Chapter 18. The Home and Foreign Review (1862-1864){537} IN 1862 the conductors of the Rambler proposed to turn their Review into a Quarterly, to be called The Home and Foreign Review. Sir John Acton was to be editor, assisted by Mr. Wetherell. The staff was to be the same as that of the Rambler [Note 1]. Newman adhered to his opinion that the Rambler had better simply stop. He did not advise or support its continuance as a Quarterly under the title of the Home and Foreign Review. But when its continuance was a settled thing, he responded to its conductors with kindliness and interest in hopes of keeping it on useful lines. W. G. Ward, who had been earnestly hoping for the termination of the Rambler, did not at all like the news that a new Quarterly was to rise from its ashes. And Simpson, who took a malicious pleasure, as he said, in making Ward's 'hair stand on end' by startling and unwelcome news, assured him that the new Review had the full sympathy of Newman. Ward, greatly distressed, wrote to Newman proposing a visit that he might talk over the situation. There is a touch of sad irony in Newman's reply: 'The Oratory, April 22nd, 1862. 'If things are to go as they have gone, I should anticipate that our conversation would have this result,—viz. you would begin by stating that I held something very different from, or the reverse of, what I really hold. I should undeceive you, and you would confess you were mistaken. Then we should branch off to some independent subject of theology, and you would be pleased to find that I agreed with you when others did not. You would leave; and then, in a few weeks, you would write me word that it pained you bitterly to think that we were diverging from each other in theological opinion more and more. If I then wrote to inquire what you could mean, you would answer that you really could not, at the moment, recollect the grounds on which you had been led to say so,—but you would not withdraw it. 'Thus I have to endure, in spite of your real affection for me, a
never-dying misgiving on your part that I am in some substantial matter
at variance with you; while I for my part sincerely think that on no
subject is there any substantial difference between us as far as
theology is concerned, I have no record of what passed at W. G. Ward's visit. The new Quarterly made its appearance in July. A fortnight before its publication Acton wrote to Newman as to the nature of its contents, of which he hoped he would approve, with the exception of a statement of the fact that Paul III. had a son. 'There is only one thing in the new Quarterly, so far as it is ready, in which I am afraid of your disagreement. Paul III., Farnese, had a son Pierluigi, and a number of grandchildren. The Jesuit, Prat, in his life of Ribadeneira, speaks of all of these, always calling them the Pope's nephews, and the Pope his uncle. Now I feel very strongly that this ought to be gibbeted, and I cannot avoid at least pointing out the wilful lie it involves.' Newman endorses his letter with the following note: 'I answered to this that he quite mistook me. 1. Everyone knows the fact. 2. What I objected to was not the grave natural statement of facts, but (as Simpson did), the lugging in such a fact as a foot-note by the bye in a treatise on Conic Sections.' Newman read the first numbers of the Home and Foreign with great interest. He was filled with admiration for the {539} immense labour and research which it displayed. As far as we can judge from his letters, he still sympathised with many of its aims. The Bishops regarded the fact that Acton was one of its editors as establishing its identity with the Rambler, and they opposed it from the first. Newman regretted their attitude. To Mrs. Froude he wrote: 'I am very sorry that the Bishops have set themselves against the ablest publication we have, though I can't quite trust its conductors. Such a policy is imprudent and unhappy. That's my opinion.' The Review at once commanded attention in the world of letters. Max Müller spoke of it in 1863 as 'one of the best edited of our quarterlies.' Matthew Arnold commended the knowledge and play of thought within its pages. Its reputation was a valuable asset to English Catholicism. Still the episcopal opposition, however unfortunate, was a fact to reckon with, and, moreover, the writers were unsuccessful, in Newman's opinion, in achieving what he regarded as a thoroughly satisfactory tone. Therefore his sympathy with the Review was qualified. When, however, the Cardinal publicly criticised the Review, he was against suspending its publication: to stop what existed was a different matter from refraining to bring it into existence. He advised an answer to the Cardinal written in a very loyal and zealous spirit which should win over right-minded men to the side of the Review. Newman availed himself of the occasion to write to Sir John Acton on the situation which had arisen, and on the future prospects of the Review: 'I think,' he wrote, 'that you cannot prudently stop the Review. I take it for granted the Cardinal does not bid you do so; and you should not on your own responsibility. Such a course would be a smothering of feelings and opinions which exist, which are allowable in a Catholic, which it is healthy to out with, which it is dangerous or injurious to bottle up. If these opinions imply uncatholic instincts, let this be shown; else we cannot be sure that what happens to be called an instinct is anything more than the sentiment of a particular school in the Church. If you stopped the Review, there would first be a triumph among the Cardinal's friends; this would create a chronic irritation among your friends, and this again a vague uneasy helpless suspicion on the part of his. {540} 'It is better then that your Review should go on; but, if so, it is plain that it, for a time, will be under a cloud. This ever must be the case when a Superior finds fault; the question is what are the persons so blamed to do under the circumstances. 'It seems to me that they must resolve gradually to work their way through the cloud that lies on them, by doing undeniable good service to the Catholic cause ... They need not sacrifice their own views; they need not flatter this or that person if they do real hard work for the Church; this will insure for them the opportunity of speaking with effect ... 'What you have to do, at the moment, in your reply to the Cardinal, is to give us an augury and pledge of your future course. There is no position, there are no circumstances, in which there is not the right thing to do if we have the skill to find it out. There is no move on the part of others towards us, but leaves room for a true counter-move on our part against them. There is no such thing as a checkmate except through our own fault. I can fancy a counter-statement to the Cardinal which for its naturalness and straightforwardness would win all candid minds. Such a statement would obliterate what has been amiss in the past and reassure Catholics as to the future. You would put yourselves in the right, and your ill-wishers in the wrong.' The published reply to the Cardinal did not in the event entirely satisfy Newman, as we see in the following letter to Wetherell, dated October 6: 'Everyone, I think, must be struck with the excellence of its tone. It is both generous and candid, manly, modest, and moderate as regards the Rambler. It is clear, moreover, in its exposition of its principles, and in explaining the Rambler's position in the Catholic community. And it is well written ... 'I am disposed to except from these remarks the wording of the paragraph pp. 514, 515, beginning: "Learning," &c. I fear it will be read thus: '"Among the writers of this eminent but short-sighted school, of course we reckon our illustrious Cardinal. Without derogating from the great merits which we have above ascribed to him, we take this opportunity of insinuating that in his controversial writings he has never been more than a 'brilliant rhetorician.' His knowledge is that of a 'dilettante.' {541} He has attempted too 'wide' a range, and in consequence is always 'superficial.' No 'single writer,' be he who he may, could possibly write on 'Scripture, history, and physical science,' as he has done in his Roman Lectures, with more than a 'shallow versatility,' &c., &c." I heartily trust no one else will so interpret this paragraph; but I do not think it unlikely. If so, you must be prepared with your answer. 