[Letters and Correspondence—1836]


Temple: Easter Eve, April 2, 1836.
It is desirable that the enclosed should not be delayed [viz. Perceval's petition for Convocation] I told you in Oxford that Dodsworth was anxious to learn your opinion respecting the impending Church measures; however, we were too much absorbed by other matters to come to anything definite ...

I still find a feeling of uneasiness at your joining, as people call it, with Boone [i.e. in the 'British Critic.'—J. H. N.]; and the spirit in which the articles in this number on the Oxford Tracts, &c.—and even your own sermons—is written, will, I think, impress you with the reasonableness of distrust of him and his. I do not say this at all as if I had changed my own mind about its being the best thing that could have been done to use that Review as an instrument, but merely to point out the desirableness of placing your own articles in contrast with theirs as soon as possible, instead of any attempt at harmonising.

If the Hampden business comes on again, please let Rogers or somebody write to me in good time. {164}


Easter Eve, April 2, 1836.
I wish you could tell me for J. Watson's information whether Dr. Wiseman went as your guest to Oxford, or was in any way under your special patronage there? He wants to give an answer to some one else on this subject, and hopes to be able to give one sufficient to prevent, as he says, your good fame being evil spoken of.

The Watson of whom Mr. Bowden writes in this letter was, no doubt, Mr. Joshua Watson. To the question asked Mr. Newman replies at once:

April 4, 1836.
I feel much obliged by Mr. Watson's inquiry. The simple answer is, that to the best of my belief Dr. Wiseman has not been in Oxford—at least, not in the University, though he may have passed through in a coach.

The origin of the report is this. When at Rome, I, as every one else, was introduced to him. In consequence, last July, a friend of his (a priest, R. C.), passing through Oxford, brought a letter of introduction from him, and dined in the Common Room, which for four hours was the scene of sundry amicable disputes. In the letter of introduction Dr. Wiseman said he was coming, but I believe he never did. Had he come I should have been bound, as I am still, to show him the same kind of general civility which he paid me at Rome; and which poor Pusey was obliged last week to show to a Crypto-Socinian sent here with a letter to him.


Hursley: April 7, 1836.
Consider whether it might not be good for you to come down here for a week or fortnight when the bustle, which I suppose will be occasioned again by the Hampden controversy, is over; and bring dearest Froude's papers with you, which one would have a sad pleasure in perusing here, where all my recollections are strangely mixed up with the idea of him.

Ogilvie was very urgent with me the other day to send in my name as a candidate for the Bampton Lecture. Now, the {165} line is gone by for this year, but I have an idea for another year which yourself suggested, and I should like to discourse on it with you. I mean taking up that plausible view of Romanism—which you give in the first of those 'Home Thoughts,' namely, as a development of the spirit of the first ages—and, trying it on various particulars, it strikes me that I might do myself much good by reading with a view to it, and might at any rate strike out something which would do good to the cause collaterally. But has it been done? or, are you doing or meaning to do it? Tell me true, on your allegiance.


Saturday night, April 9, 1836.
I heard news on the coach today which shows what good has been done by agitating, and how necessary it is to keep it up. A Rugbeian, who had just returned from attending the Rugby meeting, always held in Easter week, says that Lord Melbourne has written to Arnold to say that he was very anxious to make him a bishop, but that in consequence of the recent proceedings he could not venture to do so just at present. The information had come (with one step interposed) from one of the Rugby Masters.

The following 'rough' notes of a letter to Mr. Rose are upon the subjects dwelt on in the paper called 'Home Thoughts Abroad':

REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. H. J. ROSE [Transcribed from a rough copy.—J. H. N.]

Oriel College: April 10, 1836.
As to your kind message about dear Froude, I will consult with Keble [i.e. whether a notice should be put of him into the 'British Magazine'].

Your postscript requires a prompt answer, though I feel it very difficult at a moment to express my own feelings on the subject it refers to.

I seem to have vast and complicated truths before me, and must not be thought inconsistent if at different times I give different reasons for what I have said in those 'Home Thoughts' {166}  [vide 'British Magazine' for March and April 1836]. Nor can I quite recover the state of mind under which I wrote them. A substantial agreement in my different explanations I promise (but perhaps I have not realised to myself in the simplest form the end or object which I feel), and that I suppose is enough.

My object, then, in writing them was this—to provide beforehand against prospective evils. There is a probability of the whole subject of Church authority, power, claims, &c. &c., being opened. I am persuaded that the half-solutions, which have hitherto really been enough, will not do in time to come. Men will probe deep, and, unless we manage to cut under their objections, they will take root and bear bad fruit. So I want to forestall objections and their answers. There appears that in the Church of Rome as it is at present which seems utterly to preclude our return to her. Our tracts, at this very time in the press, are aiming to bring out this in a series.

Again, there is a possibility of a general crash, and then it will be as well we should have some notion what our Church's capabilities are. Hitherto she has been supported by the State; but if it fails her, what is she to do? This is the very problem laid down in our Tract No. 1. The advertisement to Vol. I. aims at the. same; and Tract 20. I wish to encourage Churchmen to look boldly at the possibility of the Church's being made to dwell in the affections of the people at large. At present it is too much a Church for the aristocracy and for the poor—mainly through the aristocracy—with few attractions for the middle classes.

Now, should these dangers not come, or, again, should these objections not be made, the whole of what I have said—i.e. in print—will, I conceive, look like a dream, and be a dream, and will do no harm. I cannot believe, till the evils are practically felt by being present, that any one will take up and use what I have thrown out [i.e. in 'Home Thoughts,' &c.]. Men will call it a theory, and I wish them to do so. But they may suggest something—if either evil comes—of answer against the Roman controversialist, of hope against the successful leveller. And, let me add, however chimerical they may be for our relief, in case of the latter evil, yet if something of the sort is not drawn out against the Romanist, surely he will puzzle us. [I conceive I suggest an answer, I feel to myself I do so, to his strong points         [erased in rough copy]].

As to alterations of the Liturgy [in 'Home Thoughts' I {167} advocate unconnected and independent additions and alterations], I think our business is to frighten the Evangelicals. In that tract to which you refer [NB. June 25, 1862.—Tract 3. I suppose in his postscript Rose had said that my desire for King Edward's First Book, &c. was inconsistent with the conservative tone of the first tracts.] I expressly state that we all have our own crotchets, and urge this as a reason for being contented with things as they are. The only way of stopping their desire to alter the Baptismal Service is to talk of King Edward's First Book. I think we may be of essential use to men high in the Church in this way. Already surely we have done good; there has been less wanton talk of alteration than there was, and those who desire it feel they must act covertly. I cannot doubt the Evangelicals are afraid and annoyed at us; they have to defend themselves, instead of attacking others according to their wont.

As regards our Rulers, those who know me, alone will tell how far my words, sincere though they be, are true; but I think I could submit without a word to any advice or correction from them which did not involve a suppression, on my part, of the Articles of the Creed in their primitive sense. If at this moment a competent authority told me to exclude all other subjects from the tracts [i.e. except the Articles of the Creed], I would obey. I wish the Evangelicals would say as much. The great principle I should ever maintain is, ‘to remain satisfied' with what we have and are, and to contend for it; but, if once we are dislodged from our existing position, to try to get a better.

