history of my religious opinions—1841–1845

from the end of 1841, i was on my death-bed, as regards my membership with the anglican church, though at the time i became aware of it only by degrees. i introduce what i have to say with this remark, by way of accounting for the character of this remaining portion of my narrative. a death-bed has scarcely a history; it is a tedious decline, with seasons of rallying and seasons of falling back; and since the end is foreseen, or what is called a matter of time, it has little interest for the reader, especially if he has a kind heart. moreover, it is a season when doors are closed and curtains drawn, and when the sick man neither cares nor is able to record the stages of his malady. i was in these circumstances, except so far as i was not allowed to die in peace,—except so far as friends, who had still a full right to come in upon me, and the public world which had not, have given a sort of history to those last four years. but in consequence, my narrative must be in great measure documentary. letters of mine to friends have come to me since their deaths; others have been kindly lent me for the occasion; and i have some drafts of letters, and notes of my own, though i have no strictly personal or continuous memoranda to consult, and have unluckily mislaid some valuable papers.

and first as to my position in the view of duty; it was this:—1. i had given up my place in the movement in my letter to the bishop of oxford in the spring of 1841; but 2. i could not give up my duties towards the many and various minds who had more or less been brought into it by me; 3. i expected or intended gradually to fall back into lay communion; 4. i never contemplated leaving the church of england; 5. i could not hold office in her, if i were not allowed to hold the catholic sense of the articles; 6. i could not go to rome, while she suffered honours to be paid to the blessed virgin and the saints which i thought incompatible with the supreme, incommunicable glory of the one infinite and eternal; 7. i desired a union with rome under conditions, church with church; 8. i called littlemore my torres vedras, and thought that some day we might advance again within the anglican church, as we had been forced to retire; 9. i kept back all persons who were disposed to go to rome with all my might.

and i kept them back for three or four reasons; 1, because what i could not in conscience do myself, i could not suffer them to do; 2, because i thought that in various cases they were acting under excitement; 3, while i held st. mary's, because i had duties to my bishop and to the anglican church; and 4, in some cases, because i had received from their anglican parents or superiors direct charge of them.

this was my view of my duty from the end of 1841, to my resignation of st. mary's in the autumn of 1843. and now i shall relate my view, during that time, of the state of the controversy between the churches.

as soon as i saw the hitch in the anglican argument, during my course of reading in the summer of 1839, i began to look about, as i have said, for some ground which might supply a controversial basis for my need. the difficulty in question had affected my view both of antiquity and catholicity; for, while the history of st. leo showed me that the deliberate and eventual consent of the great body of the church ratified a doctrinal decision, it also showed that the rule of antiquity was not infringed, though a doctrine had not been publicly recognised as a portion of the dogmatic foundation of the church, till centuries after the time of the apostles. thus, whereas the creeds tell us that the church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, i could not prove that the anglican communion was an integral part of the one church, on the ground of its being apostolic or catholic, without reasoning in favour of what are commonly called the roman corruptions; and i could not defend our separation from rome without using arguments prejudicial to those great doctrines concerning our lord, which are the very foundation of the christian religion. the via media was an impossible idea; it was what i had called "standing on one leg;" and it was necessary, if my old issue of the controversy was to be retained, to go further either one way or the other.

accordingly, i abandoned that old ground and took another. i deliberately quitted the old anglican ground as untenable; but i did not do so all at once, but as i became more and more convinced of the state of the case. the jerusalem bishopric was the ultimate condemnation of the old theory of the via media; from that time the anglican church was, in my mind, either not a normal portion of that one church to which the promises were made, or at least in an abnormal state, and from that time i said boldly, as i did in my protest, and as indeed i had even intimated in my letter to the bishop of oxford, that the church in which i found myself had no claim on me, except on condition of its being a portion of the one catholic communion, and that that condition must ever be borne in mind as a practical matter, and had to be distinctly proved. all this was not inconsistent with my saying that, at this time, i had no thought of leaving that church because i felt some of my old objections against rome as strongly as ever. i had no right, i had no leave, to act against my conscience. that was a higher rule than any argument about the notes of the church.

under these circumstances i turned for protection to the note of sanctity, with a view of showing that we had at least one of the necessary notes, as fully as the church of rome; or, at least, without entering into comparisons, that we had it in such a sufficient sense as to reconcile us to our position, and to supply full evidence, and a clear direction, on the point of practical duty. we had the note of life,—not any sort of life, not such only as can come of nature, but a supernatural christian life, which could only come directly from above. in my article in the british critic, to which i have so often referred, in january, 1840 (before the time of tract 90), i said of the anglican church that "she has the note of possession, the note of freedom from party titles, the note of life,—a tough life and a vigorous; she has ancient descent, unbroken continuance, agreement in doctrine with the ancient church." presently i go on to speak of sanctity: "much as roman catholics may denounce us at present as schismatical, they could not resist us if the anglican communion had but that one note of the church upon it,—sanctity. the church of the day [fourth century] could not resist meletius; his enemies were fairly overcome by him, by his meekness and holiness, which melted the most jealous of them." and i continue, "we are almost content to say to romanists, account us not yet as a branch of the catholic church, though we be a branch, till we are like a branch, provided that when we do become like a branch, then you consent to acknowledge us," etc. and so i was led on in the article to that sharp attack on english catholics for their short-comings as regards this note, a good portion of which i have already quoted in another place. it is there that i speak of the great scandal which i took at their political, social, and controversial bearing; and this was a second reason why i fell back upon the note of sanctity, because it took me away from the necessity of making any attack upon the doctrines of the roman church, nay, from the consideration of her popular beliefs, and brought me upon a ground on which i felt i could not make a mistake; for what is a higher guide for us in speculation and in practice, than that conscience of right and wrong, of truth and falsehood, those sentiments of what is decorous, consistent, and noble, which our creator has made a part of our original nature? therefore i felt i could not be wrong in attacking what i fancied was a fact,—the unscrupulousness, the deceit, and the intriguing spirit of the agents and representatives of rome.