'If I go on to mention what seem to me the deficiencies of the article, it is because it may be useful to you to know the impression it made on a "Lector re vera benevolus." 'I wish it had more definiteness and more warmth; definiteness to satisfy, and warmth to win. '1. What I specially mean by "definiteness" is a direct answering to the charges brought against the Conductors of the Rambler. The Cardinal, e.g., says that "the journal has shewn an absence of all reserve and reverence in its treatment of persons and things deemed sacred." Are "sacred persons," e.g. Saints, one of what the article calls "principles" of religion, or "interests"? Again; "It has grazed even the very edges of the most perilous abysses of error." What answer to this is it to say that the conductors of the Rambler have ever felt it their duty to keep to truth of principle in matters of science, and to right in the principles of government? and so on. 'People are likely to say that the article has not met the Cardinal's imputations. '2. What I mean by want of "warmth" is this,—that theologians and ascetic writers tell us that the perfection of a Christian lies in never pleading his own cause, except when accused of error of faith, for such error is dishonourable to God. Now the Cardinal has accused the Rambler of treachery to the cause of truth. I think it is the duty of one who has occasion to notice this charge made against him to be indignant. To unite this with due respect towards the accuser, of course, requires skill, but it admits of being done, and has not been done. 'I fear this will leave an (unjust) imputation on the minds of ill-natured readers that the writer of the article did not care much about the Cardinal's charge, and is not too much in earnest. 'These two defects will prevent the article, good as it is, from destroying suspicion. Perhaps you will say that suspicion cannot be destroyed.' But, after writing the above letter, Newman read an article in the same number containing certain comments on {542} the Book of Genesis which seemed to him to be exactly in the old offensive style of the Rambler. Many of his friends were scandalised at it, and at the same time he received letters in which fears were expressed that the atmosphere of Edgbaston school was being perverted by the German rationalism of the Home and Foreign Review. He at once drew out a strong criticism of the article, which he sent to Wetherell's friend and his own, Mr. Thomas Arnold [Note 2]. This criticism he asked Arnold to forward to Mr. {543} Wetherell together with the letter on his reply to Wiseman: 'Deal: Oct. 12th, 1862. 'It is the article on Döllinger's work, and a theological discussion is lugged in without any occasion on the first chapter of Genesis. Alas, why will not reviewers leave that chapter alone? It is not contemporary literature. The Review is not a retrospective one. A grave, ex professo, comment indeed, a learned, argumentative discussion upon it, this will always be worth reading; but ... the article in question does not attempt such a process. If I must describe it I should call it a speculation edged with an insinuation, or an insinuation hoisted on a speculation. 'We are bound to interpret all Scripture by the unanimous consent of the Fathers. Again, we have certain traditionary or popular ideas, true or mistaken, about the right interpretation of this chapter in particular. Is a reviewer justified in coming out with an interpretation, certainly not the popular one, nor professing to be patristic, nor claiming to be that of the author reviewed, nor appealing to any author or authors whatever, nor based on any careful body of proof and making for itself a probable case; but consisting of a multitude of categorical assertions, hazy in their drift, and of a conclusion, not asserted, but insinuated? 'For myself, I am not scandalized at such "views," as I should call them; but incredulus odi. You will think my (enclosed) remarks fierce, but I have a life-long disgust at speculations, as opposed to carefully argued theories or doctrines.' {544} But just at the moment when this article in the October number was so greatly exercising Newman's mind the long-expected blow from the hand of ecclesiastical authority fell. The Bishops, as I have said, declined to recognise any distinction between the defunct Rambler and the Review which had arisen from its ashes. In October 1862 the whole bench, with one exception, formally censured the Rambler and Home and Foreign in their Pastorals. And most of them made it clear that they had taken action in accordance with instructions from Propaganda. Newman's direct concern was with the action taken by his own Bishop. Bishop Ullathorne, in addition to the remarks in his Pastoral, published a circular letter to his clergy containing a detailed censure of some of Mr. Simpson's articles. The Bishop considered that various statements of Simpson's were equivalent to certain doctrines condemned by the Church. Newman had not yet read the articles referred to, but he considered that the Bishop was acting strictly within his rights. Whether the condemned doctrines were really taught by Simpson or not, they were condemned. And if the Bishop found the doctrines on the writings in question, whether he was accurate in his estimate or not, he had a right to act on his own judgment. Newman at once wrote to the Bishop a carefully worded letter of submission: 'Ramsgate: Oct. 24th, 1862. 'I hope I need not assure your Lordship that I concur with all my heart in your condemnation of the doctrines which you find in those publications, and of the Articles containing them. 'It follows that I must consider it, as I do, to be the simple duty of the writers of them, and of all concerned in them, first to repudiate the doctrines in question, and secondly to withdraw the statements in which they are conveyed. 'I write to you, as one of your clergy, on the spur of the moment, what comes first into my mind without consulting anyone. If there is anything more which it would be a {545} consolation for you to receive from me, I hope you will tell me. 'I hope it is not wrong to say that your letter affects me altogether
differently from that of His Eminence on the same subject. I am,
&c., To this welcome expression of adhesion Dr. Ullathorne thus replied: 'Birmingham: Oct. 25th, 1862. 'Not that your words tell me more than I knew of you before; but because it gives me the means of putting out the last spark of any mischief that idle people may have occasioned by the use of their idle tongues. 'The essential part of your letter I shall take good care shall be seen by the authorities at Rome. I do not, of course, intend to put it formally before them, but I will take care it will be read to them in a non-official way. 'And I thank you both for strengthening me by expressing your
adhesion to my letter, and equally for furnishing, beyond intention,
precisely such an expression of your sentiments as will enable me to
confirm all that I have said at Rome. With his strong opinion as to the rights of ecclesiastical authority Newman felt that the Bishops' censure created a very grave situation, and it was necessary, in view of his past close association with the Rambler, to make his act of submission widely known. He wrote to friends representing various shades of opinion dissociating himself from the Home and Foreign. How acute his feeling of depression was at the time we see in the following letter to Ambrose St. John, to whom alone he could, without fear of being misunderstood, express the morbid thoughts which such moments of sadness brought with them: 'I wrote to Bellasis and Ward, and I am going today to write to Ornsby, Acton, and Arnold. Don't think I am over-doing {546} it,—but the Bishop's charges against the H. & F. are precise, which the Cardinal's were not, and I cannot allow myself to seem indifferent to the chance of people connecting me with them. How one's time and one's energy are frittered away in these explanations! ... Well, we shall be brought through! 'I have ever been brought through,—I said I should when the Achilli matter began; but here my own anticipation then of what was likely to happen now appals me. It appals me to think that I should so rightly have guessed what was to take place at the end of another ten years. I then said that, as when I was 20 I was cut off from the rising talent of the University by my failure in the Schools, as, when 30, I was cut off from distinction in the governing body by being deprived of my tutorship, as, when 40, I was virtually cast out of the Church of England by the affair of No. 90; as, when 50, I was cast out of what may be called society by the disgrace of the Achilli sentence, so, when I should arrive at 60 years, I should be cast out of the good books of Catholics and especially of ecclesiastical authorities. This appals me in this way,—viz. what is to happen if I live to be seventy? Am I to lose all of you and to be left desolate? or is our house to be burned to the ground? or am I to be smitten with some afflicting disorder? These are the questions which come before me, and don't be angry with me for mentioning them, for it is a great relief to me to speak and a pain to be silent. Well, I suppose it is all intended to keep me from being too happy. How happy should I be if let alone,—how fond of living! On the other hand certainly, I have been carried marvelously through all those troubles which have come to me hitherto, and so I believe I shall be to the end ... 'Now be kind enough to say a Hail Mary for me instead of quarrelling