As to 'excitements,' it is a very large subject; but I do not think the utter repression of these is the Gospel way of dealing with them. The Roman Church stops the safety-valve of excitement of Reason; we, that of the excitement of Feeling. In consequence Romanists turn infidels, and Anglicans turn Wesleyans.

I will but beg you in conclusion to correct, if necessary, some sentences of the note which I scribbled off to you the day before yesterday. When I said I thought you were almost too bold for an editor, I only meant generally to convey to you my assurance that you need never hesitate to send me back any paper of mine or to object against it. I was not implying you were too bold in admitting the 'Home Thoughts.'

[N.B. June 25, 1862.—The last sentence is obscure; it means, I believe, this: Rose was very sensitive. I once called {168} him 'Conservative' or said he was becoming Conservative, in the year, perhaps, 1834 or 1835, and thereby hurt him much. So here, I must have said to him something like 'Never fear plucking me, for you are almost too bold for an editor—meaning, I shall never take it ill, for I am the last man to accuse you of want of boldness,' and then the fear seized me lest he should say to himself, 'Here's a pretty fellow. He takes advantage of my kindness, makes me put in things which no prudent editor would receive, from the influence he has with me—and then laughs at me for letting him go such lengths under my editorial sanction.'—J. H. N.]

[I have preserved the rough copy.—J. H. N.]

The interest in Keble is such that the Editor ventures to give a further letter on his manner and turn of conversation:


Hursley: April 15, 1836.
Keble is indeed what you described him. He is so uncommonly kind and considerate, that one is sometimes almost discomposed by it. I wish I may be half as suitable to him as he is to me. It is a fortunate thing for me that Keble has been disposed to receive me with all sorts of favourable prejudices; for otherwise I should fear lest he should misunderstand me. There seems to me a very important difference between us for two persons continually working together. He is (so to say) all conclusions; I am afraid I am, for the most part, premisses. I do not suppose this is a very intelligible mode of expressing oneself; and very likely my amplification will not much mend it.

I mean that things come from him almost straight to practical conclusions. He does not make much of a discussion; does not enter into much detail as to views, explanations, possible motives, opinions of others; but goes direct to work for himself and comes to some result. Or, again, his arguments, reasonings, for his own views, are, as it were, squeezed and compressed into the smallest possible space—jerked out,—hinted at—implied; and then comes a big conclusion, at which others (e.g. such as I) would tuck up their skirts, and look carefully below to see whether St. Paul's was underneath them to prop up the weight, or rather would try to heap a Pehon upon Ossa of argumentation before they would venture {169} to top up with such a comprehensive or startling enunciation. Or, again, he does not give you half a conclusion because the other half may nearly choke you, but quietly administers the whole dose, trusting that, though at first it may be heavy on the stomach, the natural strength of your digestion will carry it off, and convert the mass into wholesome nourishment for the animal frame.

What a shame to trouble you with all this! But you have a way of making your friends feel you are interested about them, so that I do not feel much concerned for telling you all this in such a way about my well-being. If I have croaked to you [i.e. at other times], may I not try a more cheerful strain now?

I have been reading the Bampton Lectures again [i.e. Hampden's. He had known Hampden, I think, at Hackney] in order to steel myself for any kind of violence that may be proper. Really they are too bad. I should have supposed that you [Note 1] and Pusey had exhausted the objectionable passages, but really one has little trouble in making a list of one's own.


Temple: April 1836.
Bowden, Dodsworth, and myself have had some conversation this morning at the Christian Knowledge Society, the result of which is this letter. The occasion of so many clergy being gathered together at Oxford as will be on Thursday seems very opportune for obtaining their signatures to any Memorial respecting the new Church Bill, and should not be lost. Now if you approve of that respecting the Bishopric of Sodor and Man which Dodsworth has sent you, it might be signed now.

It really would be most lamentable that such a see should be suppressed. He tells me that the discipline of it is most primitive, the Bishop sitting in open court with his Presbyters, adjudging, excommunicating, &c. Then, again, the Bishop having no seat in the House of Lords is a valuable precedent: and altogether, when our crying evil is the fewness of the Bishops, and the wide interval which separates them from the other orders, it will be wretched if, for a saving of 2,000l. per annum, such a thing should be committed and not a {170} voice protest against it. Well, then, what we would suggest is that tomorrow (when, as we hope, your Hampden business will be for the present suspended [i.e. over for the present by means of a decision]) you and Pusey should consider the Memorial and make any alterations in it you think fit; and then get it engrossed and ready for signature by the time the men come in. Let it be observed that this case differs entirely from that of Bristol and Bangor, in that it is a total suppression—not what they profess to be, a better economical distribution of existing dioceses.

Bowden and Dr. Chapman are coming down tomorrow inside, and. Ryder, Rogers, and myself outside, the 'Defiance.' I fear that our majority will be much less than last, month [i.e. March 22]. Many lawyers are going down from here now who were absent then.


I believe that your correspondent's statements respecting the See of Sodor and Man are substantially correct.

It is said to be the most ancient in the United Kingdom, being founded about A.D. 450 by St. Patrick, who appointed St. Germanus the first Bishop. By an Act passed in Henry VII.'s reign, it was incorporated with the Church of England, being annexed to the Province of York, these particulars are given in Sacheverell's account of the Isle of Man, and also in Sir James Ware.

It is sad to speak of the conduct of the present clergy. With the exception of the Archdeacon, who is here using his best efforts to save the Bishopric, they have all consented to the suppression of the See, on condition that they obtain a share of the spoils; this is indeed miserable.

I learn from good authority that, on the wretched state of the diocese being represented to the Commissioners [June 15, 1862.—These Commissioners were appointed by Sir R. Peel, during his short administration in 1834-35. The Commission is the basis of my pamphlet on Suffragan Bishops.—J. H. N.], as an argument for retaining the Bishop, one of them (a Bishop) observed, 'If it is so bad with a Bishop, we may as well try whether it will not be better without one.' Is this the spirit in which our Church is to be reformed?

It is said that the intention of suppressing the see has arisen from some irregularities of the present Bishop in the matter of ordination. {171}


I send you a letter from Ward [son of the Bishop of Sodor and Man], together with a memorial which the Bishop of Sodor and Man has addressed to the Church Commissioners. The latter I cannot help looking upon as a very valuable document, both in reference to the subject itself, and also as a protest against the tyrannical character of the Commission. I fear the question will be introduced into the House of Commons on Thursday next. I hope Sir Robert Inglis will take up the question with zeal.


Oriel: April 18, 1836.
I rejoice about the Bampton, and think your subject a very grand and good one. I hope you will not forget your promise of a volume of sermons. I put it on this simple ground. We are raising a demand for a certain article, and we must furnish a supply. Men are curious after Apostolic principles, and we must not let the season slip. The seizing opportunities is the beginning, middle, and end of success; or rather (to put it higher) it is the way in which we co-operate with the providential course of things. We expect, too, your letters on Sacramentals; also will you be ready to talk with Pusey about your version of the Psalms?


Oriel: April 18, 1836.
 … Pusey expected to find you in his house even on his return—so you see he is making no stranger of you. I shall tell him you come on Thursday. As to a room, if I were you, I should continue to make my bedroom my study. It is what I always do when I can, with the best effect. However, since there is but yourself, it seems, for Morris is not coming, you can have the dining-room if you please.