this reference to holiness as the true test of a church was steadily kept in view in what i wrote in connection with tract 90. i say in its introduction, "the writer can never be party to forcing the opinions or projects of one school upon another; religious changes should be the act of the whole body. no good can come of a change which is not a development of feelings springing up freely and calmly within the bosom of the whole body itself; every change in religion" must be "attended by deep repentance; changes" must be "nurtured in mutual love; we cannot agree without a supernatural influence;" we must come "together to god to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves." in my letter to the bishop i said, "i have set myself against suggestions for considering the differences between ourselves and the foreign churches with a view to their adjustment." (i meant in the way of negotiation, conference, agitation, or the like.) "our business is with ourselves,—to make ourselves more holy, more self-denying, more primitive, more worthy of our high calling. to be anxious for a composition of differences is to begin at the end. political reconciliations are but outward and hollow, and fallacious. and till roman catholics renounce political efforts, and manifest in their public measures the light of holiness and truth, perpetual war is our only prospect."

according to this theory, a religious body is part of the one catholic and apostolic church, if it has the succession and the creed of the apostles, with the note of holiness of life; and there is much in such a view to approve itself to the direct common sense and practical habits of an englishman. however, with events consequent upon tract 90, i sunk my theory to a lower level. what could be said in apology, when the bishops and the people of my church, not only did not suffer, but actually rejected primitive catholic doctrine, and tried to eject from their communion all who held it? after the bishops' charges? after the jerusalem "abomination?" well, this could be said; still we were not nothing: we could not be as if we never had been a church; we were "samaria." this then was that lower level on which i placed myself, and all who felt with me, at the end of 1841.

to bring out this view was the purpose of four sermons preached at st. mary's in december of that year. hitherto i had not introduced the exciting topics of the day into the pulpit; on this occasion i did. i did so, for the moment was urgent; there was great unsettlement of mind among us, in consequence of those same events which had unsettled me. one special anxiety, very obvious, which was coming on me now, was, that what was "one man's meat was another man's poison." i had said even of tract 90, "it was addressed to one set of persons, and has been used and commented on by another;" still more was it true now, that whatever i wrote for the service of those whom i knew to be in trouble of mind, would become on the one hand matter of suspicion and slander in the mouths of my opponents, and of distress and surprise to those on the other hand, who had no difficulties of faith at all. accordingly, when i published these four sermons at the end of 1843, i introduced them with a recommendation that none should read them who did not need them. but in truth the virtual condemnation of tract 90, after that the whole difficulty seemed to have been weathered, was an enormous disappointment and trial. my protest also against the jerusalem bishopric was an unavoidable cause of excitement in the case of many; but it calmed them too, for the very fact of a protest was a relief to their impatience. and so, in like manner, as regards the four sermons, of which i speak, though they acknowledged freely the great scandal which was involved in the recent episcopal doings, yet at the same time they might be said to bestow upon the multiplied disorders and shortcomings of the anglican church a sort of place in the revealed dispensation, and an intellectual position in the controversy, and the dignity of a great principle, for unsettled minds to take and use, which might teach them to recognise their own consistency, and to be reconciled to themselves, and which might absorb into itself and dry up a multitude of their grudgings, discontents, misgivings, and questionings, and lead the way to humble, thankful, and tranquil thoughts;—and this was the effect which certainly it produced on myself.

the point of these sermons is, that, in spite of the rigid character of the jewish law, the formal and literal force of its precepts, and the manifest schism, and worse than schism, of the ten tribes, yet in fact they were still recognised as a people by the divine mercy; that the great prophets elias and eliseus were sent to them, and not only so, but sent to preach to them and reclaim them, without any intimation that they must be reconciled to the line of david and the aaronic priesthood, or go up to jerusalem to worship. they were not in the church, yet they had the means of grace and the hope of acceptance with their maker. the application of all this to the anglican church was immediate;—whether a man could assume or exercise ministerial functions under the circumstances, or not, might not clearly appear, though it must be remembered that england had the apostolic priesthood, whereas israel had no priesthood at all; but so far was clear, that there was no call at all for an anglican to leave his church for rome, though he did not believe his own to be part of the one church:—and for this reason, because it was a fact that the kingdom of israel was cut off from the temple; and yet its subjects, neither in a mass, nor as individuals, neither the multitudes on mount carmel, nor the shunammite and her household, had any command given them, though miracles were displayed before them, to break off from their own people, and to submit themselves to judah.[3]

it is plain that a theory such as this, whether the marks of a divine presence and life in the anglican church were sufficient to prove that she was actually within the covenant, or only sufficient to prove that she was at least enjoying extraordinary and uncovenanted mercies, not only lowered her level in a religious point of view, but weakened her controversial basis. its very novelty made it suspicious; and there was no guarantee that the process of subsidence might not continue, and that it might not end in a submersion. indeed, to many minds, to say that england was wrong was even to say that rome was right; and no ethical reasoning whatever could overcome in their case the argument from prescription and authority. to this objection i could only answer that i did not make my circumstances. i fully acknowledged the force and effectiveness of the genuine an glican theory, and that it was all but proof against the disputants of rome; but still like achilles, it had a vulnerable point, and that st. leo had found it out for me, and that i could not help it;—that, were it not for matter of fact, the theory would be great indeed, it would be irresistible, if it were only true. when i became a catholic, the editor of a magazine who had in former days accused me, to my indignation, of tending towards rome, wrote to me to ask, which of the two was now right, he or i? i answered him in a letter, part of which i here insert, as it will serve as a sort of leave-taking of the great theory, which is so specious to look upon, so difficult to prove, and so hopeless to work.

"nov. 8, 1845. i do not think, at all more than i did, that the anglican principles which i advocated at the date you mention, lead men to the church of rome. if i must specify what i mean by 'anglican principles,' i should say, e.g. taking antiquity, not the existing church, as the oracle of truth; and holding that the apostolical succession is a sufficient guarantee of sacramental grace, without union with the christian church throughout the world. i think these still the firmest, strongest ground against rome—that is, if they can be held. they have been held by many, and are far more difficult to refute in the roman controversy, than those of any other religious body.

"for myself, i found i could not hold them. i left them. from the time i began to suspect their unsoundness, i ceased to put them forward. when i was fairly sure of their unsoundness, i gave up my living. when i was fully confident that the church of rome was the only true church, i joined her.

