  1841-1842. Mr. Hope's Pamphlet on the Jerusalem Bishopric—His Value for the Canon Two days after the date of the letter to Lady Henry Kerr, given in the preceding chapter (Dec. 20, 1841), took place the publication of Mr. Hope's pamphlet on the Anglo-Prussian Bishopric of Jerusalem. It may be described as a learned and very closely reasoned argument against the measure; and a dry (even if correct) analysis of it would be of little biographical interest, especially as Mr. Hope's views on the question have already been abundantly illustrated from unpublished materials. I therefore refer those of my readers who wish for more extended information to the pamphlet itself, but shall quote from the Postscript to the second edition [Footnote: The Bishopric of the United Church of England and Ireland at Jerusalem, considered in a Letter to a Friend, by James R. Hope, B.C.L., Scholar of Merton, and Chancellor of the Diocese of Salisbury. Second edition, revised, with a Postscript. London: C.J. Stewart. 1842.] an eloquent passage on Canon Law, which is as characteristic of the writer as anything I have yet been able to produce, and exhibits, I think, in a striking manner how singularly this austere subject constituted at the time the poetry of his life, and how largely the conflict between the principles of Catholic jurisprudence and Anglicanism must have influenced the reflections which ended in his conversion. Mr. Hope here refers to some remarks on his pamphlet which had appeared in one by the Rev. Frederick Denison Maurice, entitled 'Three Letters to the Rev. W. Palmer, &c.' (Rivington: 1842). Value of the Science of Canon Law. [Mr. Maurice] sets all lawyers at nought, and canonists he utterly despises. Hastily, indeed, I think, and for the purpose of the moment only, can he have given way to such feelings, for he needs not that I should tell him that the Church of Christ rests not upon speculative truth alone, but upon the positive institutions of our Lord and His Apostles. Surely, then, to trace those institutions from the lowest point at which they come into contact with human existence, up to the highest to which our eye can follow them, the point of union with the unseen world in which they take their rise, and from which they are the channels of grace and truth and authority to the souls of men—to trace, I say, the outward and the visible signs of sacraments, of polity, of discipline, up to the inward spiritual realities upon which they depend, which they impart and represent to faith, or shelter from profanation; to study the workings of the hidden life of the Church by those developments which, in all ages and countries, have been its necessary modes of access to human feeling and apprehension; to systematise the end gained; to learn what is universal, what partial, what temporary, what eternal, what presently obligatory, and wherefore; surely a science such as this, so noble in its object, so important in its practical bearings upon the unity and purity of the Church, and upon her relations to the temporal power, is not one of which Mr. Maurice would deliberately speak evil. Yet this is the science of the canonist. [Footnote: Mr. Hope's pamphlet on the Jerusalem Bishopric, 2nd ed., p. 55.] There are still portions of his correspondence with Mr. Newman, belonging to the same period and subject, which must not be withheld:— J. R. Hope, Esq. to the Rev. J. H. Newman. 6 Stone Buildings, Lincoln's Inn: December 21, 1841. Dear Newman,—Your speedy reply and return of my proofs was very kind. The hard passages I did not know how to make easy, as they are pure law, so have left them…. I hear that the Bishop of London refused a man orders last week on three points—Eucharistic sacrifice in any sense, real presence in elements, grace in orders. The second point (being also the Bishop of Winchester's) I have illustrated in a note to my pamphlet (very briefly) by reference to Augsburg Confession. You see the young Prince is to have a R. Catholic sponsor on one hand, and the King of Prussia on the other. This is a good balance, though the Canon tolerates neither…. Ever yours, J. K. HOPE.The Rev. J. H. Newman to J. R. Hope, Esq. My dear Hope,—… You take the canons of 1603 as legal authority, I see. This has been a bone in my throat. I wish them to show the animus of our Church, but directly you make them authority, the unhappy Ward is ipso facto excommunicate for having been to Oscott, until he repent of his wicked error. But there is no resisting law. Palmer's 'Aids to Reflection' contain some very valuable documents. What the Bishops are doing is most serious, as well as unjustifiable, as I think. Really one does not know but they may meet in council and bring out some tests which