CHAPTER XXVIII.

 

PUBLISHED LETTER TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

--THEOLOGICAL PROFESSORSHIP--CENSURE ON HAMPDEN

REAFFIRMED--FEARS OF SECESSIONS-- NEWMAN'S MISGIVINGS--DEATH OF DR. ARNOLD-- NEWMAN'S RETRACTATION--PUSEY'S TRUST IN THE

CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

 

1842--1843.

 

THE situation of affairs in Oxford at the termination of the struggle for the Chair of Poetry was undoubtedly more anxious than any that had preceded it. The dis–position among the younger men to give the Movement a Roman direction was aggravated by a sense of failure within the University, and by the increasingly hostile tone of Episcopal authority. Episcopal charges were being published almost every month, which scarcely varied the monotony of denunciation. The Bishop of Winchester refused a second time to ordain Mr. Young, a refusal which obliged even the author of 'The Christian Year' to appeal to the Primate in a document which, notwith–standing its studied respect and moderation, is the severest condemnation of an attempt to substitute the prejudices of a party for the formularies of the Church of England in the administration of an important diocese. Bishop Blomfield, whose scholarship and talent for organization did not imply independence of the gusts of popular opinion, was turning more and more decidedly against the men who had strengthened his hands in the earlier days of his Episcopate. 'After reading No. 90,' he said at a dinner-table full of young clergymen, 'no power on earth should induce me to ordain any person who held systematically the Opinions of that Tract'. Archbishop Howley, too, was not prevented by his chaplain from a partial abandonment of the attitude which had won the love and respect of the Oxford writers. Writing to Pusey about a proposal of Mr. Bellasis, to get up an address from the legal profession in favour of the Tracts, Newman remarks:--

                                                                                                                              'Jan. 2, 1842.

'It seems to me his project is a very desirable one, if it can be done as he hopes. The Archbishop, observe, is taking a new line. Last March he stifled addresses for the Tracts because they would elicit counter addresses. Now he receives one against them, and that at SUCH a moment! As if there were not excitement enough! As if not violence enough on the side he backs up!'

Pusey, too, was, although reluctantly, in favour of the address, as is shown by the following letter:--

E. B. P. TO E. BELLASIS, ESQ.

                                                                                             116 Marine Parade, Brighton,

                                                                                                                                Jan. 3, 1842.

Newman has just forwarded to me a letter of yours. I was against any address of sympathy to us last year as feeling that we did not want it, and I was afraid lest it should call forth a counter declara–tion, and commit people before they considered what they were doing. I had not heard of the Cheltenham address or the Archbishop's reply. But if they have begun the attack, I quite agree with you that it is desirable that there should be counter addresses, else the Bishops will be misled. I very much fear that they do not in the least realize the state of feeling in the Church and will consequently make mistakes, which may be very injurious; it is natural to judge of things by the sensation they make: they have no idea of strong, deep, quiet feeling. I hope that the Poetry election will, amid all its evils, have some effect this way, but I should think such addresses as you speak of will also do good, both as expressing sympathy, putting the Bishops more in possession of the real state of things, and inclining them in the end perhaps to wish all such addresses at an end on both sides, which will ~end to give us what we so much want--peace.

I like the topics you have mentioned, and agree with your reasons why the barristers should begin. Excuse haste.

                             Yours very faithfully,

                                                   E. B. PUSEY.

I do fear that we are suffering very much from want of courage. Truths are depreciated, and things allowed to go by default, when, if persons were to speak out boldly, they would carry others with them: e.g. what a torrent against Tract 90, and feeble defences, instead of saying boldly, that people were all sick, and are but like ill-trained children, who are clamouring that the medicine is unpalatable.

Before, however, this proposal could be carried out, the Archbishop found himself face to face with another question which inevitably caused him much embarrassment. The Queen had invited the King of Prussia to become sponsor to the Prince of Wales. The controversy about the Jerusalem Bishopric had directed attention to the general subject of German Protestantism, and there was a strong feeling abroad, especially among the clergy, against the presence of a Lutheran, however estimable he might be as a man, on so serious an occasion. A memorial to this effect was circulated in the Diocese of Oxford, and a copy of it was forwarded by Bishop Bagot to the Primate. His view of it was conveyed in a letter to Bishop Bagot and was strongly adverse to the proposal. Though not surprised, he regretted the fact of such a Protest, knew that it would give great offence and would be useless, gave precedents, e.g. of a German Grand Duke having been sponsor to George IV., and recommended that the Protest, if not 'stifled, should be completely discouraged.'

Two or three secessions to the Roman Catholic Church occurred about this time. They were sufficiently deplor–able in themselves and in the time of their occurrence; and they may well have appeared to persons in the position of the Primate, to warrant the distrust which he was beginning to feel about the Oxford writers. The Archbishop was also disappointed at the result of his interview with Pusey in September, 1841. He had made the common mistake of supposing that leaders of opinion can always influence their followers to any extent that their relations with other people may render desirable. This will appear from the subjoined letter of the Dean of Canterbury, Dr. Lyall, to Bishop Bagot. It was evidently written at the Archbishop's suggestion:--

THE DEAN OF CANTERBURY TO THE BISHOP OF OXFORD.

                                                                                                           Addington, Jan. 14, 1842.

The Archbishop told me that about three months ago, he invited Dr. Pusey to Addington on purpose to have some communication with him on the subject of the present state of things at Oxford. On representing to Dr. Pusey the many serious evils, present and prospec–tive, occasioned by the agitation of the opinions put forth in Oxford, Dr. Pusey asked the Archbishop what course his Grace would recom–mend to be pursued. The Archbishop advised that for a time, at least, he (Dr. Pusey and his friends) should rest entirely quiet--neither putting out any new tract or other publication, nor answering any put out against him and his opinions. The Archbishop would seem to have had an impression that this course would be followed. It is not necessary to say that it has not, but that, on the contrary, the controversy is being carried on with more heat and bitterness than before--if not by Dr. Pusey or Mr. Newman themselves, certainly by their followers and those over whom they undoubtedly do or can exercise influence.

Under these circumstances the Archbishop said to me, that he thought Dr. Pusey and his immediate advisers and friends were bound in conscience and in all fairness of argument to make some formal statement declaratory of their true meaning.

It has been contended that Pusey was putting himself forward unnecessarily in writing to the Archbishop of Canterbury. He really had very little choice in the matter. The feeling which was now beginning to prevail in the highest places of the English Church was made up of irritation and fear, and it was rapidly tending to make a calm and accurate appreciation of men and circumstances difficult, if not impossible. It was well described in the following letter from a friend, the Rev. Thomas Henderson, to Pusey a month or two later ;--

                                                                                                     'Ash Wednesday, 1842.

'A fortnight since, the Bishop of London said this to myself: "I remarked yesterday to the Archbishop, and he quite agreed with me, that we had been worse treated by the Oxford writers than we have ever been by the Evangelical party in the whole course of our govern–ment in the Church."Again, in a letter dated as far back as Nov. 29, the Bishop writes: "I confess I feel indignant at their late proceed–ings, which are however, I believe, but a sample of what they intend to do."Again: "They might have strengthened the Church, and I believe they intended to do so--they are now doing all they can unde–signedly to weaken her. But she will survive the infatuation of friends as well as the hostility of foes, and I well believe the time will come when the greater number of those who are now holding out the hand of friendship to Rome will see their errors, and to a certain point retrace their steps.""With regard to myself,"he continues, "I have hitherto endeavoured to keep peace and to prevent outbreaks of party feeling, but the late proceedings of the Oxford men have made it almost impossible to continue my endeavours with any hope of success.”

'All this as showing grievous misunderstanding is deplorable. Again, then, may your forthcoming Letter subserve the end of removing it, if only in part.'

Early in October Harrison had urged Pusey to write a public Letter to the Archbishop in explanation of the views and principles of the Oxford writers. This task was delayed by the pressure of regular work and irregular controversy; but in January, 1842, Pusey reports progress as follows:--

E. B. P. TO REV. B. HARRISON.

                                                                                        [35 Grosvenor Square], Jan. 22, 1842.

                                                                                                                             Friday night.

It is past two, so I only wish to tell you what I have been doing. I continued my Appeal to the Archbishop. I waited first for the Bishop of Winchester's Charge, then for the documents, and have not had time quite to finish it. I began, after what you saw, stating and illustrating that the tendency to Romanism does not come from us, and so that it is not merely by censuring us that it can be met. This is printed, and Marriott as well as Newman like it much.

Then I have analyzed the Charges, putting first the favourable (Bishops of Ripon, Exeter), then the adverse; showing that the first censure only accidentals, not the essence of the doctrine; the latter censure not us, but what they think us to be, and which we too should censure. Then I have inculcated good services as a plea for sympathy.

Then I have said that things are safe in the main so long as our Church does not undergo any organic change, as e.g. a declaration of the Bishops, or any committal of Church to ultra-Protestantism. I very much dread the King of Prussia's visit. Germany does not wish for Bishops, and I feel convinced is unfit to receive Episcopacy. I doubt whether really orthodox persons could be found to be con–secrated. 'Sincerum est nisi vas....'

I deeply dread the Bishops committing themselves by a Declaration. I am going to Clifton in the middle of the day, hoping to return to Oxford on Monday.

You will not mind my saying that your tone seems to me to grow harsher and more condemnatory. Manning liked all the articles in the British Critic, except one which he had not read. You seem to me to read with the bias to blame.

It is curious to notice Pusey's prescience in thus early deprecating those Episcopal Declarations which, at intervals in the controversies of the next forty years, may be fairly charged with having been injurious to the true interests of the Church. While committing nobody, much less the Church itself, they seemed to lay claim to high authority, yet really only expressed the feelings of alarm at moments of agitation.

As the Letter to the Archbishop was printed off in slips it was submitted to Newman, who bestowed on these frag–ments a much warmer approval than was usual with him.

'I like your slips very much indeed, and think them quite beautiful.' 'Your peroration I like extremely: indeed the whole Apologia is the best thing to my mind you have written.' 'I am no fit judge at all as to what the effect of your Letter will be. I am simply unable to say any–thing. I liked it much myself, but that very reason made me feel that perhaps many others might not like it.'

Newman, however, suggested alterations in the rough draft of the Letter, which appear to have been adopted. A reference to the 'engagements' of the Bishops was omitted lest it should be thought 'satirical.' An allusion to the Rev. W. Palmer of Magdalen was introduced with a view to showing how much of the existing Church feeling had been formed independently of the Tracts. Newman further suggested that the clamour against Popery was making undergraduates turn their thoughts that way and feel interested in Rome--undergraduates who knew nothing about the Tracts, but of whose conversion, if it were to happen, the Tract-writers would get the credit. Conversions to Rome, he insisted, did not occur 'till the Bishops' Charges so opened against us; nor did we express fears.' He added words which show his sense of the great and increasing difficulty of the situation

                                                                                                           'Oriel, Jan. 24, 1842.

'The Heads of Houses have most lamentably opened a door to all mischief by their act of last March. They have proclaimed to the country that their own place is Popish, without having the power to obviate it. This, according to the proverb, is crying stinking fish. The country naturally says, "Are we to send our children for educa–tion to a place confessed by its own guardians to be unsafe?"I confess I do not see the end of the difficulty. I suppose Church Convocation must meet, but what they can do does not appear. Certain positions in No. 90 might be condemned.'

At Newman's suggestion Pusey also consulted Mr. J. R. Hope, who warmly advised him to publish his proposed Letter, 'if only to make people pause and consider what our present position really is.' Mr. Hope added some criti–cisms in detail. The suggestion, which in view of present circumstances was of the highest importance, ran as follows:--

J. R. HOPE, ESQ., TO E. B. P.

                                                                                                                            Jan. 31, 1842.

When you speak of 'men's judgements' I have noted that this might be misunderstood as despising the Bishops. To which I wish to add that I think it would be well that you should give a distinct view of the authority both of individual and collective Bishops of our (not the Universal) Church, showing that (as I conceive) they may be listened to for disipline's sake, but must be judged, as regards authority over Conscience, by the Church Catholic. And that the very same principle which leads to submission to them in the one case, implies (if need be) rejection in the other. Men choose to wonder why persons who (as they say) so much exalt Bishops, should be ready to protest against them.

The Letter itself is the most striking of these compositions which Pusey produced. It loses itself less in details; it is more concerned with the statement of principles. No previous task of the kind to which he had set his hand had been so delicate and so difficult; never had he written--not even a year before on the subject of Tract 90--with so keen a sense of urgent and increasing danger. He is obliged now to admit the existence of a tendency to Rome; but it was due, he contends, to other causes than the 'Tracts for the Times,' and largely to the recent growth of the Roman Church in England, and to the longing for visible unity. This longing, however, would be kept in check, partly by the growing sense of blessings which were inseparably connected with membership of the English Church; partly by such evils as the denial of the Cup to the laity, and the cultus of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Roman communion.

'I need but allude to one precious Gift, whose value none can estimate, bestowed on us alone in the whole Western Church, and which I cannot understand how any communicant who loves his Lord, could of his own act forego. One would not speak of persons in those Churches which refuse the Cup to their members; sore as the loss is, God can make up to His own any losses which they sustain where He has placed them; but for one who has had that privilege bestowed upon him voluntarily to forsake the Communion wherein God has given it him, it does seem such a wilful rejection of the gift of his Saviour's Blood, as, in any who knew what that Gift is, one should dread to think of .'

Again:--

'Throughout all she [the Roman Catholic Church] has of excellent, there is spread (to mention no more) that one corrupting leaven, the joining of the creature with the Creator, setting forth another object of affection, "giving His glory to another,"teaching both saint and sinner to rely upon the Blessed Virgin as on Him.'

The burden of the Letter is a respectful and passionately earnest plea against the language which had been used with reference to the Oxford writers by some of the Bishops. Pusey justifies this part of his Letter by referring to Law's controversy with Hoadley. He then reviews the more prominent Episcopal Charges which had been delivered, and' he could do this the more freely because as yet his own Diocesan, the Bishop of Oxford, had not addressed his clergy on the subject. Pusey's' old tutor, Bishop Maltby of Durham, had indeed complained of the Oxford writers in terms which were naturally appropriated for controversial purposes by the Dublin Review. The Bishops of Ripon and Exeter, although finding fault with certain features of the Oxford teaching, had made large and generous admis–sions in its favour. The two Low Church Bishops of Chester and Winchester were wildly denunciatory; the former even regarding the Oxford writers as 'instruments of Satan to hinder the true principles of the Gospel.' These two Bishops represented a narrow variety of the Popular Puritanism. This leads Pusey to describe in a passage of singular truth and beauty the character of the so-termed Evangelical revival:--

'The instruments of that revival looked, in the first instance, for the type of their doctrine, neither to the Reformers of the sixteenth, nor the great divines of the seventeenth century, but to the Nonconformists. In contrast with a period in which the consciousness of the great truths of the Gospel had become obscure and dim, they seized, as your Grace knows familiarly, one or two fundamental truths, or, rather, they condensed the whole Gospel into the two fundamental truths of nature and of grace, that by nature we are corrupt, by grace we are saved. Our corruption by nature, our justifi–cation by faith, were not a summary only, but in this meagre form, the whole substance of their teaching. Faith also was made the act of the mind, believing and appropriating to itself the merits of our Blessed Lord; the rest of the Christian system, of God's gifts, the Church, the Sacraments, good works, holiness, self-discipline, repentance, were looked upon but as introductory, or subsidiary, or to follow as a matter of course upon these, but if thought of any value in themselves, perni–cious; to attach value to any of them was (as we have often been condemned to hear, and shocking as it is to repeat) to substitute (as it might be) the Church or the Sacraments, or repentance or good works for Christ. And from this we are but partially recovering. One must respect the sensitiveness of those, who, with a "godly jealousy,"fear lest anything be substituted for our Ever-blessed Redeemer. Still one must say that the error is with them. The narrowness of what one must call the "Nonconformist"system (for on the doctrine of Holy Baptism it is plainly at variance with that of the reformers in our Church as well as its Formularies) cannot span the largeness of Catholic truth; it cannot expand itself so as to comprise it, and what it cannot take into its own measures, it rejects as superfluous. Measured then by this rule, our teaching must needs be found faulty.'

He then discusses the Jerusalem Bishopric in terms which have been already referred to; and points out in conclusion the need of peace for all, and of sympathy and guidance for the younger men from their fathers in Christ. One of the most solemn paragraphs of his closing appeal runs as follows:--

'At this anxious crisis of our Church wherein we "are a spectacle to the world and to angels and to men,"have your Lordships been called to your holy station in the "government of the Church of Christ,"where your every word and action is fraught with conse–quences incalculable; I dare not apprehend that you will not act with the due reverence and caution, when you know how deeply intertwined with the whole frame of our present Church these chords are, upon which you have from time to time touched, and which some, who know not what they are doing, would urge you to pull so vehemently; how many, in silence yet how profoundly, sympathize; how fearfully any mistaken movement might jar through the whole system; what tokens there are that, whoever may have been here or there employed, the whole is the work not of man but of God. I have no fears but that, as was prayed for you, you will "use the authority given to you, not to destruction, but to salvation; not to hurt but to help; giving, as faithful and wise servants, to the family of God their portion in due season, that you may be at last received into everlasting joy."And for this cause I have ventured thus to speak. On your Lordships, singly in your measures, but much more were you to act collectively, may depend the well-being of our Church, or the degree of her well–being, during her whole existence.'

The Letter was, upon the whole, well received. The Arch–bishop and some other prelates were said to be favourably impressed. The Bishop of Rochester spoke very kindly of the Letter, but made a reserve as to the passage about monasticism. The Bishop of Salisbury, Dr. Denison, was at once sympathetic and critical:--

THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY TO E. B. P.

MY DEAR PUSEY,                                                                     9 Wilton Crescent, March 9, 1842.

It is, I am sure, always my own fault, if I do not profit by reading anything you write, even if I cannot, as is sometimes the case, assent to all your views and reasonings, and the present aspect of things in the Church is indeed such as to fill me with anxiety, and to make me consider every prospect with apprehensive thought. In what you say about the Charges of different Bishops, I do not think that you sufficiently bear in mind that it is the nature of all authority to be repressive rather than encouraging; and again that if other parties draw general and unfair inferences from expressions of opinion in particular points, the authors are not and ought not to be made responsible for this. Will you also allow me to say how much I regret that you either have not felt disposed or not at liberty to express any disapproval of the language about our own Church and that of Rome which has been used in various publications, and has naturally excited a very strong and general sensation. I hope you will excuse my saying thus much. It is more than I have said to any one else; but as I had read your Letter before I acknowledged it, it would, I think, not be acting with the openness I should wish to show towards you to content myself with merely thanking you for it. . .

                   Believe me, very truly yours,

                                             E. SARUM.

Dr. Hook was very cordial: the Letter had satisfied him that Pusey's teaching about post-baptismal sin was not Novationism.

REV. DR. HOOK TO E. B. P.

MY DEAR FRIEND,                                                                                          Leeds, March 3, 1842.

Many thanks for your Letter to the Archbishop of Canter–bury. I cannot tell you how much I am relieved by what you have said on Baptism in that Letter. I never could detect before the difference between your view of sin after Baptism and that of the Novatians, and to me, preaching as I do to thousands who have never thought of their baptismal vows, the doctrine was perplexing; a treatise on Absolution would indeed be useful.

                                                I remain, your affectionate friend,

                                                                                            W. F. HOOK.

On the other hand, Pusey received some strong expres–sions of adverse criticism. Archdeacon Hale, while holding that Pusey's language about German Protestantism was well worth considering, could not understand how any improvement in the Roman Church could be a cause of satisfaction to Pusey, since 'it would only make men at large more blind to her corruptions and idolatries than they were before.' The Archdeacon equally deprecated 'the false candour which praised Dissent because of its piety,' since in the eyes of the common people such praise removes all real objection to a false system. 'It is,' observed the Archdeacon, 'by the outward appearance of something or other good in them, that bad men and bad things bear sway in the world.'

Whatever hopes Pusey might at one period have enter–tained and expressed with regard to Protestant Germany, he had learnt by this time a truer estimate: he quotes Tholuck to illustrate the ravages of Rationalism among German Protestants; he even goes so far as to say that 'even in the sounder part of the Luthero-Calvinist body there is not a vestige among its writers of the first con–dition of a sound restoration--humility.'

The crucial passage in his Letter to the Archbishop had run as follows:--

'Still less, I own, can I see,--even if your Grace were advised, or it were lawful, to free the Bishop from those obligations by which he is at present bound,--how the picture of an United Church could be presented by an English and Lutheran congregation, of which the one holds "One Holy Catholic Church, throughout all the world,"knit together by its Bishops, as "joints and bands,"under its One Head, Christ, and joined on by unbroken succession to the Apostles; the other, an indefinite number of Churches, hanging together by an agreement in a scheme of doctrine framed by themselves, and modified by the civil power; of which the one holds Confirmation to be the act of the Bishop, the other deems such unnecessary but accepts it for its younger members: the one holds Ordination to be derived from the Apostles; the other, that Presbyters, uncommis–sioned, may confer it, and that those on whom it has been so con–ferred, may consecrate the Holy Eucharist: the one recites the Creed of Nicea, the other has laid it aside: in the one, ancient prayer, the inspired Psalms, and hearing God's Word, are the chief part of their weekly service; in the other, uninspired hymns and preaching, with prayer extempore: the one kneel in prayer, the other not even at the Holy Eucharist: with the one, the Lord's Day is a Holy Day, with the other a holyday: the one receives "the Faith"as "once for all delivered to the saints”; the other, as susceptible of subsequent correction and development: the one rests her authority and the very titles of her existence on being an Ancient Church, the other boasts itself modern: the one, not founded by man, but descended of that founded on the day of Pentecost; the other dating itself from Luther, and claiming to be the parent of all, not in outward communion with the great Eastern and Western Branches, and so of our own Church by whom it was originally converted: the one recognizes and has been recog–nized by the Ancient Church of the East, the other rejects her and is anathematized by her. Still less is there any hope, that by receiving Ministers ordained by our Bishops, they express any wish to be received into our Church, or become one with her .'

This language attracted attention in Germany no less than in England, and the Rev. H. Abeken, Chaplain to the Prussian Legation at Rome, remonstrated with its author, first in a private communication, and then in a public letter.

All that Mr. Abeken wrote only too clearly showed that Pusey was right in contending that the German Protestants did not want the Episcopate, and that it could not b imposed on them against their will, or without their earnestly desiring it . Mr. Abeken could not understand why, without entering on this question, 'the Church of England could not come forward and act in common with the Lutherans 'for the extension of the kingdom of heaven.' The answer was, that if the Episcopate was necessary, she could not dispense with it; and her belief in its necessity appeared from her maintaining it in circum–stances when its absence would have very considerably promoted unity among Protestants. 'With regard to the question now at stake,' wrote Pusey, 'the pamphlet contains nothing in any way to change the view put forward in my own.'

In the spring of 1842 a statute was submitted to the Convocation of Oxford having for its object a considerable extension of the Theological Faculty. Two new Chairs, of Ecclesiastical History and Pastoral Theology, were established by the Crown, and this involved a rearrange–ment of the subjects which had been hitherto handled by the Regius and Margaret Professors of Divinity. The Hebrew professor occupied a position which might appear to make it doubtful whether he was a Divinity professor or a professor of language. Pusey insisted strongly that he was a professor of Divinity; that he could only lecture upon books which formed part of the Sacred Volume; and that Hebrew philology was ancillary to the largest department of the Interpretation of the Bible.

The anticipated promulgation of a new statute led Pusey to ask the Vice-Chancellor to enable him to secure in it a more definite recognition of the theological character of his professorship. He wrote a strong and sensible letter supporting this View, but apparently without result. At any rate the proposed statute was circulated in the Univer–sity on April 18, and on the following day Pusey again addressed the Vice-Chancellor, urging more strenuously, in the interest both of Theology and Hebrew study, the objection to the statute he had previously raised.

The Vice-Chancellor appears to have replied that the Hebdomadal Council did not wish to interfere with the existing arrangements for old professorships. Pusey wrote again to point out that the language of the proposed statute did tend to make him merely a professor of language. But the Vice-Chancellor had other advisers. One object of the new statute was to establish an examination in Theology, and it was provided that the Hebrew pro–fessor might have a voice in the election of Examiners. Dr. Hampden, as Regius Professor of Divinity, wrote to the Vice-Chancellor stating his objection to this proposal. After enumerating some objections of a more technical kind, he proceeds :--

                                                                                                                      'April 27, 1842.

'I have a few more weighty objections to the proposed statute in its present form. I have been reluctant to put it forward lest I should seem to be making an objection on mere personal grounds, which I may assure you is not the case with me. I must own to you then that I should object at any rate to investing the Professor of Hebrew with a power not recognized by the Statutes, by making him ex officio an Examiner in Theology, or even a member of a Theological Board. He need not in fact necessarily be a graduate in Theology.

'If, however, the proposed statute, when ultimately brought before Convocation, further goes to invest the present holder of that Professorship with such power,--does it not become a serious question, whether one could conscientiously vote for a measure con–ferring this privilege on an individual who is identified with a class of theological writers who have attracted to them the expostulations and reproofs of several of our Bishops,--one who advocates the views of those writers as developed in the "Tracts for the Times,"and in particular that number of the Tracts which has been expressly censured by the Hebdomadal Board, and whose principles, it can hardly be doubted, are unfriendly to the Reformation and the Protestant establishment 'of the Church?'

It is clear then that Dr. Hampden was deliberately endeavouring to exclude Pusey from part of the work of the Theological faculty, and that on account of distrust of his opinions. In accordance with the same plan of action was an inflammatory lecture delivered by him in the Divinity School against Tractarian teaching.

As on other occasions, the Latitudinarian hatred of dogma was too much for the toleration which they generally professed. Hampden was working for the exclusion of Pusey, as previously Arnold had denounced 'the Malig–nants,' and Whately and Tait had stimulated the excite–ment against Newman and Ward.

On Monday, May 23, Bishop Bagot delivered in St. Mary's the Charge which he had dreaded and postponed. In it he by one unhappy expression broke the understanding that, the Tracts having been stopped at his suggestion, he would say nothing in condemnation of them. He spoke of Tract 90 as follows: 'Although the licence of Calvinistic interpreters had often gone beyond what was attempted in the Ninetieth Tract,' the Bishop 'could not reconcile himself to a system of interpretation which was so subtle that by it the Articles might be made to mean anything or nothing.' This last expression was suggested by a Chaplain; for few phrases perhaps has the Church of England paid more dearly.

'Even my own Bishop,' wrote Newman, 'has said that my mode of interpreting the Articles makes them mean anything or nothing. When I heard this delivered I did not believe my ears. I denied to others that it was said…Out came the Charge, and the words could not be mistaken. This astonished me the more because I pub–lished that letter to him (how unwillingly you know) on the understanding that I was to deliver his judgment on No. 90 instead of him. A year elapses and a second and heavier judgment came forth. I did not bargain for this--nor did he. But the tide was too strong for him.'

The excellent and accomplished author of the phrase has in later years thus touchingly alluded to it:--

THE REV. F. E. PAGET TO BISHOP EDEN.

                                                                                                                          Jan. 24, 1879.

I was guilty of doing much mischief by an honest but unguarded, and ill-considered opinion. He [Bishop Bagot] put Tract 90 into my hands, and asked me what I thought of it. I answered as I then thought: 'At this rate the Articles may be made to mean anything or nothing.' It was just one of those short speeches which, having a sting, are not forgotten. I cannot atone for my fault. All I. can now do is to say that the words originated with me; and that for many years greatly have I sorrowed over a misunderstood motive.

The Charge took Oxford by surprise, and its effect was immediately apparent in the action of the Heads of Houses. It is a curious coincidence, if nothing more, that on the next day, May 24th, there appeared a notice of a motion which would be brought before Convocation to abrogate the Censure passed on Dr. Hampden in  1836. At that date, it will be remembered, the Censure had been carried in the Hebdomadal Board only by a narrow majority, although passed by a large majority in Convocation; and the new statute for regulating Divinity studies, by which Dr. Hampden, as Regius Professor, was made Chairman of the Theological Board, had been unopposed. The Bishop's language about Tract 90 may well have led Hampden's friends in the Hebdomadal Board to think that his strongest opponents were too divided, or too cowed, to offer any very effective resistance.

It is due to the Vice-Chancellor of the day, Dr. Wynter, to say that he, at least, was not in favour of the proposed measure. He did not vote against it .It was his rule, as Vice-Chancellor, to avoid giving a vote whenever he could: he looked upon himself, when presiding at the meetings of the Heads, as in the position of a 'Speaker.' But he has left his opinion of this proposal on record; it was to the effect that until Dr. Hampden retracted his expressed opinions, no withdrawal of the Censure was consistent or reasonable.

Though the University was taken by surprise, it was not long before a memorial, condemning the proposed abrogation of the Censure, received the signatures of persons strongly opposed to each other on other subjects; of Mr. Tait, as well as Mr. MacMullen; of Mr. Palmer of Magdalen, as well as Mr. Golightly; of Mr. Sewell, who by a recent article in the Quarterly had been understood to withdraw himself partly from the Tractarians, as well as of Mr. Newman.

At the same time many of the Low Church party held aloof from the opposition; and the idea that the question was only another phase of the contest between the Tractarians and their opponents would have influenced the majority of the Hebdomadal Board, when returning, as they did, an unfavourable answer to the memorialists.

Looking to the conduct of the majority of the Heads, it might have been supposed that Dr. Hampden had proclaimed some change in his religious opinions: but the truth would appear to be that he had done nothing of the kind, although unquestionably in his public language he now gave greater prominence to the popular Protestantism of the day. It was in accordance with this that on June 1st he had delivered, as Professor, his lecture in the Divinity School. The subject was the Thirty-nine Articles. In this lecture he not only said he had nothing to retract, while virtually reaffirming his opinions by reference to his Bampton Lectures, but he also described his opponents as a virulent 'Romanizing' party banded together under leaders against him. He appealed to the 'sincere part of the Church in the University'; to 'all unprejudiced and still Protestant members of the Church.'

The University once more found itself committed to an exasperating contest.

'You cannot imagine,' wrote James Mozley, 'the state of bustle and activity we have been in. The last week has been a complete dream,--of interminable plannings, devisings, machinatings, talkings, walk–ings, writings, printings, letters for the post, wafers, sealing-wax, &c…The new statute is expected to be thrown out by a large majority. Nobody sticks up a moment for the Heads of Houses.'

Pusey, of course, had his full share of all this work.

E. B. P. TO REV. J. KEBLE.

                                                                                                [Christ Church, May 31, 1842.]

I hope on this sad occasion you will come to this house. I have written to Miller of Worcester (whether he comes I know not), your brother, and Manning. It would be pleasant at least that you should see each other, and I you.

I fear there is increasing ground for anxiety; the Low Church keeps aloof; the Standard has begun the Anti-Newman cry; circulars are being sent on the other side; people whom one would not expect take odd crotchets; then comes in natural kindliness, and the unwillingness to pain--and how much is there of stern Athanasian principle?

However, I believe people are sanguine, although I should not be surprised at a combination of Low Church, Liberals, Anti-tractarians against us.

                                  Ever yours most affectionately and obliged,

                                                                                      E. B. PUSEY.

Dinner will not be till six on Monday. It made one's heart sink to have to think Golightly's name an accession.

REV. J. KEBLE TO E. B. P.

                                                                                                            Hursley; June 2, 1842.

I shall be most glad to come to you on Monday, as you kindly pro–pose, and thus get some good out of what seems an unpromising affair. However, I console myself in this way, that either the statute will be affirmed, or, if repealed, it will be by such a combination as will prove to all men the rationalizing tendency of the Puritan School. I hope to be with you by the Southampton coach, which is in (I think) soon after five. I shall get down at your door. Moberly means to post up with five more votes early on Tuesday morning, and I suppose Wilson, Young, and Ryder, and perhaps Tragett of C. C. C., will come by the train that morning. ...

                I am, ever yours most affectionately,

                                                                                           J. KEBLE.

Samuel Wilberforce will not come up at all, I think. If he did, I cannot make out from his talk which way he would vote. I fear Hamilton also means to be neutral.

In his reference to 'odd crotchets,' Pusey was doubtless thinking among others of the Rev. W. K. Hamilton, then Canon, afterwards Bishop, of Salisbury. Mr. Hamilton had never felt satisfied with the justice of the methods by which Hampden had been condemned. He could not oppose the suggested repeal of the Censure, though he felt the inconsistency of those who, having censured, were ready to withdraw the Censure without any retractation on Hampden's part.

The battle was fought in Convocation on June 7th. The speeches were, of course, in Latin; the two best being those of Mr. W. Sewell and Mr. Vaughan Thomas. On a division, the Censure was reaffirmed by a majority of 115 in a House of 553. The Convocation of the University saved its consistency; but the diminished majority showed that recent alarms, and perhaps Dr. Hampden's appeals to the popular Protestantism, had not been without effect. Still, so far as the University was concerned, the question of Dr. Hampden was at an end.

The year 1842 was in Pusey's life, as in the Movement, a preparation for what was to follow. The inauguration of the Martyrs' Memorial was naturally the occasion of a demonstration against the Oxford School, although it may be questioned whether so graceful an erection, surmounted by a cross, was in the long run well calculated to recommend the Puritanism which built it. Pusey was distressed also by some secessions to Rome. When it was said to him that they were not important people, he would reply, 'But they are doing wrong; and souls are souls.'

Still graver matter for anxiety was to be found in an unsettlement of minds which threatened, at no distant date, a more serious catastrophe. Among Newman's companions at Littlemore was one respecting whom Pusey had been led to feel anxious.

E. B. P. TO REV. J. H. NEWMAN.

                                                                                                          Aug. 18, [1842].

You will not mind my asking you what line you adopted for the restoration of --, and whether you distinctly urged upon him the duty of abiding in his Church. What effect do you think the use of the Breviary at L[ittlemore] had upon him? Was his self-discipline proportioned to it? or was the use of it self-indulgence? Do you think him wilful?         

                                        Ever yours very affectionately,

                                                                                     E. B. PUSEY.

Pusey's questions annoyed Newman. They appeared to imply a conception of the character of Newman's friend, and of Newman's own idea of what was involved in loyalty to the English Church, which assured him that Pusey must be the mouthpiece of some one else.

REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO E. B. P.

                                                                                                                           Aug. 20, 1842.

Who has put you up to write to me about --? If you knew him you would see that the questions you ask are unappropriate. He is a very amiable fellow, sincerely humble, and 'indulges' himself in nothing but in self-discipline (which I do not deny may be an unallow–able indulgence), However, when he had been here some weeks, poor fellow, his mind got unsettled again, and I gave him to this very day to make it up by, whether he would promise to put aside the whole subject for three years. This he has done--

(Sunday, Oriel)--and though I feel the trial is but beginning, he can do no more than promise. Please do not say a word of this to any one, else I am giving explanations through you to parties who have less confidence in my faithfulness to my office in the Church than you have...

                                                                                                                   Aug. 21, 1842.

P.S.--Ward was the sole and absolute cause of --'s surrendering himself. Manning had totally failed. I had failed also, and quite despaired. Last Wednesday I told him that he must decide by Saturday. He proposed going to Ward--at first I doubted; when he pressed it, I let him go. Ward completely satisfied him in the course of an hour, and he wanted to make the promise at once, but Ward said he had better stay till Saturday to try himself. He could not give me any account of what Ward said--only said that the views were 'quite new to him.'

The resettlement of Newman's friend was thus effected from an unexpected quarter. Pusey felt bound to make something like an apology. He had not been able to help doing what he did in questioning Newman.

E. B. P. TO REV. J. H. NEWMAN.

                                                                                                      [Margate], Aug. 22, 1842.

Thank you very much for your full explanations. I asked the questions about -- for a person for whom it was really worth asking, but I cannot say any more without committing others. Of course I will not repeat anything you say about --. The person was only afraid that you did not express as distinctly as you felt the duty of abiding by our Church; people about you had given him this impression generally, not, of course, that he was prying or suspicious, but it had somehow been forced upon him. I had spoken plainly, but I asked you these questions in order to be able to give a definite answer from yourself. There was a further practical reason which I cannot tell. There really was no suspiciousness, nor anything in a wrong spirit. . .

You must not be pained at a vague sort of uncomfortableness. All confidence seemed to undergo a shock about the time Mr. S. went from us. Everybody almost suspected everyone. I found that I had added to, or perhaps occasioned, much of the suspiciousness by my visits to the convents. I found near friends suspecting me. People do not know what to think when they are in a panic. Then too I have doubted whether some (I know not who) who see you and speak of you understand you (I do not mean Ward). But somehow Ward's distinction between you and myself is supposed to mean more than it did, and (strange to say) to imply that you are less satisfied that our Church is a part of the Catholic Church than myself. This notion seems to be encouraged somehow, I do not know how. The Roman Catholics are very diligent in circulating it, and use it as an argument to draw over those who are wavering. They give out (and even eminent persons, I believe, among them) that you and a body of others are coming over. I know not how much this has to do with the uncomfortableness afloat; it was said to me last term by a Head of a House, who professed himself glad to be reassured by me, but I had it more directly from Roman Catholics. I only say this, because this state of suspiciousness is a painful one, and it is painful to be suspected, though you have been so long accustomed to commit your innocence to God.

The whole amount of fear, in the case which occasioned my writing, was lest, by not using definite language as to our own Church, you should miss giving the direction to the minds which look up to you which you would desire. I appealed to your Advent Sermons, which were just what he wished; only he still seemed to think that in con–versation people took a different impression, or he would have liked something published with your name; but there is your letter to the Bishop, which at the time I forgot. Your articles in the British Critic he appreciated and valued.

Newman's answer shows, on the one hand, the misgivings about his position which he unhappily could not disguise from himself, and, on the other, his sensitive apprehension of what was involved in loyalty to the English Church.

REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO E. B. P.

                                                                                       Littlemore, in fest. S. Bart. [1842].

I am not at all surprised or hurt at persons being suspicious of my faith in the English Church. I think they have cause to do so. It would not be honest in me not to confess, when persons have a right to ask me, that I have misgivings, not about her Orders, but about her ordinary enjoyment of the privileges they confer while she is so separate from Christendom, so tolerant of heresy. (Do you, see that the Bishop of Jerusalem has been allowing an unconverted Jew to lead extempore prayer in his house and presence?) But I think few people have any right to know my opinion.

What I was hurt about, was, as I said, that persons should think me capable of holding an office in the Church, and yet countenancing and living familiarly with those who were seceding from it. I do not see how this could be without treachery. The very fact that I hold a living ought to show people that I am necessarily in the service of the English Church.

Commenting on the foregoing admission by Newman of his misgivings and their grounds, Pusey anxiously replies:--

E. B. P. TO REV. J. H. NEWMAN.

                                                                                     [Margate, undated, end of Aug., 1842.]

One must fear that very many, through misbelief or unbelief, do lose much of the privilege of the Holy Communion in our Church; and yet it seems as though to pious Low Church people what is lacking in knowledge is often supplied by love, and that the grace of the Sacra–ment is conveyed to them, even while they know not what It is. I have been struck, at least, by finding what a deep and real joy It has been to many who are least informed, who knew not What they were receiving, and yet coming to their Lord, had that saying fulfilled in them, 'He that cometh unto Me.' I hope, then, that what you mean is, that you have misgivings lest much of the privileges of the Sacra–ments be forfeited by individuals in our Church through the heresy tolerated in her, not that they are, through the condition of our Church, withheld from any who believe, and seek to live aright…

The correspondence marks a point in the divergence which was gradually taking place in their minds respecting the claims of the English Church. Pusey by turns en–deavoured to arrest it, and to shut his eyes to it; but there it was--full of portent for the coming years.

The summer months produced a long succession of Episcopal Charges, which were little calculated to relieve Pusey's anxieties. Newman, who had an eye to all that was going on, kept Pusey duly informed of them. On August 20th he writes:--

'The Bishop of Worcester's Charge is the worst specimen of all. He says the Rubrics must not be adhered to with "Chinese"exactness.'

Four days later:--

'You see two more Bishops, Hereford and Worcester, have joined the growing consensus of the Bench against Catholic truth. Hereford spoke of the "Nicene"era as " semi-heathen"till some one reminded him that the Apostles' age was wholly heathen. Neither Charge can have any weight, except with those who consider that the consensus of the Bishops is the voice of the Church.'

In two cases the more prominent Episcopal assailants of the Tracts were removed by death. At the beginning of the year, Dr. Shuttleworth, Bishop of Chichester, and in August, Dr. Dickinson, Bishop of Meath, died before delivering their Charges. 'What a most solemn, sobering event,' wrote Newman to Pusey on Jan. 13th, 'the Bishop of Chichester's death is! I don't think anything has happened in my time which has so struck me.' Seven months later: 'You saw the Bishop of Meath's death, Dr. Dickinson, your antagonist. He was to have delivered a Charge against the Tracts the day he died.' Pusey thought he saw in these solemn events a token of God's presence with the Church of England: 'It is awfully strange how two of these Charges were withheld. It looks like, "Thus far shalt thou go.”'

The Episcopal Charges would have had comparatively little effect if only Pusey and Newman had been still of one mind. But Newman has told us that from the date of the Jerusalem Bishopric he was, as regards membership with the English Church, 'on his deathbed.' He had shifted his ground in defending the position of the English Church. He 'sunk his theory to a lower level.' What could be said

'after the Bishops' Charges? after the Jerusalem "abomination”? Well, this could be said: still we were not petty; we could not be as if we had never been a Church; we were "Samaria."This then was that lower level on which I placed myself and all who felt with me at the end of 1841.'

Among these Pusey could not be reckoned. He did not think of the English Church as 'Samaria'; and yet he was unwilling to admit even to himself, and much more to admit to others, the growing difference with his friend. His love for, and personal loyalty to Newman, his hope against appearances that Newman was still where he had been until 1841, prevented his answering appeals to explain himself; since such explanation might too easily have increased the existing divergence from his friend. Yet there was no mistaking the significance of such an appeal as Hook had made to him in the early part of the year. It represented a temper of mind which might have been conciliated at the time, but which, if treated with apparent reserve or neglect, threatened serious alienation

REV. DR. HOOK TO E. B. P.

                                                                                                                              Jan. 31, 1842.

I do wish you and Newman would just point out to us what is your standing-point--the position you have decided to take. At present the whole system seems so nearly that of attacking the Church of England and palliating the Church of Rome. If you will take your ground on the Caroline divines, or anywhere, so that it may be fixed, men's minds would be calmed. Alas! now I see and hear from all quarters of a most strong reaction against Church principles, and of indiscretions on the part of our friends. Oh! for a few months of peace. 

                                             I am your truly affectionate friend,

                                                                                                     W. F. HOOK.

This difficulty was increased when Roman Catholics began to express to him the hope, natural enough to persons in their position, that the Movement would lead people to join the Roman Church. Not only undistin–guished members of the Roman Church, but theologians like Dollinger--at that time little thinking that he would ever be alienated from the See of St. Peter by definitions of an impossible infallibility attaching to it--wrote to Pusey in this sense:--

DR. IGN. VON DÖLLINGER TO E. B. P.

[Translation.]

 

                                                                                                    Bad Kreuth, Sept. 4, 1842.

VERY HONOURED SIR,

I dare say I do not tell you anything new when I mention that in Germany also all eyes--of Protestants as well as of Roman Catholics--are turned in fear and hope towards Oxford; it becomes more and more probable that your great and memorable movement will have essential influence also on the course of religious development in Germany. As a matter of course, and you will most likely not expect it otherwise, all the voices of German Protestantism express their most decided disapproval of your direction, while on the Catholic side a proportionally increasing sympathy is shown. I have read almost all your works, most particularly also your Letter to the Bishop of Oxford and what you have written about Tract 90, and though some passages were painful to me or seemed to me erro–neous, there is far more in them with which I can entirely agree, nay--what seemed to be written out of my own soul. With the greatest interest I read, I even devour, the numbers of the British Critic as soon as they arrive here; also the works of Newman, and the excellent book by Faber, 'Sights and Thoughts,' &c. From all these writings I retain such an impression, that I feel almost inclined to call out: 'Tales cum sitis, jam nostri estis,' or if you like it better thus: 'Tales cum sitis, jam vestri sumus!' Everything, with us in Germany also, points more and more distinctly towards a great religious Consummatio, towards a drawing together of kindred elements, and of a corresponding separation of those which are not akin. Once more, and most probably for the last time, the attempt is now made in Germany to assert again the old Protestantism of the Symbolical Books; but the Union, established by Prussia, has deeply wounded it, and on the other side the corrosive poison of Hegel's Pantheism, in union with the destructive criticism of the Bible, is spreading inces–santly. Even the Protestant theological faculty at Tübingen, formerly the chief support of the still positive Christian Theology in Protestant Germany, is now almost completely in the hands of Hegel's party!....

May I now ask you to express to Mr. Newman in my name the especial respect which his writings have raised in me? Gladden me very soon again with a letter, and be convinced that every commission from you will always be a source of pleasure for me.

                                                  Entirely yours,

                                                           I. DÖLLINGER.

The unexpected death of Dr. Arnold on Sunday, June 12, 1842, withdrew one of the keenest opponents of the Oxford Movement, whose character invested his opposition with high moral interest. This is not the place to discuss either his influence on religion in England, or the consequences of his somewhat early death. It was however, as a matter of course, followed by a proposal to erect a memorial to him of some kind; and Newman, Pusey, and Keble, as old Fellows of Oriel, discussed whether they could con–sistently subscribe. Keble was first applied to. It was characteristic of the generosity of the three friends, that in spite of the somewhat outrageous imputations and attacks Dr. Arnold had made on them in his famous article, they were not unwilling to subscribe to a memorial so long as it did not identify the University with Arnold's Latitu–dinarian Theology. They fully appreciated Arnold's work in improving Public School education. They were ready to support a memorial at Rugby. In the event, the difficulty was postponed. The money subscribed was applied to the foundation of scholarships to be enjoyed by Dr. Arnold's sons in succession; and, in 1850, it was divided between the erection of a new library at Rugby and the foundation of the Arnold Historical Essay at Oxford. When at last the acceptance of the Oxford prize was proposed to Convocation, the serious events of 1845 had rendered those who might have deprecated it powerless for all purposes of organized resistance.

The year 1842 closed amidst increasing difficulties and apprehensions of difficulty. The Heads of Houses took up a position more and more hostile. The Provost of Oriel refused to give the necessary college testimonials for candi–dates for Holy Orders to young men of the highest character, except on the condition of rejecting Tract 90. Another Head of a House, who had known Pusey well, refused to look at him when they met in the street. Another declined to receive into his college any of the young men to whom Pusey had offered board and lodgings. These things would not have mattered, if there had not been an anxiety of a graver kind. Newman resolved publicly to retract the 'declamation' in which he had indulged against the Church of Rome. He called it declamation as distinct from argument; it expressed un–reasoning passion rather than deliberate judgments of the mind, and a man need not be on his way to Rome, or other than an attached member of the English Church, in order to regret language which, however sanctioned by the usages of bygone controversy, is condemned by most sensitive consciences--whatever be their religious convic–tions--in our own day. But Newman had in his published writings called the Church of Rome a 'lost Church' ; he had spoken of the 'Papal apostasy'; he had feared that the Council of Trent had bound the Roman Communion to the 'cause of Antichrist'; it was 'infected with heresy,' 'spell-bound as if by an evil spirit'; in the seat of St. Peter 'the evil spirit had throned itself and ruled.' There are other expressions to the same effect, which a sensible and reverent man might well wish not to have employed without thereby implying a tendency to Roman Catholicism.

Newman has, in later years, assigned to this retractation a place in the Romeward movement of his mind; but at the time it need not have implied more than a desire to review ill-considered or intemperate language. Newman announced the publication to Pusey.

REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO E. B. P.

                                                                                                                    Littlemore,

                                                                                                 The Martyrdom, [Jan. 30], 1843.

I very much fear you will think it necessary that I should ask your pardon for something I have been doing, as if it were rash--but my conscience would not stand out. You have before now truly said that I have said far severer things against Rome than yourself--and I am so sure of it that I have thought I ought to unsay them. This I did about six weeks or two months ago, and I believe what 1 have said is in the periodicals--but I have not seen it yet. I have said nothing of course on doctrinal points, but only as to abuse. You stand on very different grounds, and have to unsay nothing. I would not take advice of any one, because I wished to have the sole respon–sibility...

Pusey's love of and trust in, Newman led him to make the best of an act which, had he been consulted, he would have deprecated.

E. B. P. TO REV. J. H. NEWMAN.

                                                                                                               Christ Church,

                                                                                               Feast of the Purification, 1843.

I always think you have good reason for what you do and should not venture to think you 'rash.' In the present case, Ward had, through F. Barker, prepared me to see something which would give me subject for reflection, but I was not surprised. It seemed to me simply that you thought a certain tone of speaking against Rome or Roman doctrine wrong, and that you wished publicly to avow what you thought wrong. But it seemed also as though you did not think any form of speaking against Roman doctrine wrong (as Ward, I believe, does) since you did not retract certain expressions in the same sentences, which did speak against it, but more gently.

As you have mentioned the subject, I may as well say, what does perplex some friends (I do not mean of Jelf's or Hook's school), and to which Ward gives an edge which you did not mean. This is in the last sentences, in which you do not speak of Anglican doctrine as decidedly tenable, but only as the strongest position against Roman doctrine, as the only tenable position, if any be so. And you expressly say no more than a Roman Catholic does. You probably know that there are those who watch at every expression of yours to make it as Romanizing, or as mistrustful of our position in the abstract, as they can, so to identify you with themselves. I do not mean by this mis–trust, merely the doubt whether we can, while insulated, be altogether in a healthy condition (for this I do not think myself), but the doubt whether our Church will hold. Such a doubt I conceive you would not have expressed, it being contrary to your principle to express doubts, while only such. However, I fear some friends will be dismayed.

Friends are also perplexed as to the form of your letter, the singularity of your apparently writing to a newspaper (since they have headed it 'to the Editor'), the distance of date, so that some have denied its genuineness, others think it must have some further meaning than they see. Its form throws an air of mystery about it. I wish it had rather been in the British Critic, and perhaps it might yet be thrown into a form, removing those perplexities, in the next number. I fear we must make up our mind for perplexity, but good must come in the end from an act of conscience. I did not for a moment wish it otherwise.

                                                             Ever yours very affectionately,

                                                                                               E. B. PUSEY.

This letter distressed Newman, for he had read it hurriedly, and overlooked the fact that Pusey was not taking the part of unfriendly critics, but pleading for puzzled friends.

REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO E. B. P.

                                                                                                              Friday, Feb. 3, 1843.

  I am very much vexed that you should have heard of the matter you write about from any one but me, but it is not my fault.

A letter, containing the proof, instead of coming to me, got into Bloxam's hands, who knew nothing about it, and he, most incautiously, instead of sending it to me, published it to the Oxford world, while I knew not that others knew it. Else, Ward knew no more of it than any one else.

Nothing was further from my wish than to imply any doubt about the Anglican theory--but I had rather not speak at all on a subject, which I have done as a matter of conscience. If persons will criticize the mode, let them. They have criticized me too often already, for me to be called on to justify myself to them. If you are asked, the simple case is that you knew nothing about it. Please say I am obstinate and dangerous and impracticable.

P.S.--If all the Bishops will censure me personally, it is not wonderful (by-the-by) that I have my quid pro quo: I have no character to lose.

Pusey had no difficulty in setting matters right.

E. B. P. TO REV. J. H. NEWMAN.

MY VERY DEAR NEWMAN,                                             Saturday morning, Feb. 4, 1843.

I must have written very awkwardly and implied a good deal which I did not mean; for I have given you pain somehow. What I wrote was from myself; any perplexities I alluded to were from persons who look up to you unfeignedly and have been formed by you in God's Hands.

I am sorry that I alluded to W[ard]; but I did not refer to what you allude to, of which I know nothing.

I really do not think you know how much people love and respect you, and what sympathy they feel with you. I should never have written about persons who 'criticize'; it was on account of persons who were perplexed; persons younger than yourself, who look up to you and did not know how much you meant.

I felt satisfied that you did not mean to imply any doubt about Anglican views; nor, do I think, ought others; I only meant that some would have liked to have known more explicitly that you did not.

Forgive my troubling you thus; do not think or say any more of what I have said; I have wished I could have had some share of your trials. But I have not been worthy of them.

If I may say so, God bless you in them.

                                             Your very affectionate and grateful friend,

                                                                                                E. B. PUSEY.

Newman replied by sending a copy of his 'Retractation' to Pusey. He would not write to Keble: he had not heart for it. Pusey, he thought, did not understand one of his greatest troubles, which was that younger persons trusted him who should not. 'Intimate friends,' he added, 'have made it a reproach against me that I use words in my writings which are formally true in my sense, but which in their effect are far more anti-Roman, "keeping the word of promise to the ear," but "breaking it to the hope.”' Pusey's anxiety was to rally him from this despondency, and to restore him to confidence in his position and his work.

E. B. P. TO REV. J. H. NEWMAN.

MY VERY DEAR NEWMAN,                                                     Monday [Feb. 6, 1843].

I am very sorry to find that, if I understand your note right, you feel circumstances connected with your letter so much. I am writing to K. and can say all you would say. Indeed all will be well, though, at first, pain must attend all sacrifice and acts of conscience in propor–tion as they are such. Anyhow, young men ought to trust you, and must trust you, and cannot help it; it is plainly part of God's appoint–ment; He draws people around you, in the first instance against your will, in a way in which they are drawn around no other; and since such is His will, it will be yours to accept it. I suppose if it were not a cross to you, it would not be so, or be safe. But since it is so, you will accept it and all it involves.

                                                       Ever yours very affectionately,

                                                                                          E. B. PUSEY.

I do not think, if such be your feeling, that you need think that you have put K. in a perplexing position, as though he ought to do the same as you have done. On looking back to some things which I have written, I certainly am shocked to find the words 'Rome, a seat of Anti-Christ,' though never used in its strongest sense. Still, unless some fitting opportunity offered, I should not do anything, thinking it probably forgotten, and to go out of my way to do it now, would look something forced and systematic. It seems to me both right in you to do it, because it was in your mind; and right in me not to do it, because I could not do it naturally.

To Keble, Pusey expressed his fear that Newman was 'sadly harassed by the condemnation of Bishops, and by things said on one side and the other, so that something soothing might be of use to him.' He added:--

                                                                                                                 'Feb. 6, 1843.

'N.'s letter seems to me only a withdrawing of language which always surprised me, as being so much bolder than any I should have ventured upon. It seemed to me to belong to a mind of so much greater power and grasp than mine that he could venture to speak what was altogether beyond me. The letter is evidently a withdrawal of a certain tone of speaking only, since, in Tract 38, he leaves unnoticed language in which he used milder terms (I suppose the whole passage was the adoption of Bishop Hall's language). Alto–gether I do not see that people ought to be disturbed about it. C. Marriott said, he was "very glad of it.”'

A last illustration of the troubles of this period may be supplied by Pusey's letter to the Rev. W. Gresley. In this letter we see the equable spirit, based on his firm con–fidence in God, which enabled Pusey to hold his ground in a period of such weary anxiety. Mr. Gresley had written about a person who was tempted to go over to the Church of Rome.

E. B. P. TO REV. W. GRESLEY.

Christ Church, Feb. 11, 1843.

Your letter, though very painful, was welcome. It is very sad to see persons, who might do the most good in our Church, tempted to leave it; but it is a trial which they and we have to go through. Stirring times are times of trial. God purifies the Church by shaking it. He says 'I will shake the earth,' and when He shaketh it, some will be terrified, not awed only, others will be shaken out. We have been brought to see some of our own practical deficiencies; it was necessary to our restoration; but it requires often a very submissive heart and firm faith to see and feel these keenly, and yet not be shaken. And so they are continually the most serious minds which are shaken. And we have much need to pray for each other, when the foundations are thus shaken. Yet most earnest-minded persons have stood at last, and so, I trust, will your friend.

                *                          *                        *                         *                           *

If I may offer you any advice, I should say that I have found in such cases the most efficacious way to be, first to find out whether there be not something amiss in themselves which gave them the first bias, e.g. if they have exposed themselves to influences which were not intended for them, as the visiting of convents, or institutions, or attending services out of curiosity, or trying to form an estimate of the holiness of different portions of the Church, to which no one is equal; or again, entering into controversy for which they were not fitted; or again, speaking lightly or rashly against things in their own Church, without due humility. I have generally found, in such cases, that people have been able to trace their first bias towards leaving their Church to something wrong in themselves.

Then, generally speaking, to persons in this frame of mind, anything said against the Church of Rome is rather irritating and does harm. It would also mostly lead them into topics of controversy of which they are not judges. Controversy too is a bad element.

But what is really calculated to win and to awe people are the manifest tokens that God is present with our Church, raising her from the dust, restoring her, calling her and her sons to more devoted service, fitting her, as a whole, for some higher office, which He has in store for her. No one can doubt this. All eyes everywhere are on our Church. All, however they interpret it, acknowledge that there is a great work going on within her. It is going on everywhere, in all her parts; in, Scotland, America, all her colonies; one may say in every district and village a work of restoration is manifestly going on. It is one work everywhere; the same course and the same difficulties, the same kind of restoration, the same longings for a higher life, the same doctrines and practices anew brought into life; the same thwarting from the world or from imperfect religionism, and the same gradual winning of and from them and leavening of them: the same trials of those who, whether laymen or clergy, bear witness to the truth, the same temptations to leave the Church for Romanism; so that at the foot of the Alleghanies you might fancy yourself so far (an American said to me) at Oxford. All this and so much more is an indication that God is acting upon our Church as a whole; wherever He is leading the Church, people must feel He is leading her as a Church; so that one who is least disposed to bear with our actual defects, and whose centre of unity is Rome, said, 'elsewhere it seems as though it were ordered that individuals should be gathered in one by one; with our Church God seems to be dealing as a whole.' And this is the more manifest, since it is not that certain individuals are being led in a certain way; the work which is going on is varied, different in degree, often in form; amidst opposition, opposers and opposed are being led alike; those who are unconsciously opposing truth, are being won by the truth, which in the error they mistake for it, they oppose: or while opposing one truth, they are caught by another; or their minds are being deepened, and prepared for it unconsciously. Or, to look to acts, what new life do such large plans as the Bishop of London's Metropolis Churches Fund, the Colonial Bishoprics, imply in the Church; or again the restoration of Daily Services, of more frequent Communions, of Fasting, even of single Prayers, as the Church Militant, the Offertory. It seems as if everywhere the Church were awakening, and putting on her jewels, and preparing to meet her Lord. Everything is restoration and life, even amid seeming death.

But where restoration and life are, there is the presence of the Holy Spirit, the restoring look of her Lord. And where her Lord is, there it is safe to be, and unsafe to leave. In the words of Mr. Newman's awing appeals, 'If in your Church you have found Christ, why seek Him elsewhere? If you leave the place where He has manifested Himself to you, are you sure that you shall find Him?' Where the Lord has a work to be done, there every one [is] in his place and order, however humbly he may think of himself or his office. No one knows what he may not disarrange by leaving it. One may with reverence say, 'Except these abide in the ship.' They may as far as in them lies be going contrary to God and marring His work, or losing their share in it, and their crown. It is not for me to judge those who have gone from us, but in all the cases which I have known, I have seen both a wrong temper even among much good, leading them away, and in some cases, very painful ill fruits of their secession. On the other hand it is very remarkable how really earnest persons have been in great peril of going, and perhaps just been saved, and then been rooted in our Church, sometimes withheld by means preter–natural, so that both those who have stayed and those who have gone have been tokens the more where duty lies.

I have written much of this in greater haste than I should wish, but if it can be likely to be of any use to you, pray use it as you wish.

I have more which I wished to write about what I should call specially your School, who seem to me not sufficiently alive to our actual defects and so are too apologetic, and lose influence by not admitting what ought plainly to be admitted. But it may be enough to have hinted this.

                                                                      Yours most faithfully,

Cathedral-time.                                                                                  E. B. PUSEY.

But Pusey's confidence in the Church of England was mingled with the trouble which lay heavy on his heart. He could not but be pained by observing Newman's distress at the course which things were taking. New–man knew that Pusey felt thus, and he had tried to spare him by saying nothing about his protest against the Jerusalem Bishopric, and his retractations. But such expedients are apt to defeat their object: the heart out–strips the understanding in quick-sightedness.

E. B. P. TO REV. J. H. NEWMAN.

 Tuesday in the 3rd week in Easter,

                                                                                                                                     May 2, 1843.

I wished if I could to have written a few lines to you on Easter eve. It comes heavily to me sometimes, to think that some of the miserable judgements passed upon you, and the sad want of sympathy (in some) with you (more than e.g. with myself), must at times be wearisome to you. I have wished to obtain some share of what has fallen pecu–liarly upon you, but I have not been worthy. I wished, in wishing you the Easter joys, which I was sure you would have, to say that I had, infinitely rather than the whole world, have all the judgements, harsh speeches, suspicion, mistrust which have fallen upon you, only that I am not fit for them. I hoped, in whatever degree you may at times feel them, which I can only conjecture, it might be cheering that one who loves you thinks them a portion of your treasure.

                                                                    Ever yours most affectionately,

                                                                                                        E. B. PUSEY.

Pusey's wish was to be fulfilled sooner than he anticipated. Before a fortnight had passed from the date of this letter be had preached the condemned sermon.

 

Project Canterbury