"i have felt all along that bp. bull's theology was the only theology on which the english church could stand. i have felt, that opposition to the church of rome was part of that theology; and that he who could not protest against the church of rome was no true divine in the english church. i have never said, nor attempted to say, that any one in office in the english church, whether bishop or incumbent, could be otherwise than in hostility to the church of rome."

the via media then disappeared for ever, and a new theory, made expressly for the occasion, took its place. i was pleased with my new view. i wrote to an intimate friend, dec. 13, 1841, "i think you will give me the credit, carissime, of not undervaluing the strength of the feelings which draw one [to rome], and yet i am (i trust) quite clear about my duty to remain where i am; indeed, much clearer than i was some time since. if it is not presumptuous to say, i have ... a much more definite view of the promised inward presence of christ with us in the sacraments now that the outward notes of it are being removed. and i am content to be with moses in the desert, or with elijah excommunicated from the temple. i say this, putting things at the strongest."

however, my friends of the moderate apostolical party, who were my friends for the very reason of my having been so moderate and anglican myself in general tone in times past, who had stood up for tract 90 partly from faith in me, and certainly from generous and kind feeling, and had thereby shared an obloquy which was none of theirs, were naturally surprised and offended at a line of argument, novel, and, as it appeared to them, wanton, which threw the whole controversy into confusion, stultified my former principles, and substituted, as they would consider, a sort of methodistic self-contemplation, especially abhorrent both to my nature and to my past professions, for the plain and honest tokens, as they were commonly received, of a divine mission in the anglican church. they could not tell whither i was going; and were still further annoyed, when i would view the reception of tract 90 by the public and the bishops as so grave a matter, and threw about what they considered mysterious hints of "eventualities," and would not simply say, "an anglican i was born, and an anglican i will die." one of my familiar friends, who was in the country at christmas, 1841-2, reported to me the feeling that prevailed about me; and how i felt towards it will appear in the following letter of mine, written in answer:—

"oriel, dec. 24, 1841. carissime, you cannot tell how sad your account of moberly has made me. his view of the sinfulness of the decrees of trent is as much against union of churches as against individual conversions. to tell the truth, i never have examined those decrees with this object, and have no view; but that is very different from having a deliberate view against them. could not he say which they are? i suppose transubstantiation is one. a. b., though of course he would not like to have it repeated, does not scruple at that. i have not my mind clear. moberly must recollect that palmer thinks they all bear a catholic interpretation. for myself, this only i see, that there is indefinitely more in the fathers against our own state of alienation from christendom than against the tridentine decrees.

"the only thing i can think of [that i can have said] is this, that there were persons who, if our church committed herself to heresy, sooner than think that there was no church anywhere, would believe the roman to be the church; and therefore would on faith accept what they could not otherwise acquiesce in. i suppose, it would be no relief to him to insist upon the circumstance that there is no immediate danger. individuals can never be answered for of course; but i should think lightly of that man, who, for some act of the bishops, should all at once leave the church. now, considering how the clergy really are improving, considering that this row is even making them read the tracts, is it not possible we may all be in a better state of mind seven years hence to consider these matters? and may we not leave them meanwhile to the will of providence? i cannot believe this work has been of man; god has a right to his own work, to do what he will with it. may we not try to leave it in his hands, and be content?

"if you learn anything about barter, which leads you to think that i can relieve him by a letter, let me know. the truth is this—our good friends do not read the fathers; they assent to us from the common sense of the case: then, when the fathers, and we, say more than their common sense, they are dreadfully shocked.

"the bishop of london has rejected a man, 1. for holding any sacrifice in the eucharist. 2. the real presence. 3. that there is a grace in ordination.[4]

"are we quite sure that the bishops will not be drawing up some stringent declarations of faith? is this what moberly fears? would the bishop of oxford accept them? if so, i should be driven into the refuge for the destitute [littlemore]. but i promise moberly, i would do my utmost to catch all dangerous persons and clap them into confinement there."

christmas day, 1841. "i have been dreaming of moberly all night. should not he and the like see, that it is unwise, unfair, and impatient to ask others, what will you do under circumstances, which have not, which may never come? why bring fear, suspicion, and disunion into the camp about things which are merely in posse? natural, and exceedingly kind as barter's and another friend's letters were, i think they have done great harm. i speak most sincerely when i say, that there are things which i neither contemplate, nor wish to contemplate; but, when i am asked about them ten times, at length i begin to contemplate them.

"he surely does not mean to say, that nothing could separate a man from the english church, e.g. its avowing socinianism; its holding the holy eucharist in a socinian sense. yet, he would say, it was not right to contemplate such things.

"again, our case is [diverging] from that of ken's. to say nothing of the last miserable century, which has given us to start from a much lower level and with much less to spare than a churchman in the 17th century, questions of doctrine are now coming in; with him, it was a question of discipline.

"if such dreadful events were realised, i cannot help thinking we should all be vastly more agreed than we think now. indeed, is it possible (humanly speaking) that those, who have so much the same heart, should widely differ? but let this be considered, as to alternatives. what communion could we join? could the scotch or american sanction the presence of its bishops and congregations in england, without incurring the imputation of schism, unless indeed (and is that likely?) they denounced the english as heretical?

"is not this a time of strange providences? is it not our safest course, without looking to consequences, to do simply what we think right day by day? shall we not be sure to go wrong, if we attempt to trace by anticipation the course of divine providence?

"has not all our misery, as a church, arisen from people being afraid to look difficulties in the face? they have palliated acts, when they should have denounced them. there is that good fellow, worcester palmer, can whitewash the ecclesiastical commission and the jerusalem bishopric. and what is the consequence? that our church has, through centuries, ever been sinking lower and lower, till good part of its pretensions and professions is a mere sham, though it be a duty to make the best of what we have received. yet, though bound to make the best of other men's shams, let us not incur any of our own. the truest friends of our church are they, who say boldly when her rulers are going wrong, and the consequences; and (to speak catachrestically) they are most likely to die in the church, who are, under these black circumstances, most prepared to leave it.

"and i will add, that, considering the traces of god's grace which surround us, i am very sanguine, or rather confident (if it is right so to speak), that our prayers and our alms will come up as a memorial before god, and that all this miserable confusion tends to good.

"let us not then be anxious, and anticipate differences in prospect, when we agree in the present.

"p.s. i think, when friends [i.e. the extreme party] get over their first unsettlement of mind and consequent vague apprehensions, which the new attitude of the bishops, and our feelings upon it, have brought about, they will get contented and satisfied. they will see that they exaggerated things.... of course it would have been wrong to anticipate what one's feelings would be under such a painful contingency as the bishops' charging as they have done—so it seems to me nobody's fault. nor is it wonderful that others" [moderate men] "are startled" [i.e. at my protest, etc. etc.]; "yet they should recollect that the more implicit the reverence one pays to a bishop, the more keen will be one's perception of heresy in him. the cord is binding and compelling, till it snaps.

