  1842-3. Oxford Commotions of 1842-3—Mr. Newman's Retractation—Correspondence of It results in general from the documents furnished in the preceding chapter, that Mr. Hope's confidence in the Anglican Church had sustained a severe shock by the Jerusalem Bishopric movement; and from about the year 1842 he seems to have thrown himself with increasing energy into his professional occupations, not certainly as becoming less religious (for his was a mind never tempted to the loss of faith), but as being deprived of that scope which his convictions had formerly presented to him in the pursuit of ecclesiastical objects. It seems probable, also, that the same cause was not unconnected with his entering, some years later, into the married life; the news of which step is known to have fallen like a knell on the minds of those who looked up to him and shared his religious feelings, as it appeared a sign that he no longer thought the ideal perfection presented by the celibate life—which he certainly contemplated in 1840-1—was congenial with the spirit of the Church of England. That communion was now losing her hold upon him, though he still could not make up his mind to leave her, and might conceivably never have done so but for events which forced the change upon him at last. His professional career and his habits in domestic life will require to be separately described; for, though of course they proceeded simultaneously with a large part of that phase of his existence which is now before us, it would only confuse the reader to pass continually from one to the other. I propose, therefore, without any interruption that can be avoided, to go on with the history of his religious development up to the period of his conversion. The year 1842, commencing, as we have seen, with the storms of the Jerusalem Bishopric movement and the Poetry Professorship contest, agitated also, towards the end of May, by a movement for the repeal of the Statute of Censure against Dr. Hampden, passed off, for the rest, quietly enough— at least, Mr. Hope's correspondence shows little to the contrary; but 1843 was marked by much disturbance, commencing early with Mr. Newman's 'Retractation,' which the great leader announced to Mr. Hope in the following letter a few days before that document appeared in the 'Conservative Journal:'— The Rev. J. H. Newman to J. R. Hope, Esq. Littlemore: In fest. Conv. S. Pauli, 1843. My dear Hope,—In return for your announcement of some change of purpose, I must tell you of one of my own, in a matter where I told you I was going to be very quiet. My conscience goaded me some two months since to an act which comes into effect, I believe, in the Conservative Journal next Saturday, viz. to eat a few dirty words of mine. I had intended it for a time of peace, the beginning of December, but against my will and power the operation has been delayed, and now, unluckily, falls upon the state of irritation and suspicion in good Anglicans, which Bernard Smith's step [Footnote: The conversion of the Rev. Bernard Smith, Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford.] has occasioned. I had committed myself when all was quiet. The meeting of Parliament will, I hope, divert attention. Ever yrs, JOHN H. NEWMAN.P.S.—I am publishing my Univ. Sermons. You got a headache for one— it would be an act of gratitude to send you all. Shall I do so? J. R. Hope, Esq. to the Rev. J. H. Newman. 6 Stone Buildings, Linc. Inn: Feast of Purification [Feb. 2], '43. Dear Newman,—You will think me ungracious for having so long delayed my answer to your last, but I did not get hold of the Conservative Journal till Monday, and have been very busy since. Perhaps you will like to know what effect your article has produced on me. Simply this: it has convinced me that you are clearing your position of some popular protections which still surrounded it. Beyond this I do not see. I mean it does not show me that, esoterically, you have made any great move, nor yet that, to the world at large, you are disposed to do more than say, 'Do not cry me up as a champion against Popery; for the rest, you may judge of me as you please.' People whom I have heard speak of it (few, perhaps, but fair samples) are rather puzzled than anything else. I give you this merely as gossip, and not as asking whether my construction is right, though if you think it material or useful to tell me, of course I shall be glad. I need not say that I shall be very thankful for a copy of your sermons— that is, if you will write my name in it yourself; otherwise I will buy the book, for Rivington's 'from the author' does not fix the stamp which I chiefly value. Do you observe in the papers that Sir R. P. is designing great things for the Church? It gives me some hopes that they will also be good, to see that Gladstone is in his councils. We shall have much ado about the Eccl. Courts Bill, which, I believe, is certainly to come on. I am in some hopes we may make it an instrument for drawing a line