will have the effect forthwith of precipitating us, and leaving the Church clean Protestant. Pray, does a majority bind in such a council? I mean in the way of canons. Can a majority determine the doctrine of the Church? If so, we had need look out for cheap lodgings…. Ever yours, John H. Newman. Oriel College: December 23, 1841. J. R. Hope, Esq. to the Rev. J. H. Newman. Palace, Salisbury: December 31, 1841. Dear Newman,—I am again settled here for ten days or so…. As to the Bishops meeting and making tests, they can in law do nothing, except in Convocation, with the Presbyters and under licence of the Crown. They may, however, as heads of dioceses, agree to enforce particular things, but there is not, I think, sufficient unity amongst them at present to allow of this. The Jerusalem business I hope is yet to be of good service to us, by rallying men of various shades against it, and by making the Bishops stand up against what cannot be called otherwise than usurpation of their rights by the Archbishop and the Bishop of London. The Bishop of Exeter, in acknowledging (to Badeley) the receipt of my pamphlet, says:— 'Would that those who direct proceedings of this hazardous and most questionable character may take warning from the effects of their inconsiderateness on this occasion! I doubt whether any three Bishops were consulted, or even informed, before the measure was completed.' This looks, I think, like action…. When I publish again, I should like to bring out more fully the bearing of the Augsburg Confession on the Thirty-nine Articles. I perhaps overrate the importance of this point, but it seems to me to put Tract 90 in great measure under the sanction of the Archbishop and Bishop of London. If you think of doing anything more about Tract 90, perhaps (which would be far better) you would take this up. If not, do you think you could get any one to collect for me the sense of Luther, Melanchthon, &c., as to the meaning of the chief articles of the Aug. Conf. I have always understood consubstantiation to be properly held under that document, and, if so, the admission of it with our Articles will appear to many people very awkward. You must not think me unreasonable for thinking that you can get this done for me (as you did the search about canons) at Oxford. Were our colleges what they ought to be, there would be in each a concurrence of labour whenever required, and I believe that you have men about you who have the feeling from which this (if ever it does) must spring. I am not without hope that some public move may be made about the bishopric. What say you to an address to the Crown, praying it to license the discussion of it in Convocation? I think some Bishops and many clergy would join in this, and it would, I suppose, be very 'constitutional.' I have not, however, looked up the formal part yet. Tell me what you think of the thing, and I will consider it further…. (Signed) J. R. Hope. The Rev. J. H. Newman to J. R. Hope, Esq. January 3, 1842. My dear Hope,—A happy new year to you and all of us—and, what is even more needed, to the English Church. I am afraid of moving about Convocation. Not that we should not be in safer hands than in those of the Bishops, but, though it restrained their acts, it would abridge our liberty. Or it might formally recognise our Protestantism. What can we hope from a body, the best members of which, as Hook and Palmer [of Worcester Coll.], defend and subscribe to the Jerusalem Fund…? Therefore I do not like to be responsible for helping to call into existence a body which may embarrass us more than we are at present. I think your [Greek: topos] about the Augsburg Confession a very important one, and directly more men come back will set a friend to work upon it. I am almost in despair of keeping men together. The only possible way is a monastery. Men want an outlet for their devotional and penitential feelings, and if we do not grant it, to a dead certainty they will go where they can find it. This is the beginning and the end of the matter. Yet the clamour is so great, and will be so much greater, that if I persist, I expect (though I am not speaking from anything that has occurred) that I shall be stopped. Not that I have any intention of doing more at present than laying the foundation of what may be. … Are we really to be beaten in this election [for the Poetry Professorship]? I will tell you a secret (if you care to know it) which not above three or four persons know. We have 480 promises. Is it then hopeless? … I don't think our enemies would beat 600; at least, it would be no triumph…. The Bishop of Exeter has for these eight years, ever since the commencement of the Ecclesiastical Commission, been biding his time, and the Duke of