Tell Tom, his namesake Keble wishes him to superintend the architecture of his new church, and is in a hurry, and was annoyed to hear he was out of Oxford …
Vale, valete, Jacobe cum Thomâ.
Ever yours affectionately,

Dr. Pusey's tract on Baptism had been recently published, and was exciting much attention when Mr. Newman wrote the following letter:


April 19, 1836.
If you knew my friend, Dr. Pusey, as well as I do; nay, as well as those generally who come tolerably near him, you would say, I am sure, that never was a man in this world on whom one should feel more tempted to bestow a name which belongs only to God's servants departed, the name of a saint. Never a man who happened unconsciously to show, what many more (so be it!) have within them, entire and absolute surrender of himself, in thought, word, and deed, to God's will. And this being so, I shall battle for him when his treatise is attacked, and by whomsoever. I do not say that he has finished his subject; rather he has opened a large circle of subjects, which, I trust, he will be strengthened to accomplish. Only, I say, as far as he has gone, he is intelligible and not alarming.

To the same inquirer Mr. Newman writes shortly after:

I am not aware that I ever 'determined' not to refer to the Prayer Book in defence of Dr. Pusey's treatise; at the same time I cannot allow that the Prayer Book is or ever was intended to be a repository of the perfect Gospel. It is a part of the original Catholic Services, and as such is the voice of all Saints in all times; but it is a matter of history that its present form was decided by a number of accidents. At the Revolution we ran the risk of the Athanasian Creed being omitted, or the Collects changed, &c. Now had that risk become a fact, still we trust the Prayer Book would have been a guide, as far as it went; but it would not have been a guide in all things, because it would have been silent about some. So, again, it was an accident that we have not King Edward's First Book; that Book retained the rite of Exorcism in Baptism. Now it would be very hard for a reader to turn round upon Pusey when he expresses reverence for the rite, and say, 'Where is it in the Prayer Book?' when but for Bucer—a foreigner—it would have been there.

Pusey's doctrine—that is, that of the Fathers—is this: That in Baptism there is a plenary remission of all that is {173} passed. That none such occurs again in this life, none such till the Day of Judgment. But it does not thence follow that there is no kind of Absolution besides promised us. There is; and of it the Collect for Ash Wednesday, &c., speak. It is this: we are admitted, as a transgressing child might be, not to the same absolute election, but from time to time, according as we pray, repent, and are absolved, to a lower state in our Father's favour. We are admitted to Church ordinances, Church privileges, and the state of grace which is in the Church, a place of rest, refreshment, respite, of present help; without more, however, than the suspension of our sins over our heads. Now think of this, and see whether both Prayer Book and Pusey do not teach this concordantly.

From the loss of his friend Froude, Mr. Newman's thoughts were abruptly called to another loss —a private one, which told deeply upon him. In transcribing his Mother's last letter, in which she recalls his Father's delight at his election to Oriel, and touches gently on his present turn of thought and action, which made him an influence in his generation, Mr. Newman added the two following sentences:

'On April 28, 1836, my sister Jemima was married to John Mozley.'
'On the following May 17 my Mother died.'


Iffley: May 18, 1836.
You will be distressed at the news I have to tell; the most overpowering event it is to me—my dear Mother's death. I did not know of her danger till the day before yesterday. She died yesterday.

It is indeed a most bitter affliction, but I feel it must be for good ... Pray give me your prayers.

Some words may be said here of this strange clash of events, a marriage and a funeral. Mrs. Newman had entered with a very warm and thoughtful interest into her daughter's engagement and marriage; her letters on the subject are as wise as they are full of feeling. She was a woman content {174} to live as it were in the retirement of her thoughts. She had an influence, though not a conspicuous one, on all about her. The trials of life had given a weight to her judgment, and her remarkable composure and serenity of temper and manner had its peculiar power. Under this gentle manner was a strong will which could not be moved when her sense of duty dictated self-sacrifice. The interest and excitement of the occasion had told upon Mrs. Newman and tried her frail health, but she kept up and made light of her indisposition until the wedding day was over. The present writer remained beyond the other guests to be with Harriett, the sister left alone. It was then that Mrs. Newman broke down; but the physician who visited her did not treat the case as a very grave one, and promised amendment. As quiet was recommended, Mr. Newman, in Oxford, was not immediately informed that anything serious was the matter, and when his sister wrote anxiously, her letter missed him through the stupidity of a servant. So that when he did come to Rose Bank he was shocked to find his Mother in an almost sinking state. Immediately he brought another opinion, but it was only to learn that his Mother's state was hopeless. The brother and sister were together with her to the end. This account is necessary to explain Mr. Newman's words to Mr. Bowden.

The day on which that letter was written, and which had to be passed in all the sad pressure of business incident to such occasion, Mr. Newman's one comfort was, as he said, that 'such a day can come but once in a life.'

In the Rev. J. B. Mozley's Letters there is a notice of this event and of its effect on Mr. Newman. 'Up to the time of the funeral Newman was dreadfully dejected, his whole countenance perfectly clouded with grief, and only at intervals breaking out into anything like cheerful conversation. But whether it is that the funeral service and the rite altogether has thrown a consolatory colouring on the sad event, or that he does not think it right to go on grieving now that all is over, certain it is that he seems much more like himself now than he has been for the week past.

'Dr. and Mrs. Pusey, Copeland, Rogers, and others attended {175} the funeral. Mrs. Newman was buried in a vault within the rails of the chancel of St. Mary's. [Note 2]

If any one present at the funeral has read this letter, it will have recalled to him Mr. Newman still kneeling at the altar when all was over, lost in prayer and memory, till at length Mr. Isaac Williams, who had officiated, touched his shoulder to recall him to the necessity of joining the mourning train in the return to the desolate home [Note 3].

The following letter after the death of his Mother was written when Rose Bank was deserted, his sister Harriett being now at Derby with Mrs. John Mozley.


June 21, 1836.
I went up on Monday to Rose Bank when the house was all but empty ... James Carter (Mrs. Newman's servant) has begun to mope. He misses his place.

I fear you remained here so long on my account. You have nothing to be uneasy at as far as I am concerned. Thank God, my spirits have not sunk, nor will they, I trust. I have been full of work, and that keeps me generally free from dejection. If it ever comes, it is never of long continuance, and is even not unwelcome. I am speaking of dejection from solitude. I never feel so near Heaven as then. Years ago, from 1822 to {176} 1826 [In the spring of 1826, Froude was elected Fellow of Oriel], I used to be very much by myself, and in anxieties of various kinds which were very harrassing. I then, on the whole, had no friend near me, no one to whom I opened my mind fully or who could sympathise with me. I am but returning at worst to that state. Indeed, ever since that time I have learnt to throw myself on myself. Therefore, please God, I trust I shall get on very well, and, after all, this life is very short, and it is a better thing to be pursuing what seems God's will than to be looking after one's own comfort. I am learning more than hitherto to live in the presence of the dead—this is a gain which strange faces cannot take away.


