Project Canterbury

Life of Edward Bouverie Pusey
by Henry Parry Liddon, D.D.

London: Longmans, 1894
volume two

Transcribed by The Revd R D Hacking
AD 2002








THE year 1838 was, as will appear later, full of anxieties to Pusey in his home circle; it was marked also by two public events, of no great importance in themselves, but very important in their bearing on his relation to the Oxford movement. Of these the first was the Charge of Dr. Bagot, Bishop of Oxford, in the summer of 1838. In one of the letters which Newman wrote to Pusey at Weymouth informing him of the state of eccle–siastical affairs, he told him that the Bishop of Oxford was delivering a Charge in favour of the Tracts. On August 14th he heard the Charge himself; and the first sanguine impres–sion was succeeded by another. But in consequence of Pusey's anxiety about his wife's health, Newman delayed writing to him for a week.


                                                                                                        Oriel, August 21, 1838.

And now I must tell you about the Bishop's Charge and the Tracts--it has been all the wrong way. He said in it that having been troubled with, anonymous letters he felt it right to speak about a particular development of opinion, &c. in one part of the diocese. Then after speaking about observances, &c. in Church, and saying he could find nothing to censure, he went on to speak of the Tracts, and said that in them were expressions which might be dangerous to certain minds--that he feared more for the scholars than for the Masters; but this being so he conjured the latter to mind what they were about. It was extremely mild, and he has allowed us turning to the East, &c. (implicitly), and recommended Saints' Days, fasting, &c. It was altogether very good, but it did the very thing I have always reckoned on--took our suggestions, but (as far as it went) threw us overboard.

After thinking about it, I thought that since the 'expressions' in question were not mentioned, an indefinite censure was cast over the Tracts, and that I could not continue them under it. I wrote to Keble, and be, apart from me, agreed in this opinion. Accordingly I wrote to the Archdeacon stating this, and saying that a Bishop's lightest word ex cathedra was heavy, and that judgment on a book was a rare occurrence. Therefore under the circumstances I must stop the Tracts, and recall those which were in circulation. However, if the Bishop would be kind enough privately to tell him what Tracts he objected to, I would withdraw them without a word, and the rest would be saved. He said he had not seen the Charge before it was delivered, and referred me to the Bishop. I have had an answer from the Bishop this morning--very kind, as you would expect. I think (between ourselves) the case is as I thought. He did not fully consider the power of a Bishop's word, nor fancy we are so bound by professions (to say nothing else) to obey it. He meant to check us merely, not having a distinct view of what the 'expressions' were, and not duly understanding he has a jurisdiction over me. If he says one thing, I another, we cannot remain parallel to each other, he merely indirectly influencing me. He cannot but act upon me. His word is a deed. I am very sorry, but I see no alternative yet between his telling me to withdraw some and my withdrawing all. I suppose he will put something into his printed Charge to soften matters; but I do not see how. He is, as you know, particularly kind, and I am quite pained to think that I have put him (apparently) Into a difficulty, but I do not see how I could help it. (Keep all this quite secret.) You are quite out of it--first because your name is to the Baptism, and he did not mean you; next, because I have excepted the tract on Baptism in my letter.

                                                           Ever yours affectionately,

                                                                              JOHN H. NEWMAN.

Pusey was vexed--vexed at what the Bishop had said, but still more distressed at Newman's view of what it involved. He did not understand Newman's serious estimate of the disapprobation of his Bishop. This estimate was based on Newman's peculiar theory of the authority of an individual Bishop. 'My own Bishop was my Pope,' he says; 'I knew no other; the successor of the Apostles, the Vicar of Christ.' There is no reason to suppose that Pusey ever held this theory; and it may be doubted whether at this time he even understood that Newman did so.


                                                                                Weymouth, St. Bartholomew's Eve, 1838.

It is miserable work about the Tracts; I can scarcely realize to myself what the effect of withdrawing the Tracts would be: it seems, at first sight, likely to throw everything into confusion, and to produce a sort of electric shock.. The withdrawal, in consequence of Episcopal disapprobation, is like La Mennais going to the Pope, the result of which...was that his principles were wholly given up by all Roman Catholics. The disapprobation will, of course, be considered as extending much beyond what it does; everybody will construe it to mean just what he wishes; the 'expressions which might be dangerous to certain minds' will be what every one does not like; it seems like a wet blanket cast upon all the fire we have been fanning, for it will be extended from the 'expressions' to the Tracts, and from the Tracts to the principles. It is not simply disheartening: it seems like a blow from which I shall never live to see things recover. But could it not be averted? I am fully persuaded that the Bishop [of Oxford] would be as sorry for it as any one, few excepted; that he would be shocked at his own work; that he would not like the re–sponsibility; that he goes with us the whole way (as far as his reading has led him to clear his own views) as to doctrine and practice, and would only be startled at expressions about the Reformers which were views new to him. You recollect how distinctly he recognized the act of oblation. It seems altogether, if it could be avoided, that you are making him strike a blow upon his own principles, which be and every one of his way of thinking will be sorry for as soon as it is done, and which he never contemplated. (The Bishops of London and Lincoln I suspect would be sorry.) One should surely try to save him from it if one could. Then, also, in excepting my tract on Baptism (which I hardly see how it is excepted since I owe canonical obedience to the Bishop too, and my name being to the tract makes matters worse, not better) you have excepted what I suppose (with No. 10) has been most objected to. Besides the main doctrine, there by the revival of Exorcism, limiting Scripture by tradition, and sin after Baptism. This, however, is a minor matter; but my firm persuasion is that the Bishop never read, perhaps never saw the Tracts; that he has had certain expressions quoted to him in anonymous letters, and meant to get rid of his anonymous friends, speak out, and give us a caution, and would wish us to be (perhaps he would say) more guarded in language for the future, or at least to give no handles to people. Then, perhaps, he has in his mind Seager's cross, to which he reverted since. Now there ought to be some way of escaping without such a decided step as suppressing the Tracts, and thereby perplexing people so sadly. I really can see no end of the confusion which might result, or any amount of doubt as to the doctrines of our Church which might not be occasioned by withdrawing the Tracts in consequence of Episcopal disapprobation. And it seems to me wholly gratuitous: i.e. that if the Bishop of Oxford understood us, and we him, it would be one of the last things which he would desire. (The evident pleasure which Bliss or the Oxford Herald had in putting the extract in, is a sort of specimen of what the moderate z's will do.)

1 should much like to write, or, if it should not be too late, to call upon the Bishop (if still at Cuddesdon) when I return, which I suppose will be about September 12 or 13. I would have risked writing at once as having been a writer in the Tracts (though a very small one, if the Baptism be excepted), only I am afraid (at this distance, and without knowing what you are doing, or what the tenor of the Bishop's answer to you was) of making matters worse. He has always spoken very openly and kindly to me, and besides my relation to him as a member of his Chapter, I have been a sort of country neighbour; so that I could write anything, if it would not be at cross purposes, and so doing harm.