with me for saying all this, and believe me, 'P.S.—So Brodie is gone and Dr. English, and our Provost's eldest son whom we used to see riding on a pony at Littlemore.' The Bishops felt that it was unsatisfactory to censure so able a periodical without setting up some substitute for it which would command the respect of the intellectual public. And therefore in this same month the Dublin Review was formally placed by Manning under W. G. Ward's editorship. True to old habit, Ward forthwith communicated his acceptance of the editorship to Newman: {547} 'Freshwater: 16th October (1862). This letter is endorsed by Newman with the following extract from his reply: 'I could not write for the Dublin without writing also for the Home and Foreign, and I mean to keep clear of these controversies, not that I can in this way stop the evil tongues of men great and small, but reports die away and acts remain.' Some further correspondence followed, and it was at this time that Dr. Ullathorne's circular letter of censure on the Rambler was issued. Newman at once intimated to Ward his acceptance of it: 'October 24th, 1862. 'For instance, I suppose an Augustinian or a Dominican would consider Father O'Reilly's views on grace as opposed to Catholic instincts; and, I must allow, with a good deal of plausibility. Three-fourths of the Catholics of England would consider the exclusion or the adoption of Gothic architecture to be an indisputable Catholic instinct. I am far indeed from denying the existence of such instincts, but I do not feel them to be the intelligible basis of a censure. 'Dr. Ullathorne, on the other hand, speaks with a manly distinctness. He pronounces that the conductors of the Home & Foreign hold that the fundamental principles of the understanding, assumed before all reasoning, are provisional and not absolute; that the existence of God is directly demonstrated, not by reason, but by revelation; that faith, as theologically contrasted with reason, is one of its modes of operation; that revelation, before reception, is to be tested by the innate principles of the mind; that faith does not embrace the visible phenomena of Our Lord's death and resurrection &c. &c. 'This is speaking like a Bishop; and the Conductors of the Review are
bound simply to repudiate the statements which convey these doctrines,
if they are to be considered good Catholics, and are to have any
interest taken in them. Before Ward's visit to Birmingham, however, Newman wrote him the following words of caution: 'You will easily understand things having taken such a turn since you first wrote to me that I have some anxiety lest the world should infer any change in me of view or of conduct, as regards pending controversies, from the coincidence of our Bishop's letter and your visit [Note 3]. This leads me to say beforehand that, under no circumstances should I connect my name with the Dublin Review. I will add that I have suffered already so much from gossip about sayings of mine that I hope you will kindly allow me, when we meet, to keep clear of theological subjects. 'Nothing can prove what I have suffered in this way more clearly than the fact of the vague, deep suspicions {549} which you have had of me now for eight years; and of the strange relief which you express in your last letter on finding me on the present occasion at once deferring to a definite judgment pronounced on definite grounds by the competent ecclesiastical authority. Why, if that authority in like manner pronounced certain writings of your own,—say your two Essays,—de facto to contain certain doctrines which had already been condemned at Rome as erroneous, I should not argue, but concur in the condemnation. I should do the like, of course, if the writings were my own. 'If I ever write on the subjects in question, I should say neither what Simpson has said, nor what you have said; but anyhow the true judgment about me lies, not with clubs or with coteries, but in my own acts, and with those who come after us.' Newman has left the following memorandum referring to his conversation with Ward on the occasion of his visit: '[Ward said] that he aimed at making the Dublin like the old British Critic, in which every article had a direct religious, i.e. controversial drift. On thinking this over I wrote to him to say that the parallel was a dangerous one. The British Critic was the work of a crisis, the exponent of only five years and those most momentous ones. Our views were ever enlarging and changing,—there was a running controversy with the old Dublin. It was a game; it was a drama; and then for the writers,—himself and Oakeley and Dalgairns were, indeed, to be writers in his new Dublin, but the British Critic had in addition the two Mozleys, Church, and myself. 'Observe, he addresses the new Dublin to English Catholics, who he says are a pious, unintellectual body. In like manner he considered my intention in the Rambler was to intellectualize the pious but unliterary body of Catholics. How odd! I know well he rises to another, higher, and more intelligible object,—viz. to create a body of thought as against the false intellectualism of the age, to surround Catholicism with defences necessary for and demanded by the age, to take a Catholic view of the theories, and give a Catholic interpretation to the discoveries of the age, &c. &c. &c. J. H. N.' The new form and direction given to the Dublin by Ward's formally taking over the editorship was a cause of {550} considerable fresh anxiety to Newman and his friends. It became all the more urgently desirable that the Home and Foreign should achieve that moderation of attitude which would make it acceptable to the majority of Catholics and tolerable to the Episcopate. Newman's great friend Mr. Monsell, the intimate friend of Montalembert, felt strongly on the subject. He expressed his fears lest Acton's extreme line might cause the Dublin to become the only recognised Catholic organ. He had seen the evil consequences of the excesses of the Univers in France. He thought it all-important that some periodical should exist in England such as was the Correspondant in France, which represented the moderate views of such men as Dupanloup, Lacordaire, and Montalembert himself. Yet Acton's attitude seemed unfavourable to any such hope being realised by his own Review. The censure of Dr. Ullathorne seemed clearly to call for some act of submission or retractation, yet none seemed to be forthcoming. The Review in the event made no retractation. But one of its conductors did make a step in the required direction. Mr. Simpson published a pamphlet in which he avowed with some chivalry that he was responsible for the most obnoxious articles in the Rambler. But now arose a fresh difficulty. Newman read Simpson's pamphlet. He came to the conclusion that the Bishop had misunderstood that writer's original articles. He did not indeed approve of the tone of his writings. He thought it possible that to the average Catholic as to the Bishops they would be upsetting and objectionable. He adhered to the position that they were lawfully censured. But he came to think that his own letter of submission had been taken as implying intellectual agreement with the Bishop as to the nature and tendency of Simpson's views. This impression was confirmed by a conversation with Dr. Ullathorne on December 26, of which he has left the following record: 'December 26th, 1862. 