any dogmas whatever.The plain factis, that the ‘ principleof dogma’ is nothing else than anobscure way of describing the pro—cess of begging the question.

Whether or not, however, Dr.Newman argued correctly on thisfundamental fallacy is a question ofsecondary interest. The real test ofhis intellectual honesty is to be

found, not in the method which headopted, but in the conclusions towhich it brought him. Whatever

may have been his intermediateoscillations and changes, his position

is now finally taken. He has reached

a standing point at last, upon whichhe resolutely takes his stand, andchallenges attack. Let us, then,examine his case, and see whether

it is based on solid grounds, oris an accumulation of sophistries,the acceptance of which would be

pernicious to all the highest interestsof mankind, and would in particularpresent an insuperable obstacle tothe attainment of truth. If, as webelieve, the latter is the case, thequestion whether he or Mr. Kingsleyhas the best of the particular controversy becomes altogether insignificant.

In order to understand the matterfully, we must look in the firstplace at Dr. Newman’s method ofinquiry, or rather at his canon ofproof in religious matters. 1t consists of what he calls the doctrine ofprobability. He originally learnt it,he says, from Butler, who teachesthat probability is the guide of life.He was confirmed in it by Mr.Keble. He gives an outline of it inthese words :—‘ My argument is inoutline as follows: that the absolute certitude which we were able to

possess, whether as to the truths ofnatural theology, or as to the factof a revelation, was the result of anassemblage of concurring and converging probabilities, and that bothaccording to the constitution of thehuman mind and the will of itsmaker; that certitude was a habit ofmind, and that certainty was a

quality of propositions; that proba—bilities which did not reach tological certainty might create a

mental certitude ; and that the certitude thus created might equal inmeasure and strength the certitudethat is created by the strictest scientific demonstration.’ This is trueenough if the probabilities are independent. For instance, let thequestion be whether Z was in a

given place at a given time. Asays he saw him then and there; B,independently of A, says he sawhim going in that direction shortlybefore the time; 0 says he saw himcoming from it shortly afterwards;and D says that he found footmarks

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

6:5

9 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

1864.] 273Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologia.’

at the place soon after the time,which had not been there before,and which corresponded accuratelywith Z’s shoes. Here are four facts,each raising an independent pro

_ bability, and therefore all uniting tostrengthen the conclusion. This is acase of accumulation of probabilities.No doubt, under particular circumstances, the result might be a certi—

tude (to use Dr. Newman’s language)as great as that with which we be

lieve in the multiplication table. Iam at least as sure that on or abouta certain day, at a certain place, Iwent through the marriage ceremony with the person with whom Ihave ever since lived as my wife, asI am that twice two are four. Thisis because a thousand independentand converging probabilities do infact convince me of the truth of thoseassertions. I cannot say more for themultiplication table itself. Wherethe probabilities are dependent,the case is altogether different.Suppose the question is whetherthe eldest child of a newly marriedcouple will inherit the estate of thehusband. First, it is more probablethan not that there will be children of the marriage. Next, if achild is born, it is probable that itwill be a son, for more boys are bornthan girls. Thirdly, if a son is born,it will probably (let us assume) survive its father. This may look likean accumulation of probabilities, butin reality it is the reverse. Thetotal probability diminishes at eachstep, and it diminishes so fast, thatthough each event may be probablein itself, the final result may bealtogether improbable. Suppose, forthe sake of illustration, that it is aneven chance in each case, that is tosay, that it is an even chance whether there are children of themarriage, whether the first childborn is a boy, and whether the boysurvives his father. The chancethat the eldest child will not inheritthe estate is three to one.

Dr. Newman seems to commit theerror of confusing together these different things. He says, ‘ In 1843-4,I believed in a God on a groundof probability; I believed in Christianity on a probability; and I believed in Catholicism on a pro

bability; and all three were aboutthe same kind of probability, acumulative, a transcendent probability; but still a probability.’It is not quite clear whether thismeans that each proposition takenseparately rested on an accumulation of probabilities, or that thethree together made up such aprobability. The latter appearsin this instance to be Dr. Newman'smeaning from the general scopeof this argument; but surely ithardly requires argument to showthat these probabilities are dependent, and not cumulative — thatthey resemble the second illustration, and not the first. If there isno God, the argument for Christianity is worthless. And it islogically impossible for a man to bemore sure that Christianity is truethan that there is a God; thatbelief, and that alone, can make theChristian miracles credible. If therewas no Christ sent from God, theargument for Roman Catholicism isworthless. To argue against Atheism on the authority of Christ, or toargue in favour of Romanism onthe same authority 'as against aDeist, is a process fit for reasonersof a very different order from thosewith whom Dr. Newman has usuallybeen classed. If it be doubtfulwhether there is any God at all(and though Dr. Newman will notadmit that it is, we shall see immediately that the result of his argument is that it is doubtful in thehighest degree), it must be stillmore doubtful whether Christ washis messenger; and if this againis as doubtful as the existence ofa God, the natural doubtfulnessof the claims of the Roman Catholic Church to be the Churchwhich Christ established mustbe weakened still further. Dr.Newman can have his probabilitieswhichever way he pleases; and ineither he gets a result fatal ,to histheories. If the probability of theexistence of a God, of the truth ofChristianity, and 0f the truth ofRomanism, are dependent on eachother, then it must be less probable that Romanism is true thanthat Theism or the fact of thedivine mission of Christ is true.

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:0

8 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

274 [September,Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologia.’

If, on the other hand, the probabilities are independent, what becomes of the argument that everyconsistent man who is not 0. R0manist, must be an Atheist? If,independently of the probability ofRomanism, there is a separate probability in favour both of Theismand of Christianity, Theism orChristianity may be believed on theground of those probabilities, andthat without resorting to Rome.

You may believe that Z was inthe place at the time in question,because you believe A, who says hesaw him there, and B, who says hesaw him coming away; and at the

same time you may think that C,who says he saw him going, wasmistaken, and that D, who comparedthe footmarks, is telling a lie. Butif the whole depended on A~if,for instance, he alone knew Z, andknew that the shoes were Z’s shoes,then if A were proved to be a liar,the evidence of B and C, who sawan unknown person in such andsuch places, and the evidence of D,who fitted certain shoes to certainmarks, would be worthless.

This misapprehension of the na—

ture of probability vitiates the wholeof Dr. Newman’s theory. Butler isquite right in teaching that, forsome practical purposes, a probability may be much the same asa certainty. A man may be wisein acting even upon a slight probability, as in fact we all do whenwe insure our houses against fire.He may be morally bound to actupon the supposition that there isa God, although he thinks it doubtful; but if he is to be an honestman, he is also bound to bear inmind the fact that it is a probability on which he is acting, andto keep himself open to conviction in case further evidence shouldbe discovered.

Dr. Newman never does this.With him probability is not the guideof life but the tyrant of thought. ‘ Onthe whole,’ he seems to say,

‘ I thinkthere is a God. Therefore I willargue as if there were no doubtat all that the particular conception of God; which I at this moment possess is absolutely true.That conception of God makes

Christianity probable. ThereforeI will assume not only that Godsent Christ into the world, but thatChrist delivered a definite set ofdogmas to certain specific peoplewho were formed into a perpetualsociety for the sake of preservingthem. I can and will recognizeno other form of revelation thanthis. God must have chosen thisform of revelation, or else there isno God at all.’ Having got so far,it next becomes necessary to findthis society and these dogmas inthepresent day. ‘ I freely admit,’ he saysin effect, ‘ that there is no society ortheology which has all the “ notes "

which such a society or theologyought to have. There are facts, suchas the existence of the Greek Church,which it is very hard to reconcilewith the Roman claim to supremacy.There are Roman practices—if, in~

deed, they may not be called doctrines; for every practice implies adoctrine which 'justifies its use—such as theworship of the VirginMary, which neither Christ northe early Christians thought of;but then I comfort myself with thereflection that there are similarobjections to the existence of Godand the mission of Christ. And as Ihave made up my mind to thosedoctrines, notwithstanding theseobjections, I will do so in this case

also.’ It would be at once moresimple and more true to say, ‘ I believe in this system because it suitsmy tastes and feelings; because Ihappen to like it; and because I consider truth unattainable, and thesearch for it laborious and troublesome.’

To support this conclusion, it isnecessary to go more at large intoDr. Newman’s statement of hisviews, and to show how, whilsthe supposes himself to take probability as the guide of his life, hereally attaches an arbitrary valueto his own feelings and wishes,choosing the probabilities which helikes and turning his back on thosewhich he dislikes. Thus his generalview of religion is not the result of

'

an honest balancing of probabilities,but is a castle in the air, built indefiance of probabilities to suit thetaste of the architect.

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:0

9 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

1864.] 275Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologia.’

To begin at the beginning, he says,‘ I am a Catholic by virtue of mybelieving in a God; and if I am askedwhy I believe in a God, I answerthat it is because I believe in myself,for I feel it impossible to believe inmy own existence (and of that I amquite sure) without believing inHim who lives as a personal allseeing, all-judging being in my ownconscience.’ The foundation of Dr.Newman’s belief is thus belief inhimself, in his own existence, andof that he is quite sure. Why Dr.Newman does not doubt his ownexistence in the sense in which heaffirms it is not clear. He means ofcourse to assert the existence of hissoul as a personal unit distinct fromhis body. There is no reason whyhe should be quite sure of this. Theexistence of the soul cannot be calleda self-evident first truth. This, however, is by the way: though he oughtby right to be still more sceptical,there is scepticism enough and tospare in Dr. Newman. He proceeds :—

‘ Starting with the being of a God(which, as I have said, is as certainto me as the certainty of my ownexistence, though when I try to putthe grounds of that certainty intological shape, I find a difficulty indoing so in mood and figure to mysatisfaction), I look out of myselfinto the world of men, and thereI see a sight which fills me withunspeakable distress. The worldseems simply to give the lie to thatgreat truth of which my wholebeing is so full, and the effect uponme is in consequence, as a matter ofnecessity, as confounding as if it

_denied that I am in existence myself.It I looked into a mirror and didnot see my face, I should have thesort of feeling which actually comes

upon me when I look into thisliving busy world and see no reflection of its Creator. This is tome one of the great difficulties ofthis absolute primary truth to whichI referred just now. Were it notfor this voice speaking so clearly inmy conscience and my heart, Ishould be an atheist, or a pantheist,or a polythcist, when I looked intothe world. I am speaking for myself only, and I am far from denying

the real force of the arguments inproof of a God, drawn from thegeneral facts of human society; butthese do not warm me or enlightenme.’ He then goes on to speak ofthe world at large and human affairsas a wild confusion. He tells usof ‘ the impotent conclusion of longstanding facts, thc tokens so faintand broken of a superintendingdesign, the blind evolution of whatturn out to be great powers ,ortruths, the progress of things as iffrom unreasoning elements, not towards first causes,’ &c. ‘All this,’he says, ‘is a vision to dazzle andappal.’

The appalling vision suggeststhe reflection that ‘2)“ there be aGod, since there is a God, the humanrace is implicated in some terribleaboriginal calamity. This is a factas true as the fact of its existence.’Then, ‘supposing it were theblessed and loving will of theCreator to interfere in ithis anarchical condition of things,’ would itnot be natural to suppose that hewould raise up some miraculous‘ face-to-face antagonist by which towithstand and baths the fierceenergy of purpose and the all-corroding, all-dissolving scepticism ofthe intellect in religious inquiries?’

Reason, he seems to think, isas corrupt as other parts of ournature. ‘I have no intention atall to deny that truth is the realobject of our reason, and that,if it does not attain to truth,either the premise or the process isin fault; but I am not speaking ofright reason, but of reason as it actsin fact and concretely in fallen man.I know that even the unaided reason,when correctly exercised, leads to abelief in God, in the immortality ofthe soul, and in a future retribution;but I am considering it actually andhistorically; and in this point ofview, I do not think I am wrong insaying that its tendency is towardsa simpleunbelief in matters of religion. No truth, however sacred,can stand against it

,

in the longrun; and hence it is that in thepagan world, when our Lord came,the last traces of the religious knowledge of former times were all but

disappearing from those portions of

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:0

9 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

276 [SeptemberDr. New'man’s ‘Apologia.’

the world in which the intellect hadbeen active and had had a career.’

Much as its author strugglesagainst it

,

the plain inference fromall this melancholy eloquence is, thatreason proves the truth of Atheismas against all persons who believein God on the ground of argumentsdrawn from facts exterior to themselves. His anxious attempts to avoidthis inference do not really save him.He says such arguments may betrue, but they do not ‘ warm or fenlighten me.’ Arguments are meantnot to warm or enlighten, but to convince; and these delicate metaphorscan mean nothing else than ‘ I thinkthese arguments are not sound;though as others think they are,

I will not directly deny their soundness.’ So, again, what is ‘reasonacting concretely and in fallen man ’

except bad argument? To talk offallen or corrupt reason in anyother sense than reason making mistakes, is like talking of a corruptmultiplication table, in some othersense than an incorrect multiplication table. Bossuet says withperfect truth that the use of thereason is to reason, that it maybe seduced into reasoning wronglyby passion, and that when it is so

seduced, it is corrupt and fallen.Now nothing, except the reasonitself, can show that a particularargument is false, or that in accepting it the reason of a particularman fell or became corrupt; andthus Dr. Newman is bound eitherto admit that Atheism is reasonable, or, which is the same thing,that it is true; or else to show by uncorrupt or correct reasoning why it is

not tobe believed. However he maywish to do so, he cannot maintain thatthe process which leads to Atheism

is correct, but that the conclusiondoes not follow. Nothing is morecharacteristic of his peculiar so

phistry than the way in which heinsinuates this by throwing thenecessary dash of pathetic obscurityinto his argument at the rightmoment, by saying that an argument does not ‘ warm or enlighten’him, when he ought to say roundlywhether he believes in it or not,and by using a set of phrases aboutright reason and reason acting con

cretely in fallen man, when he reallymeans, and can mean, nothing butgood arguments and bad arguments.

