Newmanianism: A Preface to the Second Edition to Philomythus

Title page

NEWMANIANISM

A PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION OF PHILOMYTHUS

CONTAINING A REPLY TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR" A FEW WORDS TO MR. WILFRID WARD AND SOME REMARKS ON MR. R. H. HUTTON'S "CARDINAL NEWMAN" BY EDWIN A. ABBOTT

I

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

§ I. The Motive of the Author

This book was originally meant to be a chapter in a larger work on Newman; and the intention was to compress into it most of the severe things which, in common honesty, it seemed needful to say about Newman's use of words and evidence in controversy, so as to leave freedom for a more sympathetic treatment of the subject as a whole in the rest of the work.

But, on investigation, the grounds for censure appeared much larger than I had anticipated; and, when I came to study the Essay on Ecclesiastical Miracles, the mental and almost moral shock which I received from that portentous work -and from the amazing fact that it had been thought well to reprint such a production in the year 1890- caused my single chapter to grow first into several chapters and ultimately into a separate volume.

My book is intended as an attack, not against Newman himself, but against the whole of that theological "system of safety" which would pollute the intellect with the suggestion that it is "safe" to say this, and "unsafe" to say that, about alleged historical facts. In answer to someone who had reported a saying that Cardinal (then Dr.) Wiseman "was an unscrupulous controversialist", Newman replied (Letters, ii. 324) "I daresay he is. But who is not?" How strange an avowal, almost amounting to a condonation! And yet, is it not true? Is it not a fact, -though a portentous fact- that men are expected to argue with scrupulous honesty about Thucydides or Aristotles, but not about the facts of the Bible or the history of the Christian Church? My war, then, is not with Newman, but with the system which Newman in these words (perhaps unconsciously) condemns.

Such letters as I have received already (within little more than a fortnight from the date of publication), from eminent men well fitted to weigh evidence and to discuss the special questions here treated, lead me to hope that my book is not only substantially accurate but also helpful to the cause of religious truth. But it was of course impossible to attempt to dispel that kind of legendary exaggeration which had gradually attached itself to the popular estimate of Newman's work, without giving pain to some of his admirers.

When a man of such high intellectual standing as Mr. R.H. Hutton, could quote passage after passage from Newman's works -passages teeming with fallacies or with expressions leading to erroneus conclusions- with an approval wich, when combined with the intrinsic plausibility of the quotations, imposes upon multitudes of readers (among whom the present writer must confess that he was, at first, one); and when so able a critic could bring himself to use the words "sobriety" and "discrimination" in connection with one of Newman's so-called "inquires" into an alleged ecclesiastical miracle, it seemed clear that something must be done, and no less clear that nothing useful could be done without giving offence to some whom one was very loath to offend, but who were so blinded by Newman's magnetic influence that, in criticizing his works, they had lost all power of distinguishing truth from untruth.

II.The Criticism of the Spectator

§ II. The Criticism of the "Spectator"

Hitherto, howewer, among many criticisms from the press, the Editor of the Spectator has been unique in accusing me of "unfairness"; and I trust -having regard to the good fame of British journalism- that he will remain unique in having accused me of insincerity. The latter accusation has indeed been withdrawn, but in so grudging a spirit as to make the recantation almost worse than the original offense: "We suppose we had no right to say" -here, as elsewhere, the italics are mine, -"that we did not believe him to be quite sincere in denying that Newman was guilty of conscious insincerity, and we withdraw the statement". (Spectator, 25th April, 1891).

The accusation of "unfairness" are not withdrawn. But their insignificance may be estimated from a single specimen. The Editor accused me of ignoring the fact that "at the time these Essays were published" (meaning Newman's two Essays on miracles) there was not "any of the ground" wich exists now for attributing cures to "faith-healing". In my reply I showed first, that in the expression italicized above he had confused together (and this, not once, but trice) two quite distinct Essays, of wich one was published by Newman as a Protestant, and the other about sixteen or seventeen years afterwards when he was on the verge of Romanism: I then showed that, even in the earlier Essay, Newman definitely recognized some so-called miraculous cures "as possible effects of an excited imagination;" I added that a fortiori, with the growth of science, sixteen or seventeen years afterwards, there would be still more of that "ground" of which the very existence had been denied by my censor, and I invited him to reconsider his charge of "unfairness". But it remains unwithdrawn. That being the case, it seems well to place upon record this instance of the degree to which a critic of some repute may be biassed by what he has himself described as "five-and-twenty years' study of Newman".