'He asked had I seen Simpson's Pamphlet in answer to his own Circular? It had very little in it that required an answer. It was hastily written. He should notice what he {551} said on Original Sin, because he was told that there was a party of divines, of much consideration, who sided with Simpson. In his new Letter he should bring out what the tone of the Rambler was and of the Home & Foreign. Two letters signed D. N. and N. N. (I think) would form the staple of it, and the recent Article in the Home & Foreign on Genesis; that the system was one of Pantheism mixed up with the Catechism, &c., that Science was exalted against Religion; that an Hegelian transcendentalism was professed or implied; that political conscience is made at variance with moral; that Simpson was not the worst of the party; that he had wished to knock under and take Manning for his director, but there was a more subtle mind at the bottom; that various young men had left Sir John Acton and given out loose, half-infidel opinions; not for twenty years should we see the fruit of it if it went on; that Mr. (mentioning by name a country gentleman) had written to some Bishop saying: "Do get some one to answer the questions authoritatively and fully, for Dr. —— was here, trying to refute some young men, and they had the better of it; that it was parallel to the case in the Establishment; that some Protestant clergyman had seen the Bishop's Notice against the Rambler stuck up at Ushaw, and had said that he was very glad of it, or the like. 'I cannot recollect the order of conversation, but I said, among other things, that doubtless such wild opinions as he mentioned should be answered, but the question was how best to do it. I also said, as to Original Sin, that, at the time that Simpson's Article appeared in (say) 1856, it took me quite by surprise to find that one of our first divines (and quite impartial and distinct from party) had questioned whether anything was decided on (e.g. the state of the heathen hereafter). 'When I said that the thing was "how best to do it," he assented, and seemed to take it. I think he soon began to say that Manning had proposed that the Rambler should be put on the Index, but that Cardinal Barnabo answered that this had never been done in the case of a periodical. The Bishop himself had recommended Cardinal Barnabo to leave the matter to the English Episcopate, for Rome had enough to do without it; and, since no Englishman would yield without reasons given, in the authoritative censure reasons should be given. Accordingly he had given reasons, which passages &c. in the Rambler were to be condemned; that foreign prelates kept writing: "Why do you allow all this?" {552} that, though he gave reasons, it could not be expected that he should write long treatises. 'As to original sin, the passages in Simpson which he noticed, had been distinctly pointed out to the Bishops by Propaganda. 'He got rather awkward, for I listened unsympathetically. He talked a
great deal, very kindly; and went away excusing himself for teasing me
with such matters. Newman forthwith wrote to the Bishop to make his position clear, and sent the draft of his letter to W. G. Ward for his criticisms: DR. NEWMAN TO W. G. WARD 'December 28th, 1862. 'Now I send the enclosed to you because I suppose you will not agree with it. I want to know how it strikes a candid and acute opponent ... The Bishop may, for what I know, think that to go any way with Simpson is to be an implicit Pantheist. I cannot help this ... I must say something; I must hazard being misunderstood. I can but do my best. J. H. N.' The enclosed draft letter to the Bishop ran as follows: ' ... No one can disapprove or dislike the tone and form of Mr. Simpson's writings more than I do; but I should not be honest if I did not add that my chief concern at them has arisen from his having dealt so unworthily with questions which are real and great, and which demand, not only free discussion, but a grave and comprehensive treatment. 'I know, indeed, how difficult it is for a man to express, with whatever caution, his sense of the shallowness of the polemics with which we ordinarily meet the intellectual difficulties of the day, without being unjust to himself in his manner of doing so; and had I undertaken the task myself, doubtless I too should have incurred the imputation of rashness and inaccuracy in my attempts. I have ever, therefore, made allowances for Mr. Simpson, while I was {553} making (now for four years) continual protests against him; for a certain sympathy with his intentions has been at the root of my pain at his performances. 'Such a sympathy with him was also the cause of my writing to your Lordship without delay; on the appearance of your public Letter in October. I felt that, in a measure, Mr. Simpson's dissatisfaction with the present mode of handling subjects of controversy was my own; and I wished at once to submit what was so near my heart and intellect to the judgment of the Church. I recognised her voice in that letter, supported as it was by the other English Bishops and Propaganda. 'That voice had not been articulate in the Address of the Cardinal, who, on the gravest of events to both clergy and laity, since I have been a priest, viz., an authoritative interposition in matter of doctrine, thought it enough to hover over the subjects of offence, which we had a claim to be told about distinctly if told about at all. Your Lordship, on the contrary, spoke out like a Bishop, clearly, distinctly; stating what it was you condemned and why; your grounds of condemnation being these;—that it was opposed to definite recognised truth, and was coincident with definite condemned error. 'Upon so unequivocal an utterance as this it became me, of all men first, to set an example of submission. No good ever came of resisting the appointed Pastors of the flock. It is they who are the guardians of doctrine; they who have to give an account of souls; they who are answerable if the Church suffers. I will never be so rash as not to leave them their responsibility, pure and simple, having this duty only in regard to it, viz. to help them with my prayers. When I became a Catholic, I sent a message to Dr. Baggs, that, at the word of the Bishops, I would put into the fire my then outcoming book on Development of Doctrine; and now, had I been writing on those subjects which most deeply interest and distress me, I think I should have been equally ready to suppress my own convictions at the bidding of the Church. 'Your Lordship told me three or four years ago that "the Church was peace and that the Catholics of England were a peaceable body." You spoke, I considered, of the country-gentlemen, and of your own generation; I, who took the opposite view, was thinking of active minds and the generation to come. I felt at that time that I had good reason for what I advanced, and, in what you said in conversation on Friday, I now find a confirmation of them. I earnestly pray that {554} the ecclesiastical policy, which in one shape or other has been pursued toward the Anglo-Saxon race during the last three hundred years, may be in the long run as successful as it has been absolute and peremptory. J. H. N.' Newman beforehand had promised to destroy what Ward might write to him in confidence on the situation, and Ward wrote urging him to be more explicit with Dr. Ullathorne, and to make it clear that his submission to the Bishop's judgment did not involve concurrence in it. 'December 30th, 1862. 'I would rather be misunderstood than seem pugnacious, so I cannot repent of my October letter to the Bishop. However, as to my projected one, I at once wrote another,—more direct. On comparing it with the draft which I sent you, I recollected (what you could not know), that good part of that draft was an explanation of the text of my October letter to the Bishop and could not be dispensed with as being necessary to reconcile the two together. 'This has led me to do no more than alter my first draft ... I fear it will not go far enough for you; but I cannot preach to my Bishop, and this you seem to think essential. 'How could you ever dream that his Circular Letter could suddenly convert me? 'As to my indirectness, I leave the true judgment on me to others.