"men of reflection would have seen this, if they had looked that way. last spring, a very high churchman talked to me of resisting my bishop, of asking him for the canons under which he acted, and so forth; but those, who have cultivated a loyal feeling towards their superiors, are the most loving servants, or the most zealous protestors. if others became so too, if the clergy of chester denounced the heresy of their diocesan, they would be doing their duty, and relieving themselves of the share which they otherwise have in any possible defection of their brethren."

"st. stephen's [december 26]. how i fidget! i now fear that the note i wrote yesterday only makes matters worse by disclosing too much. this is always my great difficulty.

"in the present state of excitement on both sides, i think of leaving out altogether my reassertion of no. 90 in my preface to volume 6, and merely saying, 'as many false reports are at this time in circulation about him, he hopes his well-wishers will take this volume as an indication of his real thoughts and feelings: those who are not, he leaves in god's hand to bring them to a better mind in his own time.' what do you say to the logic, sentiment, and propriety of this?"

there was one very old friend, at a distance from oxford, afterwards a catholic, now dead some years, who must have said something to me, i do not know what, which challenged a frank reply; for i disclosed to him, i do not know in what words, my frightful suspicion, hitherto only known to two persons, as regards my anglicanism, perhaps i might break down in the event, that perhaps we were both out of the church. he answered me thus, under date of jan. 29, 1842: "i don't think that i ever was so shocked by any communication, which was ever made to me, as by your letter of this morning. it has quite unnerved me.... i cannot but write to you, though i am at a loss where to begin ... i know of no act by which we have dissevered ourselves from the communion of the church universal.... the more i study scripture, the more am i impressed with the resemblance between the romish principle in the church and the babylon of st. john.... i am ready to grieve that i ever directed my thoughts to theology, if it is indeed so uncertain, as your doubts seem to indicate."

while my old and true friends were thus in trouble about me, i suppose they felt not only anxiety but pain, to see that i was gradually surrendering myself to the influence of others, who had not their own claims upon me, younger men, and of a cast of mind uncongenial to my own. a new school of thought was rising, as is usual in such movements, and was sweeping the original party of the movement aside, and was taking its place. the most prominent person in it, was a man of elegant genius, of classical mind, of rare talent in literary composition:—mr. oakeley. he was not far from my own age; i had long known him, though of late years he had not been in residence at oxford; and quite lately, he has been taking several signal occasions of renewing that kindness, which he ever showed towards me when we were both in the anglican church. his tone of mind was not unlike that which gave a character to the early movement; he was almost a typical oxford man, and, as far as i recollect, both in political and ecclesiastical views, would have been of one spirit with the oriel party of 1826-1833. but he had entered late into the movement; he did not know its first years; and, beginning with a new start, he was naturally thrown together with that body of eager, acute, resolute minds who had begun their catholic life about the same time as he, who knew nothing about the via media, but had heard much about rome. this new party rapidly formed and increased, in and out of oxford, and, as it so happened, contemporaneously with that very summer, when i received so serious a blow to my ecclesiastical views from the study of the monophysite controversy. these men cut into the original movement at an angle, fell across its line of thought, and then set about turning that line in its own direction. they were most of them keenly religious men, with a true concern for their souls as the first matter of all, with a great zeal for me, but giving little certainty at the time as to which way they would ultimately turn. some in the event have remained firm to anglicanism, some have become catholics, and some have found a refuge in liberalism. nothing was clearer concerning them, than that they needed to be kept in order; and on me who had had so much to do with the making of them, that duty was as clearly incumbent; and it is equally clear, from what i have already said, that i was just the person, above all others, who could not undertake it. there are no friends like old friends; but of those old friends, few could help me, few could understand me, many were annoyed with me, some were angry, because i was breaking up a compact party, and some, as a matter of conscience, could not listen to me. i said, bitterly, "you are throwing me on others, whether i will or no." yet still i had good and true friends around me of the old sort, in and out of oxford too. but on the other hand, though i neither was so fond of the persons, nor of the methods of thought, which belonged to this new school, excepting two or three men, as of the old set, though i could not trust in their firmness of purpose, for, like a swarm of flies, they might come and go, and at length be divided and dissipated, yet i had an intense sympathy in their object and in the direction of their path, in spite of my old friends, in spite of my old life-long prejudices. in spite of my ingrained fears of rome, and the decision of my reason and conscience against her usages, in spite of my affection for oxford and oriel, yet i had a secret longing love of rome the author of english christianity, and i had a true devotion to the blessed virgin, in whose college i lived, whose altar i served, and whose immaculate purity i had in one of my earliest printed sermons made much of. and it was the consciousness of this bias in myself, if it is so to be called, which made me preach so earnestly against the danger of being swayed by our sympathy rather than our reason in religious inquiry. and moreover, the members of this new school looked up to me, as i have said, and did me true kindnesses, and really loved me, and stood by me in trouble, when others went away, and for all this i was grateful; nay, many of them were in trouble themselves, and in the same boat with me, and that was a further cause of sympathy between us; and hence it was, when the new school came on in force, and into collision with the old, i had not the heart, any more than the power, to repel them; i was in great perplexity, and hardly knew where i stood; i took their part: and, when i wanted to be in peace and silence, i had to speak out, and i incurred the charge of weakness from some men, and of mysteriousness, shuffling, and underhand dealing from the majority.

now i will say here frankly, that this sort of charge is a matter which i cannot properly meet, because i cannot duly realise it. i have never had any suspicion of my own honesty; and, when men say that i was dishonest, i cannot grasp the accusation as a distinct conception, such as it is possible to encounter. if a man said to me, "on such a day and before such persons you said a thing was white, when it was black," i understand what is meant well enough, and i can set myself to prove an alibi or to explain the mistake; or if a man said to me, "you tried to gain me over to your party, intending to take me with you to rome, but you did not succeed," i can give him the lie, and lay down an assertion of my own as firm and as exact as his, that not from the time that i was first unsettled, did i ever attempt to gain any one over to myself or to my romanizing opinions, and that it is only his own coxcombical fancy which has bred such a thought in him: but my imagination is at a loss in presence of those vague charges, which have commonly been brought against me, charges, which are made up of impressions, and understandings, and inferences, and hearsay, and surmises. accordingly, i shall not make the attempt, for, in doing so, i should be dealing blows in the air; what i shall attempt is to state what i know of myself and what i recollect, and leave its application to others.