I could not sincerely call Newman dishonest or deliberately insincere. It would appear, to me at all events, a gross psychological blunder-intellectually , as well as morally, offensive. That subtlety and tortuosity of mind which induced James Mozley to call Laud "great but twisty", is still more decidedly and justly to be distinguished from conscious insincerity in a nature like Newman's, which in many departments of thought evinced a singular simplicity and a hatred of things hollow and conventional. But still, the instincts of a theological rhetorician, striving for the truths which he supposes necessary for eternal salvation, do occasionally lead him to omit, pervert, distort, suppress, in a manner so extraordinary that any geologist, or astronomer, or philologist, or commentator (upon anything except the Bible) guilty of such desecrations of truth would receive the severest reprobation. Hence it is not always easy, while execrating the system, to speak mildly about an eminent man who is but one of many victims to it. One or two softening modifications I have already inserted in the "Corrigenda" of this edition, and, if an opportunity should present itself, I would gladly incorporate them hereafter in the text, together with any other corrections that may be shown to be demanded by justice.

III.The Editor of the Spectator

§ III. The Editor of the "Spectator"

Since the above was in print, incidents have occurred which have compelled me to amplify my Preface.

The additions will be, I am sorry to say, largely of a personal nature, and I shall give my adversaries a splendid chance of bespattering me with accusations of an egotism to which they themselves have driven me. But I will risk that. Better to bear such charges from a few Newmanians who are too angry to know what they are saying, than to encourage, by silence, a suspicion in ordinary readers that I have waited for the death of an eminent man in order to attack him with impunity.

In the course of my remarks I shall have to attack Mr. R.H. Hutton. I do it with regret; but he has forced me to it. Hiterto I have studiously avoided giving him pain. In Philomytus I have analysed passage after passage from Newman's works, and have exposed their errors and fallacies. These passages, in a great number of instances, I had found in Mr. Hutton's Cardinal Newman quoted with expressed, or implied, approval. It was open to me (and I sometimes doubted whether it was not incumbent on me) to conclude each exposure with a moral -saying in effect, "See what Newmanianism brings a man to! And this, too, not a fool, but a really able man! Mark, and beware, the results of five and twenty years' study of Newman!!"

But I did nothing of the kind. In almost every instance I simply acknowleged Mr. Hutton's volume as the source of my extract. I left him alone, where Truth itself almost dictated that I should give him at least a passing touch. I sought peace and ensued it (so far as Mr. Hutton is concerned); but he prefers war; and -since, under the present circumstances, war against Mr. Hutton appears likely to be the best mode of waging war for Truth -war let it be. But it shall be real war; fighting, not cudgelling. Instead of bludgeoning him with epithets, I will do my best to catch him in the meshes of his own statements, and run him through with finely-pointed facts. It shall also be fair war. I shall convict him of a great many blunders, and of a continuous (though unintentional) misrepresentation of the object of his idolatry. But I shall never anger him, or disgrace myself, by denying that he is perfectly, blindly, and almost insanely "sincere".

Besides being far, the war shall also be, if possible, brief. If I might, without presumption, slightly change my metaphor for the purpose of what is to follow, I would compare this Preface to one of those "Trophies" erected by Greek conquerors on the field of battle. The rule was, with the Greeks, that a "Trophy" should be erected in memory of a victory; but it was not to be repaired; it was allowed to tumble to pieces under the finger of that kind old peace-maker, Time. So will it be, I trust, with the "Trophy" wich I am going to erect in the following paragraphs over the Editor of the Spectator, and Mr. Hutton. This preface shall be-so far as I am concerned- ephemeral. If Philomythus comes to a third edition, I hope to cancel it should the conduct of others allow me to do so.