The cause of it, according to my internal consciousness, is this: that I
say as far as I see, and I don't see any of those further conclusions
which others draw from me. And, as those conclusions differ from each
other, as yours and Simpson's, it would appear to be somewhat difficult
to be real and true if I attempted to say more than I actually say. Such
sayings then are not hints on my part of something I see beyond, but
ultimate points of vision. The following sentence was added to the letter actually sent to the Bishop of Birmingham after the arrival of Ward's criticism: 'Judgment of my own I did not pretend to give, and could not give for this simple reason, that I had not read the {555} writings which you condemned, and that because I had neither time nor taste for such tough reading. What I did give, and that freely, was my submission.' The Bishop of Birmingham, in his reply to Newman, showed him that no false impression had in fact been created by his original letter of submission. 'What I really understood to be the spirit of your letter to me on occasion of my letter to the clergy was that, whilst you adhere to the general decision, you gave no judgment of your own as to the subjects under consideration. You could not be supposed to do so, writing on the spur of the moment, without examining the Articles commented upon, even if you had been so inclined. I observed the caution with which the letter was penned. But I did take your letter as evidence that you had no solidarity with the Rambler or Review of recent years. I knew that from other sources; but I was much rejoiced to have that evidence in my hands, because of the many reports everywhere spread that the writers claimed your sympathy and support, and because their occasional allusions were supposed to point to you in a special manner. 'Your reputation is very dear to me, as to all good Catholics ... When I received your letter I sent a copy, all but three lines of it, to Monsignore Talbot, requesting him to read it to the Pope in confirmation of what I had previously said to His Holiness, to Cardinal Barnabo, and to any other Cardinal or other important person whom he might, in prudence, think it desirable to show it to, as well as useful. Mgr. Talbot wrote me back that he had done so, and that he was gratified in believing it would remove the remainder of whatever cloud might have been hanging about.' DR. NEWMAN TO MR. WARD 'January 3rd, 1863. 'Do not fear I should show your letter to me to the Bishop. I wished to keep it for my own edification. However, as you seem to wish it, I have burned it. 'I think we quite understand each other in re Preachments versus Hints. But not as regards Rogers' reference to what I used to say to him, which was about economical {556} half-speakings, a very different matter; and these I have given up since I was a Catholic. 'I have kept the last page of your letter without burning it, since
it had nothing to do with the Bishop. On the same date as the above letter Newman wrote the following memorandum: 'I have destroyed Ward's letter of December 29th as I promised him, and as he wished me in his letter of a day or two afterwards. 'The points in it, as regards myself, were,—that I never spoke out intelligibly; that in the letter I sent him in October I made him think that the Bishop's published letter had really made me change my opinion about Simpson [Note 4];—no wonder that the Bishop misunderstood my letter to him of the same date;—that I must distinctly draw out, as in a contrasted view, the difference between external submission, and internal assent; that my present draft of a letter to the Bishop, which I had sent to him (Ward) to criticize, would simply shoot over the Bishop's head; that he had had the other day a long talk with Frederick Rogers (Lord Blachford) about me on the subject of why Catholics did not understand me; and he (Ward) said it was, among other reasons, because I did not speak out.' Newman still endeavoured to prevent collisions between the Dublin and the Home and Foreign, earnestly desirous that variety of opinion should be tolerated. When the January Home and Foreign appeared, Newman wrote to Ward pleading for a modus vivendi between the two Reviews: 'The Number is full of thought and labour,' he wrote. 'I look with astonishment at the 63 Notices of Books. Why I should there not be place for both of you; if it would eschew, not only theology but theologising; and the Dublin would, as it means to do, confine itself to religion?' W. G. Ward on his side made a last attempt to bring himself to see with the eyes of the man who had been to him for so many years of his early life an almost infallible guide: 'If at any time,' he wrote, 'when Acton is staying with you, you think that any kind of better understanding could {557} be come to between the two reviews, I shall be most happy to come down for the day to meet him with you and talk the thing over most explicitly [Note 5]. And I must also add in passing that I think the article on Irish University education is in excellent spirit, and that there is little or nothing to complain of in that on "St. Francis Xavier." I believe Simpson is far fonder of theologising than of theology. "Do come and have a walk with me," he once wrote to me, "that I may make your hair stand on end," which, to do him justice, he usually contrives to do.' 'Confidential. The
Oratory: January 16th, 1863. 'I think the Review will prosper, if it is conducted with the energy and diligence which are visible in the present number, and I hope it will. J. H. N.' Newman's letters in the succeeding months differ greatly in tone from one another. In some he is indignant at the absolutism of the ecclesiastical authorities; in others he is indignant at the 'Protestant smack' he detected in some of the Home and Foreign articles. In some he expresses sympathy with the aims of Acton and Simpson, and enthusiasm at the value of their researches. In others he resents being at all identified with their tone or policy. But the deep and unalterable consistency of Newman's views as represented in these letters is the more remarkable for these variations in feeling. He never wavers on any of the following points: the great need for the intellectual work Simpson and Acton are attempting; the false position involved in so attempting it as to alienate Catholic opinion and arouse episcopal opposition; the defects of tone and manner, the absence of a loyal Catholic spirit, not unfrequently {558} apparent in the Rambler; the duty of submitting to ecclesiastical censure (1) by withdrawing censured passages, (2) by disowning heterodox doctrines which lawful authority considers to be contained in such passages. Newman has placed in the Home and Foreign collection his rough draft of a very important letter written to a friend on the culminating point in the controversy between the Bishops and Propaganda on the one hand and Acton and Simpson on the other. This letter is the only one which expresses fully his feeling towards the various parties concerned, and brings out his attitude in its full consistency. He sharply criticises Simpson, and holds that Rome was amply justified in rebuking him sternly and peremptorily. But on the other hand he deeply deplores the effect on an important, intellectual movement of the status of England as a missionary country under Propaganda. The Congregatio de Propaganda Fide—Propaganda as it is popularly called—had its normal work in partibus infidelium where Catholic missionaries were preaching the Gospel and struggling for their lives. In such circumstances intellectual movements were naturally not thought of or provided for in its constitution. Propaganda was a quasi-military power. But the prompt decisions of such a military power, though they ensure discipline, may be far from adequate to the needs of a delicate and important controversy. Propaganda might be justified in condemning Simpson's excesses. Nevertheless Simpson, in spite of such excesses, was trying to bring out important and valuable thoughts which the Bishop and Propaganda (whose authority he invoked) had not rightly understood. Newman seems to have felt that the