while i had confidence in the via media, and thought that nothing could overset it, i did not mind laying down large principles, which i saw would go further than was commonly perceived. i considered that to make the via media concrete and substantive, it must be much more than it was in outline; that the anglican church must have a ceremonial, a ritual, and a fulness of doctrine and devotion, which it had not at present, if it were to compete with the roman church with any prospect of success. such additions would not remove it from its proper basis, but would merely strengthen and beautify it: such, for instance, would be confraternities, particular devotions, reverence for the blessed virgin, prayers for the dead, beautiful churches, rich offerings to them and in them, monastic houses, and many other observances and institutions, which i used to say belonged to us as much as to rome, though rome had appropriated them, and boasted of them, by reason of our having let them slip from us. the principle, on which all this turned, is brought out in one of the letters i published on occasion of tract 90. "the age is moving," i said, "towards something; and most unhappily the one religious communion among us, which has of late years been practically in possession of this something, is the church of rome. she alone, amid all the errors and evils of her practical system, has given free scope to the feelings of awe, mystery, tenderness, reverence, devotedness, and other feelings which may be especially called catholic. the question then is, whether we shall give them up to the roman church or claim them for ourselves.... but if we do give them up, we must give up the men who cherish them. we must consent either to give up the men, or to admit their principles." with these feelings i frankly admit, that, while i was working simply for the sake of the anglican church, i did not at all mind, though i found myself laying down principles in its defence, which went beyond that particular defence which high-and-dry men thought perfection, and though i ended in framing a sort of defence, which they might call a revolution, while i thought it a restoration. thus, for illustration, i might discourse upon the "communion of saints" in such a manner, (though i do not recollect doing so) as might lead the way towards devotion to the blessed virgin and the saints on the one hand, and towards prayers for the dead on the other. in a memorandum of the year 1844 or 1845, i thus speak on this subject: "if the church be not defended on establishment grounds, it must be upon principles, which go far beyond their immediate object. sometimes i saw these further results, sometimes not. though i saw them, i sometimes did not say that i saw them; so long as i thought they were inconsistent, not with our church, but only with the existing opinions, i was not unwilling to insinuate truths into our church, which i thought had a right to be there."

to so much i confess; but i do not confess, i simply deny that i ever said anything which secretly bore against the church of england, knowing it myself, in order that others might unwarily accept it. it was indeed one of my great difficulties and causes of reserve, as time went on, that i at length recognised in principles which i had honestly preached as if anglican, conclusions favourable to the roman church. of course i did not like to confess this; and, when interrogated, was in consequence in perplexity. the prime instance of this was the appeal to antiquity; st. leo had overset, in my own judgment, its force in the special argument for anglicanism; yet i was committed to antiquity, together with the whole anglican school; what then was i to say, when acute minds urged this or that application of it against the via media? it was impossible that, in such circumstances, any answer could be given which was not unsatisfactory, or any behaviour adopted which was not mysterious. again, sometimes in what i wrote i went just as far as i saw, and could as little say more, as i could see what is below the horizon; and therefore, when asked as to the consequences of what i had said, had no answer to give. again, sometimes when i was asked, whether certain conclusions did not follow from a certain principle, i might not be able to tell at the moment, especially if the matter were complicated; and for this reason, if for no other, because there is great difference between a conclusion in the abstract and a conclusion in the concrete, and because a conclusion may be modified in fact by a conclusion from some opposite principle. or it might so happen that i got simply confused, by the very clearness of the logic which was administered to me, and thus gave my sanction to conclusions which really were not mine; and when the report of those conclusions came round to me through others, i had to unsay them. and then again, perhaps i did not like to see men scared or scandalised by unfeeling logical inferences, which would not have touched them to the day of their death, had they not been made to eat them. and then i felt altogether the force of the maxim of st. ambrose, "non in dialectica complacuit deo salvum facere populum suum;"—i had a great dislike of paper logic. for myself, it was not logic that carried me on; as well might one say that the quicksilver in the barometer changes the weather. it is the concrete being that reasons; pass a number of years, and i find my mind in a new place; how? the whole man moves; paper logic is but the record of it. all the logic in the world would not have made me move faster towards rome than i did; as well might you say that i have arrived at the end of my journey, because i see the village church before me, as venture to assert that the miles, over which my soul had to pass before it got to rome, could be annihilated, even though i had had some far clearer view than i then had, that rome was my ultimate destination. great acts take time. at least this is what i felt in my own case; and therefore to come to me with methods of logic, had in it the nature of a provocation, and, though i do not think i ever showed it, made me somewhat indifferent how i met them, and perhaps led me, as a means of relieving my impatience, to be mysterious or irrelevant, or to give in because i could not reply. and a greater trouble still than these logical mazes, was the introduction of logic into every subject whatever, so far, that is, as it was done. before i was at oriel, i recollect an acquaintance saying to me that "the oriel common room stank of logic." one is not at all pleased when poetry, or eloquence, or devotion, is considered as if chiefly intended to feed syllogisms. now, in saying all this, i am saying nothing against the deep piety and earnestness which were characteristics of this second phase of the movement, in which i have taken so prominent a part. what i have been observing is, that this phase had a tendency to bewilder and to upset me, and, that instead of saying so, as i ought to have done, in a sort of easiness, for what i know, i gave answers at random, which have led to my appearing close or inconsistent.

i have turned up two letters of this period, which in a measure illustrate what i have been saying. the first is what i said to the bishop of oxford on occasion of tract 90:

"march 20, 1841. no one can enter into my situation but myself. i see a great many minds working in various directions and a variety of principles with multiplied bearings; i act for the best. i sincerely think that matters would not have gone better for the church, had i never written. and if i write i have a choice of difficulties. it is easy for those who do not enter into those difficulties to say, 'he ought to say this and not say that,' but things are wonderfully linked together, and i cannot, or rather i would not be dishonest. when persons too interrogate me, i am obliged in many cases to give an opinion, or i seem to be underhand. keeping silence looks like artifice. and i do not like people to consult or respect me, from thinking differently of my opinions from what i know them to be. and again (to use the proverb) what is one man's food is another man's poison. all these things make my situation very difficult. but that collision must at some time ensue between members of the church of opposite sentiments, i have long been aware. the time and mode has been in the hand of providence; i do not mean to exclude my own great imperfections in bringing it about; yet i still feel obliged to think the tract necessary.