He pursues his argument. If it

were God’s 'will to set this state ofthings right, ‘ there is nothing to surprise the mind if he should think fitto introduce a power into the worldinvested with the prerogative of in—

fallibility in religious matters . . . . Apower possessed of infallibility inreligious teaching is happily adaptedto be a working instrument in thecourse of human affairs for smitinghard and throwing back the immense energy of the aggressive intellect.’ The Roman CatholicChurch claims to be such a powerand its teaching is consistent withits pretensions. ‘The initial doctrine of the infallible teacher mustbe an emphatic protest against theexisting state of mankind ;’ and theChurch teaches ‘ that it is better forthe sun and moon to drop fromheaven, for the earth to fail, and forall the many millions on it to die ofstarvation in extremest agony, thanthat one soul, I will not say shouldbe lost, but should commit onesingle venial sin, should tell onewilful untruth, or should steal onepoor farthing without excuse.’

The idleness of a single schoolboy in respect of not learning a

single lesson, ora single outbreak oftemper 0n the part of afretful child,

is an indefinitely greater calamitythan the earthquake of Lisbon, plusthe plague of London and theBlack Death. It seems to followthat if Dr. Newman had to choosebetween giving a warning whichwould save thousands of lives, as bygoing a mile to a telegraphpffice towarn the people of Sheffield of thebursting of the dam, and preventing

a venial sin by sitting at home,while the warning might have beengiven, and preventing a naughtyboy from playing truant, he oughtto choose the latter—to prevent thesin and permit the catastrophe.

The Church also claims to ‘ rescuehuman nature from its misery. . . .

by lifting it up to a higher levelthan its own,’ and that by means of‘a certain inward spiritual grace imparted directly from above.’ Hence

‘ the distinctions between nature and

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:0

9 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

1864.] 277Dr. Newma'n’s ‘Apologia.’

grace, and between outward and inward religion, become further ar—

ticles in the preamble of her divine_commission.’

The infallibility claimed for thepurpose of ‘pertinaciously inflicting’ and ‘vigorously reiterating’these truths on mankind, claims ‘ tohave for itself a. sure guidance intothe very meaning of every portionof the divine message in detailwhich was committed by Our Lordto his apostles. It claims to knowits own limits and to decide what itcan determine absolutely and whatnot. It claims, moreover, to have ahold upon statements not directlyreligious so faras this—to determinewhether they indirectly relate toreligion, and, according to its owndefinitive judgment, to pronouncewhether or not, in a particular case,

they are consistent with revealedtruth. It claims to decide magis

' terially, whether infallibly or not,that such and such statements areor are not prejudicial to the apostolicdepositum of faith in their spirit orin their consequences, and to allowthem or condemn and forbid themaccordingly. It claims to imposesilence at will on any matters orcontroversies of doctrine which, onits own ipsc diwit, it pronounces tobe angerous or inexpedient or inopportune. It claims that whatevermay be the judgment of Catholicsupon such acts, these acts should bereceived by them with . . . outwardmarks of reverence, submission, andloyalty.’

So far from being opposed toreason, Dr. Newman considers thatthis power brings reason into play.It is its eternal counterpoise, andbrings out its powers.

‘ The energyof the human intellect “does fromopposition grow ;” it thrives andis joyous, with a tough elasticstrength, under the terrible blowsof the divinely-fashioned weapons.’‘~It is the vast Catholic body itself,and it alone, which affords an arenafor both combatants in that awfulnever-dying duel,’ ——that awfulnever—dying duel, which producedin the course of about eight centuries the doctrine of the ImmaculateConception. Dr. Newman admitsfairly enough that the collateral inci

dental claims of the Church arestill more startling. ‘The CatholicChurch claims not only to judgeinfalliny on religious questions, butto animadvert on opinions on secular matters which bear upon religion, on matters of philosophy, ofscience, of literature, of history, andit demands our submission to herclaim. It claims to censure books,to silence authors, and to forbiddiscussions.’ In the exercise ofthis power the Church may be rightor wrong. ‘It must of course beobeyed without a word, and perhapsin process of time it will tacitlyrecede from its own injunctions.’The security to mankind against theabuse of this power is in the goodness of those who wield it. It hasnot, in fact, been the enemy ofintellect. It has, on the contrary,been rather its servant than itsmaster. The Church has usuallywaited till it saw which way thebattle was going, and has thenbrought down the full weight ofinfallibility on the conquered.Victrix causa ecclesize placuit.

This argument is so wonderfulthat it requires some acquaintancewith Dr. Newman’s mind to believe, as we do, that he used itin perfect good faith. He says,‘ It is individuals and not the HolySee which has [‘

2 who have] takenthe initiative, and given the leadto Catholic minds in theologicalinquiry. Indeed, it is one of thereproaches urged against the Churchof Home that it has originatednothing, and has only served as a

sort of remora or break in the development of doctrine. And it is anobjection which I embrace as a truth,for such I conceive to be the mainpurpose of its extraordinary gift.. . . . The great luminary of thewestern world is, we know, St.Augustine; he, no infallible teacher,has formed the intellect of Europe.. . . The case is the same as regardsthe Ecumenical Councils; authority in its most imposing exhibition.Grave bishops, laden with the traditions and rivalries of particularnations or places, have been guidedin their decisions by the commanding genius of individuals, sometimesyoung and of inferior rank. Not

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:1

0 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

278 [September,Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologia.’

that uninspired intellect overruledthe superhuman gift which wascommitted to the Council, whichwould be a self-contradictory asser—

tion, but that in that process ofinquiry and deliberation whichended in an infallible enunciation,individual reason was paramount.’He then proceeds to give a description of the scholastic activity of theMiddle Ages. Disputes were raisedin the schools, thence they passed tothe universities, and at last ‘ Authority is called upon to pronounce a

decision which has been alreadyarrived at by reason.’ Besides, as

the Church is strong it is merciful.It very seldom decides, and when itdoes, it is extremely tender to itsopponents. ‘ By reason of the verypower of the Popes, they have commonly been slow and moderate intheir use of it.’ Lastly, he tells uswhat infallibility has done. ‘ Whathave been its great works? Allof them in the distinct province oftheology—to put down Arianism,Eutychianism, Pelagianism, Manichsaism, Lutheranism, Jansenism.That is the broad result of its actionin the past.’

Dr. Newman, for his own part,entirely believes in the Church, andhas full satisfaction in his belief.He views the difficulties which

- apply to its doctrines, not as ‘difliculties’ in the sense of bars whichprevent belief till they are removed, but as difficulties in theproper sense—like the difficultyof understanding the differentialcalculus. Thus he says, ‘ Ten thousand difficulties do not make one

doubt, as I understand the subject;difficulty and doubt are incommen~surate.’ Taking transubstantiationas a specimen, he says,

‘ It is difficult,impossible, to imagine, I grant; buthow is .it difficult to believe? . . .

For myself I cannot indeed prove it,

I cannot tell how it is; but I saywhy should it not be? What is tohinder it? What do I know ofsubstance or matter ? Just as muchas the greatest philosophers, andthat is nothing at all.’

Such, as we understand it,

isDr. Newman’s creed. Let us nowconsider whether it is an honestcreed—the creed of an inquirer,who cares more for truth than forany other object in the world; ora mere piece of advocacy delivered by an ingenious man infavour of a system which he hasadopted because it has enlisted hisfeelings and his fears against bothhis interest and his reason. It is fairto Dr. Newman to admit, and indeedto insist upon, the fact that his mental obliquity is neither fraudulentnor sordid. It is of that kind whichgoes with the fondness of a lover.He appears to us in the light of

a man who, having been infatuatedby a woman neither young, lovely,nor virtuous, marries her at theexpense of destroying all his prospects in life, and of throwing upall his connexions, and who then exhausts every resource of his mind inproving that she combines, in idealperfection, eternal youth, perfectbeauty, and every moral and mentalgrace which could adorn *such aperson. Such conduct producesmixed feelings. It can neither beapprovednor despised. But surely

it is neither unjust nor uncharitableto say of such a man that he _doesnot care for truth as truth; thathe builds castles in the air and noton the ground; and that the generaltendency of his writings and speculations is unfavourable to honestyin its widest sense. This fault is

a very common one. The same ac

cusation might be brought on verysimilar grounds, against such menas Pascal and Joseph 1e Maistref‘and, indeed, perfect honesty in theconduct of the mind is a rare virtue.

To exemplify this in detail, let usbegin with Dr. Newman’s cardinalarticle—his belief in God. If hisviews upon this great subject appearto be fundamentally sophistical, it

will be no wonder if every other partof his creed is tainted with the samefault. In his later writings he hasdwelt much upon this subject, notonly in the Apologia, but more

* It would be a curious inquiry, which we may possibly attempt on some futureoccasion, whether Bishop Butler has not in some instaan acted the part of an advocate

under the disguise ofajudge?

a

i".

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:1

0 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

1864.] 279Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologia.’

particularly in the thirteenth, four;tcenth, and fifteenth of his discourses addressed to mixed congregations. The last part of the Apologia contains a condensed summaryof his views. .

His general scheme of doctrineupon this subject is to drive men toan alternative between Popery andAtheism. As he says, in one of hissermons, ‘Cease to believe in Catholicism and you become Protest‘ant, Unitarian, Deist, Pantheist,Sceptic, in a dreadful but infalliblesuccession.’ This is his controversial object. Viewing the matterfrom the explanatory and historical side, he says that he is a Catholic because he believes in God,and he believes in God because heisinwardly conscious of the existence of ‘Him who lives as a personal all-seeing, all-judging beingin his own conscience.’ He addsthat he should be an atheist, a pantheist, or a polytheist, but for thisdivine voice. He tells us that ‘ notruth, however sacred, can standagainst the reason in the long run.’Though, ‘ correctly exercised,’ ittends to a belief in God, and a futurestate of rewards and punishments;yet, ‘ as it acts in fact and concretelyin fallen man, its tendency is to—

wards simple unbelief in mattersof religion.’ He speaks for himselfalone, but he is ‘ neither warmed norenlightened

’ by the arguments (thismust mean that he does not agreewith the arguments) in favour ofthe existence of God drawn from‘ the general facts of human society.’In the sermons he amplifies anddwells upon the considerations towhich he shortly refers in theApologia. He labours two points.First, that God’s existence is certain;and, secondly, that it involves mysteries crushing to the reason. Asto the first he says, ‘Every one

spontaneously embraces the doctrineof the existence of God as a firstprinciple and a necessary assumption. It is not so much proved tohim as borne in upon his mindirresistibly as a truth which it does

not occur to him, nor is it possiblefor him to doubt; so various and so

abounding is the witness for it con

tained in the experience and theVOL. Lxx. N0. ccccxvn.

conscience of every one.’ He thendwells upon the ‘mysteries anddifliculties’ of the doctrine, ‘whichmust be acquiesced in by every onewho believes it.’ These mysteriesor difficulties are, ‘first, that Almighty God had no beginning, andthat this is necessary from thenature of the case. . Tosay that a being had no beginningseems a contradiction in terms; it isa mystery as great or greater thanany in the Catholic faith.’ Next hesays, ‘Think of this again, whichthough not so baffling to the reason,still is most bewildering to theimagination, that if the Almightyhad no beginning he must havelived a whole eternity by himself.’Besides this, ‘ since the world exists,and did not ever exist,’ there was atime when the Almighty changedthe state of things which had lastedfrom all eternity for another. Nexthe says,

‘ Let us suppose the innovation decreed in the eternal purpose_of the Most High, and that creationis to be; of what, my brethren, shallit consist?’ Reason, he thinks,would suggest that the world madeby such a being would be far moreglorious than it is. He then proceeds to describe its actual state,in a passage which it is difficult tocondense so as to do justice to theauthor, and which it is impossible toread without feeling that the loveof exercising his gift of piling upmountains of dreary eloquence hasseduced its author into speaking mostharshly and, as it seems to us, faithlessly of man and his Maker. Wesee an universe, material for themost part and corruptible, fashionedindeed by laws of infinite skill, andbetokening an all-wise hand, butlifeless and senseless; huge globes‘hurled into space and moving mechanically.’ Next we see ‘myriadsof trees and plants, the grassof the field, beautiful to the eye,but perishable and worthless in thesight of heaven.’ Then comes thebrute creation, which Dr. Newmanviews with a sort of Manichaeanhorror. ‘ Millions of irrational creatures surround us, and it wouldseem as though the Creator had leftpart of his work in its originalchaos, so monstrous are these beings

U

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:1

0 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

280 [September,Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologia.’

which move, and feel, and act without reflection and without principle.

. . . The brute beasts pass to andfro in their wildness and their desolation, the enemies of all they meet,yet without the capacity of self-love.They live on each other’s flesh byan original necessity of their being;their eyes, their teeth, their claws,their muscles, their walk, theirstructure within, all speak of violence and blood.’ Last comes man.The preacher says of him, ‘ Considerman as'he is found in the world;and owning, as you must own,that the many do not act by rule orprinciple, and that few are any.honour to their Maker ; acknowledg_ing that enmities, feuds, cruelties,oppressions, injuries, and excesses

are almost the constituents of humanlife,’ &c., ‘ canyou venture to assertthat the Church’s yoke is heavy?’Upon the whole he concludes, ‘ If Imust submit my reason to mysteriesit is not much matter whether it isa mystery more or a mystery less.

