the aesthetic tastes which, in Southern Europe at any rate, are closely connected with religious feeling, are fully catered for; and those superstitions which the majority of mankind still love in their hearts, though they are somewhat ashamed of them, are allowed to luxuriate unchecked.  Further, Catholicism encourages and blesses that esprit de corps which has produced the brightest triumphs of self-abnegation as well as the darkest crimes of cruel bigotry in human history.  A Church which unites these advantages is in no danger of falling into insignificance, even if the best intellect and morality of the age are estranged from it.  It may even have a great future as the nucleus of a conservative resistance to the social revolution.  It is doubtful whether those who wish to preserve the traditions and civilisation of the past will be able to find anywhere, except in the Latin Church, an organisation sufficiently coherent and universal to provide a rallying ground for defence against the new barbarian invasion—­proceeding this time not from the rude nations of the North, but from the crowded alleys of our great towns—­which threatens to plunge us into a new Dark Age.  The menace of the Red Peril will secure, for a long time to come, the survival of the Black.

But the Roman Catholicism which has a future is probably that of Manning, and not that of Newman.  A Church which depends for its strength and prestige on the iron discipline of a centralised autocracy, and on the fanatical devotion of soldiers who know no duty except obedience, no cause except the interests of their society, can make no terms with the disintegrating nominalism, the uncertain subjectivism, of a mind like Newman’s.  It has been the strange fate of this great man, after driving a wedge deep into the Anglican Church, which at this day is threatened with disruption through the movement which he helped to originate, to have nearly succeeded in doing the same to the far more compact structure of Roman Catholicism.  The Modernist movement has from the first appealed to Newman as its founder, and has sought to protect itself under his authority.  It is necessary to consider, as the last topic of this article, whether this affiliation can be allowed to be true.  No one who has read any of Newman’s works can doubt that he would have recoiled with horror from the destructive criticism of Loisy, the contempt for scholastic authority of Tyrrell, and the defiance hurled at the Papacy in the manifesto of the Italian Modernists.  Newman’s doctrine of Development was far removed from that of Bergson’s ’L’Evolution Creatrice.’  He defended the fact of development against the staticism of contemporary Anglicanism; but his notion of development was more like the unrolling of a scroll than the growth of a tree or the expansion and change of a human character.  ‘Every Catholic holds,’ he says, ’that the Christian dogmas were in the Church from the time of the Apostles; that they were ever in their substance