And now I must briefly explain what has occurred to necessitate this unusual proceeding. The Editor of the Spectator began by attacking me in an article, in which, after describing Philomythus as a specimen fo "theological caning", "schoolmasterish severity" and "a superfluity of naughtiness of which only a pedantic theorist could be guilty", he proceeded to accuse me of four definite acts of unfairness (besides indefinite unfairnesses without number); then to imply that I was a Pharisee by saying, "Dr. Abbott evidently does not think the worse of himself for taking all possible credit for formally acquitting Newman; "and finally to bring against me (in the words above quoted) an approximation to a charge of falsehood.

In answer to a letter covering so much ground, I was necessarily obliged to write a long and somewhat technical reply, in which I convincted him of manifold errors and definitely met his charges of "unfairness", leaving my "sincerity" -as I suppose most men of honour would have done in such a case- to take care to itself.

The Editor inserted my letter. But he prefixed to it a second article of his own, declining to criticize "a petty verbal assault"; pouring contempt upon me, apparently because I am not, as Newman was, "two or three selves at once in the wonderful structure of "my" mind; and pronouncing my book to be "singularly deficient in candour" on the very same page in which he vouchsafed to suppose that he "had no right" to accuse me of insincerity. He aggravated this offence by speaking of my "upright and manly life". I do not mind, so much, a stranger's calling me insincere: but I object more strongly to it from one who professes (I do not know on what grounds) to know enough about me to testify to my "uprightness". He also used a great deal of loose and inaccurate, though interesting and plausible, language about Newman, which -though it would only convince the thoughtful and well-informed reader that the Editor was blind to almost all Newman's defects -would suggest, to the ill-informed, that I was blind to all Newman's virtues.

Besides this second article, he inserted a letter from Mr. Wilfrid Ward, accusing me (I) of "unmannerly abuse", (2) of "direct misrepresentation", (3) of "attempting to establish a case by misleading treatment", (4) of "electing", not only to omit Newman's italics in a quotation, but also to insert a word of my own -an accusation which, of course, though it may suggest nothing of any importance to some classes of people, yet, coming from one who is a man of honour as well a man of letters, amounted to a charge of something approximating to knavery.

Lastly, the Editor appended to my letter a long comment of his own, withdrawing nothing, correcting nothing except a date that he "carelessly wrote from memory", and mystifying and confusing everything.

To all these charges it was difficult to make a short reply; but I made it, at all events, a great deal shorter than my first letter, and sent it to the Editor. It was returned unprinted, with a note from Mr. R.H. Hutton, alleging that my first letter had already occupied more space than the attacks against me, "including the two articles". He curtly added that he would give me "a column at most", but that it was "simply impossible to fill another Spectator with a fresh reply". This was slightly discourteus. But I was not surprised at that; for I expected it. A little irritation was not very unnatural, and was quite pardonable in one whom I had (unintentionally) pained a great deal. What surprised me was that he should be so very angry as to be blind to the fact that less than four columns (the length of my letter) cannot be called, on the ordinary principles of Arithmetic, more than seven (the length of attacks on me) or even more than five (the length of his two articles).

I felt that his anger must be great indeed to produce such results as these. And other considerations reconciled me to this little ebullition of Editorial abruptness. I knew that many readers of the Spectator had for many years shaken thei heads mournfully over the growing tendency to narrow views in one who had once been supposed to feel a genuine admiration for Mr. F.D. Maurice; I knew how bitterly the late Bishop of Manchester had felt the constant worrying whit which he had been harassed by the Spectator in his declining years for honestly attempting to enforce among his clergy an observance of the law; I knew how, quite recently, the Spectator had persistently refrained, as long as it was possible to do so, from making any comment whatever on the "Service of Reconciliation, or Act of Reparation to Almighty God for the dishonour recently done to His sanctuary" by the act of a lunatic who shed his blood within the walls of St. Paul's; and further, I knew that, though the Times had thrown open its columns to a discussion of the subject, the Spectator had refused to insert a letter written by the foremost disciple of Mr. F.D. Maurice, a clergyman to whose opinion few, if any, of our bishops would have denied a profound and respectful attention. This being the case, there did not seem much for me to complain of.

