it is my duty to treat you
and your Church as the agents and mouthpiece of Almighty God?' 'Yes.'
'Then give me anything like a reasonable ground for believing that you
are what you claim to be.' Newman appears to have replied in substance
that he could not argue with a man who differed so completely upon first
principles. Fitzjames took this as practically amounting to the
admission that Newman had 'nothing to say to anyone who did not go
three-fourths of the way to meet him.' 'I said at last,' he proceeds,
'"If Jesus Christ were here, could He say no more than you do?" "I
suppose you to mean that if He could, I ought to be able to give you
what you ask?" "Certainly, for you profess to be His authorised agent,
and call upon me to believe you on that ground. Prove it!" All he could
say was, "I cannot work miracles," to which I replied, "I did not ask
for miracles but for proofs." He had absolutely nothing to say.'

I need hardly say that Newman's report of the conversation would
probably have differed from this, which gives a rough summary from
Fitzjames's later recollections. I do not hesitate, however, to express
my own belief that it gives a substantially accurate account; and that
the reason why Newman had nothing to say is simply that there was
nothing to be said. Persons who suppose that a man of Newman's genius in
stating an argument must have been a great logician, and who further
imagine that a great logician shows his power by a capacity of deducing
any conclusions from any premises, will of course deny that statement.
To argue the general question involved would be irrelevant. What I am
concerned to point out is simply the inapplicability of Newman's
argument to one in Fitzjames's state of mind. The result will, I think,
show very clearly what was his real position both now and in later
years.

His essay on the 'Apologia' insists in the first place upon a
characteristic of Newman's writings, which has been frequently pointed
out by others; that is, that they are essentially sceptical. The author
reaches orthodox conclusions by arguments which are really fatal to
them. The legitimate inference from an argument does not depend upon the
intention of the arguer; and the true tendency of Newman's reasonings
appears simply by translating them into impartial language. Fitzjames
dwells especially upon Newman's treatment of the fundamental doctrine of
the existence of a God. Newman, for example, defends a belief in
t