                  *                *                 *                    *                 *                  *                  *

That Pusey's estimate of the Bishop's mind was more accurate than Newman's will appear from the Bishop's letter to Newman, who, it will be remembered, had been referred to him by the Archdeacon of Oxford. Bishop Bagot, though not a theologian, was a man who could appreciate in others gifts which he did not himself possess; and he combined with a sincere anxiety for the well-being of the Church a frankness and courtesy which commanded the affectionate attachment of his clergy. Finding from Newman's letters how deeply he was distressed by the criticisms (moderate though they seemed to others) which were contained in the Charge, he wrote to Newman as follows:--


                                                                                                                     Cuddesdon, August 20, 1838.

MY DEAR SIR,                              

I thank you for your letter this morning: the Archdeacon had shown, or rather had sent me yours to him; and I can with truth say I have been much distressed ever since--not with the tone of your letter or complaint, for that corresponds with all I have ever met with from you, and tends only to increase the respect and regard I have ever felt for you since our first acquaintance,--but my distress has been in having given pain where I so little intended to do so, and I thought such a feeling could not have been caused.

I really think you cannot have fully or accurately heard what I did say on the subject--for, be assured, had I meant in any way to censure I should neither have taken that line nor adopted so strong a measure without previously conferring with you.

Having been myself repeatedly appealed to (anonymously) to check and notice what I felt sure were exaggerated or unfounded charges, and knowing how much misrepresentation was going forward on the subject, I thought (especially as I believe the subject had been touched upon by other Bishops) I could not, in the position I held as Bishop of Oxford, avoid alluding to it,--or, in point of fact, giving an opinion between your adherents and your adversaries. And when I approved so much, censured nothing, and only lamented things which from ambiguity of expression might, I feared, by others be misunderstood or misrepresented, I own--although I should not have been surprised at dissatisfaction expressed by those who differ widely from the Tracts at my approbation of so much--I little thought I could have given pain to the other side by the caution I gave them to avoid the possibility of misrepresentation.

I repeat, my dear Sir, my belief that you did not hear accurately what I said. Wait then, I intreat you, till my Charge is printed before you act upon any judgement you may, as I now think erro–neously, have formed.

A hasty withdrawal would undo much good which has been done by those Tracts, and therefore lead to harm; nor would it be quite fair to me, as it would make me appear to have said or done that which I really have not. I can assure you I could mention names of persons whom you would respect, and who are great admirers of the authors, and approvers generally of the Tracts themselves, who have regretted to me the occasional use of expressions as being capable of misrepresentation, or of being understood by some in a way and to an extent not felt nor intended by the authors: and to this I alluded in the caution (for caution only it was) which I gave.

I shall be in Oxford ere long, and will call upon you, when I trust we shall meet as we ever have done, feeling sure you will not think that I ever intentionally at least gave you pain, or acted unopenly towards you.

In the meantime I shall be obliged to you to state to me by letter your impressions of what I did say,--but let me repeat my hope that you will not hastily take any steps founded on your present feeling.

Certainly no person whom I have met, or who heard my Charge, viewed that part of it in the light in which it appears to have struck you.

                                                                Believe me, my dear Sir,

                                                                                     Faithfully yours,

                                                                                                       R. OXFORD.

In sending to Pusey the copies of some further corre–spondence with the Bishop, Newman explained his reasons for wishing to abandon the Tracts. His letter throws into a strong light a difference between himself and Pusey which partly accounts for their distinct courses of action in later years. At the close of his life Pusey used to say that Newman had depended on the Bishops, while he himself had looked to God's Providence acting through the Church. To Newman it was a necessity that his Bishop should approve and support him: Pusey was not indifferent to such a thing if it could be had, but he did not exaggerate its importance, or make it a test of God's approval of his own position and work. As Pusey expressed himself in a letter to Keble:--

                                                                                                                      'August 23, 1838.

'One must expect principles to cost something, but the withdrawal of the Tracts from circulation, and that in consequence of a Bishop's disapprobation, is a tremendous blow, which one should be glad to avoid if possible... Such a mass to be withdrawn at once, Catenas and all! The act of obedience ought to produce a good effect upon people. But it seems a gratuitous infliction, not upon us, but upon principles.'

Newman thought that Pusey did not understand his reason for leaning as he did on the approbation of his Bishop.


                                                                                                        Oriel, August 26, 1838.

I send you what has passed between the Bishop and me; here things will stop, I suppose, till the Charge appears.

I am sorry you are so concerned; depend upon it, without reason. Nothing can stop the course of things but our acting against God's will. I could not have acted otherwise than I have.

I do not mean to say at all that my motives and feelings are what they should be, but my reason seems clear then [?that] I ought to do what I have done, though it were well if I could do so with a more single mind.

And I do not think you enter into my situation, nor can any one. I have for several years been working against all sorts of opposition, and with hardly a friendly voice. Consider how few persons have said a word in favour of me. Do you think the thought never comes across me that I am putting myself out of my place? What warrant have I for putting myself so forward against the world? Am I Bishop or Professor, or in any station which gives me right to speak? I have nothing to appeal to in justification but my feeling that I am in the main right in my opinions, and that I am able to recommend them. My sole comfort has been that my Bishop has not spoken against me; in a certain sense I can depend and lean, as it were, on him. Yet, I say it sorrowfully, though you are the only person I say it to, he has never been my friend--he has never supported me. His letting me dedicate that book to him was the only thing he has done for me, and very grateful I felt. I can truly say that I would do anything to serve him. Sometimes, when I have stood by as he put on his robes, I felt as if it would be such a relief if I could have fallen at his feet and kissed them; but on the contrary, though from the kindness of his nature he has ever been kind to me, yet he has shown me, as me, no favour, unless being made Rural Dean was such, which under the cir–cumstances I do not think was much. When that unpleasant Jubber business took place, and I needed a great deal to cheer me, he wrote an answer to the Dissenting minister, but not a line in answer to my long letter. I do not say this in complaint, but to explain my position. If he breathes but one word against the Tracts it is more than he has said out in their favour, for he does not expressly give them his approba–tion, as far as I recollect his Charge. I cannot stand if he joins against. me. Here is Faussett but yesterday writing against me; well, now the Bishop says a word. Is not that taking Faussett's part? Is it not by implication assenting to what he says, arid deciding between him and me? What is it to me though friends of mine or though strangers think well of what I have written? I feel I had no business to be writing. I want some excuse for doing so, and instead of giving it me my Bishop turns against me. I cannot stand against this. Even if I do not withdraw the Tracts I see I cannot continue them. The next volume is begun, and I suppose must be finished; but I suppose they will then stop. And I do not see how I shall have heart, with special encouragement (sic) from the Bishop, to write any–thing more on strictly Church subjects. His kindness to me, which has always been great, is from the kindness of his nature.

