[Letters and Correspondence—1841]{288} MRS. J. MOZLEY TO REV. J. H. NEWMAN January:1841. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO F. ROGERS, ESQ. Oriel:
January 2, 1841. Epiphany.—I sent you a slip in Marriott's letter to you just now. I take up my pen to say that Arthur Perceval sent me, in slips, a most beautiful letter in defence of Froude (really against Sewell), which is to appear in the 'Irish Ecclesiastical Journal.' It ought to be written in letters of gold. It is the most striking thing I have read a long while. It quotes his letters of '33, '34; defends him from the charge of conspiracy {289} most happily by extracts, and whitewashes (while he hits) Keble and me. But to say that it hits at Sewell is rather to give my feeling than Perceval's intention. January 10.—The news is as follows Robert Wilberforce is Archdeacon of the East Riding. Claughton is said to be about to marry Lord Ward's sister, and C. L. Cornish to marry Monro's sister. But do not tell these matches, for it is only what is generally said and believed. The 'Anglo-Catholic Library' is in a tottering condition. Copeland has given up the editorship because our divines do not go far enough for him, and Maitland has withdrawn from the committee because the concern is in Copeland's, &c., hands. Meanwhile Parker has been diligently collecting the subscriptions, and the Protestants of London have started an Opposition Society which is to bring out cheaply Reformation works. To complete it, the first volume (Andrewes' Sermons) is just through the press, and very well edited. I do not see my way at all. It is no plan of mine, and neither Pusey nor I was warm about it, but the question is, What is to be done under the circumstances? Henry Wilberforce has not been well, and, I think, rather alarmed about himself. If the weather changes (which it is just now promising to do), he is to come this week and pay me a visit here. I think you are apt to be unfair to those unhappy Romanists. As to the ceremonies, I confess I liked what I saw as little as you; but there is such a thing as uncharitableness. We are much cautioned in Scripture not to go by appearances. How often has a person a pompous, &c., manner in England whom we think well of. Demureness is the Roman manner, as pompousness is the Church of England's. Marriott says upon it, 'The impression of hollowness in ceremonies is almost necessarily exaggerated, unless one enters into them with complete enthusiasm.' You may be right in being so suspicious of Rome, but still such prejudice and suspicion, I do think, disqualify you as a witness of facts against her. You seem to like to catch at something bad. You caught at that Lutheran's saying that Dr. W. was an unscrupulous controversialist. I dare say he is. But who is not? Is Jeremy Taylor, or Laud, or Stillingfleet? I declare I think it as rare a thing, candour in controversy, as to be a Saint. So you see, on the whole, I think that Mr. Close, under the same circumstances, would be as hollow as the Pope, {290} and Mr. Townsend as unfair as Dr. Wiseman. Should you like Manzoni or Vitali to judge of us either by Cheltenham or Durham? I fear I tire your eyes. Perhaps it is a foolish thing to write so small and keep the letter so long, but I am growing stingy of paper, for my stationer's bill the past year has come to pretty nigh 10l. Carissime, I wish you were here again, and will you give a good account of your health when you write? Were I anxious about you, for which I see no reason, much more should I be anxious about H. Wilberforce, Bloxam, and Bowden, not to say Hope. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO J. W. BOWDEN, ESQ. February
12, 1841. I think an anti-papal feeling is rising among the English Roman Catholics. I have lately seen a deeply interesting letter from Mr. Phillips, of Leicestershire (though chimerical), who has also written to the 'Tablet.' Pugin, too, is very strong on our side. The 'British Critic' is said to have done good service, particularly the article on 'Antichrist.' H. Wilberforce has been here for a fortnight, making acquaintance with young Oxford. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO MRS. J. MOZLEY February
24, 1841. Of the year 1836 Mr. Newman had written (see p. 158):—'March 1836 is a cardinal point of time,' and, giving a list of notable incidents, comments on them: 'A new scene gradually opened.' Five years later, the same MS. ('Chronological Notes') concludes with the words: 'The affair of No. 90, {291} March 1841, was a far greater crisis than March 1836, and opened an entirely different scene.' [Note 1] If the reader will refer to a letter of Mr. Newman's to Mr. Rose, dated March 28, 1831 [Note 2], he will see for how long a time the subject of the interpretation of the Articles had been in his thoughts. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO J. W. BOWDEN, ESQ. Littlemore:
