Thesocialevilswereseriousenough。Dogmatictheologymaynotseematfirstsighttobethemostappropriateremedy；but，ifitwere，itcertainlyneededabetterarmyofdefenders。Theidealchurchmusthaveatheologicalschool，abodyoftrainedteacherscapableofmeetingtheassaultsofunbelievers，ofpointingoutthetrueresultsofbiblicalcriticism，ofscientificandhistoricalinquiries，andofdefiningtheattitudeofthechurchinregardtothem。221*Wardisawaketothegrowthofanewinfidelity，moredangerousthanthatofthelastcentury。Carlyle，Kant，Michelet，andMilmanarementionedasrepresentingdifferentmanifestationsofthisevilspirit。
Strauss，too，issellingmorerapidlythananyforeignwork。222*Moreover，’Protestantism，’ashemaintains，isutterlyeffeteandunabletocopewiththeantagonist。The’theoryofprivatejudgment’involvesdoubt，andwilltendinevitablyto’Comte’sphilosophy。’223*ComtewasrepresentedinEnglandbyMill，whowasaccordinglythebuttofWard’ssharpestattacks。
IfWardthusexpressestheseminalprincipleofthemovement，Newmanwasthemostefficientleader。Newman，ashetellsusintheApologia，heldthreedoctrines：first，the’principleofdogma，’whichwasthe’fundamentalprinciple’ofthemovementof1833，andwastheantithesisof’liberalism’；secondly，theprinciple，impliedbythis，ofa’visiblechurch’；andthirdly，thedoctrinethatthePopewasantichrist。224*Thelast，ofcourse，vanished；butthetwoothersremainedandonlytookasharperforminhismind。ThehistoryofhisthoughtissimplythehistoryofhisgrowingconvictionthatthetrueauthoritywasthatofRome，notoftheAnglicanChurch。225*The’principleofdogma’isequivalenttothestatementthat’religionasaneresentiment’wastohim’adreamandamockery。’Theliberalprincipleappliedtotheologymeansthesubstitutionofvaguefeelingfordefinitetruth。Buttospeakabsolutelyofa’principleofauthority’istoraiseadifficulty。Tobelieveinauthorityistogroundmybeliefonthebeliefofsomeoneelse。
Thereforethequestionsremain：whydoestheauthoritybelieve，andwhyshouldIacceptitsbeliefasauthoritative？TheChurchmustbecompetenttojudge，andImustbeabletojudgeofitscompetence。
ThespecialanswergivenbyWardandNewmantothesepointsgivestheirtrueposition。Firstofallthedogmatists，agreeingsofarwiththeliberals，wereconvincedthattheordinaryopinionsofthedayledtoinfidelityortocompletescepticism。
Aperfectlyconsistentmindmust，asNewmandeclared，acceptCatholicismorAtheism。Anglicanismis’thehalf-wayhousetoRome，andLiberalismisthehalf-wayhouse’toAtheism。226*
Protestantism，again，asinvolvingtherightofprivatejudgment，mustlead，asWardagreed，toComte。Takensimply，suchsayingsamounttopurescepticism。ToadmittheconsistencyofAtheismistoadmitthatyouhavenogroundsofconfutingtheAtheist。Upontheassumptionscommontoboth，thescepticwouldgetthebetteroftheProtestant。TherationalisedtheologyofPaleyhadreallygivenawaythekeyoftheposition。Itcouldnotpermanentlyholdoutagainstthelegitimatedevelopmentoftheeighteenthcenturyinfidelity。’Asasufficientbasisfortheism，’saysWard，theargumentfromfinalcausesis’absolutelyandcompletelyworthless’。227*andhedeclaresthatPaley’sargumentisquiteunabletoproveGod’slove，orgoodness，orjustice，orpersonality。228*ButPaleyandhiscontemporarieshadexplicitlygivenupanyotherargument。AProtestant，then，waslogicallyboundtoAtheism。Newmanagrees。’Ihaveeverviewedthisargumentwiththegreatestsuspicion，’hesays，andforgoodreasons。Itmayprovethepowerand，inlowerdegrees，thewisdomandthegoodnessofGod；butitdoesnotprovehisattributesasjudgeandmorallegislator。229*Soagain，Newmandeclared230*
thatitwas’agreatquestionwhetheratheismisnotasphilosophicallyconsistentwiththephenomenaofthephysicalworld，takenbythemselves，asthedoctrineofacreativeandgoverningpower。’Paley’sproofofChristianityisnaturallyasunsatisfactoryashisproofoftheology。InoneoftheTractsfortheTimes，231*Newmanappliedwhathecalleda’kill-or-cure’
remedy。Heargued，thatis，thatifhisantagonistsrejectedhisdoctrinesforwantofScriptureproof，theywouldhavetoabandontheirownforthesamereason。Afterrecallingandenforcinganumberoftheobjectionsmadebyscepticstothehistoricalevidence，heconcludesthattheevidenceisbyitselfinsufficient。Shallweforthatreasonrefusetobelieve？No，wemustbeginbybelieving。Ifwerefuse’togobyevidenceinwhichtherearesotosaythreechancesforrevelationandonlytwoagainstit，wecannotbeChristians。’232*
Hume，then，orMillorComte，canatleastholdhisownuponempiricalground。Unaidedreason，asNewmansaysintheApologia，233*canindeeddiscoversoundargumentsfortheology，buthistoricallyandinpracticeitwilltendtowardssimpleunbelief。The’liberals’endeavouredtomeettheenemybyappealingtosomephilosophicalorquasi-mysticaldoctrine；butinsodoingtheyeitherdroppeddogmaticandhistoricalcreedsaltogether，orsavedthembynon-naturalinterpretations。
Religionsublimatedintophilosophybecomesameresentiment，orasystemofsubtlemetaphysics。Itcannoteffectivelydisciplinetheordinarymindorinspireachurchtomeettheworld。Yetsomephilosophicalprincipleisnecessary。TotheOxfordmenphilosophymeantchieflysomemodificationofAristotle。Theyheld，ofcourse，thatthenecessityofafirstcausewasdemonstrable，andthatatheologycouldbeconstructedbythepurereason。
This，however，leadstotheolddifficulty，theperplexitywhichrunsthroughChristiantheologyingeneral。Itisforcedtocombineheterogeneouselements。Philosophymustbecombinedwithmythology；andthefirstcauseidentifiedwiththeanthropomorphicdeity。YourmetaphysicprovestheexistenceofGodinonesense，andyourconcretecreedassumestheexistencetobeprovedinasensequiteinconsistent。Bycallinginconsistencymystery，youverballyforcecontradictionsintoaformula，andspeakofaGod-man；butthedifficultyofgettingfromthemetaphysicaltothehistoricaltheologyisthusonlymasked。Howisittobeovercome？
Ward，layingthegreateststressuponthemetaphysicalargument，cameintoconflictwithMill。WardandMillalwaysspokeofeachotherwithmarkedrespect。Theycommunicatedtheirwritingstoeachotherbeforepublication。WardreviewedMill’sLogicintheBritishCriticinthemostcomplimentaryterms。MillwrotetoComteinhopefultermsoftheservicestoberenderedtospeculationbythenewschoolofdivines。WardthoughtMillbyfarthemosteminentrepresentativeofthe’antitheisticschool，’
andspokewithgenerouswarmthofhishighmoralqualities。234*
Thepoint，however，uponwhichMillspeciallyvaluedhimselfwasjustthepointuponwhichWardtookhimtobeutterlyinthewrong。Milldeniedtheexistenceof’necessarytruths。’Wardbelievedintheexistenceofagreatbodyof’necessarytruth。’
Wardarguesforciblyforthe’necessity’ofmathematicaltruths，anddeniesthepowerofassociation。Ward，inshort，isMill’stypical’intuitionist。’Intuitions，hesays，aretruthswhich，’thoughnotpartsofpresentconsciousness，areimmediatelyand“primarily“knownwithcertitude。’235*HeadoptsfromLewestheword’metempirical，’asexpressiveofwhatliesbeyondthesphereofphenomena。236*andholdsthatall’intuitions’giveus’metempirical’knowledge。Lewesinventedthephrasetoexpressthedifferencebetweenthelegitimate’intuitions’impliedinexperienceandtheillegitimate，whichare’metempirical’asprofessingtotranscendexperience。Wardholdsthat’metempirical’truthsarevalidandessentialtoreason。
Morals，again，saysWard，areascertainasmathematicalintuitions；thetruththat’maliceandmendacityareevilhabits’
isasnecessaryasthetruththat’alltrilateralfiguresaretriangular。’237*Further，I’intue’that’allmorallyevilactsareprohibitedbysomelivingPersonalBeing’；andfromthisaxiomitfollows，asanobviousinference，’thatthisPersonisthesupremeLegislatoroftheUniverse。’238*TheobviousdifficultyisthatWardprovestoomuch。Hisargumentisleadingtoanindependenttheism，notatheismreconcilablewithanhistoricalcreed。Accordinglyhehastolimitorresisthisownlogic。Headmitstheuniformityofnatureas’generallytrue，’
butmakestwoexceptions，infavour，first，of’anindefinitefrequency’ofmiracles，andsecondlyofthefreedomof’humanvolitions。’239*TheFreewilldoctrineleadstoanelaborateanddexterousdisplayofdialectic，thoughhemustbeaveryfeebledeterministwhocouldnottranslateWard’sargumentsintohisownlanguage。Beyondthiswehavefurtherdifficulties。IfthecreedbeasdemonstrableasEuclid，howcananybodydenyit？Wardhastoaccountfortherefusalofthosewhodonotaccepthisintuitionsbysomemoraldefect；theyarelikeblindmenreasoninguponcolours。Mill’s’antitheism’showsthathewasguiltyof’gravesin’；for，ontheCatholicdoctrine，therecanbeno’invincibleignoranceoftheonetrueGod。’240*Manymen，however，condemnthecreedofrevelationpreciselyuponthemoralground。TheUtilitariansdenouncedtheprofoundimmoralityofthedoctrineofhellandofvicariouspunishment。Ward’sargumentrequiressuchaconscienceaswillrecognisethemoralityofasystemwhichtoothersseemsradicallyimmoral，Thegiverofthemorallawisalsothegiverofthenaturallaw。ButitseemstobeashardtoshowthatNatureismoralinthissenseastoshowthatthemorallegislator，ifomnipotent，canalsobebenevolent。
Theonegreatreligiousdifficulty，asWardallows，istheexistenceofevil。HequotesNewman’sstatementthatitisa’visiontodizzyandappal；andinflictsuponthemindasenseofaprofoundmystery，whichisabsolutelybeyondhumansolution。’241*Plainly，itcomestothis：the’intuitions’areinconflictwithexperience。Theyassertthatthecreatorisomnipotentandinfinitelyjustandbenevolent。Theadmittedfactsareincompatiblewiththetheory，andarethereforedeclaredtoimplyan’insolublemystery。’Wardintimatesthathecanshowthetrueplaceofthisdifficultyaftersettingforththe’impregnablebasisonwhichTheismreposes。’Buthedoesnotappeartohavefoundtimeforthisambitiousenterprise。
Thisintroducesthemorespecialproblem。Howfromyourpurelymetaphysicalpositiondoyougettothehistoricalposition？WhatistherelationbetweentheauthorityoftheChurchandtheauthorityofthepurereason？ThoughWardwasperfectlysatisfiedwithhisownmetaphysics，itwasofcourseevidenttohimthatsuchreasoningwasaltogetherbeyondthereachofthemassofmankind。IfyouaretoproveyourcreedbyputtingpeoplerightaboutFreewillandtheuniformityofnature，youwilladjournthesolutiontillthedayofjudgment。Anessentialpointofhiswholeargumentistheutterincapacityofmankindatlargetoformanyjudgmentuponsuchmatters。TheProtestant’rightofprivatejudgment’meansscepticism。
Everybodywillhavehisownopinionifnobodytrustsanyoneelse。IfthetruthofChristianityistobeprovedbytheevidencesafterPaley’sfashion，nobodyhasarighttobelievewhohasnotswallowedwholelibrariesandformedelaboratecanonsofcriticism。Thepeasantwhoholdsopinionsabouthistory，tosaynothingofscienceandphilosophy，mustobviouslytakethemontrust。Hencewemusteithergiveupthedoctrinethat’certitude’isnecessary，orwemustfindsomeproofaccessibletotheuneducatedmind。ButitisanessentialpointofCatholicism，ifnotofChristianity，thatfaithisnecessarytosalvation。Ifwrongbeliefbesinful，rightbeliefmustbeattainable。Butmenbythemselvesareutterlyimpenetrabletorightreason。Wehave，then，tocombinescepticismastotheactualworkingofthehumanintellectwithdogmatismastothefaith。Howisthatfeattobeaccomplished？
Wardreplies，bythedoctrineof’implicitreasoning。’
Acceptanceoftheintuitionsimpliesacceptanceofalllegitimatedeductions。Butthispositionismorefully’drawnout’inhisfavouritephrasebyNewman。Itrunsthroughawholeseriesofthewritingsinwhichthedelicacyandsubtletyofhisstylearemostfullydisplayed，242*andthedifficultyofthepositionmostfullyexhibited。ChillingworthhadstatedtheProtestantargument。ToadmittheinfallibilityoftheChurch，hehadsaid，takestheindividualnofurther，unlessheisinfalliblycertainoftheinfallibility。TothisNewmanreplies243*thatImaybecertainwithoutclaiminginfallibility。Certaintythattwoandtwomakefourisquiteconsistentwithapowerofmathematicalblundering。Perhapsitshouldratherbesaidthat，iftherebenecessarytruths，everyonemust，withintheirsphere，beinfallible。ButnooneassertsthattheinfallibilityoftheChurchisanecessarytruth。Ifreal，itisaconcretefacttobeprovedbyappropriateevidence。Afterexhaustingyoureloquenceinprovingthefallibility，andindeedtheinevitablyscepticalresultof’privatejudgment，’youareboundtoshowhow，inthiscase，theindividualcanattaincertitude。Thejudgmentthat’theChurchisinfallible’hasbeendisputedbyreasonablepeople。Howarewetoshowthat，inthiscase，theirdoubtsareunreasonable，ifnotwicked？Whydonottheproofsoftheweaknessofprivatejudgmentapplytothisastoeveryotherjudgment？Haveyounotreallycutawaythefoundationonwhichsoonerorlateryourargumentmustbebased？Yetcertitudeismadeouttobeamoraldutyevenfortheaveragebeliever。