Wellington last spring disgusted him much. This both makes it likely that he will now move, and also diminishes the force of the very words you quote, for peradventure they are ordinary with him. I have good hopes that he will. Ever yours, John H. Newman. The experiment of offering to minds which had lost all sympathy with Protestantism, yet were unable to close with Rome, an imitation of the monastic life by way of shelter from the rude checks which their aspirations sustained in the world without, seems to have answered for a time, and possibly retarded for about three years that rush of conversion which made 1845 such an epoch in the history even of the Church. This may be inferred from the next letter, written shortly after Mr. Newman and his disciples were regularly settled at Littlemore. I am not aware what the report was which he so emphatically denies. The Rev. J. H. Newman to J. R. Hope, Esq. April 22, 1842. Dabam È Domo S. M. V. apud Littlemore. My dear Hope,—Does not this portentous date promise to outweigh any negative I can give to your question in the mind of the inquirer? for any one who could ask such a question would think such a dating equivalent to the answer. However, if I must answer in form, I believe it to be one great absurdity and untruth from beginning to end, though it is hard I must answer for every hundred men in the whole kingdom. Negatives are dangerous: all I can say, however, is that I don't believe, or suspect, or fear any such occurrence, and look upon it as neither probable nor improbable, but simply untrue. We are all much quieter and more resigned than we were, and are remarkably desirous of building up a position, and proving that the English theory is tenable, or rather, the English state of things. If the Bishops let us alone, the fever will subside. [After a few words on business] I wish you would say how you are. Ever yours, JOHN H. NEWMAN.Early in 1842 came out Dr. Pusey's 'Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury on some Circumstances connected with the Present Crisis in the Church.' In the preparation of this important pamphlet Dr. Pusey sought the advice of Mr. Hope, and the letter in which he asked it must be placed before the reader as an evidence of the value attached to Mr. Hope's opinion in the counsels of the party. The Rev. Dr. Pusey to J. E. Hope, Esq. My dear Hope,—You will be surprised that I should consult you as a layman and a younger man as to a work on the religious state of things, but I do it on N.'s suggestion, as seeing and being able to judge of men's minds; and ye question is not as to what is said, but whether it is expedient to say it, and for me; what will be its probable effect. The origin of it was my visit to Addington last autumn: after my return Harrison wrote me some long letters, recommending that one shd take occasion of ye Bishops' charges, under wh people writhed so much, to make one's defence, show that one was not so unsound as one seemed, and plead for sympathy. [Footnote: This fondness for the use of the indefinite pronoun very much characterised the Puseyite dialect, as I have somewhere read that it did the Jansenist. The phase which it marked may he seen fully developed in the tract 'On Reserve,' by Isaac Williams.] I was unwilling to leave what I was doing and put myself forward; but as H. told me that he had spoken on ye subject with ye Abp, it seemed to come with his authority, so I set myself to it. It has been delayed until now, waiting in part for unpublished charges, and for ye documents about ye Jerus. Bpric. It is now about finished, and wd occupy about ten sheets; what I send is, then, not half. The object of ye analysis of the Bishops' charges is to show that some do not object to our main principles, but to matters of detail; that others (as the Bps of Chester, Winchester, Calcutta) do not object to our principles at all, but to certain principles which they conceive to be ours. The effect of both, I hoped, wd be that our friends, who were fretted by these charges, wd see that neither we nor (wh alone signifies) Catholic truth is condemned, that others mt be better disposed towards us, and that the hint mt be taken in some charges this year. Anyhow, that there wd seem less of a consent of Bishops agst us, I was rather sanguine about this part. Then there follows something about the Jerusalem Bishopric and the East and Lutheranism, my object being to say that things are safe so long as the Bishops do not make any organic changes in our Church, or she be committed to any wrong principle. I conclude with some pages meant incidentally to reassure persons about ourselves, and of our good hopes and confidence and love for our Church. This I have been urged to do in some way or other by several, e.g. E. Churton, confidence having been terribly shaken by Golightly's wild sayings, and by the version put upon my own visits to ye convents. This I could do by implication without any formal profession. [Illustration: Private] Newman was against it from the first; he thought H. wanted to commit me to say things which N. thought I could not say; in a word, to express H.'s own views. About this I did not feel any difficulty, for having put forth doctrinal statements in my two last letters, I did not feel called upon to do it again, and so I went on. N. now likes it much in itself; indeed, he tells me he likes it the best of anything which I have written, but does not feel his former opinion removed; but he wished me to take another opinion. People seem to like the notion. The only part about which I have any misgiving is in these first slips, lest the picture of the temptations to Romanism should seem too strong; and yet, unless our Bishops realise that this tendency has some deeper foundation than any writings of ours, what they will do will be in a wrong direction. For myself, of course, I do not care what people think of me; and, on the other hand, one does not like to waste what one has employed time upon; but I am quite willing to give it up and be still, if it seems best; of course, one should be very sorry to add to our confusions. No one has suggested the mere omission of ye Romanist part. Jelf only (who had seen that part only without some additions which I have since made, that I might not seem gratuitously to exalt Rome to the disparagement of our own Church) suggested that it be printed only to send to ye Bishops. N. thinks this of no use. I have no other opinions. But I am entangling you with the opinions of others, when I meant to ask you yours simply. I know you will not mind ye trouble. Yours affectionately, E. B. PUSEY. Christ Church: September 27. The Romanist part, of course, has not ye Abp's sanction, and it must be so expressed. In the date of the above letter 'September' is struck out; 'January' substituted, and '42' added in Mr. Hope-Scott's hand, I think. How this is to be explained I do not know, but Dr. Pusey can hardly have made such a clerical error. Mr. Hope-Scott has endorsed the letter: 'I recommended publication, with some alterations and additions.—J. R. H.' Whatever influence Dr. Pusey may at an earlier period have exercised on the religious views of Mr. Hope must have been a good deal shaken by his inclination in the first instance to favour the Jerusalem Bishopric, followed, indeed, by a disapproval, but one far short of the energy with which Mr. Hope himself combated the measure. The Rev. E.B. Pusey to J.R. Hope, Esq. My dear Hope,—I thank you much for your 'letter,' which I had been looking for anxiously, but which by some mistake was not forwarded to me, so that I only saw it two days ago. It is very satisfactory to me; it seems quite to settle the point as to the duty of Bp A. I was also very much cheered to see yr own more hopeful view of things in our Church. I am a good deal discomforted by this visit of ye Kg. of Pr. It seems so natural for persons to wish that Episcopacy shd be bestowed upon those who desire to receive; and people for ye most part have very little or no notion as to ye unsoundness even of the sounder part of ye G. Divines. As far as I have heard of ye progress of truth there, the restoration of Xty in some shape has been far more rapid than I anticipated or dared hope, the soundness of the restoration far less. Yours affectionately, E. B. PUSEY.116 Marine Parade, Brighton: January 7, 1842. In another letter, dated Sexagesima Sunday [January 30], 1842, Dr. Pusey says:— I do not know your [Greek: topos] about ye Augsburg Conf. I have very little, next to nothing, about it. Do not leave anything for me. Each can do best what he feels most. I should be very sorry to take anything out of your hands; and altogether I can say ye less about this because, wretched as it would be that we should appear in ye E. connected with Lutherans, I do not feel that it would introduce any organic change in us, and so cannot anticipate that it would. I see that the Conf. of Augs. does not express consubstantiation. Art. X. may express Catholic doctrine. I subjoin a few more letters from Mr. Hope's correspondence relating to his pamphlet on the Jerusalem Bishopric question, interesting as it is in itself, and forming so great a crisis in his religious history. The Ven. Archdeacon Manning [since Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster] to J. R. Hope, Esq. December 30, 1841. My dear Hope,—I have this moment ended your pamphlet, and will not wait for a cooler moment to thank you. I do so heartily. God grant we may be true and manly in affirming the broad rule of Catholic order. I add my thanks to you in another shape. In your last three or four pages you and I were nearing each other's thoughts. It is refreshing to find an answer at a distance. Forgive my long neglect of the enclosed paper, which after all bears only my name, and probably too late for use. Ever yours, dear Hope, most sincerely, H. E. MANNING.The Rev. William Palmer (of Magdalen College, Oxford) to J. R. Hope, Esq. Mixbury, near Brackley: December 29, 1841. Dear Hope,—I am much obliged to you for sending me a copy of your letter, which I have read with the greatest pleasure…. I see that in the statement just published by authority, no Prussian documents are given. I think your letter will be a puzzling one; but the spirit of practical Protestantism is subtle and versatile, and able to set aside everything—laws, principles, rubrics, and canons. Else I do not see how the mischief which I apprehend could be realised. Ever yours sincerely, W. Palmer P.S.—I am glad you think my pamphlet may be useful. We have taken entirely different sides of the same subject; I the theoretical (as it seemed to me), and you the practical view of the question. Sir John Taylor Coleridge to J. R. Hope, Esq. My dear Hope,—Many thanks for your letter, which I have read through with, I may say, a painful interest. Of course, in a matter so difficult in itself, and so new, I must confess, to me, I do not take on me at once to pronounce that you are right, but I cannot at present find out where you are wrong; and I am the more inclined to think that you may be right because I see in the Act just words enough to satisfy people rather precipitate that the Prussian scheme might be carried through safely on them. 'Spiritual jurisdiction,' 'over other Protestant congregations,' would seem to ordinary minds enough—till it was further considered how the English Bishop was to work out the scheme by virtue of these words, and yet be consistent with his own engagements. I shall not be sorry, however, to find that you are answered; not that I wish to accomplish, or seem rather to accomplish any end by a disorderly and indigested attempt at union; nor do I think this thing of itself so important as many do: still it is one which very much arrests the imagination, and excites strong devotional feeling; and I rather looked on it as leading to more important matters with Prussia itself. I cannot, too, help a little more personal feeling for the Bishop than it fell within our plan to express—a good and pious man, I believe, but not by intellect or previous habits fitted to meet such emergencies as you place before him. Very truly yours, J. T. Coleridge. December 30,1841. Montague Place. Sir Francis Palgrave, K.H. to J. R. Hope, Esq. Rolls House: January 4, 1842. My dear Sir,—I ought before this to have thanked you for your kindness in sending me your most able letter, but I did not like to do so until I had read it with that attention which it deserves. It is difficult to understand how your arguments can possibly be shaken. The statute 25 Hen. VIII. c. 21 evidently relates only to such dispensations upon the suit or for the benefit of individuals as had been theretofore usually issued by the Roman Chancery, and to wrest it into the power of establishing an uncanonical see appears a most bold attempt. Nothing would more clearly show the true relation of the Church of England to 'other Protestant churches' than a reprint of the whole proceedings of the Convocations from William and Mary to their extinction— adding proper notes. Yours ever truly, Francis Palgrave. The Right Rev. Dr. Philpotts, Bishop of Exeter, to J. R. Hope, Esq. Bishopstowe, Torquay: November 10, 1842. My dear Sir,—Permit me to ask you whether you can receive and answer a case of ecclesiastical law? That you can answer it better than any other man I have no doubt; but can you receive the case professionally, so as to enable a Bishop to show your opinion as his authority for action? I have never thanked you for your kindness in sending me a copy of the second edition of 'The Bishopric of the U. C., &c., at Jerusalem,' for I am ashamed to own I have never, till this day, read the new matter which it gives to us. Accept now my hearty thanks for your kindness to me in sending to me a copy, and my still heartier acknowledgments of your invaluable service to the Church in furnishing it with such a lesson. You have, of course, seen the 'Alterius orbis Papa's' letter of June 18 to the King of Prussia, and have, with me, wondered at the mixture of temerity and cowardice (which latter quality, by the way, is the rashest of all feelings) indicated in such a mode of escaping from the difficulties by which he was pressed. I grieve for this marvellous indiscretion. But I am amused by the bolder defiance of all consistency which is exhibited by his prime Adviser, who, while he prompts his Chief to trample Rubrics, Canons, Statutes, under his feet, commands His own Clergy to observe them 'with Chinese exactness.' I went to your second edition, in order that I might find your promised remarks on the need in which the Church stands of a Church Legislature. I have read them with great gratification, and implore your close attention to the subject. My Clergy are, I believe, about to meet and to address me to urge on the Archbishop their earnest desire of leave from the Crown for Convocation to consider the best means of altering its own constitution, or otherwise devising a new Body empowered and fitted to act synodically. This is, at present, somewhat of a secret, but it will in a few days, I believe, transpire. From other quarters, I hear, similar proceedings may be expected. The Yours, my dear Sir, Most faithfully, H. EXETER.[P.S.] Pray tell me whether you think the argument in my Charge on Escott v. Mastin is now tolerably effective? What 'oath of obedience' is the ordained German to take to the Bishop? Not Canonical—that is plain. What oath can it be? Of course, it will hardly be an absolute promise on oath to obey all commands. All lawful commands would involve a question—what are lawful commands? Who is to judge? What law is to be the rule? Somebody named by the King is to attest for the Candidates their qualification for the Pastoral Office; but the Bishop is 'to convince himself of their qualifications for the especial duties of their office, of the purity of their faith, and of their desire to receive ordination at his hands!' What is meant by the Clergyman's preparing Candidates for Confirmation in the usual manner? Usual where? in Prussia or in England? Have they baptised Godfathers in Prussia? If they have not, how can they be confirmed according to the Liturgy of the U. C. of E. and I.? To these letters from such distinguished co-religionists of Mr. Hope's, all belonging, with various shades of difference, to his own religious party, I add a portion of one, bearing on the same subject, from a Catholic and foreign friend of his who has been mentioned in a previous chapter,[Footnote: Vol. i. chap. xiii. p. 246.] Count Senfft-Pilsach. The contrast will be interesting; and it is also interesting to record a specimen of an influence, no doubt beginning to be more and more felt, though years had to pass before the result was visible in action. Count Senfft, though an active diplomatist, a friend of Metternich's, and quite in the great European world, was an example of the union, so often found in the lives of the saints, of deep retirement and devotion in the very thick of affairs; and we may be sure that his prayers for Mr. Hope were faithfully applied to assist his arguments. Count Senfft-Pilsach to J. R. Hope, Esq. La Haye: 21 Janvier, 1842 Mon cher Hope,— … J'ai lu avec un vif intÉrÊt vos rÉflexions sur ce nouvel EvÊchÉ de JÉrusalem, dont on paraÎt vouloir faire un lien entre l'Église anglicane et le Protestantisme EvangÉlique de Prusse, en cherchant À vivifier les ossemens arides de celui-ci par une sorte de greffe de votre Episcopat auquel nous contestons encore, comme question, la continuitÉ de la succession Apostolique. Si on rÉussiroit dans ce projet, une partie de vos objections pourroient se rÉsoudre. Mais M. Bunsen, l'artisan de la complication de Cologne, n'a pas la main heureuse, et la fÉconditÉ de son gÉnie, secondant son ardeur de courtisan, pourroit bien, en prÉtendant servir les tendances vagues de piÉtÉ de son maÎtre, embarquer celui-ci dans les plus graves difficultÉs en provoquant l'opposition des vieux protestans rÉunis aux rationalistes allemands. 'Quid foditis vobis cisternas dissipatas?' O mon ami! Comment s'arrÊter À quelques abus plus apparens peut-Être que rÉels, que l'Église supporte ÇÀ et lÀ sans les autoriser, et ne pas reconnoÎtre cette admirable unitÉ de doctrine, cette continuitÉ de la Tradition, qui caractÉrise la citÉ bÂtie sure la montagne, figure de la vÉritable Église selon l'Évangile. Certes ce n'est pas sous la domination de CÉsar qu'on pourroit aller chercher l'Épouse lÉgitime de J. C. Mais doit-on espÉrer la trouver dans la crÉation combinÉe de la volontÉ tyrannique de Henri VIII. et de la politique d'Elisabeth, tandis que la Doctrine comme la Discipline du Concile de Trente ne vous laisse rien À dÉsirer, et conquiert dÉjÀ vos suffrages?… J'ose compter partant sur votre intÉrÊt amical, et vous connoissez les sentimens sincÈres d'attachement et de respect avec lesquels je suis À jamais Tout À vous, SENFFT. |
|
