Manning: Authority and Method

Abstract

Manning and Newman are commonly presented as antitheses. Like Gladstone and Disraeli in politics, their caricatures at least are easy to contrast: Manning cast iron, Newman quicksilver; Manning sense, Newman sensibility; Manning the Harrovian, Newman pre-public school; Manning Balliol, Newman Trinity; Manning London, Newman Birmingham, etc. Even David Newsome, who carefully balances the similarities and the differences, cannot escape this tendency. In his conclusion, he contrasts Manning’s pride with Newman’s self-will, and compares Manning to Ambrose, Newman to Basil the Great. Yet, from the standpoint of the critical implosion and philosophy of religion, Manning appears as complement to Newman rather than contrast. As we saw, Newman’s integration of method and authority faltered into rhetoric in the last chapter of the Grammar of Assent. Manning came to its aid. He added a further, radioactive, element, which imparted new, inflationary momentum to the critical implosion. Manning was more of a theologian than Newman, less of a philosopher. What he added to Newman’s synthesis was a theologian’s sense of the action of the Holy Spirit in the Church and its members, as the ground of certitude in religion.