The main difiiculty is to believeat all; the main difficulty to an inquirer is to hold firmly that there isa living God.’

The inference which all thissuggests, and there is much more ofthe same kind, is that if Dr. Newman was thoroughly honest hewould be an atheist. According tohim the balance of the argumentis one way and the conclusion theother. ‘ The general facts of humansociety’ point towards atheism. Thebelief in God involves what heviews as a contradiction in terms,and other difficulties, moral andintellectual, equally formidable. Iteither ascribes rfect goodness toone who creat a world of intelligent beings to be damned andtortured to all eternity, or perfectwisdom to one who, having createdsuch a world, and having becomeincarnate to save it

,

altogetherfailed to do so. It leads Dr. Newman himself to the following horrible outcry—one of the most frightful parodies of prayer that evercame from human lips. After'describing with hideous minutenessthe damnation of an average man,and appearing to presage the damnation of all but an insignificant

fraction of the adult part of therace, he says,

‘ Oh mighty God, ohGod of love, it is too much! Itbroke the heart of Thy sweet SonJesus to see the misery of menspread out before his eyes. . . .

Oh most tender heart of Jesus, whyWilt thou not end this ever growingload of sin and woe? When wiltthou chase away the devil into hisown hell and close the pit’s mouth,that the redeemed may rejoicewith thee; quitting the thought ofthose that perish in their wilfulness ‘3

’

As the great mass of mankind,Roman Catholics included—(‘ It is

. one opinion,’ says Dr. Newman, ‘ entertained among divines and holymen, that the number of Catholicsthat are\t0 be saved will on thewhole be small,’ and other languagewhich he uses appears to favourthat opinion)—are all to be eternally ‘shut up with the devil in

'

his own hell,’ it would seem thatselfish thoughtlessness must contribute largely to the happiness ofthe redeemed; but this is by theway. The important thing is thatDr. Newman is prepared to believeall this for no one reason exceptthat he has a conviction in his ownmind as to the nature and attributesof God, to which all relevant facts

‘ give the lie.’ Surely he, as an educated man, must know that there isno subject in the world on which menhave difl‘ered so much, or appealedwith so much confidence to contradictory first principles asserted tobe self-evident truths, as the natureand attributes of God. ‘God,’ hewould no doubt say,

‘ is just and good;and this I know by the inner voiceof which I speak.’ Others wouldsay the same; but when they cameto compare their notions of thedivine justice and goodness with his,they would be found to use thesame words to describe charactersnot only difl‘erent, but utterly discordant. The infinitely good Godof Dr. Newman, has, to use his ownlanguage, ‘ surrounded himself withthe cries of fallen souls, and hascreated and opened the great pit.’According to Mr. Francis Newman,the doctrine of eternal punishmentsthus understood is a blasphemouscontradiction of the doctrine that

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:1

1 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

1864J 281Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologia.’

God is good, and renders it unmeaning. Can it be doubted in the faceof such facts as these, that upon thisvital point the evidence supplied bythe convictions of any one mind isaltogether insufficient, and requiresto be checked by full considerationof all the evidence which theworld at large supplies ‘3 It iswell worthy of observation that inhis sermon, where his object is toheighten to the very utmost boththe certainty and—if such an expression may be used, and Dr. Newman’sown language suggests it—the absurdity of the opinion that there isa God, he affirms that every onebelieves, and that no one can helpbelieving it. Whatever he may havewritten under the influence of hislove of pathetic eloquence, he mustremember on reflection that this isnot true. There are in China threehundred millions of people who donot believe in God at all. Monotheism in the heathen world was thecreed of a very few. The great massof professing Christians of all creedsin the present day have hardlythought at all upon the subject, andbelieve in one God, principally be

cause it is the current establishedopinion of their time and country.Many of them take such a view ofthe character of Christ that it maybe fairly said that they believe ratherin two Gods than in one. Of thosewhose belief upon the subject isoriginal, and the result of thoughtor self-examination, how many takethe same view of the divine character and attributes as Dr. Newman ?And, in the face of these facts, whatis his own private conviction uponthe subject honestly worth? Howcan he say that he really, calmly,and honestly considers that it oughtto outweigh the accumulated evidence, which, as he says, exists onthe other side ‘2 The impressionunfavourable to Dr. Newman’s honesty, which prevails amongst thosewho have read his books, arises fromtheir belief that if he really tookprobability as the guide of his life,he ought to think that the existenceof God was, at most, probable enoughto influence his own conduct, butnot enough to justify him in supporting a claim on behalf of the

- this.

Pope to moral and 'reh'gious sove—

reignty over the whole world. Sucha belief might distress him, but if it '

is the legitimate inference from hisprinciples, he ought to bear thedistress.

It is plain enough to any one whoreads the sermons to which we havereferred, not only that Dr. Newmandoes put the whole subject of theexistence of God on a false footing,but that he gains a controversialobject by doing so. His wish is toshow that there are mysteries connected with it as great as tho mystery of transubstantiation, or anyother tenet of the Romish Church.We have shown how, in order to dothis, he begins by making an obviously false assertion about thefoundation on which the belief inGod does in fact rest; how he represents, as a first principle ‘spontaneously embraced,’ a doctrinewhich has made its way slowly andpartially, and which is not even nowacknowledged by a majority of thehuman race. Let us now inquirehow far he succeeds in this attemptto connect this great doctrine withwhat he calls mysteries, and whatothers would call absurdities, forthe purpose of showing that it isindependent of and even hostile tothe reason. For this purpose itwould be necessary to show thatevery one who believes in Godaflirms, or ought to affirm, either acontradiction like that which ascribes infinite benevolence to a beingwho knowingly creates a world undersuch circumstances that nearly allof its inhabitants are sure to bedamned to all eternity, or else aproposition which, if it does notcontradict the senses, is altogether unmeaning, like the ‘proposition that the substance of thebread of the sacrament is changedinto the body of Christ. In no oneinstance can he show anything like

All that he really shows isthat our knowledge, or reasonableconjectures about the divine nature,leave many questions unanswered.He never shows that they force usto admit the truth of absurdities.

He refers to four such mysteries:one metaphysical, two imaginative,and one moral. The metaphysical

U 2

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:1

7 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

282 [September,Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologia.’ ,‘

difficulty is,

that ‘Almighty God hadno beginning, and this is necessaryfrom the nature of the case ;’ and headds that it is ‘ a mystery as greator greater than any in the Catholicfaith to say that a being had nobeginning.’ It is perfectly truethat we are utterly unable to answerthe question how being first began,or whether the word ‘began,’ as

applied to anything which is notthe immediate object of our ownsensations, has any meaning; butwhat then? The fact that ourknowledge is limited does not provethat we are obliged to believe anabsurdity or contradiction, which is

what Dr. Newman seems to understand by a mystery. The ‘ generalfacts of human nature’ lead me tobelieve that an intelligent, and onthe whole, a benevolent, consciousBeing formed and superintends thisworld. Dr. Newman says,

‘ Do yousay that this Being existed for everwithout a beginning?’ I say I

know nothing at all about it. I

have not the means of forming eventhe faintest guess on the subject.Then says Dr. Newman, ‘ What pretence can you possibly have fordenying that this piece of bread is

God Almighty? A mystery moreor less, what does it matter ?’ The factthat -I know nothing at all aboutthe beginning of God, that I donot "even know whether the wordshave any sort of signification, does

not prevent me from knowingperfectly well that this is bread inthe only sense which I attach to theword, and nothing else but bread.Our knowledge, of course, is limited ;

but to deny that it is real, as far as

it goes, is to assert absolute scepticism on all subjects. Perhaps inanother state of being I may cometo know more than I now do aboutthe nature of God; but in the meantime, and as at present advised, Iassert that this is breadde nothingelse; and to give up that beliefbecause there are many thingsof which I am ignorant, is likedoubting the multiplication tablebecause I am ignorant of the dii'fer-

'

ential calculus. _

The next two mysteries are thatGod ‘lived a whole eternity by himself,’ and that he innovated on a state

of things which had lasted for aneternity. How does Dr. Newmanknow that? God may have createdworlds upon worlds from all eternity;and this world may be a mere linkin some vast chain. There may be,and probably are, millions of worldsall around us, impalpable and invisible to our coarse senses. Havethe microscope and telescope nolessons? Here again Dr. Newmantries to confound ignorance withmystery; but his attempt is futile.

I know very little, but what I doknow suggests to my mind thenotion of a God. ‘ If there be such

a being, since there is such a being,’

I know very little about him; butthat is no reason why I shouldobscure what I do know, or mayreasonably conjecture on probablegrounds, by debating questions ofpure curiosity with which I haveno concern and on which I have noevidence. ‘ A thousand difliculties,’says Dr. Newman, ‘ do not make onedoubt.’ A Protestant may say, ‘ Theexistence of millions of unanswerable questions does not oblige me tobelieve a single absurdity. How didman come upon the earth? Ismatter infinitely divisible or not?

I have not the least notion; butfor all that I can assert manythings about both man and matterwith confidence; and by continually adding to my store ofknowledge I hope to diminishmy ignorance. If I adopted Dr.Newman’s principles, I should feelthat I was embracing absolutescepticism upon all subjects, in thehope of coming to think at last thatone absurdity was as good asanother. All his mysteries fall topieces before aman who says,

“ I donot know.”’

The last mystery is of a differentkind. It relates to the existence ofevil. Here, no doubt, Dr. Newmanhas hit upon something real. ‘ Howcan you believe,’ he says, ‘in a goodGod when the world is what yousee?’ No doubt the state of theworld does and must embarrassevery believer in a good God. It isthe common difliculty of all creeds.It tells equally against them all, andgives no advantage to any one. Itmay be dealt with in various ways.

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:1

8 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

1864.] 283Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologia.’

An honest inquirer may either say,Evil is an exception for which Icannot account altogether, thoughI can make probable guesses as tothe nature of some forms of it; butthe general plan of the world, bothphysical and moral, is beneficent.For practical purposes I assumethat there is a beneficent God, butI do not forget that there are factswhich look in the other direction,and they diminish my confidence inmy conclusion as far as they go. Itis like a case of conflicting evidence.A decision is practically necessary.Suchadecision can be based on partonly of the whole case. I will acton the balance of the testimony, butI will do so with a profound senseof my own extreme ignorance, andwith extreme willingness to acceptfurther information. This is moreor less consciously the modern Protestant view.

Another perfectly honest courseis to say, I can make nothing of it.I can form no opinion at all uponthe subject, and I will dismiss itfrom my mind. This is atheism.

A third honest view is that whichwas taken by Hume. He seems tohave believed in a God of a mixedcharacter, corresponding to thatmixed world from which his existencewas to be inferred. The objectionto this view is, that it is of no practical use. The existence or nonexistence of such a being wouldhave no bearing on our conduct.

A fourth way of dealing withthe subject is that which is takenby Dr. Newman and by other writersof great note, both Roman Catholicand Protestant, from Pascal downto the author of the Eclipse (fFaith (a long and steep descent).The object of those who hold this,invariably is to exalt some form ofauthority at the expense of reason;and the artifice which they useconsists in inferring from difficultiesin the evidence, a radical Ldefect inthe instrument which weighs theevidence and recognizes the existence of the difficulties. Theargument, thrown into the plainestshape, would run somewhat thus:No proposition about God canrightlybe called unreasonable, forthe evidence as to God's existence

and attributes is obscure, and tosome extent conflicting.

To state such an argument is torefute it. I maybe perfectly able tosee that a propositionis unmeaning,though I may be unable to see whatis the inference from a fact. Dr.Newman says,‘ God is a God of loveand infinitely good, and he createdan immense proportion of mankind tobe eternally tormented in hell fire.’I answer, ‘ Either half of the proposition is open to proof; but puttogether, the two halves make nonsense.’ Dr. Newman re lies, ‘ Youyourself say that Go is good,yet he is the author of plague,famine, war, crime, and ignorance.’I rejoin, ‘ I think God iS gOOd, thoughhe is the author of these amongstother things. If he was the authorof nothing else; if Iagreed with youin thinking that “enmities, frauds,cruelties, oppressions, injuries, andexcesses

” were “ almost the constituents of human life,” I shouldsay that God was very far fromgood; that in so far as he had anymoral character at all he was bad.Evil is not my evidence of God’sgoodness. As far as it goes it isevidence the other way. I do notdraw the inference which it suggestsbecause it is overbalanced by otherevidence. That there is in mangreat evil, of which I can give noaccount at all, an evil which I haveno objection to call original sin, Iadmit with sorrow; that that evilmay go on bearing fruit indefinitely, I do not deny. I can saynothing about it; but if I did notbelieve that this was the exception,that the general run and currentof human life, aye, and of humanpassion and feeling, was good, Ishould not believe that God wasgood. I probably should not believe in God at all. You are toprove that God gave Pius IX.authority to forbid all discussionson all subjects which he does notapprove of—that he gave the predecessors of Pius IX. authority toburn or cause to be burnt every onewho denied transubstantiation—thathe authorized popes and councilsto invent, or, as you call it

,

todevelop a series of doctrines, one

more monstrous and absurd than

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:1

8 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

284 [September,Dr. Newmaa’s ‘Apologia.’

the other, and enforce them on theworld on pain of torture here andhell-fire hereafter; and what witnesses do you call for the purpose ?You call the plague, the small-pox,epilepsy, idiotcy, raging madness;you take me through hospitals,over fields of battle; you tell mehow thousands are swallowed alivein earthquakes, how millions perishin plagues; and you go beyond allthis, you taunt me with my ignoranceand weakness ; you show me that mysoul is stained with guilt; that Iam infirm of purpose, unsteady inexecution; that death will woundmy afi'ections and chance thwart mydesigns; and then you, or some ofyour allies, for you at least are agentleman, grin in my face,* andsay, “ It was this good God of yoursthat did all this; can you wonder ifafter all he damns you and yoursfor all eternity?” Sometimes youalmost tempt me to believe the inference which you ought to draw;You almost make me think that youare right, that there is a bad God as

well as a good one—a being whocreated disease, and war, and sin.It is easy to understand how sucha being might have invented thedoctrine of transubstantiation, andestablished the Inquisition to burnmen for denying it.’