March 5, 1841. Do you know I am getting into a scrape about Tract 90? Yet it must be; I cannot repent it a bit; unless, indeed, it should get Pusey involved in it. Palmer (of Worcester) has written to me approving of it in very strong terms, and telling me I may use his name. People are so angry, they will attempt to do anything. The Heads of Houses are on the move, but I have not heard whether they mean to do anything. I repeat, I cannot repent it. P.S.—I have just heard that the Board of Heads of Houses is most fierce with the Tract and tracts generally, and means to do something. In the 'Apologia' is found the following extract from letter of this date addressed to Dr. Jelf:— {292} The only peculiarity of the view I advocate, if I must so call it, is this—that, whereas it is usual at this day to make the particular belief of their writers the true interpretation, I would make the belief of the Catholic Church such. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO MRS. THOS. MOZLEY March
9, 1841. Again, to the same sister:— March
12, 1841. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO J. W. BOWDEN, ESQ. Oriel:
March 13, 1841. I expect the very worst—that is, that a condemnation will be passed in Convocation upon the Tracts as a whole, by the non -resident Establishment men, Liberals and Peculiars. Do not breathe this lest it should suggest the idea; but I am making up my mind to it, and so is Keble. He saw the Tract before it was published. Perceval and Palmer approve it highly. That it will turn to good I doubt not; but we have been too prosperous. I am only sorry that my friends should suffer through me. REV. R. W. CHURCH TO F. ROGERS, ESQ. Oriel:
March 14, 1841. Meanwhile, about the beginning of the month, a debate took place in the House of Commons about Maynooth, in which Lord Morpeth made a savage attack on Oxford, as being a place where people who were paid for teaching Protestantism were doing all they could to bring things nearer and nearer to Rome, and suggested that this would be a fitter subject for Parliamentary inquiry than Maynooth. Sir R. Inglis, of course, said that the University was not responsible for the 'Tracts for the Times,' and so on; and O'Connell said that the Puseyites were breaking their oaths. This brought a strong article in the 'Times,' in which, without identifying itself with us here theologically, it stoutly defended the Tract writers from the charge of being ill-affected to the Church of England, fully entered into their dislike of the word 'Protestant,' and ended by saying that it had said so much because it had been 'misled some time ago by the authority quoted by Lord Morpeth' (the 'Church of England Quarterly') 'to speak of them in terms of harshness, which it now regretted.' This, of course, was called 'ominous' by the Conservatives {294} and Whigs together, and the 'Times' was accused of Puseyism. This led to a second article in the 'Times', in which, while carefully guarding against identifying themselves, they gave a very good sketch of the history of things from the meeting at Rose's house, written as accurately and in as good a spirit as anyone could wish, and went on to puff the strength and importance of the party, the good it had done, and the strictness, high principle, and so on, of the people up here. This astonished people not a little, but, in spite of wondering letters and remonstrances, the 'Times' kept its ground in a third article, still not professing to be able to enter into the merits of the theological controversy, but maintaining that these Oxford people were the only people who had done or were likely to do any good in the Church, that they had stopped the attacks on the Liturgy and Articles, which had been made, or most weakly met, by Conservatives and Evangelicals, and that, let people say what they please, they were making way fast. Three days before this article in the 'Times,' Newman published a new tract, No. 90, the object of which, was to show how patient the Articles are of a Catholic interpretation on certain points where they have been usually taken to pronounce an unqualified condemnation of Catholic doctrines and opinions, or to maintain Protestant ones: e.g. that the Article on Masses did not condemn the Sacrifice of the Mass, or that on Purgatory, all Catholic opinions on the subject, but only that 'Romanensium,' assuming that to be meant which is spoken of in the Homilies: the chief points were, of course, Scripture, the Church, General Councils, Justification, Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Masses, Homilies, Celibacy of Clergy, and the Pope: on all these points speaking pretty freely, and putting out explicitly, what of course many must have felt more or less for a long time. Newman must have the credit of having taken some pains to find out beforehand whether it was likely to make much row. He did not think it would be more attacked than others, nor did Keble or H. Wilberforce. Ward, however, prophesied from the first that it would be hotly received, and so it proved. It came out at an unlucky time, just when people here were frightened to death and puzzled by the tone of the papers, and galled by Lord Morpeth and O'Connell's attack. Tait