It is very well for people at a distance, looking at me, to say (as they will) I am betraying a cause and unsettling people. My good fellows, you make me the head of a party-- that is your external view; but I know what I am--I am a clergyman under the Bishop of Oxford, and anything more is accidental.

[August 28.] On reading this over I fear you will think 'me in a fume, but I am not. I have written the above rapidly, and it reads abrupt. Everything seems likely to be satisfactory.

August 28. (In festo S. August.) Yesterday Acland, who had been at Cuddesdon, brought back the news that the Bishop was uncom–monly pleased with my letters, and would do anything we wanted about his Charge. This entre nous. I had copied out for you the correspondence, and had intended to send it. You now will know all that has passed, and if you choose to write as a mediator you can (but you should not speak as from me).

Pusey's chivalry of disposition always led him to wish to rush into the breach, when, by doing so, he could screen or relieve others with whom he was working. His first anxiety, however, for the moment was to prevent such a disaster as the withdrawal of the great body of the Tracts; and this he thought could best be effected by interesting the Bishop in the difficulties which the Charge had thrown in the way of republishing his own tract on Baptism. He wrote as follows:--


                                                                                                Weymouth, September 5, 1838.


*                *                 *                    *                 *                  *                  *

A few weeks ago I saw in the Oxford Herald an extract pur–ported to be made from your lordship's Charge, headed 'Tracts for the Times.' The object of the writer plainly was to show that your lordship, with all kindly feeling towards the writers, still found that certain of their expressions might in some cases do harm. I had hitherto gone on the more cheerfully as trusting that we had your lordship's implied sanction for what we were doing; and that though your lordship was, of course, not to be understood as sanctioning every expression that we might use, yet still that we were, in a measure, labouring under you in the same direction which your lordship had received from those who went before you, as we from those who preceded us; and that we were, in whatever degree, advancing what your lordship wished to be the prevailing tone among those placed under your guidance, as we also are.

I could not, of course, expect that a Bishop, if he should notice our Tracts, should express an entire concurrence with them; all we could hope would be that he would approve of them in the main, and there–fore I was very well content when the Bishop of Lincoln noticed them in terms generally favourable, for he was not the Bishop under whom I was placed, and to whom I owed duty and obedience; but it is different when your lordship speaks, for to you, as the Bishop of the Cathedral to which I belong, I do owe obedience, and any faint hint of your lordship's I ought to comply with. But since of all the Tracts those which I wrote upon Holy Baptism have perhaps been most censured, and as they embrace a variety of topics besides the one doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, upon which I know that I hold with your lordship, I feel uncertain whether they may not contain some of the expressions to which your lordship alluded.

I need hardly say that should your lordship be willing to point out any such passages or expressions, I would at once gladly submit my opinion, without seeking to qualify it, and think that good would be done by unhesitating obedience to Episcopal authority. But it may be that your lordship has only a general recollection that there are certain expressions in the Tracts which your lordship judged unad–vised, and then I am in a great difficulty. For even supposing that your lordship should only wish caution to be used for the future, and not wish to direct us in any particular line, or to stop us, and that so I might be satisfied in my own conscience (as I believe I might) that I was complying with your lordship's view in carefully revising my tracts on Baptism, still there is difficulty in preserving the appearance of consistency. For, as your lordship knows, we have put forward what to these days seem high doctrines of the Episcopal office and of obedience to it: the opponents of the views we put forward have (contrary to their own principles) been calling upon the Bishops, and especially upon your lordship, to silence us; they will be sure to catch at every expression of your lordship's and stretch it probably beyond its meaning....

I hope to return' to Oxford on Friday, the 14th of this month, when, if your lordship shall be so pleased, I should be glad to do myself the honour of waiting upon you to hear your lordship's views upon the subject. We leave this place on Wednesday, the 12th.

                                 I have the honour to remain, with true respect,

                                                         Your lordship's faithful servant,

                                                                                             E. B. PUSEY.

Pusey was not mistaken in thinking that the Bishop would gladly admit him to an interview:--


                                                                                                Cuddesdon, September 12, 1838.

  MY DEAR SIR,                           

I am glad of the opportunity which your letter affords me of having a communication with you on the subject of the reference made in my late Charge to the 'Tracts for the Times.'

The explanations which you afforded me in the course of last summer having entirely satisfied my mind that all the rumours were false which had the object of connecting your views with anything like breaches of discipline, or the introduction of novelties or excesses into the public services of the Church, I considered it to be due to persons whom I felt to be rendering essential service to the cause of true religion, that I should give them such benefit as the expression of my good opinion could convey, that they were neither the ill-judging, nor the bigoted, nor the enthusiastic persons which their opponents asserted them to be. And more than this, I desired to add my own testimony to the general soundness of the views of the writers, and to express my sense of the value of their labours in behalf of the re-establishment of Church authority and the ancient discipline.

I endeavoured to do this in such a manner as should give all neces–sary support without any appearance of partisanship on my part. Having done this, it was scarcely possible to avoid allusion to the publications themselves from which all these discussions have arisen. Had I felt them to be erroneous or mischievous I should have felt it my duty to have stated my opinion; but I look on them as treatises well adapted to elicit Truth, and as drawn up with, perhaps, as little admixture of error or infirmity as could be reasonably expected in so large (and probably in some parts hastily written) a work, and there–fore I should be exceedingly sorry to see them called in or discon–tinued.

At the same time I stated, and I would repeat the statement (not as a slur on the general character of the Tracts, or as desiring to warn persons from danger contained in them), that expressions are there to be found which are liable to be misunderstood or misrepresented, or which might convey a different meaning, according as they are used in a popular or a technical sense, and therefore I gave the friendly admonition to the anonymous authors of the works in question to use extreme caution in their writings, and revise carefully, lest their good should be evil spoken of, or lest they should appear to say what they really do not mean, or to imply what they do not explicitly say. I have no desire whatever to interfere with the expression of opinions, but I wish to see that which will be extensively read and commented upon as little liable to objection, as conclusive in argument, and as exact and careful in phraseology as it can be rendered. My advice was precautionary and prospective, not inculpatory and retrospective. I think too highly of the authors and their labours in behalf of the Church not to be anxious to do all that in me lies, both to see them right and to maintain them in that position. I will now only add, with reference to that particular point in your letter in which you express the grounds of your fears that you might hereafter be charged with inconsistency, that I will endeavour so to regulate matters as to prevent your being placed in so painful a situation.

I trust Mrs. Pusey has derived all the benefit you wished from the sea air at Weymouth.

                                           Believe me, my dear Sir,

                                                               Most faithfully yours,

                                                                                 R. OXFORD.

The Charge was published, with a note which disclaimed on the Bishop's part

'any wish to pass a general censure on the "Tracts for the Times.ä There must always,' the Bishop proceeded, 'be allowable points of difference in the opinions of good men, and it is only when such opinions are carried into extremes, or are mooted in a spirit which tends to schism, that the interference of those in authority in the Church is called for. The authors of the Tracts in question have laid no such painful necessity on me.'

