We must remark by the way, — and we do so with no disrespect to the distinguished author of the article, — that we regret that the task of replying to us had not been committed to the hands of some learned Catholic doctor, instead of one who, however able and well disposed, can speak on the general subject with no more authority than ourselves, and, from the defect of professional training, is not less likely, perhaps, to mistake the sense of the authorities which must be cited than we are. But our friends in England have the right to select their own champion, and we must, with Divine assistance, which we implore, manage our side of the controversy as well as we

can.

The article, however, has the advantage of being from a personal friend of Mr. Newman, and a hearty admirer of that gentleman's theory, who is not likely to misunderstand or misstate it. We may, therefore, take it as a good proof of the correctness of our own statement, that it does not in any respect whatever object to it ; but reasserts the theory, both in regard to Christian doctrine and development, substantially as we ourselves understood it. We trust that this will satisfy our friends on this side of the water, that we have not, as some of them have supposed, either misunderstood or misrepresented Mr. Newman.

We understand the writer to concede the correctness of our representation of the Theory of Developments. If he does, he is bound either to abandon it, or to show that the consequences we deduced from it are not legitimate ; for those consequences, if warranted, prove that it is subversive of Christianity., Unhappily, he does neither. He has left our statement of the theory, our objections to it, and the arguments by which we sustained them, standing in all their force. He has not even pleaded to them. Yet he cannot be unaware that he is held to concede every count in our declaration to which he does not plead, and that we have the right in reasoning with him to assume its truth. This consideration alone sets aside his whole reply.

The theory of Development is a special theory, resting for its logical basis on a certain view of Christian doctrine, namely, that Christian doctrine is not the revealed truth itself, but the mind's idea of it; or that inspiration supplies only the materia informis of doctrine, which is rendered doctrina formata only by the action of the uninspired intellect, — thus degrading Christianity, by Mr. Newman's own confession, to the level of human sects and philosophies, which is, of course, to deny it. Our

main objection was to this view of Christian doctrine, from which developments of doctrine are only a logical deduction ; and we objected to this, not because it authorizes developments, but because it subverts Christianity. The Reviewer by neglecting to plead to this charge concedes its truth, gives us the right to assume it against him, and thus throws himself out of court, or debars himself from the right to enter.

He cannot introduce testimony to prove developments in the sense of his theory, because that would be to introduce testimony to disprove Christianity, which is not lawful ; and to introduce it to prove developments in some other sense would be to undertake to prove what is not in question, - an instance of what logicians

, call ignorantia elenchi.

If held to strict logic, or to the rules of legal pleading recognized by the common law courts, both in his country and in ours, the Reviewer is estopped, and cannot proceed till he gets permission to plead to the charges against the basis of his theory. Till then, bis authorities are of no avail ; for we have only to reply, your theory is anti-Christian, and you are not at liberty to introduce testimony to prove any thing which is not Christian. If he rejoins, his authorities are Christian ; we reply, again, then they must be understood in a Christian sense, and therefore cannot be understood in the sense of your theory, for your theory is anti-Christian. In any and every possible case, it is more reasonable to suppose that he misinterprets his authorities than that they authorize any thing against our holy religion.

We insist on this for two reasons : 1. because, if there is to be a controversy on this subject, it must be conducted on strict logical principles, or it will be interminable; and, 2. because it is precisely in their view of Christian doctrine antecedently to developments, that, in our judgment, the chief error of the Developmentists lies, and it is especially to this point we wish to call their attention. We object to the developments themselves, but because they imply the false view of Christianity entertained by Mr. Newman and his school, rather than to their view of Christianity, because it authorizes the developments. The developments are bad enough ; but their view of Christianity leaves us no Christianity to develop. What we mean is, that, though we object to all developments of doctrine properly so called, when they mean any thing more than new or fuller explications of the faith propter errores insurgentes, we are not so scandalized by them, regarded simply as developments, as we are at the view of Christian doctrine which is set forth as their logical basis. In other words, it is less to the developments than to the theory of developments that we object, and we demand that the controversy turn, as it should, on the theory itself, which we have the right to do, because it was against that we directed our principal attack.

We complain of the Reviewer that he has neglected entirely the logical basis of his theory, and proceeds as if no objections were made to it. We regard a theory as refuted, if refuted in its principles ; for we do not comprehend how a superstructure can stand, when its foundation is taken away. When the foundation of a theory is attacked, we have always supposed that it is that which is to be defended, in order to defend the theory. Now we feel confident that very few can examine the foundation of Mr. Newman's theory without rejecting it ; and we wish especially to call the attention of his friends to its defence, because we think the moment they seriously attempt its defence they will abandon the theory in despair, perhaps in disgust.

But waiving this preliminary objection to the consideration of the theory at all, yet reserving our right to fall back on it whenever we choose, we will, lest the Reviewer conclude that we are objecting to the form of his argument because we are unable to reply to its matter, proceed to consider what he has actually attempted to allege in his defence. He proposes to do three things :- 1. Make as precise a statement as may be of the general principle which seems understood in the language of Mr. Thompson, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Northcote ; 2. Bring together a sample of the high Catholic authority on which that principle rests ; and, 3. Offer some brief remarks on the testimony we adduced against it (p. 327).

Our readers will perceive that the names of Mr. Thompson, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Northcote are substituted for Mr. Newman's. Why, we must ask, is this? The article is professedly a reply to us, and our attack was directed against Mr. Newman, not against these gentlemen, save so far as they may choose to indorse and defend him. Is their theory essentially different from his ? Then we have not assailed it. Is it substantially the same? Then why defend it under their name rather than his ? Would they appropriate to themselves the honor that is his ? Or have they too profound a respect for him to mention his name? Or is such their estimation of the theory of development, that they would shield him from its

responsibilities ? Our article was directed against his doctrine, as we gathered it from his Essay ; yet the Reviewer, in replying to it, does not once mention even his name. Does he suppose that by suppressing Mr. Newman's name he can deprive him of the glory, or relieve him from the shame, of being the founder and chief of the school of development ? However unwilling his friends may be, either for his sake or their own, that he should appear before the world as the leader of a school, he does so appear, and will, till he either obtains for his theory the sanction of authority or abandons it ; and they, however great their repugnance to be called a school, will be

, so called, so long as the theory remains unsanctioned, and they are understood to adhere to it. The thing is so and cannot be helped, and they need not seek to disguise it ; for it is not to be presumed that any body supposes, that, if, contrary to the wishes of Mr. Newman, the Church should decide the theory to be not " coincident” with her judgment on the subject, their Catholic faith would be shaken, or they would withhold their submission. We own, their present attitude towards the Church is exceedingly awkward ; for they are endeavouring to persuade her to accept a theory which she has not taught, but which they devised for themselves, when in transitu from heresy and schism to truth and unity, and when, according to Mr. Newman, they could use “ only reason in the things of faith " ; but it is an attitude of their own choosing, and are they the men to shrink from its responsibility ?

It would have been only simple civility to us, if the Reviewer, in making his statement of the principle of his theory, had referred to our statement of it, and either acknowledged its correctness or pointed out its inaccuracies. By doing so, he would have at once put us in possession of his precise thought, and have saved himself from the liability of being misunderstood, and us from that of being found fighting a man of straw. For ourselves, we have supposed, in replying to an opponent, that it is at least civil to pay some attention to what he says, to his words, instead of being wholly engrossed with our own. But the Reviewer appears to think differently, and we must submit. We have, however, examined his statement with what ability we have, and, supposing him to use language according to its ordinary import, and not, as Mr. Ward said of subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles in a “ non-natural sense,” we must understand his doctrine to be substantially the same that we ascribed to Mr. Newman, and in what follows we shall

assume that it is so. Since, then, all that we have heretofore objected to it stands good, inasmuch as no exception has been taken to it, nothing more is necessary to be added now for the purpose of proving its anti-Christian character. We have already refuted it, and need not to refute it again ; for certainly to ignore an objection is not to remove it.

We proceed, therefore, at once to the authorities cited. *

The Reviewer cites in support of his theory, Petavius, Bellarmine, Vasquez, Suarez, Cano, Cardinal Fisher, St. Vincent of Lerins, St. Augustine, Moehler, Doellinger, and the Count de Maistre, -authorities enough to establish it, if they were really authorities for it, we are willing to concede. But,

1. The Reviewer proposes by these authorities to prove developments in the sense of his theory. But these authorities are Christian, and therefore it is to be presumed that they cannot be understood in the sense of his theory, for his theory is to be presumed to be anti-Christian.

2. The theory is confessedly a novelty in Catholic theology; for the Reviewer says expressly, that he has given his own view because none of his authorities have drawn out a distinct and systematic statement of it (p. 352). sumption is against every novelty, and the onus probandi rests upon its advocates. Consequently the Reviewer must prove, not only that his authorities may, but that they must, be under

But the pre