You do not, however, altogethersucceed. Whatever may be thesuggestions of constitutional melancholy and haughty dreariness ofdis osition, no rational man who100's calmly at things and is accustomed to attach meanings tohis words can admit that theworld is bad in grain. There is acertain temptation to think and saythat it is. Such a belief affords aninexhaustible theme for patheticeloquence and gloomy candonr. Itenables a melancholy person to indulge to the utmost the sullenpleasure of condemning and secretlyand piously despising his neighbours, and their little pains andpleasures; but for all that it is nottrue. Take the strongest case infavour of Dr. Newman’s views, andthe constitution of life presents evi~

dence, on the whole, of a beneficent

design. Look, for instance, at theChinese Empire. There live somethree hundred million human creatures who are subject to fearfulcalamities. A civil war, horriblebeyond all conception, has just destroyed some millions of them. Yeh,it was said, ordered 70,000 executions in Canton alone. In somerespects, and according to our notions of morality, they are horriblyimmoral. The lives of many of themare most impure: they practise infanticide, they are great liars, insome respects they are very cruel.This is the black side of things;make as much as you lease of it,but do not forget the right side.For several thousand years an enormous population has lived, on thewhole, in peace, and in fair averagecomfort, under a government whichhas great merits, for it encouragesfilial affection, personal industry,and individual talent in the highestdegree. Notwithstanding the frightful rebellions which have occasionally raged, and of which we havejust seen a specimen, the land, on.the whole, has enjoyed a greaterdegree of peace than any othercountry in the world. Vice in Chinaseems to be a dreadful thing; but,as in Europe, it is the exception andnot the rule; and this is proved, itproof be seriously required, by thevery fact that society goes onThe average Chinaman passes mostof his time in working for his living,which is a good and virtuous thing;in educating his children, which isa good and virtuous thing; in discharging the duties of a man andcitizen, which again is good andvirtuous. That he usually succeedsin his efforts is shown by the factthat his country is the most popuIons in the world; that on thewhole, and in some most essentialrespects, it is singularly well educated ; and that its government, notwithstanding obvious blemishes andfaults, is, on the whole, both popular~and efficient. Indeed, many veryintelligent observers—Mr. Meadows,for instance, and Mr. Fortune, speakvery favourably of the average.Chinese and their average moral

* See for instance the Eclipse of Faith, and Mr, Greyson’s Letters.

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:1

9 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

1864.] 285.Dr. Newmom’s ‘Apologia.’

character. Add to this that Godmade the Cbinese,—that he has seen

fit to put the vast majority of themin such a position that they neverhad the chance of beingChristians,and how is it possible to deny that,on the whole, human life in China israther good than had; or that it is,on the whole, pleasing to the Godwho originated it. To deny eitherof these assertions is to destroy themeaning of such words as good andbad, and to deny the possibility ofdrawing any inference at all as toGod’s will from his acts. .

It is instructive to see the natureof the propositions believed by Dr.Newman on the ground that his belief in God breaks down his reason,and compels him to accept what hecalls ‘ mysteries.’ As he believes inGod, he sees no diifieulty in believinganything. A being so monstrousmust have an equally monstrousorgan in the Church ; and the lessonswhich that organ has to teach mankind must again be expected to be

equally monstrous. For instance,Dr. Newman sees no difiiculty at allin transubstantiation. ‘ Why shouldit not be? What is to hinder it?What do I know of substance ormatter? Just as much as the greatestphilosopher, and that is nothing atall.’ What is this but reckless scepticism taking the form of the wildestsuperstition? Since such a poorwretch as man cannot attain to truthat all, why should not this be trueas well as anything else? If thereis a God, he and his thoughts andways must be so utterly unlike thisvile dunghill of a world, which heseems to have made in a freak ofomnipotent contempt, that whatappears nonsense to us is probablythe nearest approach to wisdom thatsuch contemptible wretches canreach. No sane man of coursecould go the full length of suchaudacious blasphemy as this; butthis is what really lies at the bottom of Dr. Newman’s theories. Itis what his creed comes to when itis boldly and fully carried out. Hehimself, with that merciful inconsistency which usually protects menfrom the full consequences of theirown creeds, does interpose betweenhis own mind and such a conclu

sion some thin films of argument,which no doubt hide from hiseyes the gulf over which his argu~ments are suspended by cobwebs.Thus he does not say boldly oftransubstantiation ‘ credo quia absurdwm,’ he prefers to show that it is notabsolutely inconsistent with reason,that it is the sort of thing whichmight possibly be believed if an infallible guide announced it. Hemakes this out by reducing thedoctrine from being false to beingunmeaning. ‘ The doctrine,’ he says,‘ is that the substance of the bread becomes the body of Christ; and whatdo I know of substance !’ Butif youknow nothing of substance, the proposition is unmeaning. It might aswell be that ‘the —— of the bread,’or that ‘ the square root of the bread,’becomes the body of Christ; and asthese propositions convey no mean—

ing at all to my mind, I can neither believe nor disbelieve them.They are mere idle sounds which Imay repeat, and which I may assertto conceal some truth or other; butas to believing the truth which theyconceal, 1 cannot do it, for I do notknow what it is. This, however, isa mere subterfuge. What is reallyand, so to speak, practically meantby the doctrine of transubstantiation is to assert a doctrine whichdirectly contradicts the senses, andis therefore open to Tillotson’s unanswerable argument, that it contradicts the sense of sight by anappeal to the sense of hearing; forcertainly the apostles had no otherreason for supposing that Christsaid ‘ This is my body’ than theyhad for supposing that the breadwhich be swallowed was not hisbody. They trusted their ears inthe one case, why should they nottrust their eyes in the other? Dr.Newman’s sermons abound in glorifications of the doctrine of transubstantiation. ‘Protestants,’ he says,‘ will not believe but what we wouldgladly get rid of the doctrine oftransubstantiation. . . . Shockingindeed, and most profane! a reliefto rid ourselves of the notion thatJesus is on our altars !’ How is thisconsistent with the defence whichhe sets up for the doctrine in hisApologia? If he knows‘nothing.

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:1

9 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

286 [September,Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologia.’

about substance, how does he knowthat when the substance of a pieceof bread is changed into Christ’sbody, that makes any difference inthe former relation between Christ’sbody and the phenomena of thebread ? Why should ‘ Jesus be onthe altar’ any the more after thesubstance of the bread has beenchanged into Jesus’s body than hewas before? If Dr. Newman knowswhere the ‘ substance ’ of the breadis, he does know something aboutit; yet he says he knows nothingabout it. He cannot have it bothways. If, for controversial purposes, transubstantiation is to bedefended as unmeaning, it can haveno devotional value. If for devotional purposes, it is to be interpreted to mean something whichcontradicts the senses, that meaningmust be controversially maintained;and then what is to be said to Tillot—son ?

To a Protestant the strange thingis that Dr. Newman should altogether overlook and pass by whatappears to us so clear, namely,that the doctrine of transubstantiation is in reality no more than apiece of clumsy rationalism, a crudeattempt to show what Dr. Newman says cannot be shown, namely,‘how’ the bread is turned intoChrist’s body. Dr. Hampden’saccount of the matter is what reallyrequires to be answered. Afterspeaking of scholasticism, he says,‘The subtle speculations aboutmatter and form, substance andaccident, were accordingly introduced to establish and perfect thetheory of instrumental efficiencyascribed to the rites themselves. . . .If, as is the fact, these theories aremere assumptions in physics, notresting on observation, but distinctions existing only in the mind,and applied to the analysis of external objects, it must appear thatthe process of transubstantiation isentirely an assumed one, and that itought to be discarded as an idol atonce of religion and of philosophy.’

It is curious to think of the usesto which Dr. Newman’s ‘ what do Iknow of substance ’

might be turned.There is no form of idolatry whichit would not justify. Suppose a

rude rationalist were to say to some

mild Hindoo, bowing down beforehis image, How can you be such afeel as to worship what you make?The smith .with the tongs bothworketh in the coals and fashionethit with hammers; the carpenterplaneth an ash, he maketh a gravenimage, and falleth down thereto; -

he burneth part thereof in the fire,with part thereof he eateth flesh, heroasteth roast and is satisfied ; and 0fthe residue thereof he maketh a god,and prayeth to it

,

and saith, deliverme, for thou art my god. The Hindoowould be ready with his answer,Whynot? What is to hinder it? Howdo I know what that image is or maybe ‘3 What do I know of substance ?

As much as the greatest philosopherin the world, which is just nothingat all. I worship not the image, butthe god in the image. The phenomena are unchanged, no doubt, butwho shall say what true substance

is ? Why should not God stand inmy grove as well as in the sky ? Andafter all, are my mysteries greaterthan yours ? A mystery more or less,what does it

,

matter? Is it a Protestant prejudice to think thatIsaiah has on the whole the best ofthe argument ? Yet where is the forceof what he says if a belief in theexistence of God crushes the reasonwhich accepts it?

So much for Dr. Newman’s fundamental doctrineq—his belief in God.Let us now consider the next articleof his creed, which is that the humanrace is implicated in some terribleaboriginal calamity, by which it hasbeen altogether estranged from God.This he puts forward as an explanation of the state of the world, whichsuggests the existence of an infalliblebody to set the world to rights inreligious matters. It is a singularinstance of an explanation whichleaves things darker than they werebefore. We believe in a good God.We see before us a world which,though on the whole good, is deeplytinged with evil. ‘ Then,’ says Dr.Newman, ‘the human race is implicated in some terrible aboriginalcalamity ;’ and this, he thinks, accounts for what he sees. How canthe sins of the human race accountfor the state of the animal creation,

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:1

9 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

1864] 287Dr. Newma'n’s ‘Apologia.’

which is one of the chief ‘ mysteries ’

brought forward by Dr. Newman?How, in particular, can it possiblyhave affected creatures which livedand died and underwent all mannerof suffering millions of years beforeman came upon the earth? Howdo they account for the ignoranceand weakness which, though notsinful themselves, are the causes offar the greater part of our sins?How, again, is the fact—and nodoubt it is a fact—that the innocentson suffers from the vices of theguilty parent in any way explainedor illustrated by the assertion thatmankind is ‘implicated in an aboriginal calamity ?’ The fact itself—thepossibility that men should be ‘ implicated’ in that with which theyhave no concern—is what requiresexplanation. It explains and canexplain nothing. It is, as far as itgoes, evidence (though not conclusive evidence) against the goodnessand justice, nay, against the veryexistence of God. The only inference which it really suggests is thatGod is not good. It is a merejuggle of words to say that it raisesa probability that God would takeany special measures in man’s behalf. A person whose character isotherwise kind, does an act which toall appearance is unkind and cruel.I may still, on the whole, think thathe nevertheless is kind; but I amcertainly less disposed to expect extraordinary benefits from him thanI was before. Such a state of thingsdestroys the value of d pm'om' speculations as to what God will or willnot do. It prevents me from sayingthat any course is antecedently probable, and compels me to look exclusively to the facts of the case.

This introduces the considerationof the third and last article of Dr.Newman’s creed, viz., belief in theChurch as the infallible organ andagent of God. ‘ The one belief,’ he tellsus, ‘is the result of the other.’ If, notwithstanding the condition of theworld, there is a God, and if thehuman race is absolutely estrangedfrom him, then it becomes likely thatthere will be an infallible Church;for ‘a power possessed of infallibility in religious teaching is happilyadapted to be a working instrument

in the course of human affairs forsmiting hard and throwing back theimmense power of the aggressiveintellect.’ The Roman CatholicChurch claims this character; andas I know of no other claimant,taking probability as the guide ofmy life, I assume that the RomanCatholic Church is infallible. Is thisan honest argument, or is it mereadvocacy, fitted for nothing but thejustification of an existing institutionwhich happens to strike the advocate’s fancy? The remarks alreadymade upon Dr. Newman’s reasonsfor believing in God apply with redoubled force to his belief in theChurch.