of Balliol first began to talk fiercely: he had thought himself secure behind the Articles, and found his entrenchments {295} suddenly turned; but he was, after all, merely a skirmisher set on to rouse people by Golightly, whose genius and activity have contributed in the greatest degree to raise and direct the storm. He saw his advantage from the first, and has used it well. He first puffed the Tract all over Oxford as the greatest 'curiosity' that had been seen for some time: his diligence and activity were unwearied; he then turned his attention to the country, became a purchaser of No. 90 to such an amount that Parker could hardly supply him, and sent copies to all the Bishops, &c. In the course of a week he had got the agitation into a satisfactory state, and his efforts were redoubled. He then made an application to the Rector of Exeter to be allowed to come and state the case to him with the view of his heading a movement, but he was politely refused admittance; he had better success with the Warden of Wadham. It was determined in the first instance to move the Tutors, and accordingly last Monday came a letter to the Editor of the Tracts, attacking No. 90 as removing all fences against Rome, and calling on the said Editor to give up the name of the writer. This was signed by four Senior Tutors:—Churton, B.N.C., Wilson, St. John's, Griffiths, Wadham, and Tait, gentlemen who had scarcely the happiness of each other's acquaintance till Golly's skill harnessed them together. He fought hard to get Eden, but failed; as also in his attempts on Johnson (Queen's) and Twiss and Hansell, and Hussey (Ch. Ch.). This absurd move merely brought an acknowledgment of their note from the Editor, and they printed their letter, and so this matter ended. But it soon became known that the Heads were furious and meant to move; driven frantic by Golightly and the 'Standard.' They met, full of mischief, but it was judged expedient to separate [apraktoi], partly from press of other business, and especially because it appeared that many had not read No. 90. At their second meeting, all present were for proceeding except the Rector of Exeter, and the Exeter Proctor, Dayman; but all the board did not come. The matter was referred to a committee, and we are now waiting their decision. It seems, however, certain that they are afraid to try Convocation: this would be their game, and they would carry it, I think, but they will not venture on the risk. Meanwhile Newman is very much relieved by having got a load off his back, and has been pretty cheerful. The thought of Convocation harassed him and Keble very much. He is {296} writing an explanation, but he thinks that his tract-writing is done for. He is pretty confident about the Bishop of Oxford; and he has been very kindly backed up. William Palmer (Worcester), as soon as the row began, wrote a very kind letter, speaking of No. 90 as the most valuable that had appeared, as likely to break down traditionary interpretations, and lead to greater agreement in essentials, and toleration of Catholic opinions. A. Perceval also wrote to much the same effect. Keble wrote to the Vice-Chancellor taking an equal share of responsibility in the Tracts. Pusey has also written, but he is very much cast down about the turn things have taken, thinks the game up, and, inter nos, does not quite agree with Newman's view of the Articles, though he softens down. The row, which has been prodigious they say, has made Golly a great man: he now ventures to patronise the Provost; who even condescended to lose his breakfast t'other day to hear G. prose. He has received letters of thanks for his great and indefatigable exertions from four Bishops—London, Chester, Chichester, and Winton. Newman talks of him as a future 'great man.' I shall finish in a day or two. You will be sorry to hear that Sam Wilberforce has lost his wife: his Bamptons are given up. March 21.—As soon as it became known that the Heads meant to fall upon No. 90, Newman began writing a short pamphlet to explain its statements and objects, and let the Heads know that it was coming, through Pusey and the Provost. However, they thought it undignified or awkward to wait, and on Monday last they 'resolved' that 'No. 90 suggested a mode of interpreting the Articles which evaded rather than explained' them, and 'which defeated the object and was inconsistent with the observance of the Statutes' about them. As soon as this was published, Newman wrote a short letter to the Vice-Chancellor avowing the authorship, and without giving up the principle of the Tract, taking their sentence with a calm and lofty meekness, that must have let a new light into these excellent old gentlemen. Newman making an apology to Fox, Grayson, & Co.! this softened many people: even the Provost, who is very strong, thought it necessary to butter a little about 'excellent spirit under trying circumstances,' &c. And soon after came out Newman's explanation in a letter to Jelf: his point being to defend himself against the charges, (1) of dishonesty and evasion, and (2) of wantonness. This has rather staggered people, i.e. as to their immediate move. {297} I think the Heads feel that he has shown they did not take quite time enough to understand his meaning, and he has brought together for their benefit in a short compass, and in a pamphlet that everybody is sure to read, some disagreeable facts and statements from our Divines. And the Heads show that they feel it rather a floor for the present, by affecting to consider it—which it is not in the least (judice Ward)—a retractation or reconsideration, as our Provost said to Newman. So the matter has ended here as far as public measures go. On the one side we have escaped the bore and defeat of Convocation, and the Heads are loudly condemned on all hands for an arbitrary and hasty act, by which they have usurped the powers of Convocation, of which they are supposed to be afraid. Newman personally has appeared to great advantage, has made, argumentatively, a very strong case, which has checked and baffled them for a time, and weakened the effect of their authority, by showing that they did not know who or what they were dealing with. And Newman himself feels that he may now breathe and speak more freely. On the other hand, they have at last been able to deal a hard slap from authority: and the mass of people in the country will be humbugged into thinking this a formal act of the University. Great exertions have been made both in England and Ireland to frighten people, and I should think have been very successful. And then it remains to be seen what the Bishops will do. They were at first very much disgusted, and we heard all sorts of rumours about meetings in London, and attempts to stir up the Bishop of Oxford. But whatever their first impulse may have been, they have this week seen reason to think that their best course is to keep things quiet as far as they possibly can. Last week the Bishop of Oxford wrote to Pusey, expressing the pain he felt at the Tract, and enclosing a letter to Newman which contained a proposal to N. to do something, which he hoped N. would not refuse. Newman's anxiety was not a little relieved when he found, on opening the letter, that what the Bishop wished was that N. would undertake not to discuss the Articles any more in the Tracts. Newman wrote back offering to do anything the Bishop wished, suppress No. 90, or stop the Tracts, or give up St. Mary's; which brought back a most kind letter, expressing his great satisfaction (almost as if it was more than he expected), and saying that in whatever he might say hereafter he (Newman) and his {298} friends need fear nothing disagreeable or painful: and in his letter to Pusey he quite disconnects himself from the charge, brought by the Tutors and Heads, of evasion. Newman was encouraged by this to open his heart rather freely to the Bishop and is waiting the answer. So far things look well. People in the country have in general backed up manfully and heartily. Newman has had most kind letters of approval and concurrence, from W. Palmer of Worcester, A. Perceval, Hook, Todd, and Moberly. B. Harrison is shocked rather. But Pusey, I fear, has been much annoyed. He scarcely agrees with Newman's view, though he is very kind. A great difficulty with him and with the Bishop is that Newman has committed himself to leaving 'Ora pro nobis' an open question. The Moral Philosophy Professor [Sewell] has seized the opportunity to publish a letter, nominally to Pusey, but really to Messrs. Magee and the Irish Evangelicals, in which he deeply laments the Tract as incautious, tending to unsettle and shake people's faith in the English Church, and leading men to receive 'paradoxes and therefore errors' (good—vide Sewell's 'Christian Ethics'); and, after feelingly reminding Pusey of his own services once on a time in the 'Quarterly,' strongly disclaims any connexion with the Tracts and their authors, and recommending that they should cease, 'Longum, formose, vale, vale ... Iola.' The papers have been full of the row, which has stirred up London itself in no common manner; 2,500 copies sold off in less than a fortnight. The 'Standard' has shown more than usual want of sharpness in the way it has carried on the war, and has attacked Newman personally with all the spite which its dulness enabled it to put forth. The 'Times' has confessed that it knows not what to do, both parties were so loyal and good, so it has contented itself with criticising the style of the four Tutors, reprehending those who could substitute authority for argument, admiring the dignified way in which the controversy has been carried on, and puffing Dr. Jelf, to whom Newman addressed his letter. One hardly knows how things are at the moment. They say Arnold is going to write against Newman. I have no more room, so good-bye. Just received your letter from Naples. Many thanks. P.S.—H. B. has brought out a caricature: Nicholas Nickleby (Sir R. P.) coming to Mr. Squeers (Lord Br.), and asking, 'Do you want an assistant?' On the flaps of the same letter Mr. Newman writes {299} In Fest.
S. Benedicti, March
21, 1841. A letter from Mr. Newman's elder sister may be given as illustrating the anxiety the state of things was causing to many distant friends. MRS. THOMAS MOZLEY TO REV. J. H. NEWMAN March
14, 1841. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO MRS. J. MOZLEY March
15, 1841. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO MRS. THOMAS MOZLEY March
15, 1841. My own character will bear the charge. March 16.—I have quite enough, thank God, to keep me from inward trouble; no one ever did a great thing without suffering. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO J. W. BOWDEN, ESQ. Oriel:
March 15, 1841. If you knew all, or when you know, you will see that I have asserted a great principle, and I ought to suffer for it; that the Articles are to be interpreted not according to the meaning of the writers, but (as far as the wording will admit) according to the sense of the Catholic Church. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO MRS. J. MOZLEY Oriel:
March 16, 1841. March 21.—I have put down on a separate paper all the news I can think of. I do not like there should be any {301} secret between you and A. M.; so if you please to show her Mrs. ——‘s letter you can. What do you mean by 'the sensation I am causing in the world'? Have they caricatured me yet? P.S.—The day the notice against me came out we read in Church the chapter about Adoni-bezek. I cannot number my seventy victims, but I felt conscious. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. R. W. CHURCH Littlemore:
Thursday, 1841. My idea was to write a sort of explanation of the tract at once, but if they are at all the tracts, that is hardly worth while perhaps. Could Keble think it over? Pusey seemed to me to wish me to give my name and defend it. I wish it. The only question is, what will come of it as regards the Vice-Chancellor? I shall be in Oxford tomorrow afternoon. The following letter to the Bishop of Oxford is borrowed from the 'Apologia' [Note 3]: March
20, 1841. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. J. KEBLE March
21, 1841. Things seem going on tolerably. They say the Bishop of London is not to move. Our Bishop is most kind, and I trust we shall manage matters. But we must not crow till we are out of the wood. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. J. KEBLE March
25, 1841. I have no difficulty in saying and doing so if he tells me, but my difficulty is as to my then position. The Heads having censured the tract as an 'evasion' and thereby indirectly condemned the views of doctrine contained in it, the Bishop (even though he put it on the ground of peace, &c.) would virtually in the eyes of the world be censuring it. I do not think I can acquiesce in such a proceeding by any active co-operation of mine. It is stigmatising my interpretation of Articles 6 and 11 quite as much as of any other. I am at this moment the representative of the interests of many who more or less think with me. I think I am observing my duty to the Bishop by suppressing the tract, and my duty to my principles by resigning my living. Again, it is painful enough as it is to be Vicar of St. Mary's with the whole of the Heads of Houses against me, but if the {303} Bishop indirectly joins them I cannot stand it. I cannot be a demagogue or a quasi-schismatic. The Bishop is himself all kindness, but whether people in London will allow him to yield this point is yet to be seen. Pusey says there has been a talk of the Bishops, as a body, condemning the tract. Is this [legally] possible? Did not the sovereign issue a declaration in the time of King Charles, Queen Anne and King George I.? You see, though they suppressed my tract, they still would allow answers to it to be circulated, and many will be. And Bishops, moreover, would be charging. This the Bishop of London announces. I think Wilson's article a most capital one, and very reasonable. The letter to the Bishop of Oxford is given in extenso in the author's work entitled, 'Via Media,' and fills twenty-eight pages. As entering on the subject of Tract 90, it is hardly in place among Letters, but the conclusion [Note 4] which touches on personal feelings is in place. … And now having said, I trust, as much as your Lordship requires on the subject of Romanism, I will add a few words, and complete my explanation, in acknowledgment of the inestimable privilege I feel in being a member of that church over which your Lordship, with others, presides. Indeed, did I not feel it to be a privilege which I am able to seek nowhere else on earth, why should I be at this moment writing to your Lordship? What motive have I for an unreserved and joyful submission to your authority, but the feeling that the Church which you rule is a divinely ordained channel of supernatural grace to the souls of her members? Why should I not prefer my own opinion, and my own way of acting, to that of the Bishop's, except that I know full well that in matters indifferent I should be acting lightly towards the spouse of Christ and the awful presence which dwells in her, if I hesitated a moment to put your Lordship's will before my own? I know full well your kindness to me personally would be in itself quite enough to win any but the most insensible heart, and did a clear matter of conscience occur in which I felt bound to act for myself, my personal feelings towards your Lordship would become a most severe trial to {304} me, independently of the higher considerations to which I have referred; but I trust I have given tokens of my dutifulness to you, apart from the influence of such personal motives, and I have done so because I think that to belong to the Catholic Church is the first of all privileges here below, as involving in it heavenly privileges, and because I consider the Church over which you preside to be the Catholic Church in this country. Surely, then, I have no need to profess in words, I will not say my attachment, but my deep reverence, towards the Mother of Saints when I am showing it in action; yet that words may not be altogether wanting, I beg to lay before your Lordship the following extract from the article already mentioned which I wrote in defence of the English Church against a Roman controversialist in the course of the last year. 'The Church is emphatically a living body, and there can be no greater proof of a particular communion being part of the Church than the appearance in it of a continued and abiding energy, nor a more melancholy proof of its being a corpse than torpidity. We say an energy continued and abiding, for accident will cause the activity of a moment, or an external principle give the semblance of self-motion. On the other hand, even a living body may for a while be asleep. And here we have an illustration of what we just now urged about the varying cogency of the notes of the Church according to times and circumstances. No one can deny that at times the Roman Church itself, restless as it is at most times, has been in a state of sleep or disease resembling death,' &c. This extract may be sufficient to show my feelings towards my Church as far as statements on paper can show them. It may be well to give here an extract from the 'Apologia' on Mr. Newman's correspondence with Dr. Pusey on this subject [Note 5]: 'Since I published the former portions of this narrative, I have found what I wrote to Dr. Pusey on March 24, while the matter was in progress. "The more I think of it," I said, "the more reluctant I am to suppress Tract 90, though, of course, I will do it if the Bishop wishes it; I cannot, however, deny that I shall feel it a severe act." According to the notes which I took of the letters or messages which I sent to him on {305} that and the following days, I wrote successively: "My first feeling was to obey without a word; I will obey still but my judgment has steadily risen against it ever since." Then, in the postscript: "If I have done any good to the Church, I do ask the Bishop this favour, as my reward for it, that he would not insist on a measure from which I think good will not come. However, I will submit to him." Afterwards I got stronger still and wrote: "I have almost come to the resolution, if the Bishop publicly intimates that I must suppress the tract, or speaks strongly in his Charge against it, to suppress it indeed, but to resign my living also. I could not in conscience act otherwise." You may show this in any quarter you please.' REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO MRS. J. MOZLEY March
30, 1841. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. J. KEBLE April
1, 1841. A declaration is coming out, to be signed only by great men, not Tractarians. It is expected that the Heads will sign. Also, Sewell's postscript is to contain a sort of avowal from the Vice-Chancellor, that the Hebdomadal Act is not a theological censure. We are all in very good spirits here. {306} REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. J. KEBLE April
1, 1841. Pusey is writing; I wish he were not. Since I don't think he at all enters into my view [No; 'my view' is expressed in the last paragraph of No. 90], but considers what has been done a pure evil (in his heart), and only wishes to soften and remedy it, of course my argument would not tell with him. By-the-bye, do you see a curious and much to be noticed letter in the 'British Magazine' signed Φ? Besides, the Bishops, I believe, are sorely bent on keeping the peace. It seems that a very strong movement against us was to have been made by the redoubtable London clergy, and I suppose my Bishop's message to me was intended to soothe them. I do really think that things had better be quiet, and, as to Joshua Watson, I think he will say so too. I am strongly against losing your pamphlet, but think it might come out in another shape by-and-by. Now observe I say all this, like the men of Laputa, from antecedent notions, without having seen your proof. BISHOP OF OXFORD TO REV. J. H. NEWMAN Cuddesdon:
Friday, April 2, 1841. It is a comfort to me too (now that a calm has, as I hope, succeeded the threatened storm) to feel assured that, though I have, perhaps, caused pain to one in whom I feel much interest, and for whom I have a great regard, you will never regret having written that letter to me. It is one
calculated to soften and to silence opponents, as {307} also to attach
and to regulate friends, whilst the tone and temper of mind with which
it is written must please and gratify all who read it. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO MRS. J. MOZLEY April
5, 1841. Yet as they say that 'honesty is the best policy,' so I have no fear but that submission is victory. I have had no misgiving, and people will see that (like the Whigs) we are ducks in a pond, knocked over but not knocked out. At least, so I trust. The following letter, already in print, may be introduced here as showing the feeling of the heads of the movement on the stir aroused by Tract 90. Dr. Pusey's remarks bear on the joint subtilty and candour working together, as a characteristic in Mr. Newman's mind: REV. DR. PUSEY TO J. R. HOPE, ESQ. [Note 6] 1841 [No
date]. The pseudo-traditionary and vague ultra-Protestant interpretation of the Articles has received a blow from which it will not recover. People will abuse Tract 90, and adopt its main principles. It has been a harassing time for Newman, but all great good is purchased by suffering; and he is wonderfully calm. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. J. W. BOWDEN, ESQ. Oriel:
April 4, 1841. Sewell's postscript and declaration are valuable, not on their own account, but as symptoms, at least [phantasia], of a reaction. Now I am thinking of this about you, have you made up your mind what history to take up next? If not, is not this an idea? People shrink from Catholicity and think it implies want of affection for our National Church. Well, then, merely remind them that you take the National Church, but only you do not date it from the Reformation. In order to kindle love of the National Church, and yet to inculcate a Catholic tone, nothing else is necessary but to take our Church in the Middle Ages. [N.B. This was the line taken by me immediately on feeling {309} the force of Dr. Wiseman's article about the Donatists. It led me to publish 'Lives of the English Saints.'—J. H. N.] Laud, I believe, somewhere calls St. Anselm his great predecessor. Would not the history of Anselm be a great subject for you. Froude had intended taking it next. Nothing would more effectually tend to disarm people of their prejudice against Catholicity as anti-national than this. But, however, I leave it to your thoughts. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO J. W. BOWDEN, ESQ. Oriel:
April 8, 1841. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. J. KEBLE April
10, 1841. I cannot help thinking this is right. As to the
Bishops, the one thing they fear is a disturbance— The following communication in the form of a lithographed circular, from a Bishop to his Clergy, is found among papers of this date: {310} The
Palace, Wells: April
27, 1841. Allow me to
observe that, in my judgment, it would be more correct and judicious for
my Clergy to leave the important questions, now in discussion at Oxford,
to the decision of the Heads of Houses and to the Bishop of that
Diocese. To the lady of excitable temperament, who had written to him on the No. 90 question, Mr. Newman writes: Oriel
College: April
1841. However, it is of course most satisfactory news to me that your purpose was arrested, and a cause of much thankfulness that any work of mine was a means of it. Your interest in the disturbance which has been raised against me in this place is very kind. I have no misgivings about my past proceedings, and I wait securely (under God's blessing) for all to go right. I think it will. Everything seems in a good train. The cause of Catholic truth, I trust, will not suffer—and if not, then it matters little if some slight inconvenience or trouble falls to my share. It is good
for all of us to have burdens and to have our patience tried. Patience
and forbearance are great virtues—perhaps they are more difficult in
the case of attacks made {311} on persons we feel an interest in than in
our own case. But we must one and all resign ourselves, except where
duty comes in, to the disorders with which our Church labours at this
day. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. J. KEBLE July
23. 1841. To a lady who in imagination had strong leanings to a monastic life, and to the Church of Rome as the means of entering that life, Mr. Newman writes: Oriel
College, 1841. Let me observe to you, then, what I have no doubt about at all: that were you now a member of the Church of Rome, that were you in her most secret and heavenly abodes, I mean in the quiet of a monastery, you would certainly have, with your particular character of mind, much of the trial, nay as much of it, as you have now. You have not yet subdued your feelings, or your will to the Will of God; you think of yourself more than of Him. You do not enough consider that you are a creature of His, and thus while on the one hand under His care, on the other at His disposal. Here is hope and fear at once—here is an awful thought. You are under His mighty hand: humble yourself under it. You are His creature: rejoice that He has hold of you, submit when He fixes you. {312} Were you in a monastic retreat you would be full of a tide of feelings and thought, of which you could not dispossess yourself—and you would be doubly miserable, because you could lay nothing to the charge of circumstances. You would reproach yourself for what you then would see arose simply from what you were yourself in yourself. Let this be your simple and engrossing prayer: to know God's Will and to do it. Who are you to covet with James and John the right and left of your Lord's throne? Know your place. Be humbled, be content to pick up the crumbs even, under the King's table. What are we that we should say we will not be content unless He seats us with His nobles and feasts us with his best? Be the English Church what you fear it is, yet surely it is good enough for you, surely it has excellences and graces, it has saints, it has gifts, it has lessons, which are above you and me. Supposing you had your wish at this minute, and joined a Church which I am for argument's sake granting to you as the True Spouse of Christ, you would, as I have suggested above, find only disappointment. You are not in a state to enjoy gifts which assuredly would be above you. Did not Cornelius fast and pray and do alms, and was he not thus led on into the Truth? He was in God's hands when a heathen. May not you be, if you follow his course? Neither you nor I, nor any of us, know what God is now doing and what is His pleasure. He is, to say it reverently, furthering some plan or other. His Spirit is abroad. Shall we presumptuously cross His path, or shall we, like well-disciplined soldiers, keep our post, and watch for the signals. I will never say such a thing as that the Church of Rome is apostate; but still I am sure you have seen but the fair side of that Church as yet. Join it, and you will see our Saviour's prophecy fulfilled there as with us, that she is a net cast into the sea and gathering of every kind. … You are framing in idea a religion all of joy. No, a sinner's religion must have gloom and sorrow. Even in speaking of Rome you dwell upon the more beautiful and glorious views it sets before you: you forget what a true Church must have—its abasing, its chill, its severe doctrines. The following letter is from a collection of Mr. Keble's letters to Mr. Newman, presented by Cardinal Newman to Keble College: {313} REV. J. KEBLE TO REV. J. H. NEWMAN Hursley:
July 19, 1841. The next letter is evidently not the first communication between Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble on this subject, but in September Mr. Newman writes: REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. J. KEBLE September
14, 1841. Again (entre nous) from what we hear—though of course we must expect heterogeneous proceedings—it is not at all certain that Sir R. Peel will not be taking men called Puseyites, as thinking them more suited for certain places. On the whole; as things have before now been at the worst as regards the Clergy, so they are now as regards the Bishops, and they will improve I think. Recollect the Clergy left off their wigs before the Bishops did. All in good time. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. R. W. CHURCH September
12, 1841. On this subject of not telling Pusey things, I have before now had a talk with Rogers, who felt the difficulty of knowing what is best to do, as fully as myself. But various other causes have brought it about, if Pusey has been as ignorant as Ward declares. A man one constantly sees, one fancies to know things which he does not know, whereas Pusey has not seen me in seasons of free conversation, so that he has not the opportunities which others have. And then, though it may seem absurd to say, looking on Pusey as being in loco superioris, I have not replied or criticised what he said in the way I should others. And then he never reads anything. I found to my surprise that he had not seen Dr. Elrington's letter, Mr. Seeley's letter to the Bishop of Oxford or the letter in the 'B. M.' All of which distinctly draw out the difference between him and me. Then again he has been unwilling to see it; when I have mentioned differences, he has either explained them away or seemed annoyed at the notion. Such was the case, e.g., about the Cranmer Memorial, which I pressed him to join without me. {315} I think he is beginning, however, to understand what is trite—that we differ historically and not doctrinally; but, though it is a relief to him, yet I do fear that his historical view of the Reformation is his great bulwark against Rome, which is not a comfortable thought. Top | Contents | Biographies | Home Notes1. The
publication of Tract No. 90 is thus announced in the Rev. J. B. Mozley's
Letters, p. 111:— 2.
Vol. i. p. 210. 3.
See Apologia, p. 170. 4.
Via Media, vol. ii. p. 416. 5.
Apologia, p. 207. 6.
R. Hope-Scott's Memoirs, vol. i. p. 261. Top | Contents | Biographies | Home Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman |