CHAPTER III.

 

THE JERUSALEM BISHOPRIC--BISHOP GOBAT' S

APPOINTMENT--SCHEMES FOR EXTENSION OF UNIVERSITY

EDUCATION--ILLNESS AT TENBY.

 

1846.

 

IT was indeed a moment of relief to Pusey when he found that the truths which he had so boldly stated in his sermon were not to be immediately and directly assailed. But it was a relief in only one direction. The tide of secessions continued; the attitude of the authorities was generally hostile; many hearts were in consequence failing in love and loyalty to the English Church. And, amidst it all, the unhappy complication about the Jerusalem Bishopric was revived, and that in an intenser form.

It will be remembered that when in 1841 it was proposed that a Bishopric at Jerusalem should be established, Pusey had at first tried to make the best of the experiment. Therein he differed widely from Newman, who has de–scribed the scheme as the blow which finally shattered his faith in the Anglican Church. Fuller reflection and a rude experience of its effects on the minds of others, and pre-eminently on Newman, had led Pusey to pray earnestly that it might be abandoned at the first opportunity.

After holding the office between four and five years, Dr. Alexander, the first Bishop, died suddenly on Nov. 23, 1845. According to the terms of the agreement between the British and Prussian Governments, the nomination to the vacant post now rested with the latter. On March 7, 1846, Baron Bunsen wrote to the Rev. S. Gobat, offering him the succession to Dr. Alexander, and assuring him that the King of Prussia' s presentation had the  'unconditional appro–bation'  of the British Government, and would receive the  'canonical sanction'  of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The offer was accepted.

Mr. Gobat had been employed in Abyssinia by the Church Missionary Society while a Lutheran pastor, and had pub–lished a Journal of his work which shewed how little alive be was to such doctrinal questions as would certainly con–front him at Jerusalem. At this moment, however, he was in Deacon' s orders in the Church of England, having been ordained by Bishop Blomfield in August, 1845.

Pusey felt it a matter of duty not to acquiesce in Mr. Gobat' s appointment. He hoped not only to prevent it, but to get rid of the Bishopric altogether. With this view he appealed to Mr. Gladstone, asking him to write a letter to Dr. Mill, who was Chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and was anxious to shew the Archbishop any evidences he could of the feeling of sound Churchmen on the subject.

E. B. P. TO THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P.

Clifton, Thursday in Holy Week [April 9], 1846.

What a misery it would be if the ultimate object of the Prussian Government were attained, and they were to receive Episcopacy from us, and we were to become the authors of an heretical Succession. I should think it would split the English Church at once; it would put one, if one lived to see it, in a most distressing position. To be alive to heresy is a mark of full soundness of faith. To give Epis–copacy to Prussia now, or even to prepare for it, is like arraying a corpse, or whitening a sepulchre. Surely, while they are struggling for the very elements of the faith, recovering what they can, indifferent about some doctrines, hostile to others, it would be very miserable to mix ourselves up with them or commit to them so sacred a deposit.

Then, for our relations with the Eastern Churches, I suppose the persons who would be likely to be chosen would be the very unfittest. From our long unacquaintance with Eastern heresies and the very nature of them, and our want of teaching in the theologia and the very popular character of our own practical system, it is to be feared that most among us would be very little able to engage in intercourse with the Eastern heresies, especially the Monophysite.

Yours most faithfully and obliged,

                                                 E. B. PUSEY.

Mr. Gladstone had, like Pusey, originally approved of the plan, and had also for some time ceased to support it. He replied to Pusey that he agreed in thinking that the continuance of the Bishopric at Jerusalem boded little good and more evil to the English Church, while it tended in no degree towards improving Lutheranism. Still, while recommending immediate resistance to the appoint–ment of Bunsen' s nominee, he deprecated any attempt at present to get rid of the Bishopric, and suggested that it had better be left either to die a natural death or to be altered so as to render it  'safe instead of slippery.'

Pusey could not bring himself to take Mr. Gladstone' s advice. He was not prepared to acquiesce in the consecra–tion of a second Bishop, and to limit his efforts to the object of securing a proper appointment. On the day of his receiving Mr.. Gladstone' s letter he wrote the subjoined letter to the Rev. B. Harrison, requesting him to place it before the Archbishop of Canterbury.

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

 

Clifton, Easter Monday [April 13], 1846.

MY DEAR HARRISON,

I have an anxious subject to write upon, on which I know you must think differently from me, but on which I wish only to state facts, the Jerusalem Bishopric. I seem to have the fate of Cassandra; yet I must do what in me lies, and leave things to God. These things make me fainthearted sometimes, so as to create a sort of doubt,  'Are these persons whom I am anxious to see retained in our Communion, after all, to go? is it God' s will? and am I perhaps striving ignorantly against His will in trying to detain them? I see what is likely to shake them and say so, and still it is done; and they are shaken and at last they go. Am I not simply wasting time in trying to do any–thing?'  You, I believe, thought so long ago. Yet what can one do if one sees people who love our Church, and wish to serve her, shaken? One cannot without a pang see those go who wish to serve God in her. I know not how much you know of the feelings or mind of those who have left us, or whom we are in danger of losing. They have not mostly been. what are called Romanizers, i. e. they have not been drawn to Rome, but frightened from ourselves. Dear N. said to me (it must be some few three or four years past, I think),  'I feel less against Rome, now I see less chance of escaping it,'  or to this effect; i. e. (as I interpreted it), the more he feared about the English Church, the more he was obliged to submit his mind to the doctrines of the Roman, which was his only alternative. It was a long struggle. He clung to our Church. The doctrine as to St. Mary was a difficulty to him for years. I believe (and so does another friend who saw him even closer than I), that the Jerusalem Bishopric was that which struck the blow from which he never recovered. He said, that nothing which was said by any of those who wrote upon it came near the depth of the ground on which he deprecated it. That same feeling still exists in others. I feel all this the more deeply, because I was misled by Bunsen myself in the first instance; and now when people speak of it, and how others are shaken by it, it is like  'a sword in my bones.'  One whom we both love said to me a short time past, himself pale and agitated,  'If the Bishops did but know the feeling there is about the Jerusalem Bishopric, their hands would tremble while they consecrated another Bishop.'  He is one who knows the minds of many who are distressed, more than even myself. He said to me, what I said just now,  'They who will leave us will not be Romanizers, but persons pressed by the doctrine of unity, and dis–tressed by things among ourselves.'   'They are not in the least prepared for Roman doctrine in itself; they will receive it, because they cannot do otherwise, on authority.'