When the matter is candidlyexamined, the antecedent probability on which the whole theoryis built will be found to vanishaltogether. What course is sucha being as the God in whom Dr.Newman believes likely to take withrespect to a world altogether es

tranged from him? The questionanswers itself. It is utterly impossible to say, a priori, that anycourse whatever is probable. Tolook at the facts, and see what, inpoint of fact, he actually has done, isthe only course that can lead toanything that can be called even amoderately satisfactory result. Wemay, indeed, have recourse, to some

extent, to analogy, and so far asthat is any guide, it leads to a conclusion opposed to Dr. Newman’s.God is the author of all the relationsof life—family relations, politicalrelations, moral relations, physicalrelations, and it is in reference tothese very relations that man’s es—

trangement from God becomes evident. Yet in none of them is thereany infallible guide for man; thougheach deeply afi'ects his value, so tospeak, in his Maker’s eyes. What ismore important than the family relations? what more fallible than aparent? Every action of our livesis more or less affected by the lawsand institutions of our country;yet there is no such thing as an infallible government. Morality ismatter of daily application. Foronce that a man has occasion tothink of a theological principle, hehas to refer to morals a thousand

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:2

0 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

288 [September,Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologia.’

times; yet, in Dr. Newman’s account of the infallibility of theChurch, he does not include thepower of setting forth a code ofmorals. His account of Liguori’swritings seems to imply that anegative approbation at most isgiven to works of casuistry approved by the Church: Liguoriis pronounced ‘free from any so—

ever theological censure,’ but it isnot said that all his opinions aretrue. If in morals, in politics,in law, in the family relations, inmatters of physical science, it hasnot pleased God to give men anyinfallible guide; if in theology nosuch guidance was given to any ofthem for several thousand years;if it is given at present only toa minority even of the Christianworld; and if it is given to themwith such insufficient evidence thatlarge numbers of perfectly honestinquirers deny that it ever wasgiven at all, how can it be said that,given the existence of God and theworld, there is an a}priori probabilitythat God will give men an infallibleguide to religious truth?

That God might do that, as hemight do anything else, is no doubtconceivable, and it is possible toimagine an amount of evidencewhich would compel us to believethat in point of fact he had done it;but to say that the antecedent probability that he would do it is suchthat slight evidence 'would be

enough to show that he had doneit, is to talk at random It may,perhaps, be said that if the divinemission of Christ is admitted, theprobability in question is increased;but this is not so. We can as littlejudge beforehand of the coursewhich God incarnate would take inreference to the world, as of thecourse which God would take apartfrom such an event. Whether hewould establish such a society asDr. Newman contends for; whetherhe would confer upon men greatbenefits, the exact nature and extent of which time and experiencewould unfold; whether he wouldcause books to be written containing an explanation of his message; whether those books wouldbe infallible or not, and, if not,

what would be the degree of theirinfallibility; whether they would beambiguous and incomplete ; and whatwould be the limits of their ambiguity and incompleteness, are questions on which no man's antecedentopinion is worth anything at all.There is but one true course, andthat is to look at the facts, and seewhat in point of fact God actuallydid. Look at history, and seewhether there is such a body as aninfallible church; look at criticism,and say whether there is such athing as an infallible book. If history and criticism say no, there isnot, it is idle to spin arguments toshow that there must be. If thesematters are not questions of fact tobe tried by the reason like any others,they are questions which cannot bedecided by any assignable processwhatever.

Even the earliest facts in Christianhistory are altogether unfavourableto Dr. Newman’s view. We knowas a fact that the apostles constantlymisunderstood Christ when he wason earth, that they disputed witheach other after his crucifixion, thatthey were for a length of time undera mistaken notion that the worldwas about to come to an end almostimmediately: Two of them at least——St. James and St. Paul—heldopinions which, if not irreconcilable,are to all appearance contradictory,upon a most important theologicalquestion. That they were closelyunited in affection, in sentiment,and in the practice of devotion;that they set the heathen world awonderful example, there is nodoubt. That they had any completeor definite system of theology at allappearshighly improbable.

So much for the antecedent probability of an infallible guide toreligious truth. Let us look for a.

moment at the object for which theinfallible guide, according to Dr.Newman, is to exist, and at the degree in which, also according to Dr.Newman, that end has been attained.The object is to set to rights thatawful calamity by which men areestranged from their Maker. TheChurch, we are told, teaches that‘ human nature is to be extricated,pacified, and restored.’ ‘She has it

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:5

6 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

1864.] 289Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologz'a.’

in charge to rescue human naturefrom its misery.’ This is the objectof its existence, and especially ofthat gift of infallibility with whichit has been endowed, and as a mereincident to which the Pope enjoysthe right of absolute sovereigntyover every effort of the human mind.What then, in fact, has infallibilitydone? Has it curbed and thrownback the reason ? Dr. Newman himself asks and answers the question.‘ What have been its great works?All of them in the distinct provinceof theology, to put down Arianism,Eutychianism, Pelagianisrn, Mani—chaeism, Lutheranism, Jansenism:such is the broad result of itsaction in the past.’ In otherwords, God Almighty being utterly estranged from mankind, became incarnate in order to rescuethem from their misery, by establishing an infallible authority for the purpose of developing and maintainingthe Athanasian Creed. This is gravelyset forth by a man who is guided inlife by probability. The doctrineof the Trinity, and some doctrine orother about grace, are after all thesalt of the earth. The Church hasnot saved the world. The greaterpart of mankind, probably even thegreater part of Catholic mankind,will be eternally damned. Eighteenhundred and fifty years after theestablishment of the religion, one ofits priests has to admit that thebest thing that can be done withthe world is to destroy it. Hecries in agony to Christ for pity’ssake to put an end to this frightfulslaughter-pen of souls, and to ‘ shutup the devil in his own hell,’ incompany with the greater part ofmankind. Indirectly, the Churchhas helped in this result, for ithelped to civilize the world. Civilization brought money and knowledge and heresy, and they broughtconstantly increasing damnation.The Church tried to put downheresy with fire and sword. Afterawful fighting and bloodshed, theChurch was defeated in its desperatestruggle to maintain orthodoxy byforce. Heretics grew up and multiplied in all directions, and the powerof the clergy diminished. The ages offaith passed away; an age of money

and sensuality, worshipping forceand power, ensued. Int'allibility gotrudely hustled, refuted, pushed onone side, and the devil reaped andstill reaps larger and larger harvests of souls; still infallibility hastriumphed, for it has established theAthanasian Creed within its ownborders. The world at large mayhave left it on one side, but its for—

mal official creed is neither Ariannor Eutychian.

There is no relation between themeans employed and the end contemplated, nor has that end been infact produced. Suppose it is es—

tablished on infallible authority thatall the doctrines sanctioned by theChurch of Rome are absolutely true,how will this reconcile man to hismaker? What divides them is sin,not ignorance of theological propositions; what must reconcile them isthe removal of sin, not the removalof theological ignorance. The evilsof life arise from the fact that menare weak and wicked, that theyknow what is right, but will not doit; the passions and not the intellectare the real causes of sin. TheRoman Catholic Church may beabsolutely infallible, and its doctrines perfectly true, but it wouldbe absurd to assert that, on thewhole, Roman Catholics are betterthan Protestants. If a larger proportion go to heaven (which no onecan afiirm) they get there by anarbitrary miracle, not by moral superiority. Dr. Newman himselfadmits that he prefers the Englishto the Italian character, and, withall the scandals of its vast population,L0ndon is, probably, in proportion, less immoral than Paris andVienna. France in the eighteenthcentury was hideously wicked andlicentious. Yet the Church hadthen greater power in France thanat present it has in Rome.

But Dr. Newman would say noChristian is entitled to use thisargument, for it is an argument notonly against the Church, but againstChrist. If the Church has failed, sohas Christ. The argument, nodoubt, does go this length as againstthose who suppose that the object ofChrist’s life and death was to announce to men any one definite set of

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:5

6 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

290 [September,.Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologia.’

dogmas, and to subject them to thelaw of some definite spiritual society;for it is certain that no one definiteset of dogmas does prevail which hasregenerated human society, andthat no one society does exist withinwhich all is holiness and virtue,whilst without it all is sin. But it isaltogether untrue that Christianityhas failed, if it is believed to be abeneficent influence, which, underdifferent circumstances, takes different forms, and animates different opinions and a variety of institutions.In point of fact, this is what JesusChrist has done for the world,whatever Dr. Newman may thinkhe ought to have done. The effectsof his life and of the institutionswhich do, as a fact, represent andmaintain his doctrines, as theyconceive them, are indefinite andunsystematic. If there had beenno Christ there would have been noLuther and no Calvin. The Protestants, the Greeks, the Armenians,are, as a fact, results of what happened in Judaea eighteen hundredyears ago. Moreover, all the Christian bodies collectively have conferred immense benefits on the wholehuman race—benefits so great thatit is far more likely that God shouldhave become incarnate for the sakeof originating the whole of them thanthat he should have become incarnate for the sake of establishing astifi' machine which has not carriedout the only purpose which couldmake its existence conceivable.Allow that Christianity is indefinite,that it is a wide influence, indistinctly understood, for the glory ofGod and the good of men, and it has,to a considerable extent, redeemedits promise, though no doubt it hasbeen subdued to what it workedin, and has been stained by humanpassion and crime.one set of dogmas, to any single institution, and it has failed ignominiously.

In this view of the matter, everydoctrine will have its share oftruth, every institution its own particular merits; and that the RomanCatholic view of things, consideredas one of many imperfect conceptions of truth and virtue, and theRoman Catholic Church, considered

Chain it to any ,

as one'of many imperfect institutionsfor its protection and diffusion, havehad immense merits, and have donegreat services, and that even nowthey have good points peculiar tothemselves, no rational man candeny.

The following passage from Dr.Milman’s History of Christianity putsthe contrast between the Protestant and the Papist view ofChristianity as forcibly as it can be

utz—‘ What distinctness of conception,

what precision of language, may beindispensable to true faith; whatpart of the ancient dogmatic systemmay be allowed silently to fall intodisuse, as at least superfluous, andas beyond the proper range ofhuman thought and human language; how far the sacred recordsmay, without real peril to theirtruth, be subjected to closer investigation ; to what wider interpretation,especially of the Semitic portion,those records may submit, andwisely submit, in order to harmonizethem with the irrefutable conclusions of science; how far the Easternveil of allegory which hangs overtheir truth may be lifted or tornaway to show their unshadowedessence; how far the poetic vehiclethrough which truth is conveyedmay be gently severed from thetruth ;—all this must be left to thefuture historian of our religion. Asit is my own confident belief thatthe words of Christ, and his wordsalone (the primal, indefeasibletruths of Christianity), shall notpass away; so I cannot presume tosay that men may not attain to-aclearer, at the same time more fulland comprehensive and balancedsense of those words, than has as

yet been generally received in theChristian world. As all else istransient and mutable, these onlyeternal and universal, assuredly,whatever light may be thrown onthe mental constitution of man, evenon the constitution of nature, andthe laws which govern the world,will be concentred so as to give amore penetrating vision of those undying truths. Teutonic Christianity (and this seems to be its missionand privilege), however nearly in its

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:5

7 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

1864.] 291Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologia.’

more perfect form it may alreadyhave approximated,may approximatestill more closely to the absoluteand perfect faith of Christ; it maydiscover and establish the sublimeunison of religion and reason; keepin tone the triple-chorded harmonyof faith, holiness, and charity; assertits own full freedom, know thebounds of that freedom, respect thefreedom of others. Christianitymay yet have to exercise a far wider,even if more silent and untraceableinfluence, through its primary, allpenetrating, all-pervading principles,on the civilization of mankind.’

The specific peculiarities of Dr.Newman’s mind are nowhere so

clearly displayed as in the use whichhe makes of his a priori probabilities, when he has got them. Hethinks it likely that there will be

an infallible Church, finds a bodyclaiming, with some sort of plausibility, to be one, admits the claim, andwhen he has once admitted it

,

neverfalters again. No evidence that canbe given induces him to reconsiderthe question. He immediately turnshis mind to the consideration of some

way of getting out of his difficulty.He views the adverse evidence, notas a possible guide to an unwelcometruth, but as an objection which, bysome means or other, is to be answered; and he certainly does showinexhaustible ingenuity in findinganswers. He is like a thoroughgoing advocate, who never willabandon his cause. If the eye-witnesses of his client’s guilt agree, it

is a proof that they are in a conspiracy to destroy him. If they differ,who can believe these contradictions ?

If he has a good character, can it be

supposed that such a man shouldsteal or forge. If he has a notoriously bad one, his previous misfortunes are the reason why this falsecharge is trumped up against him.Did he act like an innocent man?his innocence is the natural inference. Did he act like a guilty one ‘2

no real criminal would have been sosilly as to expose himself to suspicion. In short, till the jury havefound their verdict, and the courthas passed its sentence, the thorough-bred advocate sticks immoveably to his text. His client’s innocence is the one fixed point in a.

world of doubt and supplies thekey to every part of the evidence.The ‘ pull devil pull baker’ system onwhich English justice is administered, may justify this at the bar ; butDr. Newman’s voluntary advocacygoes beyond that of a professionaladvocate—he justifies it on prin—ciple. In a sermon called ‘Faithand Doubt,“ he maintains at lengththat when the reason is once satisfiedthat the Catholic Church is a teachersent from God, it can never doubtagain. It must abjure for ever thepossibility of doubt even if furtherinformation is obtained. The reasonmay be satisfied by any process ornone at all. Dr. Newman mentionsin his Apologia. one case where thedecisive reason was a love for architecture; but no matter what thereason may be, the assent once given

is irrevocable. ‘ A man must simplybelieve that the Church is the workof God. . . . Faith implies a confidence in a man’s mind that thething believed is really true; but if

it is true, it never can be false.’ Thatthe believer’s confidence may be misplaced, is a contingency which hedoes not contemplate. On the contrary, he describes, as so extravagant

a position that it refutes itself, theopinion that it is a fault ever tomake up our mind once for all onany religious subject whatever, andthat however sacred a doctrine maybe, and however evident to us (i.e.,at a given point of time), we oughtalways to reserve to ourselves theliberty of doubting about it. He.supports this by saying that faithleads to love; and he asks, ‘How,does it stand with a loving trustbetter than with faith to anticipate

* Discourses to Mixed Congregations—Discourse Xl. Mr. Kingsley would havefound something much more like a justification for his charges in this sermon than in theone which he actually quoted. It is never fair to sum up an elaborate discourse in asentence, but it is hardly an unfair summary of the passages referred to in the text to saythat they teach that_truth as truth is not always and under all circumstances to be preferred to falsehood.

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:5

7 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

292 [September,Dr. Newman’s ‘Apolog'ia.’

the possibility of doubting or denying the great mercies in which oneis rejoicing? Take an instance:what would you think of a friendwhom you loved who could bargainthat in spite of his present trust inyou he might be allowed some dayto doubt you? What would youthink of a friend who when athought came into his mind thatyou were a knave, did not driveit away from him, but consideredthat he had an evident right to indulge it? Would you think thatyour friend trifled with truth if heshrank from it

,

or would you callhim cruel or miserable if he didnot?’ Clinging in this way, with a

passionate embrace, to the Church,Dr. Newman gives to every factwhatever a turn favourable to itspretensions. If he is unable to doso, he can always take refuge inthe reflection that a thousand difliculties do not make one doubt, thatthere are insoluble objections toeverything, and that a mystery moreor less does not much matter. Wefully believe that in this there is noconscious dishonesty, but there is

infatuation, and the proceeding itselfis dishonest in princi 1e, though anhonest but infatua man may be

seduced by it.Let us consider Dr. Newman’s

principle a little before giving illustrations of the way in which heapplies it.to anticipate the possibility of futuredoubt at the moment of prayer,for instance, would be injurious topiety; and at the moment of marriage to anticipate and dwell uponthe possibility that one’s wife mightsubsequently commit adultery,would be extremely wrong. N 0 oneshould allow his mind to dwellupon such thoughts without a

grave cause; but if there is anytruth in religion, if there is anysolidity in married love, no manwho deserves the name will turnaway from such thoughts whenthey are pressed

uponhim by evi

dence of a certain egree of weight.If it were not so, religion and lovewould be mere brute instincts likea dog’s subjection to its master.Who would wish that his wifeshould give herself up to him in

It is certame true that '

such a way that rather than doubthis fidelity she would disbelieveher own eyesight. She in such a

case would be a slave and an idiot,and he would be fitter for the societyof slaves and idiots than for thatof a free woman. Dr. Newman nodoubt has high notions of friendship; but would he wish his friendsof the Oratory to be so devotedto him that if he were really tocommit some disgraceful act, theywould absolutely refuse even tolisten to the clearest evidence inproof of it

,

and continue to trust himjust as they do now? Surely theywould rightly be the objects of hiscontempt. He would view them as

credulous dupes.That which he thinks an extra

vagant position confuting itself, is

the very A B C of reasonable men.It is a fault, and as great a faultas any intellectual fault can be,ever to make up onc’s mind once forall upon any subject whatever,religious or otherwise. It is thefirst of intellectual duties always toreserve for ourselves a liberty ofdoubting on every question whatever, however firm may be our present belief, however sacred thematter to which it applies; and Dr.Newman’s denial of this proves todemonstration that whatever maybe his views on veracity, he has yetto learn what Protestants mean bythe virtue of truthfulness.

Of course no one asserts that it

is every one’s duty at all times tokeep his mind in a perpetual stateof doubt upon all :nbjects. Forevery practical purpose, religiousor other, it is necessary to haveconvictions upon which we areprepared to act; and a man maywell say, ‘ Ihave examined such andsuch a subject as well as I can,and I think I should do no goodand should not improve my chanceof attaining the truth by reopening the question. I will thereforeact upon my opinion, and for practical purposes, assume its truth.’ Butto go beyond this, and say, ‘ Heavenand earth may pass away, but myopinion shall not pass away. I

may see that the grounds on which

I embraced it were utterly wrong—Imay discover facts of which I never

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:5

7 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

1864.] 293Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologia.’

heard—I may find that the religionwhich I chose utterly disappointsme—-I may find that its priestsare hypocrites, its miracles frauds,its assertions contradictory to reasonand fact. But never mind, I haveonce believed that the Church isfrom God, and I will believe it tothe end of the chapter, though anangel from heaven should assertthe contrary.’—-To say this is tosay what is intelligible in the mouthof a man who does not believe intruth at all, for to the utter scepticall propositions are equally absurd;but in the mouth of any one else,

such language is a mere outburstof frantic gallantry—the hurrah ofthe sailor who nails his colours tothe mast while the ship is sinkingunder his feet—the yell of defiancewith which the soldier receives thethrust which pierces his heart.

It is by avowing the very principle which Dr. Newman thinksabsurd, that the firmest certaintywhich we know of is gained. Theconclusions of physical science are

undoubtedly true; that the forceof gravity varies inversely as thesquare root of the distance, is a proposition which every one who understands it believes with absolute andunhesitating faith. Those who putthe certainty of God’s existenceat the highest point cannot saythat it is more certain than ascientific conclusion. Dr. Newman certainly does not; for speaking of probabilities, he says thattheir combinations may create

a certitude which ‘ might equal inmeasure and strength the certitude

'

which was created by the strictestscientific demonstration.’ Now thegreat security and fortification ofsuch certitudes is that men reservethe right of doubting them, shouldfurther evidence arise, and believein them only as at present advised,and subject to further information.Those who wish to combine peaceof mind with a proper regard forthe truth, must be content to holdtheir religious belief by the same

tenure; and those who, asDr. Newman does, found it upon probabilities, cannot, without glaring inconsistency, refuse to do so. Probabilities may no doubt create a

certitude at a given time, but theycan never by any legitimate processcreate a further certitude that the firstcertitude shall never be disturbed.

Having thus described Dr. Newman’s principle on this matter, letus examine a few of its applications.Space compels us to limit ourselvesto a very few. Their general efi‘ect

is always the same. They are allcases in which he draws from givenfacts an unnatural, though perhapsnot an impossible, conclusion, because he starts with believing theinfallibility and supremacy of Home.We have selected three illustrations.The number might be indefinitelyincreased.

1. Dr. Newman’s Theory 1f the

Greek Church—In his eleventhLecture on Anglican Dzficultz'es, Dr.Newman addresses himself to persons of his own way of thinking,and tries to bring them over to theChurch of Rome. He assumes thatthey have come to believe, in themain, that the Church of Rome isGod’s agent; but that they feelspecial difficulties which he seeksto remove. His Apologia showswhat are the 'grounds on which hisown general belief in the Church ofRome rests, and we have tried toshow their value. This lecture,therefore, will enable us to see how,in the light of his antecedent conviction, he looks upon the GreekChurch. It is difficult to state hisview shortly, as it falls into manyramifications; but this is the substance of it :—People ask how theChurch of Rome can be Catholic,when more than half of Christendom refuse to subject themselves toit. These bodies are not merelyrecently formed Protestant communities, which may plausibly becalled heretics; but there is theGreek Church, ‘whose apostolicaldescent is unquestionable, and whosefaith almost unquestioned.’ Thiscommunity had, thirty years ago,perhaps a third, perhaps a fourth,of the number of disciples of theRoman communion; at any rate,forty or fifty millions of souls livingunder various governments, andbelonging to different races. Hemight have added that they strenuously deny that they ever were

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:5

8 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

294 [September,Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologia.’

subject to Rome at all. How areyou to get over this? Dr. Newmansays :~—‘ There are ways of accounting for it sufficient to quiet theimagination, and to lead us toacquiesce in the difficulty, whateverit is, on the assumption which Iclaim to make, that the Church ofRome and Catholicism are synonymous terms.’ He then shows whatthese means are. ‘ It is but one in—

stance of a great phenomenon whichhas ever been on earth, that truthshould be opposed by some pretence,which is of a character to deceivemen at first sight, and to confuse theevidence of what alone is divine andtrustworthy.’ Satan deceived Adamand Eve, Jannes and Jambres workedmiracles against Moses; MountGerizim was set up in opposition tothe Temple. Then Mahometanism‘perplexes the evidence of Christianity,’—and so for that matter doesJudaism. If all this means anything at all, it means that the factthat there is evidence against agiven proposition raises a sort ofpresumption in its favour. This isan excellent specimen of the ‘headsI win, tails you lose ’ mode of arguing. _ All the evidence is for me.Can you deny my claim ? There isstrong evidence against me. Therealways is strong evidence againstthe truth. Dr. Newman goes onas to the Church itself: ‘From thefirst the Church was but one communion among many, which borethe name of Christian; some ofthem more learned, and othersaffecting a greater strictness thanherself, till at length her note of

'

Catholicity was for a while gatheredup, and fulfilled simply in the nameof Catholic, rather than was a property visibly peculiar to herself, andnone but her.’ These obscure ex

pressions seem to mean that at onetime the name Catholic was merelythe appellation of one sect amongstmany, as Roman Catholic is now,'andnot the appropriate distinction ofany specific property. Then thereare the Nestorians: ‘ The tenet onwhich these religionists separatedfrom the see of Rome is traceable toAntioch, the very birthplace of theChristian name, and taken up andmaintained by Churches which are

amongst the oldest in Christendom?In the fifth century this communionpropagated itself ‘from Cyprus toChina. It was the Christianity ofBactrians, Huns, Medes, and Indiansof the coast of Malabar and Ceylonon the south, and of Tartary on thenorth. This ecclesiastical dominionlasted for eight centuries or more.’If the Greek Church is an objectionto the Catholicity of Rome, why notthe Nestorians? yet the Nestorianswere heretics; and that shows that‘large, organized, flourishing, imposing communions, which strikethe imagination as necessary portions of the heritage of Christ, maynevertheless, in fact, be implicated in some heresy which, in thejudgment of reason, invalidatestheir claim ’—an observation whichis of great importance to every onewho is disposed to attach importance to the claims of the Churchof Rome. ‘ Why,’ he adds, ‘doyou not bring against us the vastunreclaimed populations of paganism, or the political power of theBritish Colonial Empire, in proofthat we are not a Catholic Church?’(Perhaps because they thought thatafter his own admissions it would becarrying coals to Newcastle.) Allthese facts are but illustrations ofthe awful wickedness of privatejudgment. They prove nothingagainst a fact. ‘If God has madeit a duty to submit to the su remeauthority of Rome, and of this Iassume there is fair proof,’—then wemight expect phenomena of thissort. ‘All depends on the fact ofthe supremacy of Rome; I assumethis fact; I admit the contrary factof the Arian, Nestorian, and theGreek communions; and strong inthe one, I feel no difficulty in theother.’ A Protestant would be inclined to say that Rome is Catholicand supreme is a theory. The ex

istence of the Arian, Nestorian, andGreek communions is a fact; and as

the fact and the theory are inconsistent, the theory must be wrong.Dr. Newman seems to think that a.

theory can be made into a fact bycalling it one. He then observes, at.

great length, upon the considerationsby which the imagination may bereconciled to the apparent cruelty

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:5

8 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

1864.] 295Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologia.’

of refusing Church membership tosuch vast multitudes; he actuallyputs it on the ground that after allthere is not so much differencebetween Catholic and heretic, sothat it does a man no great harm tocall him a heretic. First, he says,‘the faith of large populations isapt to be that sort of habitual belief which persons possess in consequence of having heard thingssaid in this or that way fromtheir childhood, being thoroughlyfamiliar with them, and neverhaving had difficulty suggested tothem from without or within.’This he calls material, as opposed toformal faith. Such a state of thingsin the Greek Church would accountfor its existence without admittingits divine origin; whether it mightprove the same as to the Church ofRome, he does not stop to ask.

Besides, such bodies have their providential uses. Both Greek andProtestant Churches possess, in amutilated scattered shape, a certainamount of divine grace and faith.‘ The blessing is inestimable toEngland so far as among us thesacrament of baptism is validlyadministered to any portion of thepopulation. In Greece, where a fargreater attention is paid to ritualexactness, the whole population maybe considered regenerate. Half thechildren born into the world passfrom a schismatical Church toheaven,’ &c. Then there is a greatdeal of invincible ignorance amongstheretics and schismatics, wherebythey may be saved; on the whole,open sinners apart, ‘there is butone set of persons who inspire theCatholic with special anXiety’-theunlucky Anglicans who turned back.

It is perhaps possible to take thisview, but it is surely far easier toinfer from it all, first, that Romehas no intelligible pretence to Catholicity, and that there neitheris nor ever was any such thing as

Dr. Newman understands by theword; and secondly, that it mattersvery little whether there is sucha thing or not, inasmuch as wehave as good—0r rather as bad——

a chance of getting to heaven without it as with it. The remarkablepoint of the sermon is that it il

von. Lxx. no. ccocxvn.

lustrates its author’s method of proceeding. After hearing a certainamount of evidence he feels a certitude, takes his resolution, and neverchanges his opinion though twentywitnesses may contradict him. ‘Iadmit the contrary fact; and strongin the one, I feel no difficulty in theother.’ One great advantage ofthis system is that it enables anybody to believe anything. TheArian, the Nestorian, the Greek,and the unhappy Anglican himself,as far as we can see, might eachsay the same :

‘ I am the true Church,and perhaps you are too. I admitthe contrary fact; but strong in theone, I do not care for the other.’

Imagine this principle applied toa court of justice. A man is accusedof robbery. The person robbedswears with confidence that theprisoner robbed him, and there issome other evidence to confirmhis opinion. Dr. Newman feels acertitude. He has fair evidence ofthe man’s guilt. Probability is theguide of life, and he settles in hisown mind that the accused isguilty. Afterwards, ten unimpeachable witnesses swear that at thetime the prisoner was a hundredmiles off. Dr. Newman does notcare: why should not a man be intwo places at once? What do weknow of time and space? as muchas the greatest philosophers, whichis just nothing at all. All dependson the prisoner’s guilt. Of that thereis fair evidence. To doubt it wouldbe to embark on a sea of scepticism.Disbelieve an eye-witness, and whyshould you ever believe anything?Believing that the man is guilty,why object to the evidence of hisinnocence ‘? A thousand difficultiesdo not make one doubt. Ingeniousways may be suggested of quietingthe imagination. You may think itcruel to punish an innocent man;but oh, why not? Is it not thecourse of nature that the innocentshould suffer for the guilty. If hedid not do it some one else did, andhe no doubt has done or will doother things. After all, is there somuch difference between guilt andinnocence ? Are we not all sinners,and may not fruitful lessons of lov—

ing patience be drawn from occax

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:5

9 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

296 [September,Dr. Newman‘s ‘Apologia.’

sional iniquities perpetrated by theharsh laws of this wicked world?My fellow-jurors, does it stand witha loving trust to disbelieve this respectable witness? Let us do ourduty by convicting, and perhaps theHome Office after all may find outthat he was innocent or in a state ofinvincible ignorance; and then howpleased he will be to be pardoned,and what glory will be reflected onthe uncovenanted mercies of theCrown! On the whole, I assumehis guilt, which Ihave a right to do,for it is sworn to, and strong in that,I feel no difliculty in admitting thecontrary fact as well. Where seriousimmediate consequences depend onmen’s decisions, they do not talk thissort of nonsense. It is only wherepeople cannot be brought to bookthat they can afford to do so. Aman who cannot be refuted by experience on this side of the grave, cantalk what nonsense he pleases; butnonsense is nonsense whether religion or anything else is the subject.

2. Dr. Newman’s view qf the R0man Catholic manners.-Dr. Newman describes as follows an 0bjection* taken by Protestants to thetype of character which Popery produces: ‘ The reproach of Catholicismis, not what it does not do, so

much as what it does; that itsteaching and its training do produce a certain very definite character on a nation and on individuals;and that its character, so far frombeing too religious or too spiritual,is just the reverse, very like theworld’s; that religion is a sacred,awful, mysterious, solemn matter;that it should be approached, withfear, and named, as it were, sotto'vocc; whereas Catholics, whetherin the north or in the south, in themiddle ages or in modern times,exhibit the combined and contraryfaults of profaneness and superstition. There is a bold, shallow,hard, indelicate way among themof speaking of even points of faith,which is, to use studioust mildlanguage, utterly out of taste, andindescribany offensive to any person of ordinary refinement. Theyare rude when they should be reve

rent, jocose when they should begrave, and loquacious when theyshould be silent. The most sacredfeelings, the most august doctrines,are glibly enunciated, in the shapeof some short and smart theologicalformula; purgatory, hell, and theevil spirit, are a sort of householdwords upon their tongue; the mostsolemn duties, such as confession,or saying ofiice, whether as spokenor as performed, have a business—like air and a mechanical actionabout them, quite inconsistent withtheir real nature. Religion is madeboth free and easy, and yet formal.Superstition and false miracles areat once preached, assented to, andlaughed at, till one really does notknow what is believed and whatis not, or whether anything isbelieved at all. The saints arelauded yet affironted. Take medieval England or France, ormodern Belgium or Italy, it is allthe same; you have your boybishop at Salisbury, your lord ofmisrule at Rheims, and at Sensyour feast of asses. Whether inthe south now, or in the northformerly, you have the excesses ofyour carnival. Legends, such asthat of St. Dunstan’s fight with theauthor of evil at Glastonbury, are

[popular in Germany, in Spain, inScotland, and in Italy; while inNaples or in Seville your populations rise in periodical fury againstthe celestial patrons whom theyordinarily worship. These are butsingle instances of a wide-spreadand momentous phenomenon, towhich you ought not to shut youreyes, and to which we can never be

reconciled.* il' * * *

‘Now I grant to you, that to nonational differences can be attributed a character of religion sospecific and peculiar; it is too uniform, too universal, to be ascribed toanything short of the genius ofCatholicism itself; that is, its principles and influence acting uponhuman nature, such as it is everywhere found. Such must be thefact, and I accept it; I repeat ingeneral terms what you have said;

"‘ Lecture IX. Anglican Difficulties.

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:5

9 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

1864J 297Dr. Newma'n’s ‘Apologia.’l

but I would add to it,

and turn a

fact into a general, a philosophicaltruth. I say then, that such is thevery phenomenon which must necessarily result from a revelation ofdivine truth falling upon the humanmind in its existing state of ignorance and moral feebleness.’

He then proceeds, with great ingeunity and fertility of illustration, todescribe the contrasts between a

Protestant and Catholic population.The difference is that the Catholicshave faith and the Protestantsnone. The Catholic’s faith, whichis a mysterious supernatural gift,follows him everywhere, and sometimes overcomes him. It leads topious frauds, like the imitation ofChrist’s wounds by the Ecstatica, orthe sale of false relics. The verybandits pray to the Virgin for success. The woman who steals thepix bows to the host. Their‘strange oaths—God’s heart andGod’s eyes and God’s wounds andGod’s blood,’ show how faith in theunseen world has filtered into thecoarsest minds (if Dr. Newmanheard a Protestant cabman say tohis neighbour—‘ God damn youreyes, or damn your soul to hell ’—would he infer that a belief infuture damnation and miraculousinterpositions had filtered into thevery dregs of Protestant society?)and their ‘boisterous ’merrimentruns upon the great invisible subjects which possess their imagination.’ ‘ If they sing and jest, theMadonna, the Bambino, or St. Peter,or some other saint is introduced,not from irreverence, but becausethese are the ideas which absorbthem.’

This it must be confessed is highlyingenious advocacy. If a man is

perfectly certain on other groundsthat the Church of Rome is whatDr. Newman says it is

,

he may perhaps believe it

,

though in that caseone does not see why he shouldtrouble himself about the matter;but to a Protestant objector it is noargument at all, as the slightestreflection will show. The argumentis that this mass of levity, superstition, and profanity ‘is the very phenomenon which must necessarilyresult from a revelation ry

“

divine

truth falling upon the human mindin its existing state of ignoranceand moral feebleness.’ Some readersmay be so attracted by the novelty and ingenuity of the paradox that they may not at onceapprehend its transparent flimsiness.The fallacy lies in the words,‘divine truth.’ The effect is produced not by the truth of the creed,but by the means adopted to propagate it. There can be no sort ofdoubt that the establishment of sys—tems of human fraud and nonsensehave produced the very same efi'ectsagain and again. That Popery hascontrived—by the worship of saintsand angels, by establishing strikingceremonies, by appealing in everyconceivable way to the imaginationof the masses of the population—tomake a deep impression on theirimaginations, is no doubt true. Butpaganism did just the same, and Dr.Newman’s description of the spirit ofRoman Catholic countries mightstand for a description of the temperof pagan Rome. What can be moreemphatically agan than the ‘ bold,shallow, har , indelicate way ofspeaking even of points of faith?’or than the ‘supcrstition and falsemiracles at once preached, assentedto, and laughed at, till one reallydoes not know what is believed andwhat is not, or whether anything isbelieved at all?’ This might standfor a description of the religioustone of Horace and Ovid. How fardid the one believe in the Fasti, andthe other in Jupiter ? They hardlyknew themselves. They scoffed atthe gods and trembled at thunderin a clear sky.

Parcus deorum cultor et infrequensInsanientis dum saplentize

Consultus erro, mox retrorsumVela dare atque iterare cursus

Cogor relictos. Namque DiespiterIgni corusco nubila dividensPlerumque, per purum tonantes

Egit. equos, &c.

The atheistical Lucretius opens hispoem with an invocation to Venus,and Catullus ends the celebratedpoem on Atys with the lines—

Dea magna Dea Cybele dea domina Dindymi,Procul a mea tuus sit furor omnis hera domo,Alios age incitatos, alios age rabidos.

X 2

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

7:5

9 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

298 [Septembcr,Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologia.’

Did Catullus really believe in Cybele? Was Horace certain thatCanidia could not charm the moonout of the sky? The ordinaryoaths of Greece and Rome wereall religious: ‘vq Ata,’ and ‘mehercle,’ occur in every page of classical dialogues. Nay, instead ofcold appeals to decency or to localacts of parliament, the awful impre~cation, ‘ Duodecim Deos in se iratoshabeat '

protected the cleanliness ofthe streets of Rome from nuisances.The analogy between popular Romanism and paganism is one ofthe clearest arguments against thewhole system. The brigand whoprays to his little particular Virgin for a good prey, and whipsher if he does not get one, is justas gross an idolator as his forefather, who thought that his ownlittle lar was bound in honour tobless his vineyard ; and there is justasmuch and just as little evidenceof supernatural faith in the one caseas in the other. Wculd Dr. Newman himself say that the passionatefury of the Athenians at the mutilation of the HGI'IIHB, or the holyhorror of the Sepoys at the greasedcartridges, were proofs of a supernatural faith which our cold Protestant minds are utterly unable to appreciate? He ought in consistencyto do so.

We must, however, go a littlefurther. The admission made byDr. Newman is important to Protestants. Is not the temper ofmind, which he describes exactlythat which must be produced bythe process of shuffling ofl' individual responsibility on to a guidesupposed to be infallible? Is itnot the temper rather of waywardchildren half- satisfied with theirnurses and half-rebellious againstthem, than that of serious men andwomen? Is it not, in a word, justthe kind of bad moral effect whichProtestants have always chargedPopery with producing? Lastly,can any temper of mind be less likethat of the primitive Christians?Which most resembles them, the gay,coarse, half-cynical, half-creduloussuperstition of a Catholic population, or the austerity of the severersects of Protestants? The accusa

tion against the early Christianswas that they were unsocial atheists,that they withdrew from the common usages of life, and acknowledged no visible or outward representations of the Deity. This is justwhat Dr. Newman says in otherwords of the Protestants.

3. Dr. Newman’s view q” the relation of Romunism to the intellect.—In the later part of his Apologia, Dr.Newman 'more than once insistsupon the difi‘erent excuses whichmay be made for infallibility, andshows that it is not opposed to theintellect. Indeed he goes so far asto say that reason could not get onwithout it. Infallibility is calledinto action by reason, which, on theother hand, ‘thrives and is joyous,with a tough elastic strength, underthe terrible blows of the divinelyfashioned weapon.’ The doctrine ofthe Immaculate Conception, theresult of eight hundred years ofsearchings of heart, has just giventhe human intellect a crushingblow. Did it ever occur to Dr.Newman to inquire in good faithwhether any human creature, whocan be accepted as in any sense arepresentative of the ‘agg'ressivcintellect’ of the present century,cares one straw for this terrible blowof the divinely-fashioned weapon.In the days of Hildebrand, Innocent,and Boniface, infallibility meantsomething. The Council of Con—stance might fairly claim to be asort of Christian parliament; andeven in the sixteenth century theview which the Popes took of theological dogmas was of great importance; but in the present day,whatever hysterical excitement maybe got up amongst women, thereare probably not five hundredmen of sense in the whole worldto whom the decision of thismomentous question either waywould be a matter of appreciableimportance. The points at whichthe intellect is impinging on Romanism are perfectly plain. History explains its growth, physicalscience flatly contradicts much ofits teaching, moral and politicalspeculation refute much of its merality. Let the divinely-fashionedweapon ‘ smite hard and throw back ’

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

8:0

0 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

1864.] 299Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologia.’

attacks like these, and somethingmay be said for it. Let it treat menof science and philosophy as it treatedtheir predecessors from the days ofAbelard downwards. With all thewill in the world, the Pope, nowa-days, could as soon fly as persecute. But in the face of suchan attack, to make little remarksabout the Immaculate Conception, for which the aggressive intellect does not care one straw,is as if a man whose house wason fire should send for the glazier to mend a cracked pane inthe garret window. This, however,is rather an example of the narrowway in which Dr. Newman looks atthese matters than an illustration ofthe peculiar kind of sophistry whichdistinguishes him. His speculationson the subject in question give,however, a good illustration of this.He is considering the questionwhether the belief in an infallibleauthority destroys the independenceof the mind; and he says it does not,because Rome once acted the partof a sort of moderator in the schools.‘ There never was a time when theintellect of the educated classwas more active, or rather morerestless, than in the middle ages.’

Questions arose in schools, passedto universities, and after they hadbeen discussed in all directions,‘authority is called upon to pronounce a decision which has alreadybeen arrived at by reason.’ And hefurther says that he ‘ embraces as atruth the objection’ that Rome ‘ hasoriginated nothing and has onlyserved as a sort of remora, or break,in the development of doctrine.’

In this way of treating the question there is a double obliquity ofmental view. In the first place, Dr.Newman overlooks the fact that hehad ascribed to Rome absolute sovereignty over the human mind in allits departments, and that accordingto this account of the matter, thevery highest of all its functions—thefunction of infallibly declaring thetruth of doctrines—is reduced to theundignified occupation of kickingpeople whom the human mindhas already knocked dQWn. Augustine or Bonaventura or Salmerondiscovers the truth and overthrows

the enemy, upon which infallibilitycomes and stamps upon him. ‘ Joabsent messengers to David, and saidI have fought against Rabbah andtaken the city of waters; now, therefore, gather the rest of the peopletogether and encamp against thecity and take it

,

lest I take the city,and it be called by my name.’ Thefly which sits upon the pole is thereal cause of the motion of the coach,and it is monstrous to say that suchan arrangement encourages idleness;for look how the horses strain at~ thetraces, and how the guard and thepassengers put their shoulders tothe wheel.