Pusey felt that the published Charge gave a different impression from the extracts published in the Oxford papers, and that the note accentuated it.


                                                                                               Christ Church, October 30, 1838.


I thank your lordship much for all your kindness as on former occasions, so now; for the calls which you were so good as to make; for the interest which you have kindly felt in my present sorrows; and for your wish that we should be set at ease about the use which, it seemed to me, might probably, or not improbably, be made of your lordship's Charge.

I have just read over that Charge completely (having lost it out of my pocket the day you were so good as to send it to me, and amid my troubles, not replaced it till now), and in the deep interest of the whole Charge, and in its keeping, what your lordship says about our Tracts looks different from what it did when extracted and put forth by the Oxford Herald and the like. I need not say to your lordship that I am, for myself, perfectly satisfied, grateful for your lordship's advice, and for the warning to those who are more or less our pupils, as having had their views immediately formed by our writings, though ultimately by our Church, whose doctrines they are which we put forward. For it is to be expected in all stirring times, and amid the excitement of views to them new, though not in themselves, that there will be many extravagances; and it seems a great mercy that those views have not as yet (as far as I have heard) been mixed up with any extravagances, at least in action. How many have there been in that section of the Church which is opposed to us! Your lordship's advice would be very valuable, and, I hope, calm some of the excitement which I understand prevails among young men, and which seems inseparable from sudden change....

I am resuming, at what leisure I have, the revision and expansion of my tracts on Baptism, and from my present circumstances I ought to be taught not to anticipate the evils of the morrow, but to go on quietly with my work, thanking Him for my 'daily bread.'

With renewed thanks to your lordship, and every earnest wish for every earnest blessing upon yourself and yours,

                                       I remain, with great respect,

                                                     Your lordship's faithful servant,

                                                                                      E. B. PUSEY.

Another letter from the Bishop closes the correspondence. In it, as will be seen, the Bishop authorizes Pusey to deny, if necessary, that he had intended in his Charge to censure the Tracts. Bishop Bagot's assurances on this head were calculated, if not designed, to remove Newman's scruples.


                                                                                                Cuddesdon, November 10, 1838.


When I see the date of your letter, I feel quite ashamed of the length of time it has remained unanswered, but it arrived the morning I left Cuddesdon, and I only returned from Wiltshire on Thursday night last. This journey has made me much in arrears.

I think your remark on criticism a very fair one, although I have no apprehension of any one (even the Record) being able to quote (at least to prove) my charge as a censure--at all events, they cannot do so, as Dr. Hook says in a note, without making me stultify myself. I feel much obliged to Dr. Hook for that note, and entirely agree with him in all he says.

Should any attack or charge of inconsistency be brought against you, with entire confidence do I give you leave to use my name as never meaning to censure the 'Tracts for the Times.' It might perhaps be well, if ever my Charge is brought against the authors, to apprize me of it, and my answer should set that matter at rest.

Still, I would repeat that I hardly think such an attack will be made.

It has been suggested to me that if a tract were to be written, quite for the Poor, about the Daily Service it would do good. The person suggesting it says, 'It must be restored some time, and the sooner the way is paved for its restoration the better.'

I franked the enclosure in your letter the day I received it, which I think was on the 31st of last month. With sincerest good wishes towards yourself and family,

                                             Believe me, my dear Sir,

                                                                   Faithfully yours,

                                                                                      R. OXFORD.

Before the clouds which had gathered round the Bishop's Charge had had time to clear away, another storm was discernible on the horizon.

'They talk,' wrote Pusey to Harrison, October 10, 1838, 'of building a Church of the Martyrs here, which, emanating from Golightly and Cotton, is nothing but a cut at us. So we, too, have begun canon–izing! only instead of being done by the Church it is done by one or two individuals. And we are to have churches of St. [?Latimer], St. Cranmer, and St. Ridley. Well, to d'eu nikatw'.

At first Harrison was in sympathy with Pusey's feeling. He was 'sorry to hear that the "martyrsä were to be made bones of contention in Oxford by this ill-judged zeal in their behalf.' He was 'not surprised at such a move–ment, considering how the Marian martyrs had been in a manner canonized in the English Church for the last three hundred years.' Shortly afterwards he looked on the proposal more favourably, and wrote to Pusey an account of its origin which might seem to have been sug–gested by high authority.

                                                                                                                    'Nov. 6, 1838.

'I heard the other day that it would seem in its first origination to have been called forth by the publication of Froude's "Remains,ä and so designed as an antagonist movement, as well as suggested by the desire to get in some way or other another church for St. Ebbe's.... Having had the opportunity of seeing more than, under the circum–stances of the moment, you could do, of the temper of different parties, I should scarcely think it right not to tell you how I think matters really stand. Froude's very disparaging expressions about the Martyrs have evidently stirred up a zeal in defence of their memories which I think one can hardly be surprised at.'

The project of the Martyrs' Memorial had really origin–ated at a small meeting in the house of the Rev. C. P. Golightly. There is little doubt that it was intended primarily as a protest against Froude's 'Remains,' and the editors of that book, Newman and Keble. Oxford was already in a flutter. A question had been raised which would force the editors and those who sympa–thized with them to say whether they sympathized with the Reformation of the sixteenth century at all;  and, if at all, how far and in what sense would they support the project of a memorial to Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer? Pusey had not had a hand in editing Froude. But he was exposed to as much pressure as anybody; and he describes in one of his letters to New–man an interview which was probably a sample of many others.


                                                                                                                       Oct. 23, 1838.

Yesterday Harrison and Sewell, to-day Churton, called upon me about it. Among other things, C. says that he or they thought in the first instance that you had been consulted about it, and that they mistook what had been said to and by T. Mozley for what had been said to and by you. However, it seems that they are very anxious that it should not be a source of discord, and that we should join.

I told both that I would do nothing without you, for that since it bad been spoken of as a hit against you, even if I should be satisfied With any plan myself, I would not join in anything which did not satisfy you. Further, that a plan to commemorate the Reformers now was at all events suspicious, but that as certain things had been said of course we could not join unless right principles were somehow expressed and embodied in the very monument itself; that mere general terms would not do: thus Sewell talked of their being 'martyrs for the truth.' I said it must be said somehow 'Catholic and primitive truth as Opposed to 'Neoteric'.

Sewell talked of a cross in Broad Street, which would be in many ways a good: besides that it is not respectful that carts, &c. should drive over the place where they yielded up their souls. Churton, of a church (which plan is not yet given up). I said in addition that it must not be the Martyrs' Church, canonizing them; that there might be no objection to a cenotaph, provided the inscription were a sound one; but that the church must be called after some one already canonized, not by individuals.

Both I put off by saying that the inscription must first be agreed upon. I half referred Sewell to Routh for an inscription, but with–drew, fearing that unless some one were at hand to suggest to him what these people were about he might not see through it.

Churton's plan, which he had called to show you, was for a church on the site already purchased for the new district church of St. Ebbe's, which by pulling down a few houses (which the Corporation talked of taking down) might be laid open to the end of Queen Street, and that it might be made a little cathedral with cenotaphs. Certainly splendid notions for these people to have lighted upon: one, a cross in the midst of the broadest street in the city; the other, a cathedral with shrines!

Churton's prospectus also was altogether sound, except that the first sentence spoke of 'pure and Scriptural truth,' instead of 'Catholic'; but then the next had Catholic.

Now what I want you to consider is, whether we should say that we would have nothing to do with the plan (in which case it might fall to the ground if we were united, or it might be carried on by the Recordites out of the University (which would do no harm), or it might be done by weak persons in the University who did not see what was meant)--or should we capitulate, making our own terms? The Record may have its triumph for the time, and we might have the prece–dent for setting up crosses, instead of digging them out on Whit-Mondays.

I send you Hook's sermon, which Parker brought me to-day, to read in your way back; it shows me that my letters have been wasted upon him, for he will neither say one thing nor the other; not say wherein he disagrees, and yet say that he does disagree. However, what he does say will do good, and perhaps keep some young ones quiet. What he says about Froude (whose name he does not spell right) is as much as you could expect.

As the movement for the Martyrs' Memorial went on, some of its supporters endeavoured to turn it into a demonstration against the Church of Rome. In this way it would, they hoped, receive a wider support throughout the country; and Oxford might be practically united in its favour. Harrison even hoped that, when it was presented in this new aspect, Pusey and Newman might be favour–ably disposed towards it. Pusey, however, had made up his mind, and let Harrison know it without further delay.


                                                                                                   Christ Church, Nov. 5, 1838.

My final conclusion about the monument is, that I had rather not have anything to do with it Three years ago I printed (Baptism, Part III) that the great mercy in our Reformation was that we had no human founder: we were not identified with men, or any set of men: it was God's mercy that we had so little of human influence; now, if at the time the place where Cranmer and the rest suffered had been marked by a cross, this would have been very well: but now, let it be done how it would, those engaged in it will more or less identify themselves and our Church, in public feeling and impression, with the individuals. It has been altogether a very unfortunate business, as was likely, since it originated in wrong and unkind feelings. At the same time, while I keep aloof myself, I shall be very glad if those who can, would mend it: what I should like best would be a cross with an inscription, as I spoke of yesterday, or the like, without any mention of names. I think this might be really in the end a good, although (with the turn things are taking) I think it best to keep myself altogether clear.

                                     Ever your very affectionate and faithful friend,

                                                                                             E. B. PUSEY.

Deo Opt. Max.


persecutionis Marianae


Ecclesiam suam

his in terris

lustravit atq. purgavit.

You, as Archbishop's Chaplain, might do a great deal, and Sewell, one should hope. If it is to be, whatever of Catholicism can be brought, 'apponite lucro.'

I think the ethos of my inscription the best: besides, as St. Aug. says, 'non martyribus, sed Deo martyrum.'

A few days later Pusey stated his view of the proposal, and his reasons for acting as he did, with great explicitness in a letter to the Bishop of Oxford.


                                                                                                Christ Church, Nov. 12, 1838.

I fear that we shall be thrown into some confusion by a plan to which, on different pleas, high sanction has been obtained--the memorial to Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer. One should have thought it very natural and a right feeling had the place where they yielded up their souls been inclosed long ago, so that carts should not drive over it; but this plan of a monument was devised only to serve as a party purpose: it was, in fact (as some of themselves avow), a counter–movement against Froude's 'Remains,' or, as one of them said, 'it will be a good cut against Newman.' It was intended to set the Reformers against the Fathers, and to set up certain views which some people identify with the Reformers against those of the ancient Church. I regret the plan, because it has seemed to me, for some years, the great blessing of our Reformation that we are not (as the Lutherans and Calvinists are) connected with any human founder, or bound up with his human infirmities: we are neither Cranmerites nor Ridleyites, but an Apostolic branch of the Church Catholic; and I fear lest this plan should tend to increase the vulgar impression that we were a new Church at the Reformation, instead of being the old one purified. However, the great interest in the eyes of some of the warmest supporters of the plan was to obtain a new church; and now that is decided against, I have reason to think that the whole plan would fall to the ground (which in the present state of things were best for the union of Oxford) but that people have got so far that they do not know how to retreat; they do not seem to be able to get either backward or forward to their minds.

If Pusey thought that the project would be given up, he was mistaken. Even had its promoters been willing to retreat, they had gone too far to do so. Nor were they able, if so disposed, to make the memorial a protest only against the Roman Church. It was, and it remained, an expression of hostility to the Oxford writers; and it had the effect accordingly of representing the Reformers as being in antagonism, not only or mainly to the later Roman Church, but to the Catholic Fathers and Christian antiquity.

The Bishop of Oxford, however, was naturally anxious to put the best construction on a movement which had the support of many of his clergy; and having been somehow persuaded that it had no party character, he determined to do his best to induce the writers of the Tracts to join it.

A visit from the Bishop and its consequences is described in the subjoined letter to Keble.


                                                                                                    Christ Church,

                                                                                First Sunday after Epiphany, 1839.

Last Wednesday I had a very kind confidential visit from the Bishop of Oxford, in which you also are concerned. It related to the Memorial.' He entered into very kind and condescending detail as to the line he had taken, withholding his concurrence while he sus–pected party feeling, and joining when he had satisfied himself, on diligent enquiry, that there was none. He then said, in his kind and painfully diffident way, that he wished I would consider (seeing that he was satisfied that there were no party feelings in it) whether I could not join it, that he wished me to talk it over with my friends, not to give an answer at once; but he repeated several times, 'it would be invaluable (laying great stress on the word) to the Church at this moment,' and that our friends (naming the Archbishop or Archbishops) thought so. He did not name you and N., but evidently included you both.

The result of a long walk and consultation with N. on Thursday was a letter to the Bishop stating my difficulties as to the inconsistency in which it would involve me, on account both of what I had said of the blessing of our Reformation not being identified with men, or having any man's image stamped upon it (Holy Baptism, Part III. beg.); and in my preface to the Catena (No. 8i) on Cranmer's Zwingli–anizing (p. 28) and the sad change in the second [Prayer] book (p. 30). (I give these references because what I have said seems to me stronger than what I observe in your Preface to Hooker.) Also, that I had spoken strongly lately against the memorial as perhaps falling within the scope of our Lord's words against 'building the sepulchres of those whom their fathers had slain,' and as unkind to the Church of Rome, in throwing a hindrance to her reforming herself and healing the schism. Still, that I thought I had a right to drop my own private judgement, and to act not as an individual, but in com–pliance to the wishes of my Diocesan; but that I wished this to be expressed somehow by joining my name with his, as 'the Rev. Dr. P. by the Lord Bishop of O.' I said, however, that this would only carry my single name, since, in your case and N.'s, too sacred feelings were involved for his lordship to wish to interfere, as it might seem to be abandoning your friend. (This was N.'s feeling.) I then proposed another plan, which would, I thought, obviate the difficulty and secure the object avowed, of a demonstration of attachment to our Church, as it is, undeceiving the Romanists (if any are deceived) and reassuring the country. This was to change the memorial from a commemoration of the Reformers into a thanksgiving for the blessings of the Reformation. I had proposed, early, an inscription to this effect (which went through Harrison to Sewell, and was I think proposed by him)

Deo Opt. Max. [rather Triuni]


Ecclesiam suam

His in tens

persecutionis Marianae ignibus

lustravit atq. purgavit.

But as the plan then was a monument (and N. would not join a monument anyhow and I would not go alone: this last I did not tell the Bishop) we held aloof, and so things dropped through. I named also Dr. Routh's difficulty, that the present inscription was probably untrue in fact, since Cranmer suffered probably for the part he took against Queen Mary and her mother, not for religion. I named also E. Churton's idea, that the inscription should commemorate some of the chief blessings of the Reformation, though this will require a careful hand. The Bishop also has an amendment which he recommended--to introduce the mention of 'conformity with the principles of the Primitive Church'; so that it is to be hoped that the inscription is still open to alteration on the 31st.

I then suggested for his consideration whether the Archbishop, as Visitor, and himself as Diocesan (the subscribers and Committee are a mixed body) could not recommend such an alteration, and send an inscription, drawn up by themselves or some one delegated by them, recommending it for the sake of union. I told him at the same time that I was writing for myself only, yet that I hoped such a plan might unite all.

I showed the letter to N., who liked it, and though he wished not to be committed, he saw no objection to this plan of commemorating the blessings of the Reformation by a tablet in the church (the Arch–bishop and Bishop have joined on condition that it be a church), provided the inscription be a good one. And now I want you to con–sider what you can do. Besides the inconsistency involved in my subscribing, I felt the perplexity which it would cause our friends, and I should have been very glad if our three names could have been united with the Bishop's in the way which I proposed for my own, which would have explained the meaning of so doing in a way which will not be attained in the case of my single name. However, it seemed right to comply with what had been asked of me in that way by the Bishop, and I have no wish to detach you from N. and leave him alone. But I should be very glad if the other plan should fall in with your views. And this prospect of unity would be a strong ground for the Archbishop and Bishop to take, if they please, would show our wish of doing what we could, and be a grateful act to them. I will let you know when I hear more. I conclude from not hearing that he has written to the Archbishop. I suggested in a way that Ogilvie might be deputed to draw up the inscription.

Keble thought that there were serious difficulties in the way of commemorating individual Reformers, as distinct from the general results of their work under the guidance of God's Providence.


                                                                                                     Hursley, January 18, 1839.

I cannot understand how poor Cranmer could be reckoned a bond fide martyr according to the rules of the Primitive Church. Was he not an unwilling sufferer? and did he not in the very final paper of his confession profess himself to hold in all points the doctrine of that answer to Gardiner? And is not that doctrine such as the Ancient Church would have called heretical? In short, I am not at all prepared to express a public dissent from Froude in his opinion of the Reformers as a party. If the monument were confined to Ridley I might perhaps think of it; but, as it is, I should require something like Episcopal authority to make me subscribe. Do you think the Bishop of Oxford is enough my Diocesan as well as yours to make it right for me to sacrifice my opinion as you have offered to do? And ought I in any case unless Newman does? On all these accounts I should very much prefer the other plan, but I fear it is too sanguine to expect the subscribers to adopt it. Anything which separates the present Church from the Reformers I should hail as a great good, and certainly such would in a measure be the effect of a monument of acknowledgment that we are not Papists, without any reference to them. As to its uniting people, I do not in the least expect it. There is a deep doctrinal difference which cannot be got over. But the great thing is obeying one's superiors when one really knows their wishes.

The Bishop of Oxford delayed his answer to Pusey, and Pusey rightly conjectured that the Bishop was communi–cating with the Archbishop before sending his reply. As soon as he heard from Lambeth he wrote to Pusey and enclosed the Archbishop's letter.


                                                                                     Cuddesdon, Saturday, January 19, 1839.


                  *                *                 *                    *                 *                  *                  *

You will see by the Archbishop's letter my expressed opinion to him that any degree of support to the memorial merely out of deference to me would neither be satisfactory to yourself or to me, nor would it tend to good.

Do not then, my dear Sir, think that I would press you to take the step of subscribing, if after a full consideration of the subject you cannot bring it satisfactorily to accord with your feelings. But there are other modes open to you of doing what I cannot but think most desirable.

Let me entreat you, then, by the love which (in spite of the asser–tions of your opposers in these days of misrepresentation) I am convinced you feel for our Reformed Church, if you cannot approve the memorial, to make some declaration at a fit time, and in what you may deem the fittest mode--by letter or by publication of some sort-- such as shall stop the accusations of your being in any degree hostile to the Reformation, enable your friends to defend you from such charges, and put to silence the Romanists who wrongly but boldly claim you as countenancing them.

As a general rule I would not recommend the noticing misrepre–sentations; but these are not common times, and I think there are circumstances which make such a course most desirable, if not im–perative. I think you owe it to yourself, to the Church, and, though last, let me add I think you should do it on my account, lest while in acquitting you, which I have already done, of these, as I fully believe, unfounded charges, I might myself be supposed to sanction anything tending to the advance of Romanism.

                           I am, my dear Sir,

                                    With much regard and respect,

                                                                Faithfully yours,

                                                                                  R. OXFORD.

In the postscript the Bishop quoted an earlier letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury, stating his opinion that the editors of Froude's 'Remains' ought to define their own position towards the Reformation.

'The prejudice against the editors is very rapidly spreading, and I fear will deprive the world of a great part of the benefit which it might otherwise derive from their talents, learning, and industry, applied to the elucidation of religious truth and ecclesiastical history. In justice to themselves and the public, I think they would do well to take some opportunity of showing to the world that they are not hostile to the Reformation. I entirely acquit them of the charge, but many respectable persons will pronounce them guilty.'

The Archbishop's language applies in the first instance and primarily only to Keble and Newman. But Pusey would not separate himself from them at a time of popular excitement, and indeed the Bishop of Oxford had asked him to make some declaration of his principles which would be a satisfactory substitute for supporting the memorial. Accordingly Pusey offered to write a public Letter to the Bishop of Oxford which should comply with this request. The Bishop would not press Pusey to sub–scribe to the memorial if Pusey was only going to subscribe in obedience to his wishes, especially if this motive for the subscription was to be stated publicly. And the Committee of the memorial could not at this period omit the names of the martyrs; while Pusey's suggestions to Mr. Cotton with respect to the inscription had not been acceded to. Everything then seemed to point to the public Letter as a means of giving the required explanations.


                                                                              Islip Rectory, Thursday night, Jan. 24, 1839


                  *                *                 *                    *                 *                  *                  *

You mention that a letter to myself has occurred to you as a good form of declaration. After the best consideration I can give, my opinion is that it would be a desirable measure, and I foresee no ill which can arise. It will not bring me into controversy, meaning fully to adhere, in this respect, to what I said in my charge--viz, that 'into controversy I will not enter.' Further, a letter will have the advantage (so far as you yourself at least are concerned) of doing immediately, and in a form likely to be more immediately read, what you state it is the intention of some of your friends to do by articles in a Review; and I see not how I can be involved in a controversy by any man writing a letter to me, which he may at all times do with or without my consent.

I will not go over the same ground again, or trouble you with my reasons, but I feel satisfied some declaration is called for, or will tend to good.

There are now friends of mine staying at Rome--sensible men too, and without, gossip--and I am assured that the language of the Pope (as I am informed in one instance), and that of all the English Roman Catholics of rank residing there, is that of joy and congratu–lation at the advances which are being made in Oxford towards a return to the doctrines of the 'true Church.'

                                                 Believe me, my dear Sir,

                                                                        Faithfully yours,

                                                                                           R. OXFORD.

Before this letter reached Pusey, he had heard that the Committee of the memorial had rejected his advances. It was therefore impossible to co-operate with the project they had in hand. But Pusey still wished to do some–thing; he could not eulogize all the Reformers, yet he was grateful for certain results of the Reformation.


                                                                                                      Oxford, Jan. 24, 1839.

Our plan for uniting with the memorial has been proposed and rejected by the Committee, nor will they bring it forward at the public meeting on the 31st. It struck me then whether it would not be a good thing to set on foot ourselves what we wished them to do for us, and so get them or a good portion of them to join us instead of [our] joining them. To show at once what I mean, I transcribe an in–scription which I thought might be placed in the church to be built. 'This church was built to the honour of the Holy Trinity, and in humble acknowledgment of the Good Providence of Almighty God over His Church in this land, and of His manifold blessings, vouch–safed to her at the time of the Reformation, and continued and enlarged at subsequent eras, from that time until now; especially in the restoration of the Cup to her laity and of a pure Liturgy and His Holy Word in her native tongue.' The church to be called Trinity Church.

'Subsequent eras' are meant to include the, restorations in our Liturgy--Q. Elizabeth and at the Restoration. The 'especially &c.,' I thought, mentioned the things peculiarly adapted to be mentioned in a church. But I only send this as a sketch of the sort of thing I meant: it runs heavily, and I should be glad, if you like the plan, that you would rewrite it. N. has some feeling that the Restoration ought to be mentioned, and that it was cowardly not; but the restoration under Queen Elizabeth of the words 'The Body, &c.' was greater. N. said he had no strong feeling about it: I thought the mention of the Restoration would seem as if we wished to bring in a rival to the Reformation, and so would separate people off from us, whereas one rather wishes to draw them to think of the real blessing of the Reformation instead of the unreal.

The objects of the plan are (1) to satisfy the Bishop of Oxford and Archbishop and other friends who wish us to do something to set ourselves straight with those at least well inclined to us. (This plan of a church for a destitute population {St. Ebbe's, it would be seen from the Fairford entrance into Oxford} is {I know privately} just what the Archbishop would prefer.) (2) To set ourselves straight with the country, and open the way for right principles. (3) To protect our friends in the country, who are now in a state of perplexity, not knowing whether to join the memorial or no (I had such a letter from Sir G. Prevost): and so we hear of others who are partly falling into the memorial for want of something better, partly are stigmatized because they do not join. In the north it is a sort of shibboleth. Of course, one would ask the Bishop of Oxford before one did anything.

I thought of rather a handsome church, and so proposed that the sum to be raised should be £10,000. The Catholics ought to do things on a better scale than ultra-Protestants. If built on the proposed and purchased site, it would just terminate the street which diverges to the left from St. Peter-le-Bailey. If you approve, it would be a good thing to send up any promises of subscription.

I am (I believe) just going to write a 'Letter to the Bishop of Oxford,' explaining that we are not Papists. What we thought of was trying to draw out the Via Media between Popery and ultra–Protestantism. But I have not the Bishop's permission yet, though I have asked it, as a distant thing.

I wish you would send up your Anti-Papistical Extracts. N. has printed those from the Tracts, his writings, mine, the 'Remains,' the 'Lyra'; and I think they read very well and will do good; it were pity not to have yours.

                  *                *                 *                    *                 *                  *                  *

                                        Your very affectionate and grateful friend,

                                                                            E. B. PUSEY.

Keble approved of Pusey's suggestion. But he ques–tioned Pusey's sanguine anticipation of their being able to raise £10,000. He promised £100 on his own account, approved of Pusey's inscription, and advised that a paper should be issued

'intimating that we should have been glad had circumstances allowed our joining the other [plan], but our view of history riot permitting that, and some testimonial of the kind being thought desirable from persons so circumstanced, we have devised this plan of a church with an inscription to which we can conscientiously subscribe.'

Hereupon Pusey wrote to the Bishop of Oxford, asking for his sanction to the plan of a church, as detailed in his letter to Keble. But, considering the Bishop's existing relations to the original Committee of the memorial, this was impossible, as he showed Pusey in a letter on Jan. 25th. That letter obliged Pusey to give up the plan of a second memorial. Keble was 'not very sorry.'

'Newman had gradually become opposed to it, and so,' writes Pusey on January 29th, 'was Isaac Williams, though partly on principles which I do not share, the wish to pass over the Reformation. For certainly, whatever faults there were, we should never have been 'Apostolical' without them. We owe our peculiar position as adherents of Primitive Antiquity to them, besides other things which I. W. would acknow–ledge. Perhaps I have mistaken him. However, I do not know but that we should have appeared to be in a false position, and to be insincere, taking up the Reformation to give popularity. So I am glad that things have so ended,--at least for the present.'

Pusey and his friends had no further relations with the Committee of the Martyrs' Memorial. The work was completed, as all the world knows, in 1841, when the cross which stands between the Taylor Gallery and Balliol College, and the northern aisle to St. Mary Magdalen Church, were added to the architectural decorations of Oxford.

As soon as he had received the necessary sanction from Cuddesdon, on January 25, Pusey set to work at his ' Letter to the Bishop of Oxford.' It was completed on February 12, St. Matthias' Day. It forms an octavo book of 239 pages, and it was written amid the distractions of prepara–tions for lectures, incessant correspondence, and the ever-increasing anxieties occasioned by his wife's critical con–dition of health. On January 30 Pusey wrote to Keble: 'My letter to the Bishop of Oxford gets on slowly.' On February 3 to Harrison:--

'My letter to the Bishop of Oxford, as everything else, goes on very slowly: Newman's is the most enviable rapidity; but he purchased it by early pains in writing.'

On February 22, to Harrison again:--

'I have got through the subjects of Tradition, Justification, Sin after Baptism, the Sacraments, and Apostolic Succession, and hope to be able to treat more briefly what remains. But my letter will, I suppose, exceed two hundred pages. I have given a good many extracts from Newman to show ethos. Not having a speculative mind, I do not think that there is any likelihood of there being anything which will offend persons who hold the reality.... I hope it will be quite popular. I have kept to the words of our formularies as much as I could.'

Pusey begins with an apology for defending himself at all: his first instinct throughout life was to act on the maxim that truth can very well take care of itself. The times, however, were exceptional; and it was due to the Bishop of Oxford to show that the writers of the Tracts were not unworthy of his kindness. Pusey insists on the vagueness of the invidious charge of 'Popery'; and then discusses the several points to which prominence had been given, whether in the Tracts or by their assailants, with the object of showing that the Tract-writers,

'together with our Church, held a distinct and tangible line, removed from modern novelties, whether of Rome or of ultra-Protestantism.'

Thus he discusses the relation of the Church to the Bible, as its guardian and, by the mouth of Catholic antiquity, its interpreter; justification as effected by Christ, and not by anything human, whether the faith which apprehends or the works which glorify Him; sin after baptism, as a much more serious thing than popular systems, whether Roman Catholic or ultra-Protestant, practically allowed; the sacramental character attaching to other rites than the two sacraments of the Gospel, such as absolution, orders, matrimony, confirmation--a character exaggerated by Roman Catholics and ignored by ultra-Protestants; the grace of baptism, wherein Christians are made members of Christ, children of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven--a grace denied by ultra-Protestants point blank, and thrown into the shade by the position assigned by Roman Catholics to penance and the Holy Eucharist; the Body and Blood of Christ present in the Holy Eucharist--given, and therefore present independently of reception, no less than taken and received--a presence denied by Zurich and Geneva, but associated by Rome with a 'carnal' definition of its supposed mode, and with consequences held to be involved in it without any sufficient warrant of Scripture or antiquity; the necessity of an apostolically commissioned ministry, as a safeguard against ultra-Protestant disorgan–ization and lack of authority, and also against Roman Catholic depreciation of the claim of the Church of England to be a part of the Catholic body. These were the sub–jects actually put forward by the writers of the Tracts into a new prominence, as 'filling up the lacunae of a popular system, and recalling to men's minds forgotten or depreciated truths.' The questions about prayers for the dead, invocation of saints, and celibacy, upon which Pusey touches in the latter part of his Letter, had only been referred to incidentally by the writers of the Tracts, al–though great stress had been laid upon them by adverse critics. Pusey insists, in fine, that the opponents of the Tracts misunderstood the real position and teaching of the Church of Rome; that they were misled by the satis–faction expressed by some Roman Catholics at the revival of Church principles; and that what they attacked in the Tracts was not the real teaching of the writers but their own misconceptions of that teaching.

The Letter is well worth study, not only on account of its place in the history of the Movement and of Pusey's mind, but for reasons which give it permanent value. The discussion of the difficult question of celibacy, its high sanctions in Scripture and antiquity, its practical recom–mendations, as supplying the Church with free and dis–interested workers, both men and women, its dangers and corruptions, historical and possible, may be instanced as ranking with Pusey's happiest efforts. In this Letter Pusey appears more distinctly perhaps than in any of his earlier or later writings as an advocate of the Via Media. The Via Media was the watchword of the Trac–tarians between the Hampden controversy and the publica–tion of Tract 90. It is the keynote to Newman's 'Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church,' to his 'Lectures on Justification,' and even to that remarkable article in the British Critic of April, 1839, on the 'State of Religious Parties,' in which, he tells us in the 'Apologia,' he spoke for the last time as 'an Anglican to Anglicans.'

Pusey and he were in energetic accord as to the direction of the Movement and the principles on which it should be defended; but the 'parting of the ways' was near at hand. Already in their respective attitudes towards the Bishop's charge and the 'Martyrs' Memorial' we seem to see an intimation of divergence which was soon to be more clearly realized, at least by one of them. It was in the summer of the same year that Newman, while studying the Monophysite controversy, saw, as he thought, 'the shadow of a hand upon the wall.'

Pusey's Letter had its effect. It reached a fourth edition in twelve months. How it was welcomed in some quarters will appear from the following:--


                                                                                                Vicarage, Leeds, April 3, 1839.


It is impossible for me to thank you sufficiently for your Letter to my Lord of Oxford. It is calculated to do us here more good than anything that has appeared for a long time. It is too dear for the middle classes, who think much of anything they spend in books: I therefore wish you to give me two dozen copies that I may send them about through Yorkshire....

I have advertized your Letter to the Bishop last week in our paper, with a little adjunct. Ever, my dear friend,

                                      Most affectionately yours,

                                                                    W. F. HOOK.

But the Letter was attacked, among others, by Dr. Christopher Benson, the Master of the Temple; and this, together with the criticisms provoked by Newman's 'Lectures on Justification,' led Pusey to prefix a long and valuable preface on the subject of Justification to the fourth edition of his Letter. Before publishing this preface he sent the proofs to Newman.


                                                                                                      Oriel College, Aug. 4, 1840.

I have no remark to make on your preface of consequence, except to thank you for the extreme trouble you have taken with me. If I must say something, I would ask whether you are not too sanguine in saying that we are stationary. And my lectures were not sug–gested to me by any one, except the clamour on the subject.

Pusey replies:--

                                                                                                 Brighton, Aug. 11, 1840.

Indeed you did write your 'Lectures on Justification' at my suggestion, though you of course felt the difficulties too. It was at my request that you set yourself to remove them. I have therefore left the statement [that the lectures were written at the suggestion of another]. It seems somehow a reason why you should not have all this trouble when you did not undertake it of your own mind.

The preface mainly consists of extracts from Newman's 'Lectures on Justification,' so arranged and commented on as to meet the objections which had been urged against them. Thus, although the words in which the doctrine is presented are Newman's, the order and method of the presentation is Pusey's, and has a substantive interest of its own. Pusey does not notice the question which Newman had raised with reference to his statement that

'it is ever the tendency of novelty and schismatical teaching to de–velop itself further, and detach itself more from the doctrines of the Church. Stationariness is a proof of adherence to some fixed and definite standard.'

He kept the statement where he had placed it, at the beginning of his preface, and at the time nothing more was said of it. But in after years Newman referred to it as an illustration of Pusey's 'confidence in his position.' To Newman himself; when a Roman Catholic, the Movement seemed to have been a steady impulse towards Rome. Pusey saw in it only an influence which restored the true meaning of the formularies of the English Church and quickened its faith and activity by doing so. Newman added, 'Pusey made his statement in good faith: it was his subjective view of it'.  Of course Pusey might have said the same thing of his friend.


Project Canterbury