between us and the Dissenters, but must not be sanguine. Believe me, dear Newman, ever yrs truly, JAMES R. HOPE.Rev. J. H. Newman. Mr. Newman wrote in explanation as follows:— The Rev. J. H. Newman to J. R. Hope, Esq. Littlemore: February 3, 1843. My dear Hope,—It is amusing in me to talk of being tired of giving explanations, when I have neither given nor mean to give any; but so it is, whether my hand aches, or I am sick of the subject, I feel as if I have given a hundred. Since you ask me, I will say, as far as I can collect my thoughts on an instant, that my reason for writing and publishing that notice was (but first I will observe that I do not wish it talked about, though it is not worth while going into the reasons why I did it in the way I have. I did it thus after a good deal of thought and fidget, and not seeing any better way, i.e. clearer of objections)—but my reason for the thing was my long-continued feeling of the great inconsistency I was in of letting things stand in print against me which I did not hold, and which I could not but be contradicting by my acting every day of my life. And more especially (i.e. it came home to me most vividly in that particular way) I felt that I was taking people in; that they thought me what I was not, and were trusting me when they should not, and this has been at times a very painful feeling indeed. I don't want to be trusted (perhaps you may think my fear, even before this affair, somewhat amusing); but so it was and is; people won't believe I go as far as I do—they will cling to their hopes. And then, again, intimate friends have almost reproached me with 'paltering with them in a double sense, keeping the word of promise to their ear, to break it to their hope.' They have said that my words against Rome often, when narrowly examined, were only what I meant, but that the effect of them was what others meant. I am not aware that I have any great motive for this paper beyond this—setting myself right, and wishing to be seen in my proper colours, and not unwilling to do such penance for wrong words as lies in the necessary criticism which such a retractation will involve on the part of friends and enemies; though, since nothing one does is without a meaning [that is, higher than one's own], things may come from it beyond my own meaning. Thanks for … the information from newspapers, which you give me, of our hopes from Sir R. P., which I had not seen in them. By-the-bye, in the paper, for 'person's respect' near the end, read 'persons I respect;' and 'to the editor' is fudge. Ever yours, J. H. NEWMAN.P.S.—Thanks for your flattering answers about my book. It must go, however, from Rivington's with 'from the author,' and I will add my own writing when we meet. Since you have had a specimen of the book (dose?), I may add, in opposition to you, that it will be the best, not the most perfect, book I have done. I mean there is more to develop in it, though it is _im_perfect. [Footnote: A week later (February 10, 1843) he writes to Mr. Hope: 'My University Sermons are the least theological book I have published.'] The famous case of Macmullen versus Hampden was disturbing the University for most of the latter half of the same year 1843. I can only give a mere chronological outline of it, which may assist such readers as wish to pursue the subject in consulting other sources of information. The Regius Professor of Divinity, Dr. Hampden, had refused to act as Moderator in the Schools, to enable the Rev. E. G. Macmullen, Fellow of Corpus Christi College, to make his exercises for the degree of B.D. [Mr. Macmullen, it should be remarked, was a strong opponent of the project at that time before the University, mentioned a few pages back, to reverse the condemnation which had been passed on Dr. Hampden when he was first appointed Regius Professor of Divinity.] Mr. Macmullen, on this refusal, brought an action into the Vice-Chancellor's Court on May 26, 1843, where, on June 2, Dr. Kenyon of All Souls' presiding, Mr. Hope appeared for Mr. Macmullen, Dr. Twiss on the other side. Dr. Kenyon pronounced in his favour on certain amended articles. Dr. Twiss appealed to the Delegates of Congregation (none of them lawyers), who heard the appeal on November 29, sitting from ten in the morning till seven at night. Mr. Erle and Dr. Twiss both spoke against the articles, and were replied to by Mr. Hope. The Court ultimately gave judgment against the articles, reversing Dr. Kenyon's decision, and gave costs against Mr. Macmullen. [Footnote: For this outline of the proceedings in Macmullen v. Hampden, I am indebted to accurate memoranda kindly furnished me by Mr. David Lewis, late Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford.] Mr. Badeley's bitter comment will amuse the reader: 'Mischievous idiots! and so all the conclusive arguments you put before them, are set at nought, and the battle is to be fought again!' [Footnote: Mr. Badeley to Mr. Hope, January 6, 1844] However, there was no further