66 his own motives, for he confesses more than this. "It was his intention "and wish to have carried his volume through the press before finally "deciding on this step," (recognising the Church of Rome); "but "when he had got some way in the printing, he recognised in himself "a conviction of the truth of the conclusion to which the discussion "leads, so clear as to supersede further deliberation*." It is one of the most extraordinary of the phenomena of mental history, that a man of no ordinary powers, and of no puerile age, actually wrote a book, which is a contemptuous attack on Protestantism under the name of heresy, and on almost every page asserts and maintains some peculiar Roman dogma, without being aware that he was a Romanist. Or, again, it is passing strange, that a work which professes to be philosophical, and to establish and maintain the very basis on which every peculiar Romish dogma rests, should be written before its author understood the principle of his treatise. The author is so ignorant of himself, that he “got some way in the printing" before he recognised the conviction that his assertions were true, or his principles more than imaginary. But, if it be said that a scientific work may follow the Platonic form, and suggest doubts in such a way that the author is unaware of their tendency, we shall again make the writer explain his treatise. "If, at times," says he, "his tone appears positive or peremptory, he hopes this will be "imputed to the scientific character of the work, which requires a dis"tinct statement of principles, and of the arguments which recommend "them." Of the dogmatic character of the work no one can remain in doubt, when, within a few lines, the similarity of the Romish and Primitive Churches is asserted in such terms as the following:-" without "any question," "universally considered," and "it is the nearest ap"proach," "for all will agree." A dogmatic work has been scientifically written by a learned man without his recognising its conclusion, and dogmatically a clergyman declares, that the Virgin Mary has the " char"acter of Patroness or Paraclete ‡," and speaks of "Mary occupying a new sphere, if we may so speak, in the realms of light, to which the "Church had not yet assigned its inhabitant§." Or, again, this same writer describes in glowing terms the power and vigour of the Romish Church ||, while he contemns its opponents; and by the same writer the omission of the second Commandment is defended¶. But, above all, the champion who lauds the religious principles of the Jesuits**, even this man did not recog 66 • Advertisement, p. x. † Advertisement, p. iv. P. 387. ¶ P. 434. ** P. 427. Only a full quotation can give an adequate view of this praise, or, it may be called, identification. nise his own conclusions. At last we are compelled to exclaim, that such a man must long have been familiar with these doctrines, or otherwise he could not have forgotten that they ever have been and are the distinguishing traits of Papal Rome. If such confessions are true, they for ever destroy any idea of a sound mind or discriminating intellect, or safe conscience in their confessor; but, if they are not true, we leave the conclusion. But is this the man by whom hundreds have been led heedlessly for years, and over whose writings antagonists have prayed and friends exulted with a frenzy of triumph? If so, how are the mighty fallen, and how low does the mind sink, when it embraces the dogmas or practice of Rome! error. These remarks may in some measure tend to answer those who inquire how an English Clergyman can have left light for darkness, truth for The fundamental principle which Mr. Newman has just recognised is, that a man cannot manage his arguments. And it is very true, that if men regard as axioms certain premises, which are in themselves false, they cannot control their conclusions, which will be necessarily false. Accordingly, it would have been well, if the first basis of Tractarianism had received more examination before it was put forth to the world. A number of small tracts were intended to act upon our nation, and were prepared in the midst of a deadly war between latitudinarians and sceptics on the one side, and sincere Christians on the other. They were meant for the people, and the people demand strong terms and decisive language. Thus, we may see that the state of mind in which the writers were, as well as their object, impelled to extreme statements. Men were tired of arguing against a species of mob oratory, which every talker learned from his superiors in station. The Tracts proposed to cut the knot by simple dogmatism, and by an appeal to the Fathers. Their opponents appealed to Scripture in a perverted sense; and zeal was too much engaged to dispute, and it was contented to dogmatise. But there were men who soon saw the tendency of such principles. Even one in their own camp, after fifteen Tracts had issued from the press, resigned his place, because of the Romish bias; and he was no low-churchman*. It was a crisis in their history which a bold, honest Churchman should have seized. He should have exposed the danger, diverted the plague by making it public, or, by intimate communication with his Diocesan, have warned him of the plague spot. This Mr. Palmer did not do. He was Palmer's" Narrative of Events" may well be consulted for the most favourable account of the Tractarian development. Mr. Palmer spoke against the haste and want of revision. silent, and permitted those who denounced Tractarianism as the germ of Popery to be themselves denounced as using slanderous accusations. In Mr. Palmer's power were complete evidences, but in sad silence he allowed his Diocesan to mistake the true nature of the party. And well would it have been if no worse result had followed; but he, by his silence, allowed error to become inveterate in the teachers, and to be dispersed amongst the scholars. Humanly speaking, if Mr. Palmer had spoken out what he knew, not one of the Oxford seceders would have apostatised, and most of them would never have known Mr. Newman as the leader of a party. Most of them were at school in 1835 and 1836, or were just entering on their University career. Mr. Palmer was silent until 1844, and with what pain must he have heard the repeated and public denials of the existence of any party. He must have felt for the honour of his Church. But others were not silent, and Mr. Newman beat a retreat from the anti-Nicene Fathers to the mediæval Church. Discussion and coptroversy followed, and a further retreat was sounded to development; and when this has to give an account of itself, it comes forth as dogmatic Popery. As Bellarmine said before, so do we see, that Mr. Newman makes his own such words as the following-"Next all Catholics agree;" secondly, that the Pope, when determining anything in a doubtful matter, whether by himself or with his own particular council, whether it is possible for him to err or not, is to be obeyed by all the faithful* ? Now, we are quite aware that it is unphilosophical to denounce a man, simply on the ground that he has assumed Romanism as his creed : but it seems very important to give an account of the process by which, and the character of the person by whom, that religion is accepted. Mr. Newman tells us, that antecedent probability is evidence enough even in opposition to evidence, and that "if this probability is great, it almost "supersedes evidence altogether† ;" but in the present instance we have not only antecedent probability that the issue must be absolute Romanism, but also the positive evidence of successive writings to shew that the farther descent was faster. It has been then, in fact, no actual and immediate passage from light to darkness, but a gradual descent from light to twilight, from twilight to obscurity, from obscurity to the blackness of midnight. It has been as steady and certain a progress, if not more so, than might have been expected. There has been so little reaction, so very little drag on the wheels of this theological agitation, that the very absence of it astonishes. It is confessed that Mr. Newman did not *P. 125. The italics are as the original. † Pp. 131, 132. understand either his basis or his arguments, and that some one theory, hidden may be, but simple, nevertheless, has hurried on the issue*. Indeed, of late, the question has not been, will Tractarian leaders join Rome? but, when will they secede? and this may be regarded as no small proof of the gradual process. Such a secession does no violence to Protestant theories, and is as natural as a reception of any other false doctrine. It need shake no one's faith, and excite no man's doubts. It does, however, appeal to us in one way, which is a matter of deep inward thoughtfulness; for we have a prayer in our Litany which reaches the case, when we pray for such as "have erred and are de"ceived." Protestantism is no whit the less safe than before, but spurious Protestantism is stripped of one of its defences. The course and the issue of these new views are rather a confirmation of the fundamental principle that the Bible is our rule, and accordingly development meets no one Protestant argument. Its foundation is different. There is no common ground on which it can argue. The Essay will not affect any but such as have pinned their faith to patristic lore as a rule. Indeed, it is only intended for men of certain extreme sentiments, who regulate their creed by a sentence of the Fathers, as if it were revelation. It is an excuse for Romanism,-an apology for its absence from the Bible and its presence in the Romish Church. And, assuredly, it will have the effect of shewing to some the utter absurdity of any other rule than inspiration. Some will be led on as the middle ground is cut from under them, and Rome may gain a convert more. The author having tried to cast a mist over other doctrines, by quietly assuming that they are unsystematic and false, then suggests a theory of credibilities, which he calls probabilities; and, lastly, concludes as if all his premises were certainty. And doubtless the Essay has been, like No. XC, for one class of persons, and that a class, who are content to read without examining or asking whether there are not two sides of the question. Throughout this volume, scarcely an objection is answered, hardly an opposing text is quoted or a patristic passage referred to, except it is thought to be in favour of the views supported. And a wise precaution such a plan is, for it hides from the careless reader, who reads without thought and receives without argument, that immense mass of contradictory evidence which history and prayerful reason has supplied against the innovations of Rome. And the *This gains support from what is stated "On the Process of Development in Ideas," p. 31, 46 e. g. a whole train of investigation or inference may depend on the original admission of some one proposition which is false." 66 "aim will be answered if he succeeds in suggesting thoughts, which, in "God's good time, may quietly bear fruit in the minds of those to whom "that subject is new, and which may carry forward inquirers who have already put themselves on the course *." History and facts are important things, but they are to be used in subjection to the rule, just as our Church subjects the creeds and receives them, because they may be proved by sure warrants of Scripture. We can use the Fathers as witnesses of a fact, and put our own value upon the fact, that is, try it by the Bible, without danger; but enlarge revelation by every mystical interpretation, and there is no point at which the disputant can manage his argument so as to stay its career. "And yet," says the author of this Essay, "it may almost be laid down as an historical fact, that the "mystical interpretation and orthodoxy will stand or fall together+." It cannot be denied that the rule guides us to doctrines; and just, therefore, as Mr. Newman has indefinitely enlarged his rule by Fathers, Popes, and Councils, so he as naturally receives new doctrines as we reject them. We hear God rather than man. Mr. Newman hears man rather than revelation, and therefore all astonishment ceases at his fall. He fell when he gave up the Bible, by thinking it vague and insufficient; and from that our grief for his apostasy should have begun. Before touching further on the insufficiency of the rule and basis of this new development, it is worth while to observe another trait of character. The deficiency of Scripture arguments is proclaimed, but Scripture is sometimes, though seldom, quoted, and it will throw a light on the subject if we inquire as to the way in which it is quoted. Of course, it will be supposed that no one would denounce the insufficiency of a proof with which he is unacquainted; and, therefore, we ought to expect a peculiar accuracy in arguments and quotations from Scripture in the case of one who has tried it and found it wanting. Perhaps the writer's own opinion will be best understood by referring to a very strong passage. "The common sense of mankind does but support a conclusion 'thus forced upon us by analogical considerations. It feels that the very idea of revelation implies a present informant and guide, and that an infallible one; not a mere abstract declaration of truths not known "before to man, or a record of history, or the result of an antiquarian "research, but a message and a lesson, speaking to this man and that. "This is shewn by the popular notion which has prevailed among us "since the Reformation, that the Bible itself is such a guide, and which *Advertisement, p. iv. † P. 324. |