Bishop made use of Propaganda to stop an important movement which naturally lay within the province of really learned theological tribunals. These tribunals were non-existent for a missionary country like England, and he deplored the result. He saw that the same course was being pursued as had tried him so greatly when he had edited the Rambler himself and his own article had been delated to Rome. Disadvantages attending on the then state of things have been since recognised by Pius X., and English Catholics are in our own time under the normal constitution of the Church. But in {559} the years we are dealing with it was otherwise. Newman's letter is so lucid in its analysis of the various interests concerned that it must be given in full: 'Other persons besides A. B. think that Dr. Ullathorne is hard upon Simpson, and misunderstands him. However, to put the case as most favourable to Simpson, Dr. Ullathorne is as likely to understand him as the run of Catholics; and as he offends Dr. Ullathorne, so he may scandalise and mislead them. The question is, what is the effect of his writings? The Rambler is essentially a popular work, as being a periodical. It addresses, not the few and learned, but the many. Moreover, the Articles themselves were in no slight measure of a controversial cast. The attack on the Temporal Power, that on St. Pius's policy towards England, were not wrought out from premisses to conclusion, but views thrown out, and expressed in terms which were not defined or explained. This, of course, is an evil connected with the periodical press; and the Church is not slow to meet it with a vigour corresponding to that which that new description of literature exhibits. 'And this leads me to say secondly, that I believe the very passages of Simpson, which our Bishop censured, were specified by Propaganda. Moreover I think I am right in saying that the Acts of Propaganda are the Pope's in an intimate manner,—a privilege which the other Sacred Congregations do not share. It gives great weight to the words of the Bishop of Birmingham, that the substance of them has the direct sanction of the Holy See. 'Nor have I any difficulty in receiving them as such. It has ever, I believe, been the course of proceeding at Rome, to meet rude actions by a rude retort; and, when speculators are fast or flippant, to be rough and ready in dealing with them;—the point in question being, not the logical rights and wrongs of the matter, but the existing treatise or document in concreto. The Pope is not a Philosopher, but a Ruler. "He strangles while they prate." 'I am disposed then to think that Mr. Simpson has no cause to complain, though he has been hardly treated. Why did he begin? Why did he fling about ill-sounding words on sacred and delicate subjects? I should address him in the words of the Apostle, "Quare non magis injuriam accipitis? quare non magis fraudem patimini?" I think he might have written a better pamphlet. {560} 'I will tell you what seems to me to be the real grievance;—viz. that in this generation the Bishops should pass such grave matters, (to use the Oxford term in taking D.D. degrees) by cumulation. The wisdom of the Church has provided many courts for theological questions, one higher than another. I suppose, in the Middle Ages, (which have a manliness and boldness, of which now there is so great a lack) a question was first debated in a University, then in one University against another, or by one Order of Friars against another;—then perhaps it came before a theological faculty; then it went to the Metropolitan; and so, by various stages and through many examinations and judgments, it came before the Holy See. But now, what do the Bishops do? All courts are superseded because the whole English-speaking Catholic population all over the world is under Propaganda, an arbitrary, military power. Propaganda is our only Court of Appeal; but to it the Bishops go, and secure it and commit it, before they move one step in the matter which calls for interference. And how is Propaganda to know anything about an English controversy, since it talks Italian? by extempore translation (I do not speak at random) or the ex parte assertion of some narrow-minded Bishop, though he may be saintly too. And who is Propaganda? virtually, one sharp man of business, who works day and night, and despatches his work quick off, to the East and the West; a high dignitary indeed, perhaps an Archbishop, but after all little more than a clerk, or (according to his name) a Secretary, and two or three clerks under him. In this age at least, Quantula sapientia regimur. 'Well, if all this could be said of any human institution, I should feel very indignant, but it is the very sense and certainty I have of the Church being divine, which at once makes it easy to bear. All this will be over-ruled; it may lead to much temporary mischief, but it will be over-ruled. And we do not make things better by disobedience. We may be able indeed to complicate matters, and to delay the necessary reforms; but our part is obedience. If we are but patient, all will come right. I should say all this without any reserve to my own Bishop, if he gave me the opportunity; for, I think, to do so is a duty of loyalty. But I do not expect any Bishop will try to find out what I, or anyone who sees what I do, think on the matter; and therefore I leave it to God. The logic of facts will be the best and most thorough teacher as He shall dispose. Meanwhile, it is a {561} grave consideration, that in England, as things are, upon theological questions the Pope and the individual Catholic meet each other face to face, without media, in collision, without the safeguard of springs or cushions, with a jar; and the quasi-military power of Propaganda has the jurisdiction and the control of the intellect. 'And this is what I have to say, and you will say that it is enough, in re Simpson. 'As to your question about your continuing your contributions to the Home and Foreign, I should be very glad that such as you should do so; but at the same time I think you ought, and have a right, to bargain that there should not be the smack of Protestantism in the Review, which is unmistakeable in the Article you remark upon. It was a smack of something or other—what I should call a tone,—which ruined the Rambler; not its doctrines, but a tone in stating or alluding to them; and a Protestant smack will be fatal to the Home and Foreign. The Article may be the writing of a free-thinking Catholic, but it is more like a Protestant's. The distinction between Catholic and Christian "morality" which you notice, is unintelligible till explained; and it is not explained, but left, though enemies will be sure to explain it in their own way. Then, he speaks of "so-called orthodoxy" which is very suspicious. Pusey got himself into a scrape thirty-five years ago by speaking of "orthodoxism." This, however, is worse, as suggesting that "so-called" has been inserted by the editor to improve matters. Then, what he says page 87 of "Christianity being the pure and living truth," but in particular ages it is "mingled with foreign ingredients," and "distorted through impure glasses," is most suspicious, till explained; and it is not explained, but offered neat deliberately to the jealous criticism of the whole Catholic body, who are fast enough to criticize what even does not need explanation; "essential truth," "human ideas"; it is as if they wished to ruin their own work. It keeps up the tradition of the Genesis Article in the foregoing number; nor is it, as you observe, a sufficient answer to say that it is "communicated." 'If then you continue to write for it, you really must insist on this ambiguous, uncomfortable style of writing simply coming to an end. I know how great are an editor's difficulties, but articles in a tone like this will merely serve to write up the Dublin by contrast. I am not speaking against the author of it; who, if he is a {562} Protestant, is a candid and dispassionate as well as an able man, but against its appearance, as it stands, in a Catholic Review. It is intolerable.' At this moment came an event which appeared at first to mark the triumph of the learned Catholics of Germany from whom Acton drew his inspiration, but led soon afterwards to their downfall. The Liberal movement in theology on the Continent, outlined by Acton in the impressive paragraph quoted in an earlier chapter, had in the last three years grown steadily in influence in Germany, and when, in August 1863, Dr. Dölllnger, Dr. Alzog the historian, and Abbot Haneburg issued invitations to many Catholic scholars and theologians to a Congress to be held at Munich in the following month, the response was large and influential. The Congress held its meetings at the Benedictine Monastery at Munich. The Pope telegraphed his blessing. The Archbishop of Bamberg and the Bishop of Augsburg were there and gave toasts at the final banquet. Fired by the solemnity of the occasion, Döllinger in his Presidential address gave fairly plain expression to his views as to the intellectual shortcomings of the scholastic method. His words were grave and measured, but their drift was unmistakable. Its avowed object was to give a certain direction to the work of Catholic thinkers and writers. A programme was set before the Congress for treating dogmatic questions on lines more and more removed from the traditional scholastic theology. Dr. Döllinger paid a tribute indeed to the 'completeness and comprehensiveness' of the scholastics, and to their advance in this respect on the early Fathers. But their Aristotelian starting-point imposed limitations. 'Their analytical processes could not construct a system corresponding to the harmony and wealth of revealed truth; and without the elements of Biblical criticism and dogmatic history they possessed only one of the eyes of theology.' Since the Reformation a theology had been growing up in various countries more suited to modern needs. Our own Stapleton was hailed as the most eminent champion against the reformers. The hope for the future in Germany (the address went on to explain) was religious union; and that could only be attained by Catholic divines taking a certain line which was definitely {563} indicated. Scholastic theology was to be regarded as a thing of the past. Catholic doctrine must be presented in its organic completeness, and in its connection with the religious life, 'rigidly separating that which is permanent and essential from whatever is accidental, transitory, and foreign.' Catholics must recognise and claim the distorted truths which the 'separated communities' preserve, thus appealing to those outside the Catholic society by what is truest or best in the opinions they already hold. The genuine theologian must reason boldly and thoroughly, and 'not take to flight if the process of his reasoning threatens to demolish some truth which he had deemed unassailable.' Hypothesis and opinion are constantly being broken down as knowledge advances, but defined dogma must ever remain; though even defined dogma needs intellectual power for its exposition. 'Definitions need to be impregnated by the thought of the preacher and divine, and while they become bright gems in the hands of a true theologian, they may be converted into lustreless pebbles by the manipulations of a rude and mechanical mind.' Development, expressed both in modification of opinion and in the increased realisation of the true meaning of dogma, is to be the order of the day; and above all things the attempt to give to the opinions of a school the authority of dogma is to be opposed. Such was the substance of this memorable address. And there was much in it with which all active Catholic thinkers sympathised. It was delivered to an audience including adherents of many schools; and in great part it bore an interpretation which all could accept. Heinrich and Scheeben were there, representing the Ultramontanes of Mayence, and they did not repudiate it. But they did publicly disclaim agreement with the extreme interpretation of it which a section of thinkers adopted; and it was naturally judged in Rome by the known views of its deliverer and supporters. If it contained much which was acceptable to all Catholic thinkers of insight, as to the necessity of vivifying scientific theology, and bringing it up to date, uniting it with the exposition of the religious life, separating dogma from opinion, it appeared to some of those present that the element of discipline and the element of authority were {564} ignored. One necessary element of Catholic progress—intellectual life—was advocated; the other, equally indispensable to orderly advance—authority—was reduced to a minimum. The decisions of the Roman Congregations, and the conclusions of the united Theological School, must be in some sense landmarks, and the intent of the address, as viewed by many, was to emancipate Catholic thought altogether from their control. Again, it might be well to supplement the Scholastics; but Rome could not set aside the writings of the great Doctors, portions of which had passed into the very definitions of the Church, and many of which were indissolubly blended with its undying tradition. Opinion might change; but there were theological opinions which carried the greatest weight, and could not be treated as having no special authority from the universal and prolonged sanction of the Church. Advance and Reform were good, but Revolution was bad. The current teaching might become gradually modified by the efforts of individuals—this had happened often enough in the history of the Church. But that official Catholic teaching and public writing in Germany should break off avowedly and suddenly from a body of doctrine which, even if not true in every particular, was as a whole, the outcome of an unbroken growth,—its roots in the Apostolic age, its branches among the dogmas of all times,—was a proposal which could not be passed over with neutrality. But this very prospect, that in the hands of the most Liberal representatives of the Munich school, Dr. Döllinger's principles would lead to a complete breach with traditional methods, was just what rejoiced the hearts of the English Liberal thinkers of whom I have spoken. The Home and Foreign looked for great results. It noted the 'rare significance' of Döllinger's address, and added that 'in conjunction with the circumstances in which it was delivered, it forms an epoch in the ecclesiastical history of Germany.' Its influence, if it was unchecked, would not be confined to Germany. 'If it comes to bear fruit,' the Review continued, 'it will bear it for the whole Catholic world.' [Note 6] {565} But the very enthusiasm aroused by the address was the signal for its censure. The Munich school had many enemies who suspected its orthodoxy. Froschammer had given it a bad name. And the jealous defenders of scholasticism were powerful in Rome. Pius IX. addressed a Brief to the Archbishop of Munich, dated December 21. In it he praised the intentions of those who summoned and attended the Congress and hoped for good results. But the Brief emphatically asserted the claims of scholastic theology and the Roman Congregations, as having authority even over the speculations of Catholic men of science. It was generally accepted as a censure of just that very interpretation of Döllinger's address which the Home and Foreign had expressed and hailed with satisfaction. The editors, therefore, indicated their submission by suspending publication. In an article entitled 'Conflicts with Rome' they maintained that a Review was in a false position which pursued lines opposed to so authoritative a declaration; nevertheless they appealed to time and the future to justify the line the Review had advocated. Newman wrote expressing his regret at its disappearance. He gave no judgment as to whether the Munich Brief constituted a sufficient reason for Acton's step. Newman himself felt perfectly able to accept the Brief in its letter. But he spoke of his dread of the application of parts of the Brief. He saw that it might be susceptible of an interpretation which would make the principles of the Home and Foreign, quite apart from its excesses, out of harmony with the wishes of the Pope. The original draft of his letter to Acton (kept for future publication) ran as follows: 'The Oratory, Birmingham: March 18th, 1864. 'You are the best judge whether you have grounds for bringing it to an end. Blennerhassett sent me the Brief from Döllinger about a week ago; I set about formally analysing it; but have been interrupted by the hundred matters of the day, and as yet have got a very little way into it. I observed in it, of course, the three points which you mention; and they affected me in this way;—I had no difficulty in following them in the letter and in their principle, but I dreaded their application ... I suppose they mean more than they say. I differ from you accordingly in the ground of my apprehension, but of course there is a great deal to apprehend still. I can never say that you are wrong in anticipating that they are intended to be used against you; and that the more easily, because we are under (what seems to me to be) the military régime of Propaganda. 'Good may arise out of the Review being brought to an end, which at first sight does not present itself to our view. There is life and increasing life in the English Catholic body,—clergy and laity—and, if there is life, there must be a reaction. I don't think that active and honest minds can remain content under a dull tyranny. It seems impossible to conceive that they can remain quiet under the supremacy of Manning and Ward. 'For yourself, I congratulate you with all my heart for your release
from occupations which are unworthy of you. You have life before you;
you will see many things before you die. The April number of the Home and Foreign was the last, and though Sir John Acton and Mr. Wetherell continued for a time to urge their line of thought in the North British Review, all connection of Newman with their efforts was from this time onwards at an end. Newman set himself to examine the Munich Brief, of which he has left a careful analysis. He came to the conclusion that its directions made it impossible for him to deal as a Catholic writer with the controversies raised by the {567} positive sciences. Silence on such subjects was his only course for the time. He writes as follows: 'I thought it was commonly said that Galileo's fault was that he meddled with theology, and that, if he had confined himself to scientific conclusions he would have been let alone; but surely the language of the brief ... is as if even men of science must keep theological conclusions before them in treating of science. Well, I am not likely to investigate in science—but I certainly could not write a word upon the special controversies and difficulties of the day with a view to defend religion from free-thinking physicists without allowing them freedom of logic in their own science. So that, if I understand this brief, it is simply a providential intimation to every religious man, that, at this moment, we are simply to be silent, while scientific investigation proceeds—and say not a word on questions of interpretation of scripture &c. &c., when perplexed persons ask us—and I am not sure that it will not prove to be the best way.' [Note 7] Top | Contents | Biographies | Home Notes1. The financial situation of the Rambler had become so grave
that Acton, at the suggestion of Dr. Russell of Maynooth, actually
contemplated approaching Manning and Ward with a view to amalgamating
the new Quarterly Rambler or Home and Foreign Review with
the Dublin. The Dublin, however, was still under the
Cardinal's supervision, and Newman, when consulted on the proposal,
wrote that he did not see how 'a free Catholic Review, (be such a
publication right or wrong) could have relations with a Cardinal who is
not free but bound by special oaths.' 2. The following are some samples of the criticisms passed by Newman on particular passages in the article: p. 457. 'Six great phases of development stand forth';—'made up of two elements called evening and morning, or conception and birth'; 'after comes a seventh of rest, when the productivity of the forces of the universe,' &c. 'Evening and morning' means 'conception and birth'; how does he know it? 'The first is called the one day, because all the others are, as it were, branches of it.' Does he know it from Scripture, from the Fathers, from what he calls (p. 452) 'the religions of confusion,' from modern criticism? Is it stated dogmatically, or as a speculation? I wish he had told us. p. 457. 'The seven primeval Angels in the later Jewish tradition appear as the seven angels who were created in the beginning. From the Jews the first Christians received this tradition; and in Hermes we find the six creative days as six young men, the Angels of God, who were first created.' 'Of these the first created, ... Clement without hesitation identifies them with the days of Moses.' Now what does all this mean? 'The later Jewish tradition';—is it true? then the six or seven days of creation are six or seven Angels. Is this interpretation of a dogmatic character? On the other hand, is it not true? … In a word, does Moses mean by the seven days seven angels, or does he not? What is it all about? It looks as if the writer thought they were just as much days as they were Angels, and just as much Angels as they were days; and not so much either, as they were 'forces'; but why does he not speak out? p. 464. 'To the Hebrew mind, there were always two parts of a new creation.' Does this mean to the inspired mind of Moses and the Prophets? Observe, I am determining nothing about inspiration; I only want the writer to speak out; not to insinuate, but to say or not say. p. 464. 'Thus every creative act of God, after the first creation of heaven and earth out of nothing, is a renewal through destruction.' Is; as a matter of fact, or is 'to the Hebrew mind'? p. 468. 'The inadequacy, &c., would naturally bring again before the mind'; 'the old doctrine of a divine sacrifice would rise up again,' &c. Now here I repeat, is he resolving the development of religion into the natural action of the 'Hebrew mind' or not? Cui bono, since anyhow that development was directly from God. Is it to account for difficult facts? what are the facts? what are we at? We are not told our premisses, or our conclusions, what is fact, what is theory; what is the drift of the whole, whether to answer objections or to insinuate prognostications. Sometimes he says: 'would,' as 'would' expresses conjecture, does 'is' express fact? No; for 'is' is sometimes 'is to the Hebrew mind.' Well then, what is conjectural, what objective, what subjective? what human, what divine? p. 470. 'This is the idea of the first chapters of Genesis.' Divine idea, or Hebrew idea, or modern, philosophical idea? or a mystification? p. 470. 'They constitute a religious document, not a treatise on
astronomy, &c.' Why will he not speak out? Does the first chapter
admit of an interpretation expressing the facts of the history of
creation or does it not? Insinuation always makes people angry. Is he or
is he not insinuating that these portions of Scripture do not directly
come from God? Surely so grave a subject should be treated logically and
methodically, not made matter for a showy sketch or an ingenious
argument. 3. [Note by Cardinal Newman. June 16, 1882.]
'"Our Bishop's letter and your visit." I suppose
this implies that Cardinal Wiseman thought I had recanted, and that he
had wished to clench it by a formal reconciliation of me with Ward, and
my taking my place among the writers in the Dublin. Hence I warn
him that when he comes to me, I shall "keep clear of theological
subjects."' 4. Newman appends the following words of Devoti
the theologian—'Episcopus damnat libros sed ejus leges errori subesse
possunt.' 5. Two letters of Newman, one to Ward, the other
to Acton, on points of difference between them, will be found in the
Appendix at p. 637. 6. The above paragraphs are slightly abridged
from the account of the Congress in W. G. Ward and the Catholic
Revival. 7. The full text of Newman's analysis of the
Munich Brief is given in the Appendix (see p. 641). He evidently refers
to the Brief and to its effect on his own line of action in the Apologia
at p. 263. Top | Contents | Biographies | Home Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman |