11 APRIL 1874, Page 16

C.XSARISM AND ULTRAMONTANISM.

[TO THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR.")

Sin,—Will you allow me to call the attention of your readers to one point in Mr. Fitzjames Stephen's article on " Cassarism and Ultramontanism," in the March number of the Contemporary Review ? That article you reviewed on its appearance, and the Archbishop of Westminster has replied to it in the current number of the Contemporary. The subject is, therefore, still of interest, and not too old to be out of date.

In his article, Mr. Stephen, speaking of the arguments for the existence of God, says :—" By way of showing how persistently such arguments are used, I may observe that in a volume of • Essays on Religion and Literature,' just published under Arch- bishop Manning's auspices, I find Locke's argument put forward very nearly in Locke's own words, by the Rev. William Humphrey."

Take with Mr. Stephen's statement of the almost verbal agree- ment of my argument with Locke's the fact that I have not opened any work of Locke's for the last fifteen years, that when I did read Locke I did not study him, and that I could not now give any adequate account of his system—and this verbal agreement would be a very curious coincidence—save on one hypothesis, viz., that both Locke and I drew from the fame source.

My argument—the ordinary argument from causality, remo- tion, and super-excellence—was derived from the scholastic philosophy, and if a reference is needed, may be found in the writings of the greatest of the Doctors of the Schools, St.. Thomas Aquinas. It is, then, curious, if not careless, to quote the argu- ment as Locke's instead of as St. Thomas's. But it is not even St. Thomas's. He did not excogitate it, and did not claim it as his own. It is the well-known argument of the Socratic philo- sophy, and in particular, of Aristotle. It is not the result of revelation, but the offspring of the Greek wisdom. The argu- ment, therefore, might with as much reason be quoted as mine as called Locke's argument.

It appears tome, and I venture to propose it for the judgment of your readers, that Mr. Stephen's designation of the old scholastic argument, itself borrowed by the schoolmen from the Greek philo- sophy, as Locke's argument, justifies me in impeaching him of either superficiality of knowledge, or singular inaccuracy of