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
CHAPTER XXIX.
PUSEY' S CONDEMNATION -- SERMON ON THE EUCHA–RIST
-- DELATION -- CONDEMNATION WITHOUT A HEARING -- FAILURE OF ATTEMPTS TO SECURE RE–CANTATION --
SENTENCE OF SUSPENSION -- PUSEY' S PROTEST--WEIGHTY REMONSTRANCES--SERMON PUB–LISHED --ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN LEGAL REDRESS.
1843.
ON the fourth Sunday after Easter, May 14, 1843, Pusey preached at Christ Church, before the University, the sermon which, in its practical effects upon himself and the Church at large, though not in its theological and spiritual power, was the most important sermon of his life. It will be necessary to enter in some detail into the circumstances of the condemnation of this sermon by the authorities of the University. The story has never yet been told.
Nowadays, and in calmer times, the fact that a sermon had been condemned by certain Doctors of no great theological eminence, might produce no marked effect in the Church at large. But in 1843 the whole Church of England viewed the theological decisions of the ordinary University officials as utterances of grave ecclesiastical importance. Many circumstances too, had as we have seen, been helping to excite the popular mind in a manner adverse to the Tractarian leaders. In consequence, the fact that one of Pusey' s sermons was thought worthy of condemnation by a University tribunal, so soon after Newman had incurred the censure of the Hebdomadal Board for Tract 90, materially affected the attitude of many Churchmen towards the Tractarians. Their opponents felt justified in more vigorous action. Those who knew little about the sermon were excited and alarmed; while Bishops, who might have allayed the excitement, were tempted then, as they were not unfrequently afterwards, to fall in with popular feeling. At any rate they felt themselves unable any longer to resist and control what they took to be the current of Church opinion. And the strange mystery which the Oxford Doctors succeeded in throwing round their quasi-judicial proceedings only intensified the ill effects of their unjustifiable sentence.
Pusey' s public teaching followed a course or system, instinctively rather than designedly. The pietism of Spener had left a mark upon him which lasted; he began with the needs of the human soul. 'He has devoted himself,' writes Mr. J. B. Mozley, 'to the consideration of Sin: its awful nature: its antagonism to God: its deep seat in our nature: the remedy provided for it by our Lord' s meritorious suffer–ings and death, and the application of that remedy in the ordinance of Baptism. . . . Baptism is a new birth, an entrance into a' new world, the communication of a new nature. And sin is in Baptism pardoned. . . . But then comes the fact that men live after Baptism: sin comes up again, and has to be dealt with again. . . . Here the easy way to peace ends, and a rough and difficult one begins.'
It was in the development of the line of teaching thus based on the double foundation of Revealed Truth and personal experience, that Pusey wrote his sermon, 'The Holy Eucharist a Comfort to the Penitent.' 'When,' he afterwards remarked, 'people said that I had scared them about post-baptismal sin, I was led to preach a course of sermons on Comforts to the Penitent. Of these the sermon on the Holy Eucharist was one. It was a singular case of mistaking what people' s feelings would be. For I chose the Holy Eucharist as the subject at which they would be less likely to take offence than at Absolution. But we know what happened.'
As the title implies, it is a practical, and in its design uncontroversial, sermon, having for its object not the formal statement of disputed or forgotten truth, but the encourage–ment of a certain class of souls. As Pusey said of it sixteen years afterwards:--
'It implied rather than stated even the doctrine of the Real Objective Presence, and was written chiefly in the language of the Fathers. Its one object was to inculcate the love of our Redeemer for us sinners in the Holy Eucharist, both as a Sacrament and as a commemorative Sacrifice. As a Sacrament, in that He, our Redeemer, God and Man, vouchsafes to be " our spiritual food and sustenance in that holy Sacrament." As a commemorative Sacrifice, in that He enables us therein to plead to the Father that one meritorious Sacrifice on the Cross, which He, our High Priest, unceasingly pleads in His own Divine Person in Heaven.'
How the Eucharist is a support and enlargement of life in Christ is shown from the types, the prophecies, and the direct language of our Lord which refers to it. It has this virtue because in it Christ is present, in the presence of His Flesh and Blood, which are indissolubly united to His Eternal Godhead. It brings comfort to the penitent as well as strength to the saint, because He is the Redeemer, Who forgives the sins of all who approach Him with faith. This, it is shown, is the teaching of Scripture, Fathers, Liturgies; and the sermon concludes with some practical considerations, addressed to the Chapter of Christ Church, which at that time only sanctioned a monthly celebration of the Eucharist in their cathedral, and to younger people who might be unduly impatient for the realization of a privilege which implied higher spiritual attainments than they had as yet reached. The only approach to theological controversy in the sermon occurs in a passage in which Pusey incidentally puts aside Transubstantiation as an explanation of the mode of Christ' s presence in the Eucharist. To quote his own comment thirty-one years later: 'Having disclaimed at the outset of my sermon all controversy, by saying that " if we are wise we shall never ask how they Can be elements of this world, and yet His very Body and Blood," and so in fact disclaimed Transubstantiation' (which undertakes to answer this question 'I thought I might afterwards use freely the language of the Fathers, which I chose in preference to my own. And it never occurred to me that any question would be raised on the subject.' Pusey' s mind had long moved amidst high sacramental truths, and he was perfectly clear that the teaching of the Church of England on this subject was not at variance with that of the 'ancient Fathers and Catholic Bishops' to whom the framers of the Anglican rule of doctrine appealed. Nothing therefore was further from his thoughts than that the truths with which he wished to console those whom he had roused to a deep sense of sin should appear heterodox or even startling to any of his hearers.
J. B. Mozley has described the scene and its consequences with his wonted vividness:--
'The audience listened with the attention it always does to Pr. Pusey, and then the audience went away. There were the usual effects of edification and admiration produced. The remarks upon it were pretty much the same as usual: it was pronounced a useful sermon, an eloquent sermon, a striking sermon, a beautiful sermon. Some said it was a long sermon, others that it was not longer than usual. It was, of course, said to contain high doctrinal views on the subject treated of; but as all Dr. Pusey' s sermons contain high views, there was nothing to draw attention in this remark. In short, it was one of Dr. Pusey' s sermons; the audience recognized that fact, went home, were perfectly at their ease, thought nothing more about it,--the reverential impression excepted, of course, which that preacher' s discourses always leave on the mind,--when all on a sudden comes, like a clap of thunder on the ear, the news that the Board of Heresy is summoned to sit on Dr. Pusey.'
When the sermon was over the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Wynter, walked away from the Cathedral with the Provost of Oriel, Dr. Hawkins, and what passed and what fol–lowed had better be described in the Vice-Chancellor' s own language in a manuscript account of the whole proceedings, which has been placed at the disposal of the writer by the great courtesy of Dr. Wynter' s representatives.
'We both expressed ourselves startled and dissatisfied with the statements made with regard to the Eucharist, but we both agreed that it would be inexpedient to take any public notice of it, being convinced that the writer would be able by ingenuity to evade any direct charge of heterodoxy. In the afternoon of the same day I had occasion to know that the sermon had been much remarked upon, and that it had awakened in the minds of many persons grave doubts whether it was in conformity with the doctrine of the Church of England. On the following day (15th) I had further reason for believing not only that it had been much disapproved, but that it would probably be proposed to me to deal with it under the statute de Concionibus. Accordingly on Tuesday, the 16th, I received a visit from the Margaret Professor of Divinity, the sole object of which was to request that I would take measures for putting in force the statute de Concionibus, in regard to Dr. Pusey' s sermon, the Margaret Professor himself and many others, as he told me, entertaining strong suspicion that it would be found to contain doctrine not in accordance with that of our Church. In reply to this request I gave, as far as I recollect, a promise to put the statute in force.'