So I sat down to condense my letter into "one column". Here it is, as it was printed, except that I have added, in brackets, two words of clearness.

IV.Mr. Ward's Charge of "unmannerly abuse"

§ IV.Mr. Ward's Charge of "unmannerly abuse"

"SIR, -You wish to close 'our unwelcome controversy'- which you yourself provoked by charging me with unfairness and insincerity -having made a second attack on me in which you leave the charges of unfairness unwithdrawn (as to some of which -e.g., that about 'faith-healing' -even you, I should have thought, would have confessed yourself to have been in wrong), and the charge of insincerity withdrawn in such terms as to aggravate the offence.

"I sent you a reply to Mr. Ward's charges (I) of "direct misrepresentation", (2) "unmannerly abuse", and you returned it, restricting me to a column. Cancelling, therefore, all that section of my lettere which refers to 'direct misrepresentation', I ask scholars to believe me for the present (as being unheard) to be innocent of this offence, promising to publish the suppressed section at an early opportunity. I have only space to deal with the charge of 'unmannerly abuse', under which Mr. Ward complains that I apply to Newman the words (1) 'slatternly', (2) 'insolent aggressiveness', (3) 'conudct worthy of a bookseller's hack'.

"(I.) I called parts of Newman's essay (not Newman) 'slatternly'. Whoever denies this, has either not read the essay, or his scholarship is beneath contempt. I adhere to this.

"(2.) The words "just a spice of insolent aggressiveness" described the occasional abruptness adn provocativeness of Newman's style, which Newman himself described as 'a blow in the face' and Froude as 'a blow in the stomach'. Similarly, Dean Church described Mr. W.G. Ward's style as 'intolerably provoking' and 'unreversedly defiant and aggressive. The words ' just a spice of ' ought not to have been omitted [by Mr Ward]. I adhere to this.

"(3.) Who could suppose Mr. Ward's quotation that I expressly denied that Newman was 'hack'? A 'hack' is one who stoops to inferior literary work for gain. Newman, in his essay, stooped to inferior work, but not for gain. This my words clearly showed: -'Newman could not have thus degraded his pen for a bribe of any material kind'. I adhere to this.

"So much for my 'unmannerly abuse'. But what has Mr. Ward to say about his (what shall I call it?) use of language? I pass over such phrases as 'gross instances of attempting to establish a case by misleading treatment'; but no amount of charity will enable me to pass over the charge of ' electing ' to interpolate a word of my own in a quotation from Newman. And this, too, in a quotation which I had given correctly on another page! Every man of letters knows that to impute this is to impute something approximating to knavery. In 1864 Newman wrote: -'I do not like to be called to my face a liar and a knave. The tables are turned. In 1891, similar terms are reserved for one who ventures to point out Newman's intellectual failings, forced to this thankless task by what he conceived to be a moral obligation. I have already received from the editor of the Spectator a withdrawal of the charge of an approximation to lying; I have now to ask Mr. Ward to withdraw the charge of an approximation to knavery. All your readers will agree that the latter charge ought not have been written; some may think that, when written, it ought no to have been printed.

"Cannot Newman's best friends see that they are playing into the hands of his worst enemies (of whom assuredly I am not one) when they -imbued with his works, and supposed to be imbued with his spirit- defend him in this way? - I am, Sir, &c".

V.Mr. Ward's Charge of "direct misrepresentation"

§ V.Mr. Ward's Charge of "direct misrepresentation"

The reader will perceive from this letter that I pledged myself to publish, at an early opportunity, my suppressed refutation of Mr. Ward's charge of "direct misrepresentation". I now proceed to do so: but I warn the ordinary reader not to spend much time over it. It is necessarily technical, and I was obliged to be brief, and therefore to risk a little obscurity. Good scholars, I think, will see at a glance that Mr. Ward, if either of us, has (of course unintentionally) misrepresented the facts; but those who are not conversant with Eusebius may find a little difficulty in following the argument. However, here it is:

I turn to Mr. Ward, who accuses me (I) of 'direct misrepresentation', (2) of 'unmannerly abuse'.

