a nearly perfect religious disputant, whatever may be his deficiencies as a religious teacher. The most accomplished theologian of another faith would have looked anxiously to the joints of his harness before entering the lists with an adversary so prompt and keen. To suppose that a youth fresh from Arnold’s teaching, with a hasty faith in a scheme of thought radically inconsistent, should be able to endure such an encounter, was absurd. Arnold flattered himself that he was a principal opponent of Mr. Newman; but he was rather a principal fellow-labourer. There was but one quality in a common English boy which would have enabled him to resist such a reasoner as Mr. Newman. We have a heavy apathy on exciting topics, which enables us to leave dilemmas unsolved, to forget difficulties, to go about our pleasure or our business, and to leave the reasoner to pursue his logic: ‘any how he is very _long_’—_that_ we comprehend. But it was exactly this happy apathy, this commonplace indifference, that Arnold prided himself on removing. He objected strenuously to Mr. Newman’s creed, but he prepared anxiously the very soil in which that creed was sure to grow. A multitude of such minds as Mr. Clough’s, from being Arnoldites, became Newmanites. A second quality in Mr. Newman is at least equally clear. He was much better skilled in finding out the difficulties of other men’s creeds than in discovering and stating a distinct basis for his own. In most of his characteristic works he does not even attempt it. His argument is essentially an argument _ad hominem_; an argument addressed to the present creed of the person with whom he is reasoning. He says: ‘Give up what you hold already, or accept what I now say; for that which you already hold involves it.’ Even in books where he is especially called on to deal with matters of first principle, the result is unsatisfactory. We have heard it said that he has in later life accounted for the argumentative vehemence of his book _against_ the Church of Rome by saying: ‘I did it as a duty; I _put_ myself into a state of mind to write that book.’ And this is just the impression which his arguments give. His elementary principles seem _made_, not born. Very likely he would admit the fact, and yet defend his practice. He would say: ‘Such a being as man is, in such a world as this is, _must_ do so; he must make a venture for his religion; he may see a greater probability that the doctrine of the Church is true than that it is false; he may see before he believes in her that she has greater evidence than any other creed; but he must do the rest for himself. _By means of his will_ he must put himself into a new state of mind; he must cast in his lot with the Church here and hereafter; _then_ his belief will gradually strengthen; he will in time become sure of what she says.’ He undoubtedly, in the time of his power, persuaded many young men to try some such process as this. The weaker,