It is impossible to suppose that Dr. Faussett did not know the terms of the statute of 1836, by which, in token of its disapproval of Dr. Hampden' s teaching, the University had transferred from Dr. Hampden to the holder of his own professorship the duty of being one of the judges who were to decide upon the orthodoxy of a delated sermon . Since he was bound to occupy this position, nothing could have been more indecent than that Dr. Faussett should have thus put himself forward as Pusey' s accuser. It is the first of the series of most extraordinary blunders which were committed in the course of these proceedings. When, however, such a complaint was made to him by a Divinity Professor, the Vice-Chancellor, quite apart from all other considerations, could not but send for the sermon. It would have been difficult perhaps for a Vice-Chancellor in those days to tell a Professor of Divinity, in the words of the statute, that his 'ground of suspicion' was not 'reasonable,' a course which according to the statute was the only alternative.
THE REV. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR TO B. B. P.
MY DEAR SIR, St. John' s College, May 17, 1843.
I have been called upon to request from you a copy of the sermon which you preached before the University on Sunday last. I do not know that at this period of time it is necessary that I should express my own opinion upon it. But in candour and fairness I think it right to confess that its general scope and certain particular passages have awakened in my mind painful doubts with regard to its strict conformity to the doctrines of the reformed Church of England.
I have therefore to request that you will have the goodness to send me a copy of your sermon for the purpose of dealing with it as I am directed by the statute, Tit. xvi. § 11.
I remain, my dear Sir,
Yours very faithfully,
P. WYNTER, V.C.
The Rev, the Regius Professor of Hebrew.
Pusey replied as follows:--
Christ Church, May 17.
MY DEAR SIR,
I would have sent you the sermon, but that I thought it might save trouble if I were to add some references in some places to mark that I was using the language of the Fathers, not my own. Of course I shall make no other alterations.
Yours very faithfully,
E. B. PUSEY.
In reply to a further letter on the same day, asking, because of the state of his health, for a little more time to complete the references, the Vice-Chancellor wrote with characteristic courtesy:--
MY DEAR DR. PUSEY, St. John' s College, May 17, 1843.
I grieve to hear that you are still suffering from illness. I beg that you will not risk any accession of it by making any unnecessary dispatch in completing the references to your sermon. I shall not look for it until the time you mention, two or three days hence; nor so soon if the exertion which you deem it necessary to make should be likely to retard your restoration to health.
I am, yours very faithfully,
P. WYNTER.
On the same evening Pusey wrote to Keble:--
MY DEAR FRIEND, Wednesday evening [May 17,1843].
I wish just now to tell you of my troubles. I have learnt this afternoon that some one has applied to the V.-C. to put in force the statute of the six or seven Doctors against me for a sermon last Sunday on the Holy Eucharist, and he has sent for a copy of it There is nothing to be done for me, but to pray God that it turn to the good of His Church, and of myself. I do not know whether it is generally known, so do not say anything of it, until you hear it from others: for there is no need in anticipating excitement: we have too much of it.
Ever yours very affectionately and gratefully,
E. B. P.
And on the following morning to Newman:--
Thursday morning, May 18 [1843].
You will be very sorry that the storm has at last reached me. God guide me through it, for it may be a heavy one, not for myself, but for its effects on others. I have asked the Vice-Chancellor for two or three days that I might put references to my sermon. I thought this best, that they might not be exposed unconsciously to condemn e.g. St. Cyril of Alexandria when they thought they were only condemning me. You will be glad to hear that I did not pass a more feverish night than usual, nor have I more fever this morning. No one can help me at present: when I have had my sermon transcribed I shall be glad to send it to you, to consult you about the defence. I am quite sure there is nothing against the Church of England; but what my judges may think, I know not. I heard from the V.-C. yesterday afternoon. Do not name it, except to Copeland and Marriott as a secret, unless it is known, which I do not know. There may be excitement enough by-and-by, so one would not anticipate it.
During the remainder of the week Pusey was engaged, so far as his bad health would permit, in selecting passages from the Fathers to illustrate his sermon; the whole was copied out in a legible hand, apparently by W. J. Copeland. On Monday, May 22, this copy, with full references, was sent to the Vice-Chancellor, accompanied by an explanatory letter.
E. B. P. TO THE REV. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR.
MY DEAR MR. VICE-CHANCELLOR,
I send a copy of my sermon, as the statute directs, hoping that it will be more legible than the original would have been. I have read it over and corrected it, and (as the statute requires) declare it to be an authentic copy. The phrases enclosed in brackets were not delivered, the sermon being already long, and so form no part of the inquiry, but I thought it more authentic to have them inserted (the transcriber omitted them by mistake), although I believe one only, containing passages from the Fathers, contains doctrine. The words [in a manner], p. 7, were inserted after preaching the sermon, before I had your note, to make the translation perhaps more correct.
I have taken the longer time which you kindly allowed, since there has been little in each day in which I could thus employ myself.
My object in inserting these passages was to show that I was not rashly using high language in speaking upon a great mystery, but that of teachers who have ever been had in honour. Indeed, I most closely followed St. Cyril of Alexandria, whom all must respect as one of the greatest defenders of sound faith, and whose Commentary on St. John has seemed to me, of all I know, to enter most deeply into the depths of that Divine Gospel. I have not however followed him alone, but other of those teachers to whom the Reformers individually appealed, and [to whom] we have since been directed, as expositors of Holy Scripture.
I have withheld from adding more references, lest it should protract your time too much.
As you have expressed candidly your own first impressions, your kindness will not think me trespassing upon your time if I explain myself further. I felt so entirely sure that I heartily concur with the doctrine of the Church of England, I have so often and decidedly expressed my rejection of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and the Canon of the Council of Trent upon it, that, neither before nor after preaching my sermon, had I the slightest thought that any could arraign it as contrary to the doctrines of our Church, however people will dispute irreverently.
Allow me to say, that the more I have examined it word by word, the more convinced I am that no proposition can be formed out of it, in its real meaning, contrary to that doctrine which I hold entirely. May I explain my belief on this subject further, as it will throw light on the language of the sermon? I believe that after Consecration the Holy Elements are in their natural substances bread and wine, and yet are also the Body and Blood of Christ. This I believe as a mystery, which others have long ago pointed out in, and which I believe is implied by, our Liturgy and Articles. It has been explicitly stated by divines of great reputation in our Church, a few of whose words I thought it not unfit to have transcribed in some spare pages of the sermon. I hold this as a mystery, and Bp. Andrewes' words exactly convey my feeling.
I do not attempt to explain the 'how' which seems to me to have been the error of the R.C.s and the Swiss Reformers, the one holding that because it was the Body of Christ, it was not bread; the other that because it was bread, therefore it was not His Body.
I hold both, as I do the absolute fore-knowledge of God and man' s free agency, without having any thought to explain how: and believe both, as Bp. Andrewes says, as a mystery.
While then I hold that they are really 'elements of this world' (as I called them in my sermon, p. 4) I feel satisfied that it is perfectly consistent with our Church to use also language speaking of them as the Body and Blood of Christ, as I feel assured she does in her Liturgy.
