re precious.' Although the difficulty suggested by the
prevalence of evil is 'inimical to all levity,' yet he thinks that it
would be 'unreasonable and degrading' not to hold the doctrine itself.
And, finally, he declares that he accepts two doctrines of 'unspeakable
importance.' He prays frequently, and at times fervently, though not for
specific objects, and believes that his prayers are answered. And
further, he is convinced of a 'superintending Providence' which has
throughout affected his life. No argument that he has ever read or
heard has weighed with him a quarter as much as his own personal
experience in this matter.

The paper, written with the most evident sincerity, speaks so strongly
of beliefs which he rarely avowed in public that I feel it almost wrong
to draw aside his habitual veil of reticence. I do so, though briefly,
because some of his friends who remember his early orthodoxy were
surprised by the contrast of what they call his aggressive unbelief in
later life. It is therefore necessary to show that at this period he had
some strong positive convictions, which indeed, though changed in later
years, continued to influence his mind. He was also persuaded that the
Church of England, guarded by the decisions of lawyers, could be kept
sufficiently open to admit the gradual infusion of rational belief. I
must further remark that his belief, whatever may be thought of it,
represented so powerful a sentiment that I must dwell for a little upon
its general characteristics. For this reason I will speak here of the
series of articles in 'Fraser' to which I have already referred. During
the next few years, 1864 to 1869, he wrote several, especially in
1864-5, which he apparently intended to collect. The most significant of
these is an article upon Newman's 'Apologia,' which appeared in
September 1864.

Fitzjames had some personal acquaintance with Newman. He had been taken
to the Oratory, I believe by his friend Grant Duff; and had of course
been impressed by Newman's personal charm. Fitzjames, however, was not
the man to be awed by any reputation into reticence. He had a right to
ask for a serious answer to serious questions. Newman represented claims
which he absolutely rejected, but which he desired fully to understand.
He had on one occasion a conversation which he frequently mentioned in
later years. The substance, as I gather from one of his letters, was to
this effect: 'You say,' said Fitzjames, 'that