Such is a state of things which I cannot but wish respectfully made known to the Archbishop; you know my own grateful feelings to him, and so does he himself; he cannot think I could write or mean any–thing but what is entirely respectful; and so, while this letter is confidential from any one else, I should be glad if it could be made known to the Archbishop.

Things have seemingly much changed since the first appointment was made; we have seen more of the Prussian temper and what they mean by it, and that the statements of Bunsen and Abeken are no index whatever, of the mind of their countrymen. It does not seem to be a straightforward proceeding on the part of the K[ing] of Pr[ussia] towards the English Church. It is not a people asking at the hands of the English Church what we have and they have not; they plainly look on this as a concession on our part, not on theirs; as if we were coming down to their level, not they rising to ours. It is a recognition of Evangelicalism on our part, not of the necessity, or even expediency, of Episcopacy on theirs. We commit ourselves to Lutheranism; the King of Prussia alone commits himself to Episcopacy. The Jerusalem Bishopric is a sort of experiment on the part of the King of Prussia, how far his subjects can be familiarized to Episcopacy, as a better sort of government than their own, without any idea of any spiritual gift through it. But were this to succeed, things would be far worse. A jealous heedfulness against inter–mingling with heretics has, you know, always been a mark of the Church. To be the parent of an heretical Succession would be very miserable. Yet I suppose there would scarcely be an individual among the German Protestants who holds the true doctrine of the Sacraments, or the Nicene Creed as it was held by the Fathers at Nicaea. And this is one thing which people feel so keenly. Whereas the English Church has, since the separation, always been rising upwards towards the early Church, this is mingling her with those whom the early Church would have counted heretical.

The other parties with whom the Jerusalem Bishopric connects us seem to me no less dangerous. It would require almost Apostolic wisdom not to commit us very dangerously in such varied relations. The expectations of those who in this country most speak of the Jews, seem more likely to terminate in Anti-Christ than in Christ. Certainly, as far as there is ground to believe, with many of the Fathers, that Anti- Christ will arise out of the Jews, the present expectations of the Jews, encouraged by these their friends, directly tend that way. Then for our intercourse with the E[ast]. You are, I believe, much interested in this. Yet what immeasurable evil one step in a wrong direction might do! You well know how little of theologians (strictly so called) our clergy mostly are, and least of all the persons likely to be thought of on account of other parts of their office. Their theology is professedly so popular, that what was part of the faith to the Ancient Church is to them mere speculation. Thus M. Gobat (who I see is spoken of) writes in his Abyssinian Journal as though the Monophysites were only in the wrong, because they thought at all upon the subject of their heresy, and that the Church was equally wrong on its side (such at least is my memory of the book). Now besides the actual mischief of such an one being a Bishop at all, consecrated through our Church, what almost certainty there is that he would commit us in some way with the Monophysites. You re–collect probably how, a few years ago, some of the United States Bishops did receive a Nestorian Bishop into Communion (and would have gone further, had he not, by God' s Providence, shown his char–acter further), and what scandal it produced. And what a shock this again would be in our Church.

I did hope that the sudden death of Bishop Alexander might be of God' s Providence, to put an end to the Jerusalem Bishopric. There seems to have been a blight upon it. It yielded no fruit. The changed position of the Germans and the dislike to it on the part of many in the English Church seemed a ground why the Archbishop might withdraw, and not use his personal power of giving the Succession, or consecrating a Bishop, without the advice of the whole English Church.

However, I am merely to state facts. We shall have losses still. But the minds of some are tranquillized. Yet everything depends upon our having peace. When people' s minds are in such a state as they now are, every breath does harm. If nothing new happens, I hope they may become more firmly rooted. But the loss of dear Newman has been an intense shock. You would be frightened if you knew how deep and wide the shock has been, or who, or what sort of people, know not what• will become of them hereafter, although they see no definite time of going. Yet, as I said, I do hope they might get rooted, if nothing new happens. But it is of the intensest import–ance that things should be still. In a drought any breath will carry off leaves which, if space were given, might again be green and render their office in the tree which bears them.

I cannot say what an exceeding blessing a suspension of the Jeru–salem Bishopric would be. I hope to pray earnestly for it. It would make one breathe again.

I am sure that if the Archbishop were to read M. Gobat' s Abys–sinian Journal he could not consecrate him; so people say, who would make a public protest against it, if done. But this is only a part of the evil. I feel as [if] I could bless God more fervently for the suspension of the Jerusalem Bishopric than for the life of a dying child: by how much the Church must be dearer to one than one' s own life or one' s child.

You will present my best respects to His Grace.

                           All Easter blessing be with you.

                                                 Ever yours affectionately,

                                                                                       E. B. P.

Pusey' s correspondent was not sympathetic. He thought that love of the Church of Rome had had more to do with Newman' s secession than repulsion for the Church of England. If the Prussians did not wish for Episcopacy, the King of Prussia did, and that was the matter of main concern. To give up the Bishopric, when an English Bishop had died, in order to prevent the appointment of a Prussian, would be held to be bad faith by the Prussian Government. Mr. Harrison could not think that the Jews would be worse for having a Bishop; and the grace of Consecration, together with the influence of Lambeth, might be trusted to enable such a Bishop to deal wisely and faithfully with Eastern heretics. If the Jerusalem Bishopric had not achieved much, there was the less reason for interfering with it. With regard to Mr. Gobat' s theological opinions, as expressed in his published  'Journal of a Three Years'  Residence in Abyssinia,'  Mr. Harrison attempted to gloss over the real character of his statements, without any clear appreciation of the questions involved in them. As a matter of fact Mr. Gobat had used language which suggested that he treated the doctrine of the Church on the subject of our Lord' s two Natures as a matter of indifference.

Pusey was deeply grieved at the contents and the tone of this letter. In spite of hopeful anticipations at the time of his appointment, he had said  'We shall lose Harrison if he goes to Lambeth' ; and he feared that his words were now being fulfilled, and that his pupil was not unaffected by that temptation to make compromises of principle, which no doubt sometimes besets those who are concerned in the delicate complexities of Church administration.

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

Third Sunday after Easter [May 3], 1846.

I conclude you did not expect an answer to your letter; you mistook mine in some things, but it is not of any moment to remove the impression, whatever it was. We seem like persons, communi–cating facts or impressions to the other, as a sort of duty; neither expecting, or hardly, to produce any effect on the other' s mind; and each probably pained by what the other says: I should be exceed–ingly, if I thought you could really apologize for Mr. Gobat' s lan–guage. Looking upon you as a representative of a class, as every one is, more or less, it would go far to make me despond as to our yet seeing even the dawn of any better day for the English Church.

Marriott, W. H. Mill, Church, J. B. Mozley, Scott of Hoxton, and others joined Pusey in his efforts. But their efforts and representations were apparently powerless. It was announced that Mr. Gobat was to be ordained Priest by the Bishop of London in St. Paul' s Cathedral on Trinity Sunday. This gave the opportunity of raising a formal protest at the time of the ordination against Mr. Gobat' s published opinions. But Pusey was obviously not the person to make that objection.

E. B. P. to REV. J. KEBLE.

Whit Tuesday, June 2 [1846].

It is not for such as I to suggest anything to you. However Dodsw[orth] has been told that M. Gobat is to be a candidate for Ordination as Priest next Sunday by the Bishop of London at St. Paul' s.

It would be very miserable if he were to be ordained without any protest thus publicly in the face of the English Church. It would be impossible afterwards to do anything: But I know not how people are to sit still, and think that those words of appeal in the Ordination Service are to be said and none to answer. There seems something which one would wish to avoid in the London clergy opposing the act of their own Bishop, i. e. one would rather have it done by others, if it could. But on an emergency D[odsworth] would do it.

He mentioned to me the former objection that it was recognizing the Jerusalem Bishopric, but this would not be so now, since this is an objection to his being admitted to the Order of Priesthood in the English Church until he have publicly recanted heresy publicly put forth.

Could you do it by yourself or in conjunction with others? Dods–worth is writing to Manning and Hook, I to Gresley and Marriott, but without much hope except from Marriott. Hope would prepare any legal information which might be necessary as to the mode of proceed–ing. I suppose this occasion ought not to be missed.

Will you kindly answer D. as I am returning to Oxford, and it is important for him to know?

                              Ever your affectionate and grateful

                                                                            E. B. P.

D. thinks a letter from Judge Coleridge to the Bishop of London or Archbishop of Canterbury would be of use. If you think so, perhaps you would say so to him.

You will have had Dr. Mill' s letter speaking about an investigation; but, if this is satisfactory, i. e. if M. Gobat does disavow all heresy, the Church ought to know it. It ought to be made known before he is ordained.

To the Rev. W. Gresley Pusey wrote--after explaining the circumstances:--

 'Could you either, by yourself, or with others, appear, to allege the impediment? I should fear it would be very injurious, if one who had so publicly avowed heresy were admitted without any disavowal. It is enough to make the very stones cry out.'

It must not be supposed that the whole English Episco–pate was silently acquiescing. Dr. Phillpotts of Exeter, one of the ablest prelates on the Bench, had, on May. 25, addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury a public protest, in which he notified his dissent from the consecra–tion of another Bishop on seven grounds. He pointed out that the Bishop was not to come under all the obligations of the English Episcopate by signing the Canons, and that the  'United German Church was a new and, until these few years, an unheard-of denomination' ; that the Liturgy used by the German Protestants was  'grievously defective on more than one momentous parti–cular,'  while it was sanctioned under the terms of the Jerusalem Bishopric Scheme; and that candidates for ordination in Jerusalem, if Germans, were required to sign the Confession of Augsburg as well as the Thirty-nine Articles. Bishop Phillpotts'  objection was to the scheme of the Jerusalem Bishopric: he does not notice Mr. Gobat' s personal disqualifications.

The stir thus made so far prevailed that Mr. Gobat did not present himself in St. Paul' s on Trinity Sunday. The Bishop of London intimated that he could not ordain him to the priesthood until both he and the Archbishop were satisfied on the subject of his orthodoxy. Mr. Gobat there–upon addressed to the Bishop of London an  'explanation'  of the language in his Journal. This amounted to a retractation of its literal and obvious meaning, and was followed by his subscribing the Three Creeds and the Thirty-nine Articles, and by a statement that  'in particular he fully subscribed the language of the second Article.'  He was ordained Priest at Fulham, and five days later was consecrated Bishop at Lambeth on July 5, 1846.

Pusey, however, was by no means absorbed in ecclesias–tical controversy. He was always interested in every pro–posal to extend University education on economical lines and on Church principles. At this time he was engaged in the first of many efforts which he made in this direction, and which were at last more or less realized by the founda–tion of Keble College, in which he took so important a part.

In the summer of 1845 a large number of men, most of whom were connected with political life, were strongly im–pressed with the necessity of strengthening and extending the Universities so as to enable them to do more to meet the wants of the growing population of the country and of the empire, and so discharge their own deeper and wider responsibilities. Sir Robert Peel was greatly interested in the subject of increasing the number of undergraduates at Oxford and of reducing their expenses. Dr. Cotton, the Provost of Worcester, found the Vice-Chancellor and others favourably disposed to entertain the question; and a meeting was held at the house of Lord Sandon (after–wards Earl of Harrowby) to draw up a public statement, which ultimately assumed the form of a memorial to the Hebdomadal Board.

Philip Pusey wrote to his brother:--

 'July 20, 1845.

 'The principle will be to combine men of all parties: and there ought to be no fear of the matter falling into the hands of the Low Church, as we ought to have Halls added to many Colleges and several new Colleges built. Gladstone will no doubt take an active part in promoting it. I have mentioned you to Sandon as friendly to the plan, but should like to have your direct authority on the subject.'

Pusey at once replied at length to his brother on the subject.

E. B. P.TO PHILIP PUSEY, ESQ., M.P.

Ilfracombe, July 21, 1845.

I have no doubt whatever of the absolute need of increased education at Oxford. To take the Clergy alone; we are crippled everywhere for the want of them; it is useless to build new churches without an enlarged supply of Clergy. What is wanted everywhere and for everything is--not funds, but men. But our present supply is necessarily limited, and I should think decreasing, rather than increasing, in consequence of the openings and fresh demands for educated men elsewhere.

Still more we need an example of reducing expense. The great besetting evil of a decaying wealthy state is self-indulgence; while good has certainly wonderfully increased on the one side, since our times, yet on the other and with others so has luxury, eating out the energies of many of our young men~ and rendering them unfit for anything. On a public occasion, one of the oldest tutors of a chief College in Oxford told the young men that the prevailing vice was  'socordia,'  a listless indifference and inexertion about anything, con–nected with luxury and self-indulgent habits. Any plan which should set an example of simpler, more self-denying ways, would act most healthfully on the rest of the University. There is a very good spirit abroad, counter-working this apathy and careless self-indulgence, although I fear that of late things have rather gone back: still there is a great deal of good, which might be called out by the example of simpler ways.

And for the Clergy (to speak of what must always be a great body of the University, and on whom so much everywhere depends) inex–pensive habits are manifestly more desirable than ever. Of course, self-indulgence, besides the peril of more grievous sin, is opposed to the very first principles of a clergyman' s duty; but, I fear, the worse habits and acts have been too common, which self-indulgence naturally leads to, and which, at the best, embitter and cramp subsequent life and duty. One, much about Colleges, said to me that he used to be a Churchman, but that he had seen so much of the lives of those who were soon after ordained as Clergy, that he did not know what to think about anything. I fear he has become a sceptic, on account of the inconsistent lives of Our future Clergy.

But then, too, everything shows that we want Clergy who should live upon a little; and so God, in His Providence, is leading us this way. Ill-endowed Cures are what are chiefly multiplied. If our people are to be provided at all with Clergy, it must be with such as are content with little more than food and raiment.

But, more generally, as luxury is the decay of any state, so the antidote must be simplicity in every class.

It would then, over and above the increase of numbers, be of exceeding value to have persons living more simply, in a state of education, and would, I doubt not, act most healthfully upon our existing [Collegiate] bodies., But for this, it would be most desirable that we should have bodies so educated, in which simplicity should be the rule.

I shall be very thankful if; as you say, all can join in it. We ought all surely to have the confidence that whatever is right will, in what–ever degree, tend to advance the truth somehow, by God' s blessing. Disunion and want of natural love is our great bane. Of course, one must act, one' s self, upon one' s own principles; but whatever there is of earnestness and devotedness anywhere must be on the side of God somehow, and working secretly to His ends. With Him then I leave cheerfully the issue of all which is done for Him and His glory, know–ing that if things are not done our way, anything which is so done (which is far better) will be overruled in His.

But I shall be very glad if people, otherwise seeing things differently, can unite in any broad, large plan upon the common principles of the University and the Church. It would be one step towards healing our miserable disunion.

God bless you and all you would do for others.

Mr. Pusey replied by sending his brother a copy of the paper drawn up at Lord Sandon' s. It pointed out that University education did not keep pace with the extension and multiplication of schools or with the requirements of the Church and the country. It recommended the foundation of  'new departments in existing Colleges, or, if necessary, of new collegiate bodies.'  It suggested that  'in such institutions, if the furniture were provided by the College and public meals alone allowed to the exclusion of private entertainments, annual College payments might be reduced to £60 a year, and the total annual expense to £80.'  This paper was signed by thirty-two peers, members of Parliament, and leading clergymen. Pusey' s enthusiasm was kindled by the encouragement of self-denial and simplicity of life which was involved in the project. He replies as follows

E. B. P. TO PHILIP PUSEY, ESQ., M.P.

[Ilfracombe], July 29, 1845.

I am very glad of the paper you sent me. I cannot but hope very much from all these efforts on a large scale, and especially when the object is to foster greater simplicity and self-denial and all the habits connected with them.

I should think you were quite on the safe side in setting the total expenses at £80, but the more there are in a College, the more economical.

If you could get them to consent to open new Halls on this principle, I think you might get Heads who, for the sake of carrying out the Principle, would discharge the office gratuitously. I should think you would do best with distinct Colleges or Halls, not one College Only, but several.

However, what we most want in all these things, is to pray Him, in Whose Hands they are, to direct them. He does often give us, very wonderfully, and beyond all our expectation, what we pray for per–severingly.

May He be with you ever.

Charles Marriott, who was always interested in plans for missionary and clerical colleges, was at this time busying himself in endeavouring to interest others in the project for a new college in Oxford.

 'The earthquake,'  he wrote to Bishop Selwyn with reference to Newman' s secession,  'goes off as great earthquakes do, with smaller ones lingering behind. I think, however, that nothing falls but what was before severely shaken. In the meantime, we have some schemes for building again  " the rebellious and the bad city," especially one for a new college here, to be conducted on strict and religious principles, and, if possible, to have a will and life of its own. Some are against its being here: but I hope it will be carried. I think nothing will do us so much good.'

It was to this scheme in its early form--which never was realized--that Pusey referred in a communication to Mr. Gladstone, who had taken a leading part in the meeting at Lord Sandon' s. Pusey was afraid that the public men who were engaged in trying to extend Univer–sity education and lessen its cost, were on the one hand proposing more than could be achieved in the way of collegiate extension, and on the other were likely to forget that it is advisable that simple and inexpensive habits should have a religious motive and sanction.

E. B. P. TO RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P.

Ilfracombe [Aug. 23], 1845.

C. M. wrote this at my request, because we felt that a formation of new institutions is absolutely essential to the plan in which you have taken an interest. I am glad of everything which may be tried as an experiment, because everything which tends to increased simplicity, ipso facto, tends to good. It is in the right direction. But the mere increase of existing colleges must (1) be inadequate in amount; (2) it may very likely be one-sided. From local circumstances, very few colleges can enlarge themselves, fewer will. You know the locality of Oxford well, and how few can, except at an exceeding outlay, enlarge themselves. Of some who could, e. g. our own, or Magdalen, it is hardly to be hoped except in another century. There might then be a great danger of altering the balance of things, by the infusion of one element only; in one word, I hardly can calculate what the consequences might not be, of enlarging Worcester or Wadham (if so be) alone. But then, besides, it will be more difficult really to carry out the two systems in the same college. It was urged as a difficulty to placing the Missionary College in Oxford, that it would be in an uncongenial atmosphere, on account of the expensive habits of others, &c. I felt that its object would support it. But how much is the difficulty aggravated, if economy is the only avowed object, if there is no higher principle put forth to support it, no countenance from the Heads or Fellows living among them, nor any other aim, except to be educated cheaply, because they cannot afford to be educated expensively; instead of learning to  'bear hardness as good soldiers of Christ.'  And all this in the same college. It is to be expected that such will seek such self-indulgence as they can, because they are only to be expected to debar themselves from it, because, by the res angusta domi it is withheld by them.

If the plan is to succeed, it must be made respectable. Voluntary poverty must uphold the involuntary. One or more institutions in which all alike were poor, would keep others in countenance, in which some only were so; it would raise the  'poor students'  as a class, when some should be  'pauperes Christi.'  This, however, may be esoteric. Exoterically, it is quite impossible that the plan you and my brother wish for can be carried out, without new institutions. In mere point of numbers it cannot. In its flourishing times, Oxford was full of halls, of which there are the remains now.

Philip mentioned two objections to this: (1) that the friends of the plan would fall asunder on the question of appointments; (2) the great increase of expense.

As to (1), I think it might be met by vesting the appointment of the first Head in some one in whom all moderate people might have con–fidence, e.g. the Archbishop of Canterbury, leaving the Head to appoint the first Fellows with the sanction of the Archbishop; and if all could not agree even in this, so much of the plan might be carried on by such as do.

For (2), if the system of halls could be revived (which would be far best), there would be scarcely any additional expense, nothing worth naming. And then any of these which were good, might, as I believe of old, become colleges, [by] becoming endowed; others might con–tinue [halls]; bad ones drop through. But for this the consent of the Heads is necessary, and I know not who would have the appointment, whether the Chancellor necessarily.

Yet a college is really no such great additional expense, where people wish to live simply. Junior Studentships at Christ Church are, I think, £30 per annum. £50 would find food and raiment. A Warden then and six Fellows might be founded for £350 per annum, i.e. at 3 per cent. about £12,000. This is an odd way of calculating; however it is, I suppose, mostly, this is inversely as to their worth. This might be enough for a good-sized college.

A college, as you know, can be chartered by the Crown alone.

I am very glad to hear that you and Philip are going on a tour together in Ireland. Should you be at Pusey before for a day or two, I should be glad to get over with C. Marriott to talk over the plan with you and T. A[cland] and Philip. I am sure that we ought to have several colleges or halls, in time, if Oxford is really to be an adequate place of education.

This is only a supplement on externals to C. Marriott' s, which are the strong grounds. T. A[cland] is of course welcome to see both, if you think it worth while.

Wishing you all blessing,

                      Yours affectionately,

                                               E. B. P.

Mr. Gladstone was delighted with Marriott' s plan. Why should not the author of such a plan at once try to realize it? As to Pusey' s wish to give a religious character to the College, he suggests that it would be enough to found a frugal College without making any profession that would justify hostile minds in treating it as a novelty or peculiarity.

Marriott could not act on this suggestion until he knew whether he could get two or three such men as he wanted to help him. But the excitement and anxiety of the follow–ing October caused a temporary delay in carrying out such efforts as Mr. Gladstone proposed.

However, in the spring of 1846 the Hebdomadal Board replied to the memorial that had been presented to them by the meeting at Lord Sandon' s. Of course they agreed in the opinion that the University ought to be extended. They were however mindful that much had been done  'since the peace of 1814'  to meet the increased demand for admission. On the proposal to build and endow a new college they observed that it  'was suited rather to ancient munificence than to the economical views of modern times.'  Even if it were possible to found a new college on economical principles, it was, they held,  'little likely that a new institution would long continue better or more economical than the old. . . . In a few years the general character and regulations of any new institution would probably be as like the rest as these were like one another.'

The question of additional buildings in existing colleges was a matter for each college to decide upon. The reply was generally discouraging enough, but it contained one very good suggestion. It recommended the foundation of exhibitions to be conferred, not upon grounds of literary merit, but of poverty, character, and economical habits, for the direct purpose of aiding those and only those who needed such assistance.

Mr. Gladstone did not conceal his disappointment at this reply of the Heads of Houses. Pusey' s experience of them had prepared him to be grateful for very slight encourage–ment.

E. B. P. TO RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P.

Clifton, Thursday in Holy Week,

[April 9], 1846.

…I am almost surprised at your being disheartened by the answer of the Committee of Heads. You have been accustomed to their mode of proceeding these many years. I never expected any–thing but tolerance. They do not see their way to anything new: I hardly expected that they would. I did hope they might have con–sidered the question of  'Additional Collegiate Buildings, belonging though not attached to existing colleges,'  a sort of halls. I believe the real hindrance to this was that it required a new statute; and they are weary (at last) of all these contests, and wish to go in stillness (which is so far good). But they do not object to others founding colleges; only they say they have no faith, either that persons in these days will found colleges, or that, if founded, they would be better than those existing. I did not suppose that they would [have such faith]. If they could reduce expense in the existing colleges, they would: and what they cannot do, they do not suppose that others can. But they leave it open for people to try if they can. And this is all I ever wished from them; not to object. Let the trial be made, and we should see whether a Head who lived with and for his young men would not bring that about which they cannot, and in time raise the tone of the whole.

I do not see, then, that there is any ground to be discouraged. C. Marriott still retains his opinion strongly that much, very much, might be done. It is no difficulty that the existing Heads look coldly on the plan. The very object is, by God' s blessing, that fresh life should be infused into the body by a new institution. They offer no objection to the trial being made. The only questions then are (1) whether the Crown would charter a college poorly endowed in the first instance, with the moral certainty that it would receive enlarged endowments hereafter. (All our colleges almost have received endowments since their foundation.) (2) Whether they would leave the nomination in the first instance to the individuals who found it (the Heads, subsequently, being elected, as in other cases, by the Fellows). (3) Whether our friends could raise that moderate sum and place Marriott at the head of it. He is prepared, himself, to endow it, in part, out of his private property…

It is of no use to complain that others are lukewarm. If they allow us to act, it is our own fault if we do not.

Mr. Gladstone thought that Government would not grant a charter unless for a plan recommended by the Bishops or those highest in station. He suggested that, in the early stages of the proposed effort, the sanction of Government might be dispensed with. Pusey pleaded that many diffi–culties would vanish if Government would charter a college sanctioned by ecclesiastical authorities. The Archbishop, he thought, might be induced to sanction the experiment. But who would undertake the labour of raising contribu–tions? Pusey and Marriott would shape the plan, draw up a body of statutes, and Marriott would give himself to working it out. But then, Pusey added

E. B. P. TO RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P.

April 15, 1846.

We are not the persons to originate the plan. Our lay friends proposed a plan to the University. The Comm[ittee of the Heb–domadal Board] throw cold water on a part of it, but admit of the trial being made. Have enough. of them [i. e. the laymen who addressed the Heads of Houses] confidence enough in C. Marriott to carry out a part of the plan? Of course one cannot expect Lord Sandon, or Ashley, or Lord R. Grosvenor to join. The trial is inde–pendent of party, unless people make over self-denial as a character–istic of party. It is a great trial which C. Marriott proposes to make, whether by giving up his mind and energies to form young men, living with them, sharing their fare, &c., he can form them to a higher tone of Christian life than is common at our University. He is confident that, by God' s help, he can; and such confidence is a good earnest. Will our lay friends put him in a position so to do? He would be sacrificing much; and I should be inclined to think that it were best for him to leave matters to that issue--if our lay friends think the trial so far worth making as to take pains about it, to look on this as God' s will for him: if not, not to attempt to force his plan. But if people will not with energy carry out this plan, they have no reason to blame the Committee for their cold answer: for the Committee will only have spoken the desponding truth that whether from our divisions, the multiplicity of other objects, the fewness of those who will exercise self-denial for a great object, people will not found a new institution like our forefathers. N [ewman] can get one founded in the Roman Church; C. Marriott cannot in the English.

If you like to show this note to A[cland] or any other, pray do.

                                                                  Yours affectionately,

                                                                                         E. B. PUSEY.

Keble had heard of the answer of the Hebdomadal Board to the London laymen. He supposed that it was hopeless to attempt to establish an economical college at Oxford, and was now in favour of engrafting a department for poor students in general on the Missionary College of St. Augustine which had been lately founded at Canterbury. Pusey was alarmed at so serious a defection. Without Keble' s sanction he knew full well Marriott' s plan would have little or no chance of success.

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

Pusey, April 21.

[Tuesday in 1st week after Easter, 1846.]

I have just seen a letter from Acland to my brother embodying your doubts as to a new college at Oxford, and proposing to engraft one on St. Augustine' s. With regard to this, my misgiving would be,  'Are we prepared for missionaries at home?'  If we could once gain the idea (and I suppose it is fixing itself), that we do need for our towns, mines, manufactories, real missionaries, one might hope that a new day would dawn upon our Church.

But I do not think that this supersedes the other. We want to reform habits at the Universities themselves. St. Augustine' s will act only very indirectly on Oxford. A college in Oxford itself such us C. M[arriott] has conceived, in which the Head and Fellows should give a quid pro quo to those who would live in habits of discipline, simplicity, self-denial; living with and for those under their charge would, I trust, powerfully affect both Heads and members of other colleges. It would show that the present habits are not invincible. The change would be gradual, but it would make itself felt. The weak–ness of Oxford now is the want of moral influence over young men. Outward discipline will, of course, not affect this. Yet there are many, and would be more, who do wish for guidance, if the barrier which a mere system of discipline interposes could be broken through. And there are those in every college, tutors as well as young men, who would be acted upon by seeing before their eyes the working of a better system. C. M. has good confidence that much might be made of such a plan, and the confidence of such an one is a good augury. Heads, while they entertain each Other with fish, soup, turkeys, claret, perhaps champagne, of course cannot recommend simple, self-denying habits to young men. Yet there are those among the Heads who are weary of all this; some who have never wholly given in to it. I cannot but think that a very extensively beneficial effect might be produced. There are a great many minds which would take courage from such a system, and would tend, by their sympathy, to encourage and to extend it.

The answer of the Heads, cold as it is, is as much as, except at sanguine moments, I expected from them, i. e. toleration, while they did nothing themselves. They say, No good will come of it, and people will not make the attempt; but if any like it, let them try. This is all we really needed. They may slight it; one is not to expect that those educated there will be elected to scholarships or fellow–ships elsewhere. Better perhaps that they should not. But they may be a race of men who will make themselves felt wherever they go, even while they think themselves nothing.

I had written two letters to Gladstone before I heard of your plan, which indeed was but last night only. He entertains it, and thinks that the Government would not stickle about the person nominated as the Head if the plan generally were sanctioned, at least by some of the leading Bishops, but that they would not advise the Crown to give a charter without some such sanction--which, of course, is right. I was going to write to C. M. to ask him to draw out his plan and submit it to the Archbishop. Now if a letter can find him in time, I would suggest that he should go to confer with you at Hursley.

Keble deferred to Pusey and Marriott: he had misunder–stood the reply of the Heads. But he was less hopeful than were his friends about the success of such a college founded in Oxford.

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

Hursley Vicarage, April 29, 1846.

I am really quite ashamed to be so much consulted on a matter of which I know so little, and to feel that it is owing to my having talked rashly and peremptorily about it. When I took hold of the notion of St. Augustine' s being applied to this purpose, or rather of a second college being founded there, I had quite supposed that the Heads had put an~ extinguisher on the Oxford plan. But C. M[arriott] says no, and that if the money could be found, neither they nor the Government would extinguish it, and moreover that there is quite a sufficient store of good feeling in the body of the University to hinder the plan from being quite laughed down there. If so, I am sure I should be very sorry to be the person to hinder such a plan. But it should be considered among other things, whether the Heads would not have both the power and the will to persecute the poor clerks and their teachers pretty effectually. Also whether the advan–tages of public lectures (with a few exceptions) are not more apparent than real; and whether there is not a wrong Theology so got into the air about the pulpits of Oxford, that young men would stand on the whole a better chance elsewhere. I don' t urge the point of expense, as I believe C. M. is prepared to meet that. Although I make all these objections I think I incline now towards Oxford more than any other place; but don' t quote me, for I am writing very off-hand.

                                                Ever yours most affectionately,

                                                                                    J. KEBLE.

Keble wrote one more note on the subject to Pusey, while the latter was staying at Tenby in August, 1846. He was trying to  'allay the scruples'  which existed gene–rally, as he found, against placing the proposed college at Oxford. Pusey was always for Oxford as against any other site.  'Oxford,'  he would say,  'is the centre: if you wish to do good generally you must work here, not in the country.'  But Marriott was willing to meet the difficulty by collecting the money, if it could be collected, first, and deciding on the site afterwards. He went to see Mr. Justice Coleridge at Ottery. They agreed that three or five persons should, if possible, take the position of founders; the names sug–gested were Mr. Justice Coleridge, Sir J. Awdry, Mr. Glad–stone, and Archdeacons Manning and R. I. Wilberforce. They might act as one founder, and make or withdraw proposals boldly and decidedly, appeal for and receive money, in short,  'act as a snowball,'  which gathers sub–stance as it rolls on.

But Pusey' s connexion with the plan was for the time cut short by the serious illness to which allusion was made at the end of the last volume. Early in the long vacation of 1846 he went with his children to Tenby, in South Wales. Before starting he spent some days with his mother in Grosvenor Square; but they were not less busy than his days in Oxford. His sister-in-law, Lady Emily Pusey, had been alarmed at his appearance.

 'I can imagine,'  wrote his mother to Lady Emily on July 6,  'Edward' s looking paler than when he was at Oxford, as he underwent so much more fatigue here. Excepting the Sunday, when he dined at Mr. Dodsworth' s, he did not have his dinner until between 9 and 10 o' clock at night. He was some days out of the house by 6 o' clock in the morning: always between 7 and 8. This must always tell against a frame which is not strong.'

Pusey in fact used to spend the greater part of the day at the Sisterhood in Park Village: from early in the morn–ing until eight or nine at night, continually seeing persons who came to consult him from outside, or his spiritual children in the Sisterhood. A member of the Park Village community observes that Pusey never took a solid meal in the home. He never eat with any one. The Sisters pro–vided some milk and coffee for him: and this, with a morsel of dry bread, was all that he took during his visits. The Sisters did what they could to persuade him to eat more. When they brought him his milk and coffee he would smile and say, quoting St. Francis of Assisi,  'You take great care of Brother Beast.'  In later years he had to modify his practice very considerably. But referring to the time we are describing, he observed,  'I used to find two ways of fasting which most tired me: always taking too little, and abstaining entirely until late in the day--half-past five.'  Other habits there were which tried his strength: such as kneeling himself during many hours while hearing confes–sions--a practice which he was obliged to abandon.

Even a few days of such a life as this were not likely to improve Pusey' s health. But, as has been said, he went down to Tenby, and the change of life at first seemed to rally him. His cough grew better: and he took walks, some of them longer than his strength would permit. Soon after his arrival Marriott had visited him: and after one of their walks Pusey shewed signs of a low fever which rapidly developed into a dangerous illness. The visit of Newman to Tenby--ten months after his conversion to the Church of Rome--has been already referred to. Keble was greatly concerned: he too, at this time, was laid up, and forbidden to take work in his parish church. In writing to Pusey, he very characteristically gives the advice which illness suggested, by describing his own reflections about himself and his work.

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

Hursley, August 4, 1846.

MY DEAR PUSEY,

May I answer Miss Rogers'  kind note, for which pray thank her very sincerely, to yourself? Indeed, my dear friend, we have been thinking of you much and often: we have too many things to remember you by, ever to pass a day without often thinking of you. And now I hope that God will give us the happiness of hearing that your strength is returning, and that your troublesome cough has quite left you. I have some little cough, of which the worst is that I am forbidden to do any duty for a time. It has so rarely happened to me that I scarce know how to behave myself; but I am sure it would be a [good] thing if these temporary hindrances made one feel more than one does, how little, how fearfully little, one has done for one' s flock hitherto. It is indeed a feeling which ought to oppress one more than it does, when one goes into such parishes as Mr. Monro' s, or such as I suppose Hook' s to be, and then comes back and sees the  'nothing done,'  with which one is sadly surrounded in one' s place: no pastoral confidence, no work that one can see going on. Then again one considers that if one were worthy to do any good, yet one knows for certain that it is better for one not to see it: and so one tries to go on and do some little, in the hope that the least is better than nothing. .

Ever yours most affectionately,

                                      J. K.

On September 1st Pusey was at last able to leave Tenby: he then spent nearly two months with his elder brother at Pusey. On his arrival, Lady Emily Pusey describes him  'as not able to dine or take any of his meals with us: in the evening he came to lie on the sofa in the drawing--room. Her diary is, at this time, full of the details of Pusey' s life--it shows how deeply she was interested in everything that concerned him and how greatly they were in sympathy with each other. Pusey used to ride almost daily with his brother or Lady Emily, or his nieces: and his health rapidly improved.

 'Sept. 9.--Philip persuaded Dr. Pusey to drink some wine, which appeared to do him good.

 'Sept. 27.--The weather is very beautiful today. Dr. Pusey went to church to-day, the first time since his illness.

 'Oct. 2.--Dr. Pusey rode out to-day; great is the improvement in his health every day.

 'Oct. 11.--Dr. Pusey read the second Service to us, as the rain poured in torrents.'

Before leaving his brother' s house, Pusey wrote a long letter to Keble. The greater part of it is taken up with questions arising out of the translation of the  'Paradise of the Christian Soul,'  and its adaptation to the use of the English Church.

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

Feast of St. Simon and St. Jude, Deo Gratias' , 1846.

I have delayed writing continually, both because the health of my body was so fluctuating, that the report of one day would contradict that of the preceding, and so I had no definite time at which to thank you for your prayers and to say that thus far they had been heard, and also that I wished to write to you about outward things, before I wrote as I wished, about inward. For I felt that after I had written about inward, I could not again write about outward; at least, only as asking an opinion, not as giving one.

The outward things do not, however, amount to much. C. Marriott has asked you about the Commentary, and I am sure that the best thing for us would be to see what you have written, as you will not object, and, as far as we can, take that as our model. It has always been a puzzle with me how to write a Commentary, as well it and everything else might be--how to blend together critical and practical. I should like very much to see something done, and indeed it seems one of the great wants of our Church…

I wished also to say something about your employment in the  'Library of the Fathers.'  I do not like your doing what any one else can do; as indeed, I do not like it, in my own way, for myself. When we began, there was a great work and seemingly few hands, and we had to take the responsibility of it; but still my own share of it has been a good deal out of my line: it has been useful to me, I trust, in other ways, but has not helped in my own professorial duties. There are others now, who could correct St. Chrysostom, who could not write a Commentary nor a  'Lyra Innocentium.'  I seem to have it on my conscience, that (although in part against my will) I have entangled you in doing what others could do, while they cannot do what you can. In this way also,  'every one hath his own gift of God.'  It seemed quite natural that you should revise your brother' s translation; for it does not seem fitting for a younger man: but I do not like your going on with Prevost' s or what another can do. It is a weight upon me...

And now, having read the enclosed, will you give me some peniten–tial rules for myself? I hardly know what I can do.

From this point the letter passes to  'inward things.'  His illness had led Pusey to consider whether he could not work harder and be stricter with himself than heretofore; in fact it contains an application to Mr. Keble with regard to his own inner life which will have presently to be dealt with more fully.

 

Project Canterbury