"dr. pusey has shown me your lordship's letters to him. i am most desirous of saying in print anything which i can honestly say to remove false impressions created by the tract."

the second is part of the notes of a letter sent to dr. pusey in the next year:

"october 16, 1842. as to my being entirely with a. b., i do not know the limits of my own opinions. if a. b. says that this or that is a development from what i have said, i cannot say yes or no. it is plausible, it may be true. of course the fact that the roman church has so developed and maintained, adds great weight to the antecedent plausibility. i cannot assert that it is not true; but i cannot, with that keen perception which some people have, appropriate it. it is a nuisance to me to be forced beyond what i can fairly accept."

there was another source of the perplexity with which at this time i was encompassed, and of the reserve and mysteriousness, of which it gave me the credit. after tract 90 the protestant world would not let me alone; they pursued me in the public journals to littlemore. reports of all kinds were circulated about me. "imprimis, why did i go up to littlemore at all? for no good purpose certainly; i dared not tell why." why, to be sure, it was hard that i should be obliged to say to the editors of newspapers that i went up there to say my prayers; it was hard to have to tell the world in confidence, that i had a certain doubt about the anglican system, and could not at that moment resolve it, or say what would come of it; it was hard to have to confess that i had thought of giving up my living a year or two before, and that this was a first step to it. it was hard to have to plead, that, for what i knew, my doubts would vanish, if the newspapers would be so good as to give me time and let me alone. who would ever dream of making the world his confidant? yet i was considered insidious, sly, dishonest, if i would not open my heart to the tender mercies of the world. but they persisted: "what was i doing at littlemore?" doing there? have i not retreated from you? have i not given up my position and my place? am i alone, of englishmen, not to have the privilege to go where i will, no questions asked? am i alone to be followed about by jealous prying eyes, who note down whether i go in at a back door or at the front, and who the men are who happen to call on me in the afternoon? cowards! if i advanced one step, you would run away; it is not you that i fear: "di me terrent, et jupiter hostis." it is because the bishops still go on charging against me, though i have quite given up: it is that secret misgiving of heart which tells me that they do well, for i have neither lot nor part with them: this it is which weighs me down. i cannot walk into or out of my house, but curious eyes are upon me. why will you not let me die in peace? wounded brutes creep into some hole to die in, and no one grudges it them. let me alone, i shall not trouble you long. this was the keen heavy feeling which pierced me, and, i think, these are the very words that i used to myself. i asked, in the words of a great motto, "ubi lapsus? quid feci?" one day when i entered my house, i found a flight of undergraduates inside. heads of houses, as mounted patrols, walked their horses round those poor cottages. doctors of divinity dived into the hidden recesses of that private tenement uninvited, and drew domestic conclusions from what they saw there. i had thought that an englishman's house was his castle; but the newspapers thought otherwise, and at last the matter came before my good bishop. i insert his letter, and a portion of my reply to him:—

"april 12, 1842. so many of the charges against yourself and your friends which i have seen in the public journals have been, within my own knowledge, false and calumnious, that i am not apt to pay much attention to what is asserted with respect to you in the newspapers.

"in a" [newspaper], "however, of april 9, there appears a paragraph in which it is asserted, as a matter of notoriety, that a 'so-called anglo-catholic monastery is in process of erection at littlemore, and that the cells of dormitories, the chapel, the refectory, the cloisters all may be seen advancing to perfection, under the eye of a parish priest of the diocese of oxford.'

"now, as i have understood that you really are possessed of some tenements at littlemore—as it is generally believed that they are destined for the purposes of study and devotion—and as much suspicion and jealousy are felt about the matter, i am anxious to afford you an opportunity of making me an explanation on the subject.

"i know you too well not to be aware that you are the last man living to attempt in my diocese a revival of the monastic orders (in anything approaching to the romanist sense of the term) without previous communication with me—or indeed that you should take upon yourself to originate any measure of importance without authority from the heads of the church—and therefore i at once exonerate you from the accusation brought against you by the newspaper i have quoted, but i feel it nevertheless a duty to my diocese and myself, as well as to you, to ask you to put it in my power to contradict what, if uncontradicted, would appear to imply a glaring invasion of all ecclesiastical discipline on your part, or of inexcusable neglect and indifference to my duties on mine."

"april 14, 1842. i am very much obliged by your lordship's kindness in allowing me to write to you on the subject of my house at littlemore; at the same time i feel it hard both on your lordship and myself that the restlessness of the public mind should oblige you to require an explanation of me.

"it is now a whole year that i have been the subject of incessant misrepresentation. a year since i submitted entirely to your lordship's authority; and with the intention of following out the particular act enjoined upon me, i not only stopped the series of tracts, on which i was engaged, but withdrew from all public discussion of church matters of the day, or what may be called ecclesiastical politics. i turned myself at once to the preparation for the press of the translations of st. athanasius to which i had long wished to devote myself, and i intended and intend to employ myself in the like theological studies, and in the concerns of my own parish and in practical works.

"with the same view of personal improvement i was led more seriously to a design which had been long on my mind. for many years, at least thirteen, i have wished to give myself to a life of greater religious regularity than i have hitherto led; but it is very unpleasant to confess such a wish even to my bishop, because it seems arrogant, and because it is committing me to a profession which may come to nothing. for what have i done that i am to be called to account by the world for my private actions, in a way in which no one else is called? why may i not have that liberty which all others are allowed? i am often accused of being underhand and uncandid in respect to the intentions to which i have been alluding: but no one likes his own good resolutions noised about, both from mere common delicacy and from fear lest he should not be able to fulfil them. i feel it very cruel, though the parties in fault do not know what they are doing, that very sacred matters between me and my conscience are made a matter of public talk. may i take a case parallel though different? suppose a person in prospect of marriage; would he like the subject discussed in newspapers, and parties, circumstances, etc., etc., publicly demanded of him, at the penalty of being accused of craft and duplicity?

"the resolution i speak of has been taken with reference to myself alone, and has been contemplated quite independent of the co-operation of any other human being, and without reference to success or failure other than personal, and without regard to the blame or approbation of man. and being a resolution of years, and one to which i feel god has called me, and in which i am violating no rule of the church any more than if i married, i should have to answer for it, if i did not pursue it, as a good providence made openings for it. in pursuing it then i am thinking of myself alone, not aiming at any ecclesiastical or external effects. at the same time of course it would be a great comfort to me to know that god had put it into the hearts of others to pursue their personal edification in the same way, and unnatural not to wish to have the benefit of their presence and encouragement, or not to think it a great infringement on the rights of conscience if such personal and private resolutions were interfered with. your lordship will allow me to add my firm conviction that such religious resolutions are most necessary for keeping a certain class of minds firm in their allegiance to our church; but still i can as truly say that my own reason for anything i have done has been a personal one, without which i should not have entered upon it, and which i hope to pursue whether with or without the sympathies of others pursuing a similar course." ...