In this I am doing what the whole of the Fathers of the Church have done, and you, I am sure, would be sorry to set our Church and the collective Ancient Church at variance.
I was pained to hear of your first impressions: I trust however that they will be removed by a closer examination.
Should that unhappily not be the case, I may request that you will choose that course allowed by the statute which permits the accused to answer for himself.
I pray that God may guide you: and remain,
Yours faithfully and respectfully,
E. B. PUSEY.
While Pusey was preparing to send his sermon, the Vice-Chancellor was preparing the court which was to try him.
'The delay,' writes the Vice-Chancellor, 'which Dr. Pusey requested enabled me to proceed with greater caution and deliberation in the selection of the six Doctors, the tribunal which the statute appointed for the disposal of such cases. In consequence of the incapacity of the Regius Professor of Divinity, Dr. Hampden, occasioned by the disabling statute of 1836, the Margaret Professor, as a matter of course, acted in his place; and yet one of the complaints made against me was, that I had selected Dr. Pusey' s accuser to be one of his judges.'
What the Vice-Chancellor here describes with singular na•veté as 'a matter of course,' viz, that he should appoint Dr. Pusey' s accuser to be one of his judges, was, it is needless to say, looked upon by Pusey' s friends, and indeed by the world at large, as a grave impropriety, which from the first he should have made every effort to avoid.
The other members of the court were Dr. Jenkyns, Master of Balliol; Dr. Hawkins, Provost of Oriel; Dr. Symons, Warden of Wadham; Dr. Ogilvie, Regius Professor of Pastoral Theology; and Dr. Jelf, Canon of Christ Church. Upon the appointment of Dr. Hawkins, the Vice-Chan–cellor in his narrative observes:--
'The only opinion he had expressed to me respecting the sermon was in accordance with mine, that though highly objectionable it might nevertheless be in all probability capable of such explanation by the writer as would relieve him from any serious consequences. It cannot therefore be true that I made choice of Dr. Hawkins as one who was already prejudiced against the sermon and had made up his mind to condemn it.'
The whole course of Dr. Hawkins' s relations to the Tractarians generally, and to Dr. Pusey in particular, both before and on the present occasion, would leave it doubtful to a less interested observer whether the Provost' s mind was so free from prejudice as the Vice-Chancellor confidently assumed.
That so old a friend as Dr. Jelf should have consented to sit upon the Board which tried Pusey was inevitably a matter much commented on in the University. Dr. Jelf felt it due both to Pusey and to himself that he should explain an act which could not but be painful to both of them.
REV. DR. JELF TO E. B. P.
[Christ Church], May 25, 1843.
[Private and Confidential.]
MY DEAR FRIEND,
Thus much, I think, I may say without impropriety, that I never should have undertaken so invidious and painful an office (even with the hope of benefiting you, which, on the V.-C.' s suggestion, was my sole motive for not declining) unless from my recollection of the sermon, added to your subsequent explanations, I had entertained a confident hope that (however I might lament the tone and judgement of the sermon) I should find no doctrine there which it might be necessary to condemn.
You will recollect that only one-sixth part of the responsibility rests with me, and that a stranger (perhaps an enemy) might have done you more harm. At any rate I have acted to the best of my judgement, in the most painful conjuncture of my life. Whatever may come of it, I must find my consolation, under Divine grace, in the singleness of the purpose towards my friend and towards the Church. God bless you.
Ever your affectionate friend.
(Not signed.)
The Six Doctors met for the first time, under the presi–dency of the Vice-Chancellor, in the Delegates' Room, on Wednesday, May 24. The statute under which the proceedings were taken, and the statute of May 5, 1836, which made it impossible for the existing Regius Professor Divinity, Dr. Hampden, to take part in the proceedings, were duly read. Then the sermon was read through; a this was followed by some desultory conversation respecting the Course to be pursued. The meeting then adjourned that its members might more carefully consider the contents of the sermon; and the Six Doctors may be presumed to have spent the next day, the Festival of the Ascension, in this employment. A letter from Pusey to his mother, on this day, suggests, among other points, an estimate of his judges which is widely different from that of the Vice-Chancellor, but in close agreement with that of the University generally.
Ascension Day, 1843.
I wish, my dearest mother, you could see how perfectly calm I am about my affairs. I commit them to God and feel that they do not belong to me or affect me. In many respects, it is a very good thing that I am the person it falls upon. Some things are as adverse as possible, as that the Provost of Oriel and the Warden of Wadham are among the assistants of the Vice-Chancellor; yet Jelf does no think it hopeless since he has consented to be one. I trust in my friends' prayers and that God will defend His truth; for that only have I spoken. All my friends say that good must come out of it somehow So I am quite at rest. It seems as if something very momentous was going on, but that I had nothing to do but to wait for it, and pray and abide, as I trust, under the shadow of His wings, and be at rest.
Be not anxious, my dearest mother: all will be right.
Ever your very affectionate and dutiful son,
E. B. PUSEY.
On Saturday, May 27, the Six Doctors met again, each bringing with him a written judgment on the sermon. Jelf alone would say that 'with much that is objectionable, in tone and language, and tendency, there is nothing tangible which can be called " dissonum" to our Church' s teaching; there is to my mind clearly nothing " contrariumä.' The other five condemned the sermon, some in the general terms which betrayed a fatal want of familiarity with the subject, and Dr. Faussett and Dr. Hawkins with some attempt to justify their conclusion by an examination of passages. The Provost of Oriel wound up his criticism of the sermon by stating that he was
'further of opinion that the preacher did not design to oppose the doctrine of the Church of England, but was led into erroneous views and expressions, partly by a pious desire to magnify the grace of God in the Holy Eucharist, and partly by an indiscreet adoption, in its literal sense, of the highly figurative, mystical, and incautious language of certain of the old Fathers.'
Upon this, says the Vice-Chancellor,
'when each of them had delivered separately his opinion upon the sermon,--the greater number of them in writing,--I proceeded to declare that I considered Dr. Pusey guilty of the charge made against him--namely, that he had preached certain things which were either dissonant from or contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England.'
What these 'things' were was never publicly stated, and apparently for the reason that the judges were not agreed on them, and that the vague hostility to the sermon in which they were agreed would not bear general dis–cussion.
In his letter of May 22, Pusey had requested the Vice-Chancellor to 'choose that course allowed by the statute, which permits the accused to answer for himself.' It was true that the statute did not provide in express terms that the author of a delated sermon should be heard in explana–tion or defence of his language, and the Vice-Chancellor appears to have considered this omission as a sufficient reason for not granting Pusey a hearing. The Vice-Chan–cellor would, seem to have forgotten that all laws, not excepting University Statutes, presuppose some general principles of justice; and that nothing is more contrariant to English notions of justice than that a man should be con–demned unheard. It is a rule of natural reason, well ex–pressed by Seneca in words already quoted, 'Qui statuit aliquid, parte inaudit‰ alterˆ, aequum licet statuerit, haud aequus fuit,' and is fully recognized in our Common law. The rules, however, of the Canon law are, perhaps, still more to the purpose, since a sentence of suspension brings Pusey' s case under its jurisdiction. Among many passages that might be quoted two will suffice: 'Caveant judices Ecclesiae, ne absente eo, cujus causa ventilatur, sententiam proferant, quia irrita erit.' 'Absens nemo judicetur: quia et Divinae et humanae leges hoc prohibent.'
The Vice-Chancellor cannot have been altogether unmind–ful of these considerations; and it would have been easy for him, as well as his duty, to have acquainted himself with the previous practice of the University of granting a hearing to those who were thus accused. Between the date of the passing of the statute de Concionibus and 1640, four cases are mentioned by Antony Wood; in each of them the inculpated preacher appeared in person before the Vice-Chancellor. There were at least four other cases after the Restoration, in all of which the same practice appears to have been followed. Regardless, however, both of principle and precedent, regardless of his character and his learning, Pusey was condemned without a hearing.
The Court next proceeded to discuss the penalty to be inflicted. 'It became necessary,' says the Vice-Chancellor, 'to consider what description and what degree of punish–ment should be awarded to the offence; and this I thought it right that I should take time to consider. And so the meeting separated.' The statute provided that the Vice-Chancellor might deal with the offender in one of two ways, namely, 'eum pro arbitrio vel a munere praedicandi intra praecinctum Universitatis suspendet, vel ad ea quae protulit recantandum adiget.'
The Vice-Chancellor, then, had to choose between recanta–tion and suspension; and the Six Doctors were unable to agree. One of them who had opposed a sentence of suspension during the debate, felt constrained on the following day to communicate to the Vice-Chancellor his change of opinion to the severer course.
THE PROVOST OF ORIEL TO THE REV. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR.
Oriel College, May 28, 1843.
MY DEAR VICE-CHANCELLOR,
As I openly expressed an opinion yesterday against any sus–pension for preaching in Dr. P.' s case, I think I am bound in fairness to tell you that upon reconsideration, and looking to the probable intention of the statute and probable effects of passing over this (and if this, then all future cases of objectionable preaching) with reference to young hearers and young preachers and our duty towards them--I am greatly shaken in my opinion, and indeed incline towards the opinion of those who thought suspension necessary.
In so very difficult a question I think you will not consider this note as intrusive.
Ever yours most truly,
E. HAWKINS.
The Rev, the Vice-Chancellor.
The Vice - Chancellor has left his own opinion on record.
'Of the two,' he writes, 'I considered recantation as the less severe; and before therefore I proceeded to inflict the other, I thought it right to endeavour, if possible, to bring about a recantation. And foreseeing that if I should summon Dr. Pusey before me for this purpose in the presence of those who had adjudicated upon the sermon, it might happen that he would refuse to recant, and thus an interview painful to all parties might be productive of no beneficial result, I determined upon endeavouring to ascertain privately whether or not it would be likely that he might be induced to recant the offensive doctrine. Hence it became necessary to draw out from the sermon certain propositions, by his assent to or dissent from which his readiness to recant might be tested. Now this was a task of which I felt the extreme difficulty and delicacy. The propositions, if framed by myself alone, might be objected to on various grounds. The form, the sub–stance, the expressions used, the conclusions which would legitimately be arrived at, might have been altogether unsatisfactory--or might have satisfied some among my coadjutors, and have displeased others. In order therefore to lessen the probability of such disagreement, I at once resolved to consult the Provost of Oriel'
The Vice-Chancellor then submitted to the Provost a proposed form of 'recantation,' to which Pusey might assent. It was, as might be expected, a less exact and more vulnerable document than would have been devised by the Provost himself, who accordingly drafted another. This took the strange form of 'objections' to the sermon.
0. C., May 30, 1643.
MY DEAR V. C.,
I have endeavoured so to frame the above objections as to avoid as much as possible any positions not expressly stated in the Articles, and I still think it very important (considering that your statement will be sure to be printed) to avoid laying down anything like new articles of faith, which might, I fear, be considered to be the effect of the larger form you had drawn up, and which might open the way to endless controversy.
With Dr. Pusey immediately indeed I quite agree with you that you ought to have no controversy. But if (which from his note is scarcely conceivable, at least with respect to one of the objections) he should desire to disclaim the opinions imputed to him, then he should do so in the exact words which your objections give, as in the answer to No. 1, and so, mutatis mutandis, to Nos. 2 and 3. And such disavowal should perhaps be communicated first to the six D.D.s.
If you wish me to call upon you I will wait upon you at any hour you may appoint.
Ever yours most truly,
E. HAWKINS.
The Rev, the Vice-Chancellor.
P.S. I think it also important that you should mention to Dr. Pusey the fact of there being general objections over and above these special objections--so reserving to yourself full liberty to act as you may judge necessary after you shall have received Dr. P.' s answer, containing, possibly, some partial recantation. For we must think of what is due to the young men. And I, for my part, have gone through this task as a surgeon is obliged to do in an operation, as an abstract duty, not allowing myself to think of the suffering of the patient.
The Vice-Chancellor adopted this ingeniously constructed document, presumably as a test of Pusey' s readiness to make a complete and unqualified recantation of whatever was held offensive in the sermon, so as to escape further consequences. Dr. Jelf was selected to open communi–cations with a view to applying this test. It may be hoped that the selection of Dr. Jelf for such an office was meant kindly, though it is obvious that the relation in which Jelf stood to Pusey rendered his intervention at this juncture, as the sequel showed, highly detrimental to Pusey' s interest. Dr. Jelf, it is true, had been an intimate friend of Pusey' s from his youth ; he was so still, at this moment; and he had declined to condemn the sermon when sitting at the Board. There are, however, cases in which a friend is much more embarrassing to deal with than an op–ponent; and this was one of them. In dealing with his friend Pusey allowed himself to be entangled with en–gagements to which it is inconceivable that even his simple-heartedness could have agreed, had he not forgotten that his friend was after all the accredited messenger of his opponents. Had Pusey been in the least degree a man of the world, he would, in the circumstances, at once have taken leave of his old friend with a bow, and have courteously explained that he would only communicate with the Vice-Chancellor directly, and in writing. Whereas he unfortunately betrayed himself into a situation which only increased his difficulties. Pusey has left on record an account of what passed at the first of these extraordinary interviews
'I received,' he says, 'no communication whatever, before it was privately announced to me [by Jelf] that my sermon had been con–demned. I was informed at the same time that the V.-C. positively declined to give me a hearing. At the same time I was informed that, out of unwillingness to proceed at once against me, he was employed in drawing up certain statements of doctrine, which if I could sign, the sentence might be reversed. The fact of my receiving these statements, the nature of them, and their contents, were to be strictly secret: it was to be a strictly private communication from the Vice-Chancellor to myself: I was to take no copy of them: I was to consult no friend about anything contained in them. For the sake of the peace of the Church, I accepted even these conditions.'
It may be permitted to think that the peace of the Church would have been far better secured by an im–mediate rejection of terms which ought at once to have excited suspicion.
Newman had heard that communications between his judges and Pusey were going on, and had offered to be of any assistance in his power. But Pusey had already pre–cluded himself from consulting anybody. He writes:--
E. B. P. TO REV. J. H. NEWMAN.
Quite private.
MY DEAR N. Wednesday morning, May 31.
I find that this communication from the V.-C. is entirely confi–dential, with the view of staying ulterior consequences; so I cannot have recourse to your kind help.
My first impression is that there is but little hope but that the sermon will be condemned: but there may be a way out still, or HE may overrule people' s hearts. One thing only I desire for myself, not to compromise His truth. Do not think I am worried. Every–thing will be right.
Ever yours most affectionately,
E. B. P.
Wednesday morning.
There can be no doubt that in assenting to these con–ditions imposed on him by the Vice-Chancellor, Pusey committed a grave error of judgment. He ought to have insisted upon the entire publicity of all that passed between himself and his judges, and also on full liberty to consult his friends. But he allowed them to exact from him an engagement which they should have been ashamed to sug–gest, and still more to use afterwards in a manner which cast reflections on Pusey' s sincerity. Of all men Pusey needed, at such a difficult juncture, the counsel of his friends: Keble and Newman were eminently fitted to advise him; but the tactics of his opponents effectually cut him off from their assistance.
Upon Dr. Jelf' s reporting that Pusey was willing to accept the conditions; the Vice-Chancellor entrusted him with the second stage of the commission. He was to show Pusey a 'statement' of objections to his sermon, which, as we have seen, had been drawn up by the Provost of Oriel, and slightly altered by the Vice-Chancellor. This document ran as follows:--
'[Confidential.]
'Over and above some grave objections to the general tenor of the sermon as not in harmony with the authoritative teaching of the Church of England, it is particularly objected:
'I. That certain passages, as in p.5, " that Bread which is his fleshä; p. 6, " how must he not be thought to abide in us by the way of Natureä; p. 7, " His Redeemer' s very broken bodyä; p. 8, " My flesh and blood which were given for the life of the world and are given to those for whom they had been givenä; p. 9, " touching with our very lips that cleansing blood," &c.--convey the idea of some carnal and corporal presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist; as if it were intended to maintain that the Body and Blood of Christ were not received in that Sacrament " only after a heavenly and spiritual manner" (see Article XXVIII., and Declaration annexed to the Communion Service).
'2. That some passages, as p. 7, " God poureth out for him yet the most precious blood of his only begotten Son; they are fed from the Cross of the Lord because they eat his Body and Bloodä; p. 9, " that that precious blood is still in continuance and application of his one oblation once made upon the Cross poured out for us now, conveying to our souls, as being his Blood with the benefit of his Passion, the remission of our sins alsoä--suggest the idea of some continuation or repetition in the Eucharist, in order to the remission of sins, of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross; as if the writer did not maintain that the " one oblation of Christ" was " finished upon the Cross" or that " the offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world both original and actual; and that there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone." (See Article XXXI.)
'3. That some passages, as p.4, " Elements of this world and yet his very Body and Bloodä; p.5. " that bread which is his flesh," &c., represent the body and blood of Christ as present with the consecrated elements by virtue of their consecration before they are received by the faithful communicant and independently of his faith; as if it were maintained that " the wicked and such as be void of a lively faith" when they partake of " the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ are partakers of Christä; or that Faith is not " the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper." (See Articles XXVIII., XXIX.)'
Together with this statement Dr. Jelf presented to Pusey, for his signature, a second document, which, as will be seen, is based on the foregoing.
'1. I did not intend to convey the idea of " any" carnal or corporal presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist, and I do not maintain that " the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ" are present in the Eucharist, or that " the body and blood of Christ are received in that Sacrament except only after a heavenly and spiritual manner.ä
'2. I did not intend to suggest the idea of any continuation or repetition in the Eucharist, in order to the remission of sins, of the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross; and I do maintain that " the one oblation of Christ was finished upon the crossä; and that " the offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world both original and actual; and that there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone.ä
'3. I did not intend [to represent the body and blood of Christ as present with the consecrated elements by virtue of their consecration before they are received by the faithful communicant and indepen–dently of his faith]' ; and I do not maintain that the wicked and such as be void of a lively faith, when they partake of the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, are partakers of Christ; nor do I maintain that Faith is not the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper.'
Pusey returned both these papers to the Vice-Chancellor with a lengthy letter [·]; its drift may be understood from the following extracts
'No. 1. I can adopt entirely, as being in the words of our Formu–laries; only in one place, I have inserted the full words of our rubric, which I supposed you intended, thinking it safer to adhere to those words....
'To the first part of No. 2, I should except in point of form, because it is no part of our authorized Formularies, and there is no authority, and it might be a dangerous precedent to admit the right of individuals to propose Formulae drawn up without sanction, for subscription.
'I do not know also whether, if I adopted it, I should use it in your sense or no. The words [continuation or] are to me ambiguous. .
'The latter part of No. 2, I, of course, entirely and cordially adopt, being again the statement of our Church. .
'3. To the first part of this which I have enclosed in brackets I must object, not only on the ground upon which I objected to the beginning of No.2, but also because it goes beyond the Formularies of our Church; the latter part (as being the words of our Formularies) I of course entirely accept.
'Yet having given this explanation, I must say that I do it because I conceive you to have sent me the propositions and objections as an act of kindness, instead of any proposition of my own, which I might be required to retract.
'But if this private explanation fail to satisfy you, I must respectfully apply for the other, as the only statutable course. I must say that to me the past course of inquiry into my sermon, such as these " objections" imply, seems to me an undue extension of the statutes. The statute speaks of certain definite statements which shall be retracted--" ad ea, quae protulit, recantandum adiget." The passages objected to are not supposed (I conceive) to be such as could be proposed to any one to recant (some of them are words of the Fathers), but only, it is supposed, that a certain opinion is implied in them. I am sure that no proposition could be formed from my sermon contrary to the Formularies of our Church, which I adopt. This sort of " constructive" disagreement with the Formularies of the Church seems to me something very different from that con–templated by the statute, which refers to definite statements. Conscious of my own innocence, I cannot contemplate anything ulterior; yet although I am quite sure that you personally mean everything which is kind towards me individually, I must say that I should consider any ulterior measure, founded on such constructive objections as are here alleged, without exhibiting to me what I have asked for in such case, definite propositions of my own and not adhering to our Formularies, as unstatutable as well as harsh and unjust.
'I am sure, my dear Mr. Vice-Chancellor, that you will not think these strong words, as meant otherwise than with respect to your office and a sense of personal kindness: but there is too much at stake for me to think it right to withhold my strong feeling on this subject.'
Dr. Jelf' s preliminary mission had been discharged on Tuesday, May 30: on May 31 Pusey had received the promised papers, again through Dr. Jelf, and had returned them to the Vice-Chancellor on the same day. On the afternoon of Thursday, June 1, the Vice-Chancellor and the Six Doctors met for a third time, and in order to consider Pusey' s reply. That it did not satisfy them goes without saying. They saw in it a challenge to enter upon a pro–found and serious theological inquiry for which they could not but be conscious of being themselves inadequately equipped, and the conclusion of which might be fatal to the vague condemnation of the sermon at which they had already arrived. Another paper was accordingly drawn up for Pusey' s signature which was more in the form of a direct recantation. It consisted of three propositions, of which the first two were extracted from the sermon, and 'not' inserted in each extract; while the third contained a pro–posed explanation of a phrase which Pusey had employed. This paper, which is in the Vice-Chancellor' s handwriting, is subjoined:--
'Will Dr. Pusey say, among other things which might be put in this same form:--
'We do not touch with our own lips in the Holy Eucharist that cleansing Blood,--meaning the very blood of Christ.
'God poureth not out for us now the most precious blood of His only begotten' .
'By " elements of this world and yet His very body and blood" I mean only that they are spiritually so, and not carnally; not His natural flesh and blood.'
With regard to this form of recantation, Pusey observed later to a legal friend:--
'So far were these from being what I had asked for, " definite propositions supposed to be contrary to the Formularies of our Church," that one related to the subject of the carnal presence of the Body and Blood of our Blessed Lord, upon which I had accepted, the day before, the statement drawn up by the Vice-Chancellor himself: a second was a passage of St. Augustine, which I had quoted, and which was applied in a sense which St. Augustine had not in his thoughts, nor I, in quoting them: the third, since I was allowed no copy, nor even to have in my hand the paper upon which they were written, I have forgotten. I considered this, I own, as mere mockery: I said to the individual who brought them to me, " It never can be intended that I should recant such statements as these.ä'
Dr. Jelf carried back to the judges the notes which he had taken down from Pusey' s lips. When asked to recant the statement that we 'touch with our own lips Christ' s cleansing Blood,' Pusey had observed:--
'I do not say it after any corporeal manner; I say it in no other sense than St. Chrysostom says, " Our tongues are reddened, &c.ä. I say it only, because after consecration they are called the Body and Blood of Christ. It was an adaptation of the words of the Ancient Church, " Lo, this hath touched my lips," &c.'
When asked to deny that 'God poureth out for us now the most precious Blood of His Only Begotten,' Pusey explained:--
'I adopt St. Augustine' s words in no other sense than as our Church teaches us, to thank God " for that He doth vouchsafe to feed us, who have duly received these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of His Son," &c. It never crossed my mind to make any allusion in these words to the Sacrifice or, until I saw the objection yesterday, that any one could connect the doctrine with them.'
When bidden to assert that by 'His very Body and Blood' he meant that the elements are only 'spiritually so, not carnally, not Christ' s natural flesh and blood,' Pusey replied:--
'Yes. I had no physical meaning. I deny everything physical, and I meant only a spiritual body in a spiritual and sacramental way.'
That evening 'the judges' met again to receive Dr. Jelf' s report. They were not satisfied. In the Vice-Chancellor' s words, subsequently addressed to Pusey, 'the utmost that could be said of the statements which Dr. Jelf took down from your mouth was that they were qualifications of the language of the sermon.' The Six Doctors considered that they 'had made two attempts to bring about a recantation and had failed.' It was also 'strongly impressed' on the Vice-Chancellor' s 'mind that besides particular objections, an exception had been taken to the general tenor of the sermon, which of course no recantation could touch.' And so he 'at length made up his mind that no course remained but to proceed to what' he 'felt to be a very severe measure, but nevertheless the only alternative, namely, suspension.'
The official notification of the Sentence ran as follows:--
Junii 2do, 1843.
Cum Edvardus Bouverie Pusey S. T. P. Aedis Chnisti Canonicus, necnon Linguae Hebraicae Professor Regius, in Concione intra Universitatem Maii 14to proxime elapso habit‰, quaedam Doctrinae Ecclesiae Anglicanae dissona et contraria protulisse delatus fuerit: Idemque Edvardus Bouvenie Pusey S. T. P. postulanti Vice-Cancel–lario Concionis suae venum exemplar eisdem terminis conscriptum, virtute Juramenti tradiderit: Mihi igitur Vice-Cancellario verbis, quae in quaestionem vocabantur, in medium prolatis et rite perpensis, adhibito consilio sex aliorum S. Theologiae Doctorum scilicet D. Doctoris Jenkyns, D. Doctoris Hawkins, D. Doctoris Symons, D. Doctoris Jelf, D. Doctoris Ogilvie, necnon et Praelectoris Dominae Mangaretae Comitissae de Richmond, criminis objecti dictum Edvardum Bouvenie Pusey S. T. P. reum inventum, a munere prae–dicandi intra praecinctum Universitatis per duos annos suspendere placuit.
P. WYNTER, VICE-CANCELLARIUS.
Philippus Bliss,
Registranius Univ. Oxon.
On the morning of June 2nd Dr. Jelf announced the sentence to Pusey. The Vice-Chancellor allowed Dr. Jelf to tell Pusey that he had not had a hearing. Pusey at once set to work on a Protest against his suspension.
E. B. P. TO REV. J. H. NEWMAN.
MY DEAR N. [June 2, 1843.]
Before you leave O[xford] I should like you to see the copy of my Protest and give me your opinion. I am quite at ease.
Yours very affectionately,
E. B. P.
Pusey' s engagement to be silent respecting the com–munications between himself and the Vice-Chancellor made him feel it impossible to protest against his sentence in adequate terms. He was obliged to be silent about his enforced silence. He could say nothing about those vague presumptions or those untheological inferences of the documents sent to him by his judges, which betrayed the unjustifiable grounds of his sentence. He would have been far better-off if they had suspended him, as they had condemned him, at once and without a word of communication. As it was, he could only make a Protest which, read in the light of what had really passed, expresses very feebly the flagrant injustice of the proceedings.
PROTEST.
MR. VICE-CHANCELLOR,
You will be assured that the following Protest, which I feel it my duty to the Church to deliver, is written with entire respect for your office, and without any imputation upon yourself individually.
I have stated to you, on different occasions, as opportunity offered, that I was at a loss to conceive what in my sermon could be construed into discordance with the Formularies of our Church; I have requested you to adopt that alternative in the statutes which allows the accused a hearing; I have again and again requested that definite propositions, which were thought to be at variance with our Formularies, should, according to the alternative in the statute, be proposed to me; I have declared repeatedly my entire assent ex animo to all the doctrinal statements of our Church on this subject, and have, as far as I had opportunity, declared my sincere and entire consent to them in–dividually; I have ground to think that, as no propositions out of my sermon have been exhibited to me as at variance with the doctrine of our Church, so neither can they, but that I have been condemned either on a mistaken construction of my words, founded upon the doctrinal opinions of my judges, or on grounds distinct from the Formularies of our Church.
Under these circumstances, since the statute manifestly contemplates certain grave and definite instances of contrariety or discordance from the Formularies of our Church, I feel it my duty to protest against the late sentence against me as unstatutable as well as unjust.
I remain, Mr. Vice-Chancellor,
Your humble servant,
Christ Church, June 2, 1843. E. B. PUSEY.
In his own words, Pusey protested against his sentence as 'unstatutable as well as unjust,'
'1. Because I conceive that the statute contemplates so strongly " grave and definite instances" of contrariety or " discordance from the Formularies of our Church," that I was satisfied that the alternative of the summary condemnation permitted to the V.-C., and resorted to in my case, was intended only in flagrant and extreme cases. It could not, I conceive, have been intended in cases in which the existence of the " crime alleged" could not be ascertained, except by a hearing. Any other interpretation of the statute would set it at variance with all the principles of ecclesiastical and civil law.
'2. I had " ground to think" " that I had been condemned either on a mistaken construction of my words, founded upon the doctrinal opinions of my judges, or on grounds distinct from the Formularies of the Church." That I had not only " ground to think this, but actually knew itä, I was obliged to withhold, when I wrote my Protest. I said, in consequence, to the Vice-Chancellor, in a letter with which I ac–companied my Protest, " Had I been allowed to mention all I knew, my Protest must have been much stronger.ä
'3. I now say that I consider it both " unstatutable and unjust," because it has been rested partly on misconstruction of my words, inferring from them what is not contained in them, partly on grounds foreign to my sermon, partly on grounds foreign to, and opposed to, our Formularies, which my judges, not myself, have contravened .
Pusey sent his Protest to the Vice-Chancellor on the evening of June 2nd. The letter which accompanied it must have suggested to the Vice-Chancellor what the contents of the Protest would have been, had Pusey not been bound down by the fatal engagement to secrecy.
MY DEAR MR. VICE-CHANCELLOR,
In drawing up the accompanying Protest, which it is my purpose to make public, I have avoided anything which might betray how much I really know of the grounds of my condemnation, in which case I must have spoken very much more strongly. I showed it to Dr. Jelf, that he might tell me whether it trenched upon what I knew con–fidentially.
To yourself, individually, I would, in candour, state, that while entirely unconcerned about myself, I feel, most strongly, the exceeding injustice of the late sentence, and I think that some of my judges will in time repent of it.
It does seem to me so utterly contrary to all justice, that when, of three sets of propositions, I accepted entirely the first and largest, of the other two, I accepted ex animo all which was contained in our Formularies, rejected only so much of one proposition as was clearly beside our Formularies, and demurred to another, because I did not understand your meaning, expressing at the same time my entire concurrence ex animo with all in our Formularies--it does seem to me to be so utterly contrary to all principles of justice and equity (not to speak of charity) to afford me no further opportunity of vindication, that I can only say I pray that my judges may not, in the Great Day, receive the measure which they have dealt to me.
I have done what in me lay for the peace of the Church.
Yours faithfully,
Christ Church, June 2, 1843. E. B. PUSEY.
All is now past, but I would now explain that I thought that the papers given me by Dr. Jelf were only preliminary; else I should have attempted to substitute other words for those which I bracketed, which might have conveyed my meaning formally.
The publication of Pusey' s Protest was the first notifica–tion to the world, that anything whatever had been done since the sermon had been sent for. There had been rumours as to what was passing; but nothing was known on authority. The Six Doctors had met four times: the sentence had been signed and sent to Pusey: but it had never been published.
'On Dr. Pusey' s authority, of course it could not be doubted that he had been actually suspended.... So all that day people were looking about impatiently for the fact itself. They went to the doors of the College halls, to the Common rooms, to the doors of the Schools, and all the public places where University notices of all kinds are posted; they could find nothing new; there was a notice that some livery-stable-keeper had been suspended from University communications for letting a tandem, or some such offence, but no Dr. Pusey. The divinity beadle was seen going about, but it was only the announce–ment of the next Sunday' s preachers. There was not, nor is there to this day that we know of, anything to show.'
The Protest made no reference to the communications which had passed between Pusey and his judges through Dr. Jelf. Pusey, as we have seen, conceived himself to be debarred from any such reference by the silence which had been imposed on him, and which he understood to refer no less to the fact than to the nature of the communications. But when his Protest was made public, it became apparent that his scrupulous observance of this contract would involve inconveniences for his judges which they had not at first foreseen. The truth was, that Pusey' s judges had never thought of giving him a hearing before condemning him; but now they did not wish to be supposed to have condemned him unheard. As a matter of fact they had done so; and then, after condemning him, had endeavoured to extort from him a recantation of propositions which, in the sense he had used them, the more instructed members of the Board would not have condemned. And now they were obliged to face, not only Pusey' s friends, but all fair-minded people in the University and elsewhere, who, without knowing or caring much about theology, had distinct ideas of the requirements of justice. They were becoming eager to make the most that could be made of what had passed between Dr. Jelf and Pusey after the condemnation of the sermon. If Pusey had not been heard, he had at least been communicated with; if not before his sermon was condemned, at least before sentence was pronounced. But they could not avail themselves of even this expedient for improving their case (if it did improve it) without themselves violating the compact which they had imposed upon Pusey. To tell all the world what had passed between Dr. Jelf and Pusey would have made their case worse than ever: but could it not be arranged that the fact of some communications with Pusey might be made known, without any relaxation of the obligation to secrecy as to the nature of those communications? Even before the appearance of the Protest, and on the day of the sentence, this question had presented itself to the acute apprehension of the Provost of Oriel.
THE PROVOST OF ORIEL TO THE REV. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR.
Oriel College, June 2, 1843.
MY DEAR VICE-CHANCELLOR,
One more last word, but not requiring any answer until we happen to meet again.
Although your communications with Dr. Pusey have been themselves private and confidential, I do not see any reason why the fact should be private--the fact that Dr. Pusey had written to you a note accom–panying his sermon, and that in consequence of it you had privately inquired of him through a mutual friend whether he was likely to make such explanations as could be satisfactory--before you proceeded to suspension,--and proceeded to suspension when you had ascertained that he was not likely to offer any satisfactory explanations.
If we are once allowed to mention the fact of these communications having preceded suspension, I think we should sufficiently obviate those evil consequences which I dwelt upon last night perhaps too warmly.
And, possibly, this course may also prevent the necessity of your having to make any further statement of objections to Dr. P. to become the basis of future controversy.
Ever yours most truly,
E. HAWKINS.
The Rev. the Vice-Chancellor.
I think this was your own opinion yesterday afternoon, though per–haps it was rather lost sight of at our evening session.
But when the Protest itself was distributed in every common-room in Oxford, the full effect of Pusey' s ob–servance of his engagement upon academical opinion was immediately apparent. The Protest made no allusion to any hearing. The University would take it for granted (which was in fact the case) that there had been no hearing. Thereupon, and to prevent such damaging inferences, the Provost of Oriel wrote to Dr. Jelf calling in question Pusey' s 'veracity and honesty,' on the ground that in his Protest he had made no reference to those communi–cations which had passed between himself and the Vice-Chancellor. Dr. Jelf sent this letter to Pusey, who thereupon immediately repudiated the charge, not only in a letter to Jelf, but in a more lengthy letter to the Vice-Chancellor, in which he complains of the unfair position in which he was placed by his scrupulous observance of the obligation to secrecy, which it now appeared that he was only to adhere to so far as it favoured his judges. He writes
E. B. P TO THE REV. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR.
June 3, 1843.
I am quite willing to say absolutely nothing or to enter into the fullest explanation, as you think best or give me leave. Only I cannot make, or allow of, half-statements (such as were those of the Provost of Oriel, in part also mis-statements) which, without the full explanation, would throw suspicion on my truth. I have kept the whole nature of the communications a strict secret from my nearest friends, as I was enjoined; but unless equal silence is imposed upon all, I must regard the understanding at an end, and myself released from an engagement which was understood to be mutual.
The Vice-Chancellor hereupon consulted the Provost of Oriel, who suggested that Pusey might adopt the subjoined form of postscript to his Protest.
THE PROVOST' S PROPOSED SUPPLEMENT TO PUSEY' S PROTEST.
I framed my Protest of yesterday' s date under an impression that I was not at liberty to mention the fact of private communications having been made to me on your part. As this may possibly create in some minds a misapprehension of the actual circumstances, I would now say by way of explanation that the words of my Protest, so far as regards this point, apply to my not having been allowed an opportunity of explaining and defending myself before you in your public capacity.
Pusey of course refused to adopt a document which implied an altogether inaccurate account of the facts, and replied:--
E. B. P. TO THE REV. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR.
Christ Church, Whitsun Eve, 1843.
There seems to me some strange misunderstanding as to the facts of the case, because the words you have suggested to me, viz. 'apply to my not having been allowed an opportunity of explaining and defending myself before you in your public capacity' imply that I had such opportunity privately. This I understood that I had not; on the contrary I would still apply for it, if possible, with a view that, if I established the innocency of my meaning, the sentence might be rescinded.
I cannot adopt yours [your form of Postscript] because it implies that which, in my view, never took place. I have no objection to its being stated that 'certain private communications were made by you to me without leading to any satisfactory result,' provided I be allowed to say that secrecy is imposed upon me as to the nature of those communications, and also that no reports are circulated as to their nature. If they are, so as to affect my character for truth, I must conceive myself at liberty both to publish the letter which I sent to you this morning, and also a detail of the circumstances, as far as I know them. I am sorry to write thus, but I must take the liberty of reminding you that had you maintained the same silence which you imposed upon me, this difficulty would not have arisen, for it is not the fact of my having had private communications from you, but the supposed nature of those communications, such as the Provost of Oriel represented them to Dr. Jelf, which would affect my character for truth.
To this the Vice-Chancellor replied, endeavouring as best he could to justify the terms of the postscript which he had suggested at the Provost' s dictation. The letter [·] is valuable as giving an account of the objects which influenced the judges in their communications with Pusey, but it clearly shows that whatever complexion the Provost might now endeavour to give to those secret negotiations, Pusey was condemned without a hearing.
But his judges were still, with the aid of the Provost' s suggestions, taking advantage of Pusey' s faithful adherence to his promise of silence. It was known that there had been communications. It was believed that they were of the nature of a hearing previous to the condemnation of the sermon, and it was supposed that Pusey had disingenuously suppressed all mention of it. He was therefore driven to publish the subjoined supplement to his Protest.
SUPPLEMENT TO PROTEST.
MR. VICE-CHANCELLOR,
When I drew up my Protest, I felt myself bound not to allude to the fact, that, after it was announced to me that my sermon had been condemned, I received confidential communications from your–self. I had been informed, when I received them, that the fact of my having received them, as well as their contents, was strictly confi–dential, and this injunction to entire silence had not been removed. I felt it therefore even my duty to ascertain that there was in my Protest nothing which could trench upon that confidence.
I expressed to yourself privately, at the time, my sense of the kindness of your intentions personally, in making to me the first of those communications; and of this I was thinking, when, in my Protest, I spoke of not casting 'any imputation upon yourself individually.'
To the nature of those communications I can make no allusion, since you saw right to impose silence upon me. It is sufficient to say that after they were concluded I received a message from yourself, 'Dr. Pusey has my full authority for saying that he has had no hearing.' It ever was, and is, my full conviction, that had I had the hearing, which (for the sake of the University and the Church) I earnestly asked for, I must have been acquitted.
These communications, then, in no way affect my Protest. I add this explanation, because, while I retain my strong conviction that my sentence was both 'unstatutable and unjust,' it is right, since I am now at liberty so to do, to acknowledge the kindness of your own intentions to me individually.
I remain, Mr. Vice-Chancellor,
Your humble servant,
E. B. PUSEY.
Christ Church, June 6, 1843.
How deeply Pusey felt about this matter is more exactly expressed in the following letter than in the Supplement to the Protest.
E. B. P. TO REV. J. H. NEWMAN.
[Christ Church],
In fest. SS. Trin. 1843, June 11.
Even the rest of this sacred day of rest is broken in upon. Ward told me yesterday evening some statements in the Morning Chronicle about my Protest being 'Jesuitical,' 'every one here being disgusted at it,' &c., which make it necessary to determine how to act.
One line to which I have been inclining this morning, is to let these things die a natural death, commit my own reputation to God, stop privately the Protest in London, and bring out my sermon, which will at once shift the battle from these grounds to the theological questions.
My ground for this is, that I have fallen into the hands of one or more, blinded by prejudice and hostility, so that they have become hard-hearted, reckless, unscrupulous, and I am no match for such men. 'The Sons of Zeruiah are too hard for me.' I feared, as soon as I knew it, that they would make out a plausible case of inaccuracy against me; people will believe just as they wish, and the whole controversy will be about my veracity, which will indispose people to the truths of the sermon when it appears.
The other line is, to make an enlarged and stronger Protest (which when I sent the former I told the Vice-Chancellor I must have done, had I been allowed to allude to the facts which I knew) followed by a Statement of the facts I know. This will be to take the offensive, and show that my animus was to tell the truth.
As I am now released from secrecy, I send you the Protest and the Statement; only, as I can do nothing until the Vice-Chancellor' s return to-morrow, you had better say nothing, lest I seem to be premature or they steal a march upon me.
This is miserable work for such a day as this; I can only say 'Draw me out of the net which they have laid privily for me, for Thou art my God.'
Ever your most affectionate friend,
E. B. PUSEY.
At the same time an address to the Vice-Chancellor ap–peared which was signed by sixty-one resident members of Convocation and Bachelors of Civil Law. It asked the Vice-Chancellor to make known to the University the grounds on which the sentence on Dr. Pusey was passed, in order that there might be no doubt as to what statements of doctrine the sentence was intended to mark as dissonant from or contrary to the doctrine or discipline of the Church of England as publicly received. This address was signed in the main by adherents of the Movement, but also by some persons who had no connexion with it. Its motive was well expressed in a private letter which one of the signatories wrote at the time to the Vice-Chancellor:--
'The fact is that the silence of the gentlemen who examined the sermon is very perplexing to us who may have to preach at some time or other before the University. We have no means of knowing what is held to be heretical doctrine respecting the Eucharist (for this is supposed to be the point on which objection has been taken) and consequently cannot avoid the danger which Dr. Pusey has incurred.'
The writer certainly was not thinking of himself when he added,
'Those who agree in the main with Dr. Pusey' s teaching are of course the most perplexed.'
This perplexity was by no means merely theoretical. Delation of University sermons was in the air. On Ascen–sion Day, May 25, the Rev. T. E. Morris, Student and Tutor of Christ Church, had preached before the University by the Dean' s appointment. In his sermon he had spoken of 'Laud the martyred archbishop, who, let us trust, still intercedes for this Church.' On the following day the Vice-Chancellor sent for the sermon 'under the provisions of the statute, Tit. xvi. § 11.' Mr. Morris sent the sermon, together with extracts from Anglican divines illustrating his language. On the following Wednesday the Vice-Chancellor informed Mr. Morris that all the notice he had to take officially of the sermon was to require that Mr. Morris would ex animo express his assent to the Twenty–second Article; a request which was apparently based on the presumption that it is impossible to believe in the intercession of the saints without invoking them. Mr. Morris of course had no difficulty in complying with the Vice-Chancellor' s desire; he 'did not see that what he had said involved Invocation [of the Saints] at all.' He read the Article, received back the copy of his sermon, and, so far as the University was concerned, the matter was at an end.
The situation is described, not without a touch of humour, by one who was keenly alive to all that was passing, and deeply felt its extreme seriousness.
REV. C. MARRIOTT TO REV. W. COTTON.
Oriel, Whitsunday, 1843.
The Heads here are got most unreasonably jealous, and fancy we are going straight over to Rome. . .I think it will only make a disturbance, and do anything rather than further the cause of low doctrine. T. Morris also, in preaching at Ch. Ch. for the Dean, said that we might hope that Archbishop Laud still interceded for the Church of England and for this University. He was had up, and admonished for this (as if on purpose to show the dotage of our authorities) as tending directly to the Invocation of Saints. However, he protested against receiving any such admonition as official and authoritative, and only had in that way Article 22 to read out! This is all within the last fortnight. I hop