Newmanianism/XI. Mr Hutton not much to blame

14.The pitfall that I mean is this. Newman alters, and sometimes even recasts, his books, without giving his readers sufficient notice. In an article which I wrote in the Contemporary, when I had given comparatively little attention to the subject, I mentioned an interesting instance of this. Mr. Hutton (Life, p. 17), quotes a passage from the Apologia, in which Newman says that he had tried in various ways to make "the doctrine of eternal punishments" "less terrible to the reason". I pointed out to Mr. Hutton that, in the present text of the Apologia, "imagination" had been substituted for "reason"; to which he replied that he did not think the change an improvement. That seemed to me odd. For though I find myself in constant disagreement with Newman I nevertheless always pay him the tribute of believing that he means precisely what he says, and that, if he alters what he says, it is because he has some good reason for it, and has altered what he means. I will not now enter into the meaning of the alteration here, which I have endeavoured to explain in the Contemporary. But the point on which I lay stress is this, that in a future edition of his work, Mr. Hutton should compare the later editions of Newman's works with the earlier.

The most curious instance of the need of such comparison is to be found in the Development of Christian Doctrine. Mr. R.H. Hutton, while lauding "in deep insight", "admiral subtlety", and "keen penetration", appears to be ignorant that Newman was not quite so well satisfied with it as his eulogist was. The fact is that Newman thought so ill of some portions of it that he afterwards entirely rewrote them. Consequently when Mr. Hutton speaks (p.180) of "logical sequence" as being "the fifth test of development", he hought, according to the later edition, to have written "fourth"; and as for what he says in detail about this "logical sequence", the reader will see at once that Mr. Hutton remarks are absolutely out of place, except for those rare readers who happen to possess the first edition of the Essay. Here are the differences between Newman's first and last editions (1845 and 1890), in the sections on "Logical Sequence":-

Indeed, if the reader were to compare the "Contents" of the two editions, he would hardly recognize that he had before him two editions of the same Essay, but would suppose (though wrongly) that the whole of the tratise ha been re-written. As a matter of fact, the treatise has not been re-written; but chapters, sections, and paragraphs has been so twisted about, paragraphs here and there have been in such a way re-written, or omitted, or inserted, that the first edition, for the purposes of reference, is absolutely useless to the possessors of the last. This is the more unperdonable in Newman because he retains in the reprint of 1890 (without adding anything to neutralize its effect), the statement that his offer to revise the work in the interests of the Church of Rome was declined by Ecclesiastical authorities "on the ground that it was written and partly printed before he was Catholic, and that it would come before the reader in a more persuasive form, if he read it as the author wrote it". Now it is quite true that the Preface to the last edition states that "various important alterations have been made in the arrangement of its separate parts, and some indeed, not in the matter, but in the text". But a mere glance at hte two editions will show that the "matter", as well as the "text", has been in many instances altered, and that, too, in a Romanizing, or anti-Protestant, or generally aggressive direction. Here are two instances:-

These are enough, I think, to show the unlucky possessor of the last edition, or even the 1878 edition, of Newman's Essay, that he does not possess it in that "more persuasive form" in which the authorities of the Church of Rome desired that it should appeal to the Protestant enquirer. Whoever wants to know precisely what Newman thought about "the Primitive Fathers" and "the position of Baptism in the received system", and other important matters in that interesting crisis of 1845, when he was supplying himself with a logical basis for entergin the Roman pale, must go, not to the edition of 1890, or 1878, but to the first edition and no other. And I commend the reprinting of that edition to the favourable consideration of those who were recently thinking of collecting a fund for the encouragement of the study of Newman's works. Now, Mr. R. H. Hutton, in his Cardinal Newman - misled by Newman's remark in the Apologia (1864), "the Book remains in the state in which it was then, unfinished", and ignorant of the fact that it was wholly rearranged, and in parts re-written, in 1878 -devotes a page (162-3) to the expression of his surprise that Newman should not have "pursued and completed" the line of thought traced out in his unfinished work, so as to make it "a definite apology for the theology of the Church he has since joined". I do not say he is literally in error here; but he certainly misleads his readers. And he is definitely -or at least subjectively-wrong, I presume, when he adds: "Even as it stands, the Essay on Development has, so far as I can hear, been adopted with enthusiasm by the most orthodox school in the Roman Catholic Church".