"as to my intentions, i purpose to live there myself a good deal, as i have a resident curate in oxford. in doing this, i believe i am consulting for the good of my parish, as my population at littlemore is at least equal to that of st. mary's in oxford, and the whole of littlemore is double of it. it has been very much neglected; and in providing a parsonage-house at littlemore, as this will be, and will be called, i conceive i am doing a very great benefit to my people. at the same time it has appeared to me that a partial or temporary retirement from st. mary's church might be expedient under the prevailing excitement.

"as to the quotation from the [newspaper] which i have not seen, your lordship will perceive from what i have said, that no 'monastery is in process of erection;' there is no 'chapel;' no 'refectory,' hardly a dining-room or parlour. the 'cloisters' are my shed connecting the cottages. i do not understand what 'cells of dormitories' means. of course i can repeat your lordship's words that 'i am not attempting a revival of the monastic orders, in anything approaching to the romanist sense of the term,' or 'taking on myself to originate any measure of importance without authority from the heads of the church.' i am attempting nothing ecclesiastical, but something personal and private, and which can only be made public, not private, by newspapers and letter-writers, in which sense the most sacred and conscientious resolves and acts may certainly be made the objects of an unmannerly and unfeeling curiosity."

one calumny there was which the bishop did not believe, and of which of course he had no idea of speaking. it was that i was actually in the service of the enemy. i had been already received into the catholic church, and was rearing at littlemore a nest of papists, who, like me, were to take the anglican oaths which they did not believe, and for which they got dispensation from rome, and thus in due time were to bring over to that unprincipled church great numbers of the anglican clergy and laity. bishops gave their countenance to this imputation against me. the case was simply this:—as i made littlemore a place of retirement for myself, so did i offer it to others. there were young men in oxford, whose testimonials for orders had been refused by their colleges; there were young clergymen, who had found themselves unable from conscience to go on with their duties, and had thrown up their parochial engagements. such men were already going straight to rome, and i interposed; i interposed for the reasons i have given in the beginning of this portion of my narrative. i interposed from fidelity to my clerical engagements, and from duty to my bishop; and from the interest which i was bound to take in them, and from belief that they were premature or excited. their friends besought me to quiet them, if i could. some of them came to live with me at littlemore. they were laymen, or in the place of laymen. i kept some of them back for several years from being received into the catholic church. even when i had given up my living, i was still bound by my duty to their parents or friends, and i did not forget still to do what i could for them. the immediate occasion of my resigning st. mary's, was the unexpected conversion of one of them. after that, i felt it was impossible to keep my post there, for i had been unable to keep my word with my bishop.

the following letters refer, more or less, to these men, whether they were with me at littlemore or not:—

1. 1843 or 1844. "i did not explain to you sufficiently the state of mind of those who were in danger. i only spoke of those who were convinced that our church was external to the church catholic, though they felt it unsafe to trust their own private convictions; but there are two other states of mind; 1, that of those who are unconsciously near rome, and whose despair about our church would at once develop into a state of conscious approximation, or a quasi-resolution to go over; 2, those who feel they can with a safe conscience remain with us while they are allowed to testify in behalf of catholicism, i.e. as if by such acts they were putting our church, or at least that portion of it in which they were included, in the position of catechumens."

2. "july 16, 1843. i assure you that i feel, with only too much sympathy, what you say. you need not be told that the whole subject of our position is a subject of anxiety to others beside yourself. it is no good attempting to offer advice, when perhaps i might raise difficulties instead of removing them. it seems to me quite a case, in which you should, as far as may be, make up your mind for yourself. come to littlemore by all means. we shall all rejoice in your company; and, if quiet and retirement are able, as they very likely will be, to reconcile you to things as they are, you shall have your fill of them. how distressed poor henry wilberforce must be! knowing how he values you, i feel for him; but, alas! he has his own position, and every one else has his own, and the misery is that no two of us have exactly the same.

"it is very kind of you to be so frank and open with me, as you are; but this is a time which throws together persons who feel alike. may i without taking a liberty sign myself, yours affectionately, etc."

3. "1845. i am concerned to find you speak of me in a tone of distrust. if you knew me ever so little, instead of hearing of me from persons who do not know me at all, you would think differently of me, whatever you thought of my opinions. two years since, i got your son to tell you my intention of resigning st. mary's, before i made it public, thinking you ought to know it. when you expressed some painful feeling upon it, i told him i could not consent to his remaining here, painful as it would be to me to part with him, without your written sanction. and this you did me the favour to give.

"i believe you will find that it has been merely a delicacy on your son's part, which has delayed his speaking to you about me for two months past; a delicacy, lest he should say either too much or too little about me. i have urged him several times to speak to you.

"nothing can be done after your letter, but to recommend him to go to a. b. (his home) at once. i am very sorry to part with him."

4. the following letter is addressed to a catholic prelate, who accused me of coldness in my conduct towards him:—

"april 16, 1845. i was at that time in charge of a ministerial office in the english church, with persons entrusted to me, and a bishop to obey; how could i possibly write otherwise than i did without violating sacred obligations and betraying momentous interests which were upon me? i felt that my immediate, undeniable duty, clear if anything was clear, was to fulfil that trust. it might be right indeed to give it up, that was another thing; but it never could be right to hold it, and to act as if i did not hold it.... if you knew me, you would acquit me, i think, of having ever felt towards your lordship an unfriendly spirit, or ever having had a shadow on my mind (as far as i dare witness about myself) of what might be called controversial rivalry or desire of getting the better, or fear lest the world should think i had got the worst, or irritation of any kind. you are too kind indeed to imply this, and yet your words lead me to say it. and now in like manner, pray believe, though i cannot explain it to you, that i am encompassed with responsibilities, so great and so various, as utterly to overcome me, unless i have mercy from him, who all through my life has sustained and guided me, and to whom i can now submit myself, though men of all parties are thinking evil of me."