June 26, 1836.
I am full of work as usual, and trust it may tell. One never can say beforehand how long one's time is, or how long one shall be honoured with the opportunity of being useful. While, then, my health lasts I wish to employ myself … For what I know, I may in a year or two be cast aside as a broken tool having done my part. Not that I expect this, but God's ways are so wonderful.

Now I have not explained why I have said all this: for this reason, that you might not think me lonely. I am not more lonely than I have been a long while. God intends me to be lonely; He has so framed my mind that I am in a great measure beyond the sympathies of other people and thrown upon Himself ... God, I trust, will support me in following whither He leads.

What has been to me distressing in my work, is, that it has been one of the causes which kept me from being much with my Mother lately. But there was another cause. I mean of late years my Mother has much misunderstood my religious views, and considered she differed from me; and she thought I was surrounded by admirers, and had everything my own way; and in consequence I, who am conscious to myself I never thought anything more precious than her sympathy and praise, had none of it.

Nothing could be more uniformly kind and amiable and more sweet than Mrs. Newman's manner to her children and {177} to their friends; but the stir and tone of the Movement might well disturb her inner thoughts, as she was not constituted to throw herself into it, either by temperament or by circumstances. Her sympathy was what her Son missed, and that she could not always give. And he sorrowfully confesses to his sister, looking back, that his manner under the change might sometimes ill express what was in his heart.


June 30, 1836.
Keble's Preface is most glorious [to Hooker?]. I am looking anxiously for your new article in the 'British,' and have great pleasure at the thought of being myself found, nearly eighteen years after our first appearance on St. Bartholomew's eve, again in juxtaposition with you.


Eliot Place: Saturday, July 2, 1836.
Wood is most sanguine and eager to know every one who holds out prospects of being bettered, and says, 'Do you know, Rogers, I do not see why we should not absorb ALL young Evangelicals.' This is à propos of ——, on whom we are to call together: [eu genoito]. Wood is eager for controversy with people, and his sine qua non for thinking them promising is an anxiety to discuss and argue questions. He is most warm in his expressions of affection, &c., about Bowden. What a hit you have made there! He hardly ever sees him, he says, without finding out something fresh to like in him.

I have set to work fairly this week at attending Courts. The great gain will be that it will bring me very much across Wood. He lets me sit in his room when I am tired of hearing arguments in Court, and tells me what to read, and lectures me. In the meantime this does not agree very well with Bentham. The article [on Bentham], I think, must be finished before the partridge-shooting begins.

What do you think of doing about the 'Lyra'? [Arranging and editing.—J. H. N.] If I could be of any use I shall be very glad and like it much. N.B.—I know that I am not up to half your meaning in different places. {178}


Oriel: July 5, 1836.
I will scribble as well as this weather lets me, which, in spite of our thick walls, is hot. Perhaps I never recollect it so hot indoors here; the glass in my room is at 78°.

What could make you think I was waiting for a letter from you? My purpose is to come to you on Tuesday the 19th on two conditions: first, if you will take me; secondly, if I can get my church served on the 24th, which I do not doubt I shall, but have not yet secured. But be sure to be frank with me as regards your engagements.

Your letter was very encouraging and amusing. Do not lose sight, or rather you must find sight, of Mr. Matthison. Your news about Wood is capital, and about your article also. If the letters come in your way collected from the 'Globe' about us, they are worth reading. Certainly they are, on the whole, very accurate, and most encouraging. To be recognised as a fact is everything. If you form a knot in London, and set about puzzling the Peculiars, &c., I shall not regret one bit being left alone. An Apostolical bookseller, a friend of Mr. Norris's, is setting up here. He was a Dissenter. Dr. Wiseman (somewhat coolly) has sent me down two fresh Papishers last night; they dine with me today, and I can get no one to meet them but Berkeley. I think of laying down the rule that such parties in future must first conform to the Established Church. On this view, I took them to St. Mary's this morning, and they were morigerate through the Exhortation and half the Confession, when they bolted. NB.—One is a Priest and a Doctor. I almost thought I had converted them. (Now, my clear R., do not criticize!)

There is no news here. I have been making tracts and 'Churches of Fathers.' Do you see an answer to Pusey's 'Baptism' has come out under the title of 'A Tract for the Times against the Oxford Tracts,' which pleases me for two reasons: first, it calls itself a tract for the 'Times,' which it would not do unless that were a very good name; next, it is obliged, in consequence, to call ours the 'Oxford Tracts,' which is good again.

I am now going to dear Froude's papers, and perhaps shall transcribe them. My lectures are drawing to a close, and I almost think of making something of them, but fear the labour. {179}

Thanks for your offer about the 'Lyra'; your assistance will be everything. I have told Rivington you will call for any loose sheets he has from the 'British' with 'Lyras' in them. What I should like you to do (unless my proposal goes beyond your offer) would be to get a blank quarto book, and to paste them in one by one (or else, not doing this, merely number them). I think this would answer every purpose, or perhaps sometimes one way, sometimes the other. I should wish the series to begin with Scripture subjects, under the heads of Noah, &c., Moses, &c., Balaam, &c., Jonah, &c., down to St. Paul, &c. Then would commence the Church series, and the difficulty how to arrange—often sets are ready made—stray poems would sometimes admit of incorporation with these. Other sets would require making altogether. However, if you were to get ready by the time I come to you, we might do it together then.

If I could write a flash article on the subjunctive mood, I would, merely to show how clever I was; but I fear I can't—but I do not mind talking with you. I am most uncommonly delighted at the way Wood speaks of Bowden, but discern no 'hit' in it, except in the circumstance that they both were in London.

The allusion at the end of the following letter is to the death of the sexton of St. Mary's, under very painful circumstances.


Oriel College: July 10, 1836.
Tell Tom that,, to my surprise, the seven arches [in Littlemore Chapel, then building] are whole, and come out from the wall, whereas I thought they were to be in alto-relief or pilaster wise. My only fear is they will be too much of a thing. I shall have the cross cut or sunk in the stone that it may not be too prominent, since I see Banting [the builder] is bent on giving it the effect of a small cross on the altar ... I am perplexed whether a stone altar admits of cushions, and think I shall look at Westminster Abbey to determine. If Tom differs from my expressed judgment in any of these matters, or can help me, let him write me a line. {180}

It. dwells on my mind that, for what I know, had the custom of the times allowed me to hinder that sexton coming to the Communion, he might not have come to so miserable an end. Thus the so-called harsher course is the more kind. I paused before I administered to him, saying to myself, 'I do not know this man's heart: perhaps he has come religiously'; but RULES would dispense with the necessity of thus doubting. Ah me, what a state the Church is in! …

Love to my sisters, and thank them for their letters. Littlemore people are in statu quo.

In a previous letter, speaking of Littlemore Church, now near consecration, Mr. Newman had said: 'I cannot afford the flagon, and must be content with chalice, paten, and plate. I will have I. H. S., and nothing else.' He now writes:


July 12, 1836.
Your offer [a flagon for Littlemore Church] is most welcome, as it is most munificent. Very pleasant will it always be. You must have your names on it, and if you think English would be boastful, at least you could have them in Latin; but anyhow they must be there. As a suggestion, I throw out the following; but you will make something a great deal more suitable:—'Quo memoria sui | intra hos parietes | semper superstes esset | Lagenam | hanc Deo sacram voluerunt | Joannes Gulielmus Bowden | Elizabeth Bowden | A.S. MDCCCXXXVI.'

It will be best, on second thoughts, I think, not to engrave the inscription till the church is actually consecrated as St. Mary and St. Nicholas. Not that there is any doubt of it, but it is more business-like. And, as I had intended to have J. Watson's inscription [Mr. Joshua Watson gave the chalice &c.] done here, yours may be done too, if you like.

I was so hurried on Monday that I did not express suitably to you how kind I felt it in you and Mrs. Bowden to wish me to be sponsor to your little boy. I have hitherto had only two. I would not have any but an intimate friend's child, and they are a real pleasure. My two godchildren are continually in my thoughts, and a great pleasure, particularly as life goes on, and one is more cut off from domestic ties and thoughts. {181}


Oriel: July 17, 1836.
I send you the remainder of your sermons. One or two seem to me incomplete. I am anxious lest I should not be giving a good and correct judgment of them as a whole. So far I seem to be on sure ground; their coming from you will make them read, and, since they contain numerous protests against existing errors, this will be, must be, useful. Next, granting some to be somewhat abstruse, and some not to be striking, yet many are very striking. Yet, after all, I am so much afraid of my individual taste biassing me. Then, again, I was thinking about your parish sermons. Parish sermons would be more popular, and, if your general style of preaching is like one you preached for me the second Sunday after Trinity, 1835, I think yours would take people. You see it seems to me a great object, as Sir Waiter Scott beat bad novels out of the field, in like manner to beat out bad sermons by supplying a more real style of sermon. The tone would in time be raised. When they have once got hold of sermons with matter, nature, and reality in them, they will loathe the flummery which is popular. I should like to think over the subject, and you shall hear from me again.


Hursley: July 18, 1836.
I shall read with great interest the MS. of Froude's which you have been so kind as to send. I can, even without reading, fancy I see the great difficulty and perplexity you must be in at present, as to what course to take about publishing it at once. Things seem to me sometimes, as it were, at a turning point. A trifle will give the inclination on one side or the other. We (to speak shortly, for I hope we shall go together) want all the strength we can. We cannot afford by any shock even to throw back into their former upright posture of indifference or suspicion, some who are now leaning our way. Much less can we afford, as a matter of mere human calculation, to turn them adrift upon a self-dependency of their own. I suppose, whatever one's own private idea of results may be, one should desire and plan as though things were to be brought into the train one wishes. Surely it will be time enough to {182} gather one's robes about one in passive non-resistance, or to bare one's self to the blow, when things look past help or recovery.

I am writing in too much hurry for me to show any connexion between what I have just written and the unread MS. which led to it.


Hursley: July 29, 1836.
It is no use saying more, I suppose, about your coming here. Still, I am quite disappointed. It would be so much better seeing you here than at Oxford. You could not be sitting at your formidable upright desk, encompassed by tall folios; you could not be broken in upon by perpetual printers or any other visitors, but would be obliged to resign yourself to the direction of the Vicar and his Curate.


Brighstone Rectory: July 26, 1836.
I hope it is not impossible that we may now just tempt you to take a few days' relaxation here and in this neighbourhood. Robert is with me, and it will give him and Mrs. Wilberforce also [N.B. his mother], who is staying with us, great pleasure if you could come and see us. Then, too—reserving, on Lord Bacon's advice, my principal thing till last—you will see Keble in all the luxury of seaside idleness, wooing the sea nymphs to steal their melody in the seaweed caves of Freshwater, or musing over Augustine's 'De Civitate Dei' in the murmuring of the waves upon its pebble beach. Henry, too, should come over to welcome you; and the Southampton coach would bring you here and re-convey you to Oxford with great facility. I wish we could have you tomorrow. We have a clerical meeting here, and you might be of great avail in instilling sentiments into our insular understandings.

Surely a little change of air and scene must be useful to you, and would certainly be exceedingly welcome to us if it brought you here.

[June 12, 1862—I never was intimate or familiar with Samuel Wilberforce, though I had known him almost from the first day when he came up as a freshman to Oriel in October, {183} 1823. But he was drawn towards me by the friendship which his brothers had formed with me. Whatever alliance there was between us was brought to an end by his preaching against Pusey's view of baptism in the University pulpit; I forget the year. He wrote nothing in the 'Lyra Apostolica.' His brother Robert wrote one poem—viz. 'Samuel.' He wrote a review of the 'Lyra' in the 'British Critic.' I was, however, on easy terms with him up to the spring of 1841, when I wrote a letter to him on the loss of his wife. This was during the No. 90 row, which, I believe, silently gave the coup de grâce to our acquaintance.]


Oriel College: August 4, 1836.
 ... I came down with Lord Norreys and a party of Conservative statesmen, and managed by pure fate to appear the dullest and ignorantest of bookworms. I am sure they must have thought me so. I did not know whether to be amused or disgusted at myself. I sometimes have stupid fits. They knew who I was, and seemed curious about me. My coup de grâce on Lord Norreys's patience was mistaking Lord Stormont for Lord Stourton. I wish you had been by. But I cannot tell you all in a letter. Unluckily for me, Mozley [J. B. M.] was not here to hear my troubles, and my breast is full of a good joke unshared.


Oriel: August 5, 1836.
Did I tell you I was meditating the publication of the 'Lyra,' and therefore wanted your leave to publish your part of it? I intend to put α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, for the separate contributions, assigning them to their respective owners alphabetically [i.e.

Bowden α       
Froude β
Keble γ 
Newman δ
Robert Wilberforce ε
I. Williams ζ].

Pusey and I think of giving our names as joint editors to a library of the Catholic Fathers, which will consist of translations from St. Austin, St. Chrysostom, &c. &c. I am sure nothing will be like a good flood of divinity; it will carry the 'Record' off its legs ... {184}

I am busy with my new book ['Prophetical Office'], and, if anything is to come of my attempt, must keep steadily at it.

Palmer is reviewing Perceval's book. I wish with all my heart I could get a stinging article on Church matters. I have been attacking Keble, but he is always so sadly shilly-shally that I seem to labour in vain.


Angust 9, 1836.
Sir George Prevost was over here ten days ago, and with Keble concocted a sort of statement to be signed by the clergy and addressed to the episcopal members of the Church Commission, or to the Archbishop, concerning the measures which they have recommended to Parliament. The Memorialists are made to express that, if they commit themselves to the new arrangements and make no protest against them, it is as handing over the responsibility entirely to the Bishops, and keeping silence as an act of ecclesiastical obedience. At the same time they state that they will never allow themselves to receive any benefit from the funds thus redistributed, taken from lawful possessors and appropriated arbitrarily elsewhere.

This is only a part of what would perplex me how to act. Keble and Rogers both are strongly against me. Indeed, Keble seemed to see the duty so clearly that I should fear he would certainly consider me, if not publicly brand me, as a prospective thief if I would not bind myself to such a statement. Now, upon principle or from habit, I dislike all pledges unless absolutely necessary or unless involving some matter of grave and clear duty. And to the present pledge I should the more hesitate to commit myself because some of the chief persons among those who would sign such a paper, would understand you as thereby subscribing their belief to the 'inappropriableness' of Church property by any authority to Church purposes different from those which the letter of Founder's intentions prescribed. Further, it seems to me that there is a great difference between an individual making a resolution and a number joining together to publish that resolution, in the form (I suppose I may say) of a solemn protest. I think I should not sign such a thing unless I saw my way clearer, and could better understand the reasons which make {185} such a step right and proper [J. H. N. (in pencil at the side) N.B.—I should like to see my answer to this].

I am sorry to learn from Rogers that you have been suffering so much of late from your teeth. [I had been suffering ever since the beginning of the year.—J. H. N.]

By-the-bye, why will you economise so unnecessarily at times as if to keep your hand in. You sent Major B. away with a conviction that you looked on D. as a very fine, noble character. As he had received this information fresh from you, I did not venture to say anything subversive of your judgment; so now he will probably publish the high admiration and respect with which D. is looked up to by his late comrades—more especially by Mr. Newman.

In the 'Apologia' we find that 'Froude on one occasion accused me of economy.' [Note 5]


August 13, 1836.
I must say that, of all the 'Oxford Tracts,' this [against Erskine and Abbott] is that from which I seem to myself to have learned most.

How very interesting is the Breviary Tract! By the way, I heard the other day a tradition of Ken from my mother which occasioned me some musing.

My mother's grandmother's grandmother lived in those days, and was early left a widow, and knew Ken. He visited her, and asked to see the infant, saying, 'I delight to look on a human being who has never wilfully offended God.'{186}

This scrap has only gone through two hands, as my mother lived with her granny, who lived with the old lady. She herself died seventy-four years ago only, aged ninety-six. She died while her maid was reading to her one morning, according to custom, the Psalms and Lessons for the day.

Rogers is here and does one's heart good. He has told me a good deal about Oxford, you, &c.


Dartington Parsonage: August 24.
I was told yesterday, but it did not come from the Bishop to me, that, when he presented the address from my Archdeaconry, in which there was a reference to the appointment of Bishops, the King said, 'My Lord Bishop, this should not have been presented to me; it is a direct interference with my prerogative.' …

I cannot say what pleasure a visit from you would give me at any time.

The letter goes on to speak of the loss of a daughter. [June 24, 1862. I have never been in Devonshire from that time (Autumn, 1835) to this. Archdeacon Froude survived these his dear children twenty-three years. His sister's death [aged ninety-five?] has quite lately been in the papers.
—J. H. N.]


August 25, 1836.
I suppose that I shall see you gibbeted in the 'Record' of today. The Rev. E. B. Pusey, Regius Professor of Hebrew, the late Fellow of Oriel, was hung up on Monday last us having been mainly instrumental in diffusing 'High Church principles,' which, as the Editor in manifest terror declares, are spreading with an astonishing and unexpected rankness in our venerable Establishment.


Hursley: August 29, 1838.
Keble is certainly the most impracticable of men. I have bullied him with questions till I am afraid of affronting him {187} about the 'British Critic' article, and all I can get out of him is that he will look at Collier, and an injunction not to give you any hopes of his writing, because he had disappointed you often enough already. He has been at a Visitation Sermon which he has just finished, on Tradition. He tells me that George Denison [now Archdeacon] goes about the country puffing you and your views of things.

If there is any chance of a new edition of your 'Arians' I do wish you could make the Economy a little more palatable; so many people seem to me to find it hard of digestion. I think I told you long ago that it was the point on which Twisleton fastened, and I hear that Sir W. Heathcote, who people say is a clever man, and I suppose well-principled, has need of all his respect for you and Apostolicity to stomach it.

H. Wilberforce confesses to being in a process of rusting by being in the country. I hope I have brightened him up. His mother-in-law, whom I met, accuses you of worshipping Bishop Ken. Don't abuse me if I have told you nothing about Keble. I have made you finally certain that I have nothing to say.


Athlone: August 29, 1836.
We landed at Cork and have since traversed the South-Western Coast and the wilds of Connemara pretty completely. We are now returning home by way of Dublin. Thus the portion we have seen is almost exclusively Roman Catholic, and the Anglo-Irish Church throughout this district offers a very grievous spectacle both to the mind and to the eyes. You see in many villages ruined churches unroofed and covered with ivy, and within a few yards of them R.C. chapels newly and neatly built; and in the towns, where there are Protestant congregations, we have heard nothing but Peculiar sermons, and found nothing but Bible Christians, co-operating with Dissenters and giving up everything but the name of Churchmen for fear of Popery. What a miserable reflection it is, that there should be an Apostolical society composed of persons, whose conduct is such as to confirm (one might almost say to justify) the Romanists in their errors, and by its presence to oppose a positive obstacle, humanly speaking, to their being reclaimed!

We travelled yesterday with the clergyman of Westport, Co. Mayo, who told us of the proceedings of Mr. Nangle, who {188} has settled with some Protestants in Achill, an island off Mayo, without a church and hitherto without a resident clergyman. His point of attack on the peasantry is Transubstantiation, upon which he uses rationalistic and ludicrous arguments. In this sad way he has converted about sixty persons, and our friend recounted some profane stories about this with great satisfaction.

The National Board schools have fallen, in these parts—owing to the non-interference of the clergy and non-residence of the landlords—entirely under the direction of the priests. They are attended solely by R.C. children; and their own books, very naturally, used in them. Wherever there are Protestants they have their own schools, and reject the National Board aid and system; not, however, at all on Church, but on ultra-Protestant, principles.


Oriel College: August 30, 1836.
You have taken a great deal of pains, and thank you. Mi fili, you are praiseworthy, but what mean you by that strange flight of yours against parsons' wives? I should commend you, for it is well meant, except that, first, it is not quite true; next, as not being so, I fear a reaction, and that in your next letter you will be staking the force of your persuasions and their success upon that hapless youth, W. Parsons' wives, you see, are useful in a parish, and that in a way in which no man can rival them. Do you find a substitute for them, and perhaps your ingenuity may, and then give full swing to your virtuous impulses. But at present you must bear to be candid towards them [Note 6].


Oriel: September 14, 1836.
I hope that this and several of your University Sermons will find a place in your Village Sermons. It seems to me your witness will be important—that is the first consideration. {189}

At the Convocation about Hampden a non-resident, standing near H. Wilberforce, said, in his hearing, 'I wish I had a clear view. Does any one know which side Keble is on?' If your sermons simply did this on a number of daily matters—namely, give your side—it would be object enough for publishing them.

I hope to get on with the transcription of dear Froude's MSS. James Mozley has been hard at St. Thomas [of Canterbury] the whole vacation.

Pusey is setting on foot a 'Library of Catholic Fathers' (translated). He and I are editors; think, please, of translators.


Cuddesdon: Thursday, September 22, 1836.
I was so much pleased with your sermon [Note 7] today that I should feel much gratified and obliged if you would allow me to read it. If, however, you feel any objection to an application of this kind, pray do not scruple to decline in my case.

September 30.—In returning the sermon the Bishop writes 'Many thanks for your sermon. I have read it with sincere delight.'


Oriel College: September 23, 1836.
Your absence [at the consecration] was a great disappointment to us; but the flagon seemed to stand in your place. It is exceedingly handsome, and was much admired. Our party consisted of Rogers, R. Williams, I. Williams, H. Wilberforce and his wife, Mozley [T.] and his sister. The day was fine, and, as you may suppose, the chapel full. Williams read, and I preached. The east end is quite beautiful. We had a profusion of bright flowers, in bunches, all about the chapel. The Bishop was much pleased. There were a number of details which made it a most delightful day, and long, I hope, {190} to be remembered here. Two children were baptized afterwards. The Eucharist not till Sunday.

There is to be a view of the interior, as it was on the day, in the 'Memorials of Oxford.'

On the 27th of this month Mr. Newman's eldest sister Harriett was married to the Rev. Thomas Mozley, then Rector of Cholderton. The marriage took place at St. Werburgh's, Derby, the Rev. S. Rickards officiating.


Hursley: October 4, 1836.
I am going to write to Pusey immediately to send in my adhesion to the proposed plan. Although I almost feel it a pious fraud, acting as if I knew so much more than I really do about the Fathers. As to the Archbishop [Howley], it is merely a theory of Rogers that I should have any objection to the book being dedicated to him: provided the dedication say nothing about obligations which the Church is under to him, or about his personal fitness for the office. I think it would be, as far as it went, a great unkindness to him to make him think that such was the opinion of his clergy generally. Pusey, by his letter today, has heard a different set of opinions expressed; he says no one but the Chapters are discontented, but I hear nothing but extreme disapprobation expressed by the parochial clergy.

The Archbishop is coming here next Friday week, to stay till Monday—i.e. at Heathcote's. I wonder if Rose would come to stay with me at the same time, if I asked him. How happy he must be to get rid of the trammels: for I suppose, of course, that he ceases now to be chaplain [i.e. on his taking the Headship of King's College]. Who will have the Magazine? Would Dodsworth do?

I am extremely obliged to you for looking over my Visitation Sermon. Your and my brother's approbation gave me so much courage that I thundered it out more emphatically almost than ever I did anything in my life, and to my great surprise they asked me to print it. This, I thought, was out of the question at Winchester on such a subject with such a divided clergy. I did not promise to do so, but I believe I shall.

Harrison, who was accidentally at Winchester, and who {191} afterwards came out here with his sisters for a few days, seems to think that the main body of Low Churchmen about here are in a very malleable state on the subject, and that a little judicious striking, now the iron is hot, would do them much good. I was certainly surprised at Dr. Dealtry's way of taking it; and yet his charge was throughout a mere Establishment business, and he took pains to say that he was still a friend of the Bible Society.


Dartington Parsonage: October 13, 1836.
I sent off a parcel to you three days ago by Henry Champernowne. It contains the text of dear Hurrell's manuscripts. All your letters to him that I can find are also inclosed. With the latter I must confess I have not parted without regret. They are memorials of your affectionate friendship with one whose image is ever before me, and to which I could never turn without a delightful interest that I cannot describe. His correspondence for many years with myself turns principally on little passing incidents, or relates to matters of private concern; but it is of great value to me as a sort of journal from early boyhood nearly to the time of our separation


Temple: Saturday night, October 29, 1 836.
 ... Bowden wrote to me some time ago saying that Harrison was very anxious to have a paper set up on Catholic principles against the 'Record,' and that Dodsworth wished it too. I cannot wish to have any of our friends involved in such a net of turmoil and controversy, running the hazard of hastily pledging the rest to this or that, rudely treading on the verge of sacred things, &c. Can you?


Precincts, Canterbury: November 12, 1836.
I am delighted at the prospectus Pusey, Keble and you have put forth respecting translations from the Fathers, and I will thank you to enter my name as a subscriber to the work. {192} We sadly want that correct knowledge respecting the Church, its privileges, its character, its authority, which the Fathers teach; and glad shall I be to see the rising clergy studying in that school. If we cannot have, and I fear we have no chance of obtaining, theological seminaries where sound principles may be regularly inculcated, the next best thing is to enable young men with little cost or trouble to acquire them for themselves; and I earnestly beg a blessing on all your well devised exertions in this holy cause.


Oriel College: November 27, 1836.
The 'Lyra Apostolica' is just out. I am getting on with a new volume on Romanism, but slowly. I have re-written some parts an incredible number of times. We seem to be making way very remarkably here in Apostolical views: so much so that our success quite frightens me, as being unnatural—may it be supernatural!

What a magnificent sermon Keble's is [on Tradition?]. I think it the boldest and most powerful composition we have yet put out.


Tuesday, November 22, 1836.
If you are going to reprint the 'Arians' it will give me both pleasure and profit, as I once proposed to you, to index it. Please let me know. I am going, anyhow, to read it again.

I was in Dealtry's house, where also was the Dean of Chichester [Chandler]. In Chandler I was agreeably disappointed. He said most strongly how invaluable to the Church had been our Hampden business. Next, the Præmunire was very much discussed between the whole party and Sam. The feeling of the great men [the Dean and Dealtry] was very encouraging. They all seem quite of one mind that the evil must be resisted, though doubtful how. How Froude ran on, about ten years in advance of the Church! Do you remember how every one shrieked at his daring when first he stirred that question? But what is better than this—(1) the Dean said 'It is always unpleasant to say what one "would have done" {193} in such and such circumstances, but I may mention that I and the Archdeacon and others had talked the matter over, and had come to the resolution that, if Hampden was nominated, we would not elect him'? There is something for you. (2) As to Dealtry, even now he keeps in the Bible Society, and has joined the new Pastoral Aid; but he is a fine fellow. He spoke most highly of Keble's Visitation Sermon. Tue only fault he found in it was that it was an hour and a half long! As to the doctrine, he says it gave great offence, but, he thought, quite without cause. There is another fact which I know to be true; namely, he was offered the bishopric of Chichester if he would vote for the 'Appropriation Clause.' He refused. It was said in his presence that Otter was not pledged; he said, 'Oh, I am sure that he is.'

Jebb is indeed a cheering man; cheering, I mean, because, without being at all of your school or Pusey's, he has come by original study of Christian antiquity to exactly the same conclusions. He told me that he had never till lately read even such books as Bingham, but almost exclusively the ancient originals. About nine months ago [when he came from Dublin] he did not know that there were any persons of Apostolical views in the English Church. He told me that, if he had known it about three years ago, when he was doubting where to reside, he would certainly have taken up his abode at Oxford. You must get to know him [June 18, 1862. I believe I never saw Mr. Jebb. I have preserved one long letter of his of this year 1836. It was too systematic to extract from and too long to transcribe.—J. H. N.); he is just thirty-one. He said to me, 'You may conceive how delighted I am to find the English Catholics doing the very things I have been longing for, for years.' He meant particularly your daily service, and what I told him you talked of, weekly communion, &c.

I have just by me here a man who has been four years in one of the chief churches in New York. The account he gives is, that among the clergy there is more Church principle than here; but I regret to say they all allow the prejudice of colour to interfere in Church matters. Only think of this. There are very few churches in which they will allow coloured men to worship at all with the whites. 'Coloured' does not mean negro, but any one who has any cross of negro blood, however distant even.

There is nothing certainly in the matter of the following {194} letter that asks for or justifies the perpetuity of print, but the manner is distinctly that of the writer:


London: December 10, 1836.
My dear James,—I want you to do me a favour. Please go at once to my room; stand opposite the bookcase, look down at the two closets with their silk flutings; select the left-hand one, as you stand. It seems fast, but it is open. It only wants any key whatever, in the lock, to overcome its sticking. Open it; on the second shelf from the top, a lot of sermons lie, crammed in. I want one of them, viz. the one I preached December 4, 1836, i.e. last Sunday. I think it is No. 437, and the text from 1 John ii. Please put it into a parcel with whatever letters are lying for me, and let me have it directed to No. 36, Grosvenor Square, at R. Williams, Esq. I shall want to preach it on Wednesday next, but should like to have it directly.


December 11, 1836.
Keble went down on Thursday and so cheated the Theological this time. The first part of next term he reads two papers successively on [mysteria]. Harrison read on Friday on the disputed text, St. John. He has been preaching this morning at St. Mary's on the text 'Firstborn of every creature'; the subject, the Mediatorial Kingdom of Christ generally.

Pusey made himself ill again by his party on Tuesday, and is not recovered yet.


Dartington Parsonage: December 13, 1836.
Nutcomb Oxenham has delighted me by saying there is a chance of my seeing you and Mr. Williams here during the vacation. I write, then, to press most earnestly on you both the fulfilment of the hope he has raised. Name your own day, make it as early a one as you can; but, as I have the promise of a short visit from Mr. Southey, and feel sure you will like {195} him, do manage your plan so that you will stay out the second week in January. I will try to prevail on Mr. Keble to meet you. I hear you have a splendid altar table [at Littlemore]; that which dear Hurrell designed, and had executed for my chancel, is now in its proper place.


Temple: St. Thomas's Eve, December 20, 1836.
Dodsworth has told me something today which you should by all means know, whatever weight is to be attached to it. There is a Mr. Harvey, a good sort of man, clergyman of Highgate, a common friend of his and Boone's, from whom he has learned the following:—

Boone is immensely disgusted with your Wiseman article, and declares that, if another of the same kind is sent, he will throw up the editorship (they say you make Wiseman a peg to hang your attacks on Protestantism on). Now this is more probably a mode of expressing anger than a real expression of purpose; still, anyhow, it is an indication of his state of feeling, and of what things may be tending to, against which one should be forearmed for the purpose of dictating terms.

Very much on the same ground that I object to a newspaper, I should be very sorry to see you hampered and engaged by review editorship; but, in case of your thinking proper to undertake it, we must all, of course, do our best, and I think we could manage it. Dodsworth and one or two men would then come forward, and Bowden, Rogers, Mozley, the Wilberforces, and your Oxford friends would be more energetic …

So far as to the feasibility of it; as to the expediency, Rose's being frightened, the thing beginning in a split, &c., would all have to be considered.

At the close of an eventful year the Editor interrupts the course of the 'Letters and Correspondence,' to give a picture of Mr. Newman as seen and known at this time in the seat of his influence by the world at large. A vivid and loving memory, in looking back at these days, has written thus of Mr. Newman's manner in the pulpit of St. Mary's:—

'The reader will not need to be told that there was a something which neither the press nor the most skilful pencil {196} can ever perpetuate in the whole manner and delivery of the preacher. What that something was we utterly despair of giving even a faint idea of to any man who did not witness it. To those who are justly penetrated with the force and beauty of these printed sermons, we can only say with Æschines, "What if you had heard himself pronounce it?" And yet nothing could at first sight be more opposite to the manner of the great Athenian orator. Action in the common sense of the word there was none. Through many of them the preacher never moved anything but his head. His hands were literally not seen from the beginning to the end. The sermon began in a calm musical voice, the key slightly rising as it went on; by-and-bye the preacher warmed with his subject, it seemed as if his very soul and body glowed with suppressed emotion. There were times when, in the midst of the most thrilling passages, he would pause, without dropping his voice, for a moment which seemed long, before he uttered with gathered force and solemnity a few weighty words. The very tones of his voice seemed as if they were something more than his own. There are those who to this day in reading many of his sermons have the whole scene brought back before them. The great church, the congregation all breathless with expectant attention. The gaslight just at the left hand of the pulpit, lowered that the preacher might not be dazzled; themselves, perhaps standing in the half darkness under the gallery, and then the pause before those words in the "Ventures of Faith" (vol. iv.) thrilled through them—"They say unto Him, We are able"—or those in the seventh sermon in the sixth volume, "The Cross of Christ."

'Nor should the manner of reading the Psalms and the Scripture lessons in the service which preceded the sermon be passed over. Its chief characteristics were the same. Why is it that, while many things at the time even more impressive have faded from the memory, one scene, or perhaps one cadence, remains fixed in it for life? Thus it is that one who more than forty years ago stood just before him almost a boy in the college chapel, has at this moment in his ears the sound of the words, "Oh, magnify the Lord our God and worship him upon His holy hill—for the Lord our God is Holy."' [Note 8]


Top | Contents | Biographies | Home


1. In the Elucidations.
Return to text

2. Mr. F. W. Newman, who at that time was living at a distance from Oxford, was prevented attending his Mother's funeral by the very serious illness of his wife.
Return to text

3. A remembrance of this date is found in a packet of letters returned to the writer.


When we came back from the funeral the sun was in the house again; of course it did not bring back the change; but as if Mr. Newman thought that grief had reigned long enough, he seemed by a sort of resolute effort to throw it from him, and resume his usual manner. He remained as a member of the family party for a few days, and joined in long walks which were taken. It was then that I first saw Shotover and Bagley Wood. I remember one day Mr. Newman giving the account of his illness in Sicily, and the effect of the scenery upon him on his recovery. Such descriptions are not to be described over again. They harmonized then with the scene before us; and recent suffering had the effect which by right belongs to it, of giving to nature, both present and in memory, such glow and brightness as if it were a foretaste of heaven.
Return to text

4. At Derby.
Return to text

5. 'It is principally through Mr. Froude's Remains that this word—economy—has got into our language. I think I defended myself with arguments such as these:—That, as everybody knew, "tracts" were written by various persons who agreed together in their doctrine, but not always in the arguments by which it was to be proved; that we must be tolerant of difference of opinion among ourselves; that the author of the "tract" had a right to his own opinion; and that the argument in question was ordinarily received; that I did not give my own name or authority, nor was asked for my personal belief, but only acted instrumentally, as one might translate a friend's book into a foreign language. I account these to be good arguments; nevertheless, I feel also that such practices admit of easy abuse, and are consequently dangerous; but then again I feel also this: that if all such mistakes were to be severely visited, not many men in public life would be left with a character for honour and honesty.'—Apologia, pp. 45, 46.
Return to text

6. In spite of its bantering tone, the Editor values this testimony to woman's parish work. It was written after the services of his Mother and Sisters to Littlemore, which were remarkable, and left a remarkable impression on the memory of the Littlemore people.
Return to text

7. On the consecration of Littlemore Chapel. The text of this sermon was taken from St. Luke x. 24: 'For I tell you that, many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.' This sermon does not seem to have been published.
Return to text

8. Dublin Review, April 1869.
Return to text

Top | Contents | Biographies | Home

Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman
Copyright © 2004 by The National Institute for Newman Studies. All rights reserved.