"First for the 'direct misrepresentation'. After quoting a passage from Philomythus, Mr. Ward says, 'I naturally supposed from this, as other readers will have done, that Newman had narrated as positive statements of Eusebius what that historian gives as reports '; and he tries to show that this was not the case. I will prove that it is the case.

"I. I lay little stress on the first case because Mr. Ward himself admits it. In the story of the Thundering Legion, Newman has omitted the words of Eusebius it is reported, coming before an account of some wonderful descent of thunderbolts. But Mr. Ward extenuates the omission on the ground that in a previous sentence Newman had translated the phrase. He seems to write as though I had suppressed this fact: but here my words, 'Newman omits the second "it is reported that" . And he seems to be hardly aware, 1st, that a Greek historian would not be likely to repeat a phrase of this kind unless he desired to emphasise in it a manner by no means expressed to English readers in Mr. Ward's translation, and that Newman himself is led by this omission to misrepresent Eusebius (unintenionally, of course) a second time, as will appear in the next paragraph.

"2. Newman says, 'Apollinaris, Tertullian, and Eusebius, attest, &c.' Here we see the results of the previous careless misrepresentation. Eusebius 'attests' absolutely nothing. He quotes Apollinaris, he quotes Tertullian, and he quotes 'report'. But he expressely shifts from himself the responsibility of 'attesting' anything whatever, by these final words: 'But about these matters let each of my readers decide as he pleases.' These words Newman ignores, and, by omitting the words, 'it is reported', he makes Eusebius 'attest' what he does not 'attest' .

"3. Eusebius tells a story about a thaumaturgic conversion of water into oil by St. Narcissus, apparently expressing his disbelief in it by inserting, or implying, before each clause, 'they say that', e.g. (They say that) a small specimen of the oil 'was preserved'. Newman says, 'Eusebius, who relates this miracle, says that small quantities of the oil were preserved even to his time'. "Here Eusebius is made to 'say' what he does not 'say'. And further the reader is led to suppose that, if Eusebius 'said' this, he must have believed in the miracle, and that therefore he 'relates this miracle' on his own responsibility; which is not the fact.

"4. Immediately after this miraculous story Eusebius tell a non-miraculous story about the same Saint. He makes a marked distinction between the two. The former he tells throughout with the incredulous ' they say that '; the latter he relates in the indicative mood as a historical fact; the former he describes as a thaumaturgic act (Θαύμα) 'mentioned, as if from tradition, ὼσὰν (Newman reads ὠς) ἐκπαραδόσεως ', the latter he classiffies under ' things worthy of mention enumerated (or stated)' by members of the Church of Jerusalem.

"Newman absolutely ignores this distinction, and classes both stories as one, under 'tradition'. 'Eusebius', he says, 'notices pointedly that it was the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem". I say that Newman was wrong in ignoring this distinction; Mr. Ward says he was right. I am content to leave it so.

"As regards the three instances first quoted, I am quite sure that scholars would maintain that Newman has 'narrated as positive statements of Eusebius what the historian give as reports'. As regards the fourth, what I asserted was that Newman 'ignored the marked distinction made by the historian:' and I might have added that, in consequence of his ignoring this distinction, he (unintenionally, of course) makes Eusebius say what he did not say, viz., that the miraculous oil was preserved. Mr. Ward, however, sees no 'marked distinction', but only 'a difference in the form of expression'. I can simply marvel and pass on.

"5. There remains one small point which Mr. Ward has made a large one in his treatment of it. In a quotation from Newman on p.5 (given by me correctly on p. 157), I have carelessly inserted the word 'rather', an act of sheer and unmitigated carelessnes, for which Mr. Ward would have been perfectly justified in censuring me.

