A Preface to Newman's Theology By Edmond D. Benard (review)

BOOK REVIEWS123 A Preface to Newman's Theology. By Edmond D. Benard (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1945. Pp. xv+234. $2.25.) The centenary of Newman's conversion to Catholicism has witnessed a spiritual revival of interest in his works, ideas and his legacy to the world. Among the current books on Cardinal Newman, Fr. Benard's Preface to Newman's Theology merits particular attention due precisely to the scope the author has set for himself in this attractive little volume, namely, the vindication of Cardinal Newman's theology against adverse criticism. The purpose of the book is clearly defined and its limits are well fixed. It does not pretend to be anything more than an introduction to Newman's theological thought. The fact that Newman has been accused of hostility to the traditional notion of Catholic dogma, of subjectivism in his understanding of the nature of faith, and of having laid the foundations for the Modernist heresy, has led the author to re-examine the whole subject of the interpretation of Newman's theology. The author highly esteems Newman as a theologian, but he is careful to note, and frankly admits, that Newman was not a professed scientific theologian in the usual meaning of the term. He did not belong to any theological school, and never intended to erect a theological structure. His theology "lies for the most part along the margin rather than in the central current of the theological stream" (p. 23). His major contributions to theology are in the field of the development of Christian doctrine and in his highly useful, modern approach to the traditional apologetics of the Church (p. 23). The book is divided into two main parts, the first of which deals with the background material necessary for the interpretation of Newman's theological thought. The second part is devoted almost exclusively to the examination in the light of the four principles of interpretation, enuntiated in the first part, of the most important criticisms leveled against Newman's two major works, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine and Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent. Fr. Benard has acquitted himself well of his task of answering the criticisms of Catholics and Protestants. His objective method of approach to the interpretation of Newman's works succeeds in lifting the shadowy cloak of suspicion of Newman's orthodoxy on the problem of the development of Christian doctrine and of the genesis of belief in the individual. A detailed examination of the contents of the book will enable us to evaluate it more accurately. Lest we exceed the limits of this review, we will confine ourselves to a few remarks. The four principles of interpretation , on the necessity of which the author strongly insists, are by no means original; they are the common basic principles of correct interpretation of the works of any author. Yet they are quite indispensable, and the author does well to insist on them, for the neglect of any one of them might easily lead to misrepresentations. The third principle of interpretation, viz., to grasp Newman's thought we must be certain that we know exactly what he means by the words he uses (p. 64), helps but a little to remove the difficulties in interpreting Newman's works. The difficulty lies precisely in Newman's terminology. One would expect a Catholic author to adhere to some extent to a definite 124BOOK REVIEWS terminology in any work on Catholic theology; failure to do so often results in misunderstandings. This is the case with Cardinal Newman. Consequently a burdensome task is imposed upon the reader of Newman's theological works, namely, an extremely careful reading of the context, or a recourse to parallel places in his writings, where the same word is used in a similar matter. To some extent the author has cleared away some of the difficulties; but nevertheless difficulties remain. For example, he says (p. 93), we find that Newman used the word "probability" according to a distinct meaning of his own. "A 'probable argument' to him was not one concerning which there was a founded fear of error; he used 'probable' in contrast, not to...