In the next place, Dr. Newmanaltogether fails to deal with what hemust know to be the real point ofthe attack upon the system whichhe defends. No one asserts that thebelief in the infallibility of Romenever could, under any circumstances whatever, be reconciled withindependence of mind. What isasserted is, that it is inconsistentwith independence of mind to believe in it now. Berenger maynot have forfeited the independence of his mind by; submittingto Gregory VII.; but I shouldforfeit the independence of mine

if I submitted to Pius IX. Onereason is, that in the face of allmodern improvements in philoso—phy, the Church of Rome will andmust persist in taking a purelyscholastic view of theology, afterthe scholastic philosophy has brokendown and been exploded in all otherdepartments of thought. No onedoubts that there was great activityof thought in the schools of themiddle ages, and at that time Romemight with some plausibility actas a supreme moderator. Romishtheology is full of scholastic ingenuity: indeed, great parts of it,like the doctrine of transubstantiation, are nothing else thanclumsy and old fashioned rationalism; but the scholastic method,which certainly was neither revealednor inspired, has by common consent been given up on all othersubjects as radically wrong. Nobodynow-a-days attempts to teach physical science, or law, or logic, scholastically; and if theology is a real

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

8:0

4 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

300 [September,D1“. Newman’s ‘ Apologia.’

science—that is, if it is the description of real facts external to us,and not dependent on our phraseology, why not teach it according tothe methods which have proved souseful and fruitful in other things?The reason why is plain enough.The doctrine of infallibility preventsit. It prevents the Church of Romefrom recasting its creed, and translating it into reasonable and coherent language. Having adopted andpatronized a radically false philosophy, and having incorporated it

, with what it calls an infallibletheology, Rome cannot recede. Theresult is, that the Roman Catholiccreed has utterly lost its hold overthe educated minds of Europe.Put aside a few passionate reactionists like Dr. Newman himself, and,whatever may have been the case inthe middle ages, it is impossible todeny that the whole set of thehuman intellect in modern timeshas been opposed to Home. Fornearly two hundred years hardlyone* man of first-rate intellect hasbeen [a Roman Catholic in thesense in which the great schoolmen were Roman Catholics—easily,naturally, from sincere conviction,and because the Roman Catholiccreed really did appear to themto be the highest embodiment oftruth. Dr. Newman, at all events,cannot deny this, for his case is,that the tendency of reason in thepresent day is to Atheism. Hesays :—‘ How sorrowful, in the viewof religion, even taken in its mostelementary, most attenuated form,is the spectacle presented to us bythe educated intellect of England,France, and Germany.’ This antiRomish, or as he calls it

,

Atheistictendency of the intellect, may betraced back for centuries. It wouldbe no difficult matter to show how,from the days of Wycliffe, to go nofurther, the human intellect crackedthe moulds in which the mediaevalChurch had cast it

,

and at last fairlystepped out of its shackles andtrampled on them. To say, in answerto all this, Rome ruled the schools

in the middle ages, is like vindicating the beauty of a decrepid oldwoman, on the ground that she wasonce a pretty girl.

Our space forbids us to give further illustrations of the strangesophistry into which his passionateenthusiasm for Rome, and his passionate horror for liberalism, havedriven Dr. Newman. One or twoisolated remarks may be added onthe topics which his curiqus booksuggests, and which we may perhapsdiscuss more fully hereafter.

First, as to the charge of moraldishonesty which Dr. Newmansupposed to be brought against him,

it ought to be observed, that thoughthere is no foundation whateverfor it

,

there is a foundation for acriticism which bears a resem—

blance to it, which would be borne

out by some of the passages whichMr. Kingsley quotes, and which Dr.Newman himself would probablynot deny. This criticism is, thatDr. Newman’s general conception ofmorality makes less of lying thanthe Protestant view of the subject,inasmuch as it attaches far less importanceto all the masculine andactive virtues, and the special infa—

.my of lying is that it is unmanlyand cowardly. Dr. Newman’s favourite distinction between natureand grace, and the virtues whichcome by nature and by grace, isthe true source of his different estimate of this and other sins. In thevolumes of sermons to which wehave referred, he delights to contrast the good Protestant with thegood Catholic; the eminently respectable Englishman, utterly material and fundamentally selfish, andthe eminently unrespectable Irishman, whose rags cover a heartwarmed by divine faith and love.As a typical illustration, we maytake a few lines from his Apologia. ‘Mr. Kingsley has said that

I was demented if I believed, andunprincipled if I did not believe,in my statement, that a lazy, ragged,filthy, story-telling beggar-woman,

if chaste, sober, cheerful, and reli

" Bossuet is a sort of exception ; but let any one compels the Discours sur I’HistoireUniverselle with the Essai sur les fllwursnnd with the later discoveries of modern research,

and he will see the utter impossibility of couciliating reason and liomauism in these days. ‘

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

8:0

4 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

1864.] 301Dr. Newman’s ‘Apologia.’

gious, had a prospect of heavenwhich was absolutely closed to anaccomplished statesman, or lawyer,or noble, be he ever so just, upright, generous, honourable, andconscientious, unless he had alsosome portion of the divine Christian grace; yet I should havethought myself defended from. criticism by the words which Our Lordsaid to the chief priests—“ the publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.”’ Thiscertainly favours the notion thattruth, honour, justice, conscience,and the like, are mere worldly virtues, the whitewash of the sepulchre ; and that chastity and religiousfaith are spiritual virtues of altogether a different sort of importance.It is the fundamental tenet of Protestantism, though it is not to be

found in creeds or text-books, thatthe earth is the Lord’sand the fulness thereof; that all virtues standon the same footing; that courage,justice, honour, uprightness, andgenerosity are as good evidence ofChristian grace as chastity or a tastefor the practices of religion; andthat Dr. Newman’s contrast involves an impossible case, as thestatesman could no more be justand upright without the grace ofGod than the beggar~woman couldbe chaste. Protestants, moreover,would say that as a fact, honourable, upright, and conscientiousstatesmen, nobles, and lawyers, wereusually more chaste and more religious than lazy, ragged, lying, beggars. As to the scriptural quotation, it is singularly unlucky. Dr.Newman’s beggar-woman is preferred to the statesman because sheis chaste. Were the harlots, whowere preferred to the chief-priests,remarkable for chastity? And asto the chief - priests _themselves,where did Dr. Newman learn thatthey were ‘just, upright, generous,honourable, and conscientious?’ Weknow what was said of the class to.which they belonged. ‘Woe untoyou, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye devour widows’ houses,and for a pretence make longprayers.’ Were these men ofhonour? ‘ Ye pay tithe of mint, annise, and cummin, and have omitted

the weightier matters of the law,judgment, mercy, and faith.’ Werethese men just and upright? ‘Yemake clean the outside of the cupand the platter, but within they arefull of extortion and excess.’ Werethese men generous and conscientious‘? Look, on the other hand,at the summary of human duty inthe I 5th Psalm, which says not aword of the practices of religion or, asit happens, of chastity: ‘Lord, whoshall abide in thy. tabernacle? whoshall dwell in thy holy hill ? He thatwalketh uprightly, and workethrighteousness, and speaketh thetruth in his heart. He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nortaketh up a reproach against hisneighbour. In whose eyes a vileperson is contemned ; but he honoureth them that fear the Lord. Hethat sweareth to his own hurt, andchangeth not. He that putteth notout his money to usury, nor takethreward against the innocent. Hethat doeth these things shall neverbe moved.’ The man after God’sown heart did not altogether sharein Dr. Newman’s estimate of menwho were just, honourable, generous,upright, and conscientious.

The constant glorification of theascetic life as the highest form ofhuman goodness, the preference ofvirginity over marriage, the admiration of voluntary mortifications, andthe like, do unquestionably tend todepreciate the domestic and civicvirtues, to place them on a lowerlevel, and to attach a less degree ofcriminality to offences against themthan the Protestant theories onthose subjects. The same causesappear to us to make Dr. Newmanvery unjust to his fellow-countrymen at large. His notion of Englishsociety appears to be that it isselfish, worldly, and godless. Itnever seems to occur to him thatmen can honestly believe that Godsent them into the world expressly

- for the purpose of doing the business of the world; that the objectsof the statesman, the lawyer, thedoctor, the merchant, the shopkeeper, the day labourer, are as sacredas those of the priest; that whenthe scavenger cleans the street, orthe stockbroker sells shares, or the

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

8:0

4 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

302 [September,Dr. Newmem’s ‘Apologz'a.’

publican serves his customers, he isdischarging a divinely-imposed duty,and playing his part '-— and anessential part, too—in a divinescheme, as much as a priest administering the sacrament to adying man. More -or less consciously this sort of theory has adeep influence on English society.Much of that gravity and pertinacious energy, which to Dr. Newmanseems to be mere systematic greediness, springs from it; and one ofthe strongest moral objections whichEnglishmen feel to popery arisesfrom their conviction that it doesnot do due honour to the commonoccupations, the common duties,the common objects of life. Theythink that a system which draws so

harsh a line between the Church andthe world, and which practicallysubordinates the Church to theclergy, must and does give theworld a low notion of itself andits duties; that it prevents thelazy, ragged, filthy, lying beggarfrom seeing and feeling thatGod Almighty meant the worldin which she lives to be busy, welldressed, clean, truthful, independent; and that unless she can showher faith by works of that kind,there must be something altogetherwrong and rotten about her state ofmind, even if she should be chaste,which she is very likely not tobe— something as wrong androtten as there would be in themind of the accomplished statesman,who, though just and upright, wasunchaste. They think, also, thatthe manners of Roman Catholiccountries, as described by Dr. Newman, supplies a most significantillustration of the practical effect ofa system which treats people likechildren, whilst its doctors inventelaborate excuses for their deficiencyin the virtues of men.

Another point, on which a fewwords must be said, bears upon astrange indication which the Apologia contains of a sort of turn towards Liberalism on the part of itsauthor. The progress of physicalscience and its wonderful discoverieshave of course attracted Dr. Newman’s attention. He seems, on thewhole, to take a liberal view on the

subject.' ‘ It would ill become me,

as if I were afraid of truth of anykind, to blame those who pursuesecular facts, by means of the reasonwhich God has given them, to theirlogical conclusions.’ He has beenasked by various persons, Catholicand Protestant, to undertake thetask of reconciling science and revelation; but ‘the highest Catholicauthority was against the attempt,

. . and I interpret recent acts ofthat authority . . .as tying the handsof a controversialist such as I shouldbe.’ The divinely-fashioned weaponis not to be brought to bear uponhistory and geology just yet. ThePope prefers hitting people of hisown size, like the impugners of theImmaculate Conception ; and for thepresent thinks it best that nothingshould be said about science. 1n

deed the Church at present rulesthe reason much as Dogberry andVerges wished the watch to ‘comprehend all vagrom men. You areto bid any man stand, in the prince’sname. But how if he will notstand? Why then take no note ofhim, but let him go; and presentlycall the rest of the watch togetherand thank God you are rid of aknave. If he will not stand whenhe is bidden he is none of theprince’s subjects.’ Dr. Newman isglad to be spared the conflict. Itseems, from what he says, as if hewould have taken the side of theliberal party amongst the RomanCatholics if he had written on thesubject—as if he would have been

found on the side of the Home andForeign Review, and against Cardinal Wiseman’s manifesto.

We should like if possible to parton friendly terms with Dr. Newman.It is impossible to read his bookswithout liking him. Much as wedislike some of his doctrines, thereis nothing cruel, nothing bitter,nothing unmanly in what hewrites. His mind seems to dart atits opinions in a strange, fantasticway, which sets at defiance all common notions of reasoning; but itsoperations suggest rather a desperate honesty run away with by astrange, sophisticated ingenuity,thananything discreditable. Where hesupposes that ‘truth leads, there he

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

8:0

6 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle

1864.] 303The Wishing Well.

will go; but his notions of truth arepositively bewildering. His opinionsappear to us to be dangerous so

phistry; but the 'man himself isbetter than his opinions, and hisWritings wring even from a hostilecritic a degree of regard and respect,which are not the less sincere be-cause he is not likely (if indeed heever reads these pages) to care forthem, or perhaps to believe thatthey exist. Perhaps the best thingabout him is his inconsistency. He

- ought by all rules to be a persecutor; but he says, no doubt withperfect truth, that a Spanish auto da

fe' would have been the death ofhim, and that he could neverhave borne even to cut off a Puritan’s cars. So his wonderful sermon on the Greek Church endsmercifully. The mercy stultifiesthe theory to which it is appended;but it is mercy, and that is better than any quantity of logicalsubtlety.

THE WISHING WELL.

Quanto praestantius asset

Numen aquw, viridi si margine clauderet undas

Herha, nec ingenuum violarent marinara tophum!

OICE of this region fabulous !—For silent else is all the air,

None else remains to tell to us

The story of the things that were :—

Fair fountain of this valley lone,

That falling with a ceaseless plaintInto thy cup of sculptured stone,

Speakest of Fairy and of Saint;

III.

For name of either thou hast borne:

Time was Titania round thee played ;

And rings by elfish footsteps worn

Still linger in the magic shade.

But when the Benedictine came,

To build upon these meadows fair,

He called thee by a holier name,

And blessed thy source with book and prayer;

And said the old belief was sin :—Yet still, so ran the rustic creed,

Strange voices sounded, faint and thin,

By summer nights along the mead.

Genera

ted o

n 2

01

5-0

4-1

0 1

8:0

6 G

MT /

htt

p:/

/hd

l.hand

le.n

et/

20

27

/um

n.3

19

51

00

07

42

96

7y

Public

Dom

ain

, G

oog

le-d

igit

ized

/

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ath

itru

st.o

rg/a

ccess

_use

#pd-g

oogle