But he has done more than censure me. He has said that I have ' elected ', not only to omit Newman's italics in this quotation, but also to ' insert ' this word of my own. Now as regards the italics, I have given a general notice (Philomythus, p.9, note) that in all quotations italics are mine, not Newman's; once at least I have retained his italics and called attention to them in a foot-note; but here (since a footnote on a foot-note was out of the question) I did not retain them. But the charge of ' electing ' to insert a word of one's own in a quotation from an opponent stands on a very different footing and then follows, rather more fully stated, the substance of the letter given above; which I will not repeat.

VI. Mr Ward's "Hopes"

§ VI.Mr. Ward's "Hopes"

The reader will have perceived that Mr. Ward, in his letter, hopes "to have an opportunity of pointing out" my "misstatements at some length". He will not easily believe how much pleasure these words, at first, gave me; but I will try to make him understand that it was so, and why it was so.

He calls me "this scrupulous advocate of accuracy", which I am. But he evidently thinks that I take credit to myself for being a model of accuracy; which I do not. On the contrary, I have always avowed myself to be, by nature, one of the most inaccurate of mankind; and, although I have set myself, from my youth upward, to conquer this defect, I know it is far from eradicated.

Conscious of this grave fault, and knowing that, however careful I might be, I must perforce give a good deal of pain to some Newman's too blind admirers, I submitted the proofs of Philomythus to several competent judges (whose kind help I should have acknowleged in my Preface to the First Edition but for the odium which, I knew, would attach to the result); and I gave special weight to those who were most in simpathy with Newman. Unfortunately, one devote admirer of Newman, a member of the Church of Rome, from whose censorship I had hoped most of all, felt precluded, on religious grounds, from helping me to make my book more accurate, and therefore more efficient. When therefore I read Mr. Ward's expression of his "hope" at the beginning of his letter, I felt at first a thrill of the most genuine delight: "Here", said I, "is the very man I want, a real bona fide advocate of Newman". Alas! my delight soon turned to bitter disappointment. The further I read, the lower my hopes fell. I was not surprised or disappointed at his being angry. "Ludicrous", "unmannerly", "violent", "abuse", "falsely represents" -of course Mr. Ward meant to supply, and I did supply, mentally, for him, the word "unintentionally" -all these things did not much move me. In a sense they almost pleased me. For, at least, they clearly showed that he was in earnest, and that he would do his best for the great Cardinal. And, since I could not have the Cardinal himself, this was what I wanted -a genuine champion. But my dejection arose from other causes. It was gradually borne in upon me that Mr. Ward gave at present few or no signs of being an adequate scholar; and, as to evidence, his sole faculty seemed to be that of misappreciating and deranging it in such a way as to mistify and confuse both himself and his readers.

Besides, of course, there was that other charge of "electing" to insert a word of my own in a quotation from Newman, which, I must honestly confess, did make me angry. And it annoyed me, too, by suggesting the inference that, although Mr. Ward would, no doubt, frankly express his regret for this unintentional slip, yet still, if he was going to repeat such slips as these when he pointed out my misstatements "at some length", I should be compelled by self-respect to decline controversy with him; and so I should lose the very useful stimulus and friction of mind with mind, and should be obliged to leave Mr. Ward master of the field in the eyes of a certain portion of the public who could not see through his honest fallacies and bewildering (though unintentional) misrepresentations.

This being the case, it has occurred to me that I may do something to prevent him from making slips of that kind for the future. As therefore Mr. Ward has communicated to the public his "hope", so I will venture to communicate to them, and to him, my intention.

If he indicates real and serious errors either of fact or logic, and steers clear of non-literary personalities, I will answer him; taking my time to weigh whatever may deserve time; acknowledging, and (so far as I can, in the larger works which I am preparing) rectifying whatever may be wrong; and vindicating what is right. But if he repeats his previous language, I shall be forced to take it as a proof that he does not understand English; or that he has not received an English education; or at all events that he is disqualified by some cause, known or unknown, from being an antagonist with whom I can hold a literary discussion.

The reader (and perhaps Mr. Ward himself) will now perceive that Mr. Ward's "hopes" are my hopes. I earnestly trust that he may find the opportunity he desires. And, in order that he may be as useful to me as he can, I wish to prepare him for his task by giving him some advice.