litigation, and in the end Mr. Macmullen succeeded in obtaining his degree, the old form of disputations for that purpose being restored, which has ever since been in force. It should be added that Mr. Hope's services in this case, undertaken amidst all the pressure of his ordinary legal work, were gratuitous. In the summer of 1843 took place another critical moment of the strife in Dr. Pusey's suspension from preaching, by sentence of the Vice-Chancellor's Court, for his sermon 'On the Holy Eucharist a Comfort to the Penitent.' In the question of his appeal against this, which was matter of anxiety for more than a twelvemonth, it is almost needless to say that he sought the advice of Mr. Hope. The Everett affair, on Commemoration Day (June 28), will have its place in every chronicle of the movement. This was a protest on the part of members of the Tractarian party against an honorary degree conferred in the teeth of a demand for scrutiny (which, however, it was asserted had not been heard in the din), on the American Envoy, Mr. Everett, who was a Unitarian. Mr. Hope, however, was not present; and I mention this only as one of the many signs of the times which were then rapidly accumulating. Nor did he take any part in the opposition made in the following year to Dr. Symonds' election as Vice-Chancellor, though he was consulted, in the law of the case, with Mr. Badeley and Dr. Bayford. It ended in a crushing defeat of the Tractarians, who were beaten by a majority of 882 against 183. In September 1843 Mr. Newman resigned the vicarage of St. Mary's. On this step Mr. Hope, writing to him on September 28, says that he had not differed from him about it, but, 'as to the general tendency of which you described the increase [Mr. Newman's expression (September 5) was: 'The movement is going on so fast that some of the wheels are catching fire'], all I can do is to sit still and wait the issue.' The 'Lives of the English Saints' were at this time in preparation, the importance of which in the history of the movement is too well known from Cardinal Newman's 'Apologia' and from other sources to require me to enlarge upon it. At length there was no disguise or reservation, but sympathy was openly avowed by members of the Anglican Church for the whole spirit hitherto associated with the idea of 'the corruptions of Popery'—as monasticism, the continued exercise of miraculous power in the Church, finally, the supremacy of the Holy See. From a copious correspondence which followed between the two friends, I extract, as usual, such portions as will throw most light on the progressive change in Mr. Hope's religious convictions. His sense of prudence, and the bias derived from his particular legal studies, restrain, rather curiously, the inclination which his feelings in other directions show; but it is best to let him speak for himself:—The Rev. J. H. Newman to J. R. Hope, Esq. Littlemore: Nov. 2, '43. My dear Hope,—[After stating the perplexity he felt on the question of stopping the 'Lives,' which appeared to present itself in consequence of an objection expressed by Dr. Pusey, in conversation with Mr. Hope, against the Roman tone which had been manifested, Mr. Newman continues:] I did not explain to you sufficiently the state of mind of those who are in danger. I only spoke of those who are convinced that our Church was external to the Church Catholic, though they felt it unsafe to trust their own private convictions. And you seemed to put the dilemma, 'Either men are in doubt or not: if in doubt, they ought to be quiet; if not in doubt, how is it that they stay with us?' But there are two other states of mind which might be mentioned. 1. Those who are unconsciously near Rome, and whose despair about our Church, if anyhow caused, would at once develop into a state of conscious approximation and quasi-resolution to go over. 2. Those who feel they can with a safe conscience remain with us, while they are allowed to testify in behalf of Catholicism, and to promote its interests; i.e. as if by such acts they were putting our Church, or at least a portion of it, in which they are included, in the position of catechumens. They think they may stay, while they are moving themselves, others, nay, say the whole Church, towards Rome. Is not this an intelligible ground? I should like your opinion of it…. Ever yours sincerely, JOHN H. NEWMAN.J. R. Hope, Esq. to the Rev. J. H. Newman. 6 Stone Buildings, Linc. Inn: Nov. 4, '43. Dear Newman,—… As to the Roman leaning, no doubt your 'Lives,' at least many of them, must evince it; no doubt also that, unless carefully managed, it will give offence. But may not caution obviate the latter? Is it not possible to commence by lives which will not at once bring the whole set into popular disrepute? the less palatable ones being kept for a more advanced stage. May it not also be provided that in an historical work, a purely historical character shall be given to what as matter of fact cannot be denied, and which can only be objected to when it is adopted by the writers as a matter of principle in which they themselves concur? To the asceticism, devotion, and anti-secular spirit of the English saints we are, under every point of view, entitled to refer; and if any part of these virtues was displayed in necessary relation to Rome, or to Roman institutions, this in a portraiture of their lives cannot be omitted, but certainly need not be canonised as amongst their merits. It seems to me possible simply to take the Church of their times as the Church, without entering into the question whether any of the conditions under which it then existed are necessary for its existence now. And so their acts done in relation to the Church of their day may be dwelt upon, while the further question whether the Church of our day is capable of eliciting such acts may be left to the judgment of the reader. I am not sure that I have made myself intelligible in this, and still less whether it is worth your reading, but I fancied that you wished an opinion, and I give it, valeat quantum…. Yrs ever truly, JAMES R. HOPE.Rev. J. H. Newman. The Rev. J. H. Newman to J. R. Hope, Esq. Littlemore: Nov. 6, 1843. My dear Hope,— … You have not gone to the bottom of the difficulty. It is very easy to say, Give facts without comment; but in the first place, what can be so dry as mere facts? the book won't sell, nor deserve to sell. It must be ethical; but to be ethical is merely to colour a narrative with one's own mind, and to give a tone to it. Now this is the difficulty, altering this or that passage, leaving out this or that expression, will not alter the case. I will not answer for being aware of the tone in myself. Pusey put his finger on passages which I had not thought about. Is he to be ever marking passages? if so, he has the real trouble of being editor, not I. Naturam expellas furca, &c. Is the Pope's supremacy the only point on which no opinion is to be expressed? if so, why? It is not more against the Articles to desire it than to desire monachism. Will it offend more than others? I will not limit certainly the degree of disgust which some people will feel towards it, but do they feel less towards the notion of monks, or, again, of miracles? Now Church history is made up of these three elements—miracles, monkery, Popery. If any sympathetic feeling is expressed on behalf of the persons and events of Church history, it is a feeling in favour of miracles, or monkery, or Popery, one or all. It is quite a theory to talk of being ethical, yet not concur in these elements of the narrative—unless, indeed, one adopts Milner's or Neander's device of dropping part of the history, praising what one has a fancy for, and thus putting a theory and dream in the place of facts. But it is bad enough to be eclectic in doctrine. Next it must be recollected how very much depends on the disposition, relative prominence, &c., of facts; it is quite impossible that a leaning to Rome, a strong offensive leaning, should be hidden. And then still more it must be recollected that a vast number of questions, and most important ones, are decided this way or that on antecedent probabilities, according to a person's views, e.g. the question between St. Augustine and the British Bishops—of Easter—of King Lucius, &c. &c. Opinion comes in at every step of the history. From what I have said you will see that I consider it impossible to choose easy 'Lives' for the first of the series; there are none such, or if there be a few, when can I promise to have them ready? I suppose Bede must be pretty easy. Keble has it. I do not expect him to send it to me for several years, with his engagements. Take missions, take Bishops, the Pope comes in everywhere. Go to Aldhelm and his schools; you have most strange miracles. Try to retire into the country, you do but meet with hermits. No; miracles, monkery, Popery, are too much for you, if you have any stomach…. The life P. looked at, St. Stephen's, was taken as having hardly, if at all, any miracle in it. If he thinks it will give offence, doubtless the others will still more. You see, in saying all this I am not deciding the question whether the work is to be done at all. On that point I have had great doubt since P.'s objection. Only to do it without offence is impossible, and the more so because, in parts at least, it is likely to be a very taking work…. And then so many 'Lives' are in progress or preparation, that it is most unlikely the work will be stopped; others will conduct it instead of me who will go further; and though this is a bad reason for doing oneself what one feels a misgiving in doing, it is a good reason when one feels none at all…. If the plan is abandoned, this significant question will be, nay, is already asked—'What, then, cannot the Anglican Church bear the Lives of her Saints?' Ever yrs, JOHN H. NEWMAN.J.R. Hope, Esq. to the Rev. J.H. Newman. 