The Fortnightly Review: No. CCCCLXIII, New Series [‎647r] (184/239)

FRANCIS WILLIAM NEWMAN.
153
it, taking it for granted as one takes for granted the Law of
Gravitation. But a few stopped to think, and discovered the
doctrine to be, not only intellectually but also morally, objection
able. Francis Newman was one of the few. The interest of
his case—if not the value of his criticisms—lies in the fact that
he was no eager unbeliever, jumping hastily to conclusions
which he was anxious to attain. Prejudiced in favour of the
doctrine, he evolved slowly, dropping it reluctantly and by
degrees because Truth and his conscience compelled him.
He was, in truth, a singularly simple-minded man, though his
temperament and his intelligence drew him different ways
intensely religious, and yet at the same time intensely logical.
His feeling for religion amounted almost to a passion, as is
attested not only by his famous missionary journey, of which more
must be said, but also by the fact that, long after he had shed the
last formulae of the Christian creed, he wrote and published a
volume of Famihj Prayers. But the logical mind, though not
incompatible with the Pietist temper, was bound to play havoc,
however slowly, and however regretfully, with the formulae of
Pietist creeds. It is possible for a certain type of intellect not
only to believe things without inquiring whether they are true,
but to affect to believe contrary propositions simultaneously, and
to accept the premises of a syllogism while repudiating the conclu
sion. To Francis Newman’s mind this was not possible. He
never disbelieved wilfully, as the theologians would say, for the
sake of disbelieving. On the contrary, he always believed as much
as he could, giving the traditional faith the benefit of all the doubts
until he had carefully sifted all the evidence. His Pietistic
habits of thought imposed that obligation upon him. But he
could not see the use of believing things unless they were true,
or of pretending to believe them when he did not; and so he
endured persecution—the prospective eternal condemnation
being anticipated by the immediate temporal boycott—and passed
laboriously through “phases of faith” so distinct and well-
defined that he was able to ticket and number them.
His first trouble was with the XXXIX. Articles; and that
fact alone shows what a long road theologians have travelled
since his time. Nowadays it is the rule rather than the exception
for the attitude of a theologian towards the formularies of his
Church to be disrespectful. Recent ecclesiastical litigation in
Scotland has exhibited the interesting spectacle of the repudia
tion of Calvinistic doctrines by the beneficiaries of a Calvinistic
Deed of Trust; and the average clergyman of the Church of
England seldom shows any exaggerated reverence for his Articles
of Faith and Religion. He is far more likely to explain them
away than to thrust them down the throats of his neighbours—