6 Stone Bdgs, Linc. Inn: Nov. 8, '43. Dear Newman,—Your last shows me plainly what I had not before understood, that the question of the 'Lives' depends immediately upon that larger one which your previous letter had mooted, and that to solve it one must know more than I do of the conclusions at which you have arrived as to the claims of Rome, and as to the mode, time, and circumstances in and under which those claims ought to be recognised. I feel therefore very incompetent to offer any further suggestion. When I last wrote I thought the questions separable, and meant that the Roman parts of your histories should be treated dramatically (if I may so say), being represented really and faithfully, but only as the scenery in which the actors stood. Your letter shows me that this cannot be, unless your writers have more self- command, and more disposition to exercise it than men in earnest can be expected to have. I must therefore ask, what is your general view as to Rome? Is union with it immediately necessary? or is it only desirable—under new circumstances and at some distant period? If the former, then one would think that the question should be openly and professedly discussed, the arguments given and the authorities stated. If the latter, I should imagine that much remains to be done, in the way of raising the general tone of our Church in matters of faith and practice, before it can be fit to deal with such a question; and though you think monachism, miracles, and Popery inseparably allied, yet I feel convinced that there are many minds prepared to consider the two former which have no disposition to the latter. On either view, then, I think that a work which is addressed only or principally to men's feelings would be mistimed—it would not convince of the necessity, and it would find but a small number of men disposed at present to give it their sympathy. There are, indeed, those other considerations which you mention respecting the minds which would find relief in being allowed to dwell upon the subject, and so might be the better persuaded to remain within our communion; but, on the other hand, there is the risk of provoking such conduct on the part of the Bishops and others as would drive some out, and render the position of those who remained more difficult than ever. And surely it would be most unfair to take the measure of what the Church of England allows on this or any other difficult point in theology from what might happen to be the view of men such as our present rulers, upon whom the whole question has come unawares, and whose prejudices upon this point in particular, backed by the secular policy of the State for 300 years, would be pretty sure to lead them to some active, and probably united censure. I wish therefore, much, that minds of this class could be persuaded that it is not the Church of England which they are testing, but a disorderly body which ten years ago did not know what it was, and is now only gradually becoming conscious; and that if they can satisfy themselves that the views they entertain are compatible with what they deem the true theory of the Church of England, they would be content to hold them quietly for the present, and not risk themselves and others upon so doubtful a venture. This, I think, is all that I can say—being confessedly in the dark upon the most material points; but if you should think it useful either to myself or to others to give me a full statement you shall have my best judgment. Your confidence I have no other claim upon than that which arises from my disposition to put confidence in you—to think that you know better than any one else the real difficulties of our present position, and that you can look at the remedy, however painful, firmly and practically. Whatever, therefore, approves itself to you, I am anxious to know, as furnishing for myself, if not the best conclusion, yet the best hope of a conclusion—the best track into which to let my thoughts run. But beyond what you may think good for me in these respects I have no right to ask, and I do not ask for your thoughts. They probably would be above and beyond me, and the responsibility of knowing them would outweigh the use which I should be able to make of them. [Footnote: To this letter of Mr. Hope's I do not find a reply of Mr. Newman's until November 26, when he apologises for having kept him in suspense, adding: 'So far from your not having written to the purpose, you laid down one proposition in which I quite acquiesce; that the subject of the supremacy of Rome should be moved argumentatively, if at all. I felt I had gained something here, and rested upon it, and gave up answering you, as it turns out, selfishly.' At the end of the letter he says: 'As to myself, I don't like talking; when we meet we shall see how we feel about it.' His reserve may, I think, be safely accounted for by his great unwillingness that such a man as Mr. Hope should be swayed by him to an act to which, as yet, he himself did not feel himself called.] Yrs ever truly, JAMES R. HOPE.Rev. J. H. Newman. |
|