5. "august 30, 1843. a. b. has suddenly conformed to the church of rome. he was away for three weeks. i suppose i must say in my defence, that he promised me distinctly to remain in our church three years, before i received him here."

such fidelity, however, was taken in malam partem by the high anglican authorities; they thought it insidious. i happen still to have a correspondence, in which the chief place is filled by one of the most eminent bishops of the day, a theologian and reader of the fathers, a moderate man, who at one time was talked of as likely to have the reversion of the primacy. a young clergyman in his diocese became a catholic; the papers at once reported on authority from "a very high quarter," that, after his reception, "the oxford men had been recommending him to retain his living." i had reasons for thinking that the allusion was to me, and i authorised the editor of a paper, who had inquired of me on the point, to "give it, as far as i was concerned, an unqualified contradiction;"—when from a motive of delicacy he hesitated, i added "my direct and indignant contradiction." "whoever is the author of it, no correspondence or intercourse of any kind, direct or indirect, has passed," i continued to the editor, "between mr. s. and myself, since his conforming to the church of rome, except my formally and merely acknowledging the receipt of his letter, in which he informed me of the fact, without, as far as i recollect, my expressing any opinion upon it. you may state this as broadly as i have set it down." my denial was told to the bishop; what took place upon it is given in a letter from which i copy. "my father showed the letter to the bishop, who, as he laid it down, said, 'ah, those oxford men are not ingenuous.' 'how do you mean?' i asked my father. 'why,' said the bishop, 'they advised mr. b. s. to retain his living after he turned catholic. i know that to be a fact, because a. b. told me so.'" "the bishop," continues the letter, "who is perhaps the most influential man in reality on the bench, evidently believes it to be the truth." dr. pusey too wrote for me to the bishop; and the bishop instantly beat a retreat. "i have the honour," he says in the autograph which i transcribe, "to acknowledge the receipt of your note, and to say in reply that it has not been stated by me (though such a statement has, i believe, appeared in some of the public prints), that mr. newman had advised mr. b. s. to retain his living, after he had forsaken our church. but it has been stated to me, that mr. newman was in close correspondence with mr. b. s., and, being fully aware of his state of opinions and feelings, yet advised him to continue in our communion. allow me to add," he says to dr. pusey, "that neither your name, nor that of mr. keble, was mentioned to me in connection with that of mr. b. s."

i was not going to let the bishop off on this evasion, so i wrote to him myself. after quoting his letter to dr. pusey, i continued, "i beg to trouble your lordship with my own account of the two allegations" [close correspondence and fully aware, etc.] "which are contained in your statement, and which have led to your speaking of me in terms which i hope never to deserve. 1. since mr. b. s. has been in your lordship's diocese, i have seen him in common rooms or private parties in oxford two or three times, when i never (as far as i can recollect) had any conversation with him. during the same time i have, to the best of my memory, written to him three letters. one was lately, in acknowledgment of his informing me of his change of religion. another was last summer, when i asked him (to no purpose) to come and stay with me in this place. the earliest of the three letters was written just a year since, as far as i recollect, and it certainly was on the subject of his joining the church of rome. i wrote this letter at the earnest wish of a friend of his. i cannot be sure that, on his replying, i did not send him a brief note in explanation of points in my letter which he had misapprehended. i cannot recollect any other correspondence between us.

"2. as to my knowledge of his opinions and feelings, as far as i remember, the only point of perplexity which i knew, the only point which to this hour i know, as pressing upon him, was that of the pope's supremacy. he professed to be searching antiquity whether the see of rome had formally that relation to the whole church which roman catholics now assign to it. my letter was directed to the point, that it was his duty not to perplex himself with arguments on [such] a question ... and to put it altogether aside.... it is hard that i am put upon my memory, without knowing the details of the statement made against me, considering the various correspondence in which i am from time to time unavoidably engaged.... be assured, my lord, that there are very definite limits, beyond which persons like me would never urge another to retain preferment in the english church, nor would retain it themselves; and that the censure which has been directed against them by so many of its rulers has a very grave bearing upon those limits." the bishop replied in a civil letter, and sent my own letter to his original informant, who wrote to me the letter of a gentleman. it seems that an anxious lady had said something or other which had been misinterpreted, against her real meaning, into the calumny which was circulated, and so the report vanished into thin air. i closed the correspondence with the following letter to the bishop:—

"i hope your lordship will believe me when i say, that statements about me, equally incorrect with that which has come to your lordship's ears, are from time to time reported to me as credited and repeated by the highest authorities in our church, though it is very seldom that i have the opportunity of denying them. i am obliged by your lordship's letter to dr. pusey as giving me such an opportunity." then i added, with a purpose, "your lordship will observe that in my letter i had no occasion to proceed to the question, whether a person holding roman catholic opinions can in honesty remain in our church. lest then any misconception should arise from my silence, i here take the liberty of adding, that i see nothing wrong in such a person's continuing in communion with us, provided he holds no preferment or office, abstains from the management of ecclesiastical matters, and is bound by no subscription or oath to our doctrines."

this was written on march 7, 1843, and was in anticipation of my own retirement into lay communion. this again leads me to a remark; for two years i was in lay communion, not indeed being a catholic in my convictions, but in a state of serious doubt, and with the probable prospect of becoming some day, what as yet i was not. under these circumstances i thought the best thing i could do was to give up duty and to throw myself into lay communion, remaining an anglican. i could not go to rome, while i thought what i did of the devotions she sanctioned to the blessed virgin and the saints. i did not give up my fellowship, for i could not be sure that my doubts would not be reduced or overcome, however unlikely i thought such an event. but i gave up my living; and, for two years before my conversion, i took no clerical duty. my last sermon was in september, 1843; then i remained at littlemore in quiet for two years. but it was made a subject of reproach to me at the time, and is at this day, that i did not leave the anglican church sooner. to me this seems a wonderful charge; why, even had i been quite sure that rome was the true church, the anglican bishops would have had no just subject of complaint against me, provided i took no anglican oath, no clerical duty, no ecclesiastical administration. do they force all men who go to their churches to believe in the 39 articles, or to join in the athanasian creed? however, i was to have other measure dealt to me; great authorities ruled it so; and a learned controversialist in the north thought it a shame that i did not leave the church of england as much as ten years sooner than i did. his nephew, an anglican clergyman, kindly wished to undeceive him on this point. so, in 1850, after some correspondence, i wrote the following letter, which will be of service to this narrative, from its chronological character:—

"dec. 6, 1849. your uncle says, 'if he (mr. n.) will declare, sans phrase, as the french say, that i have laboured under an entire mistake, and that he was not a concealed romanist during the ten years in question' (i suppose, the last ten years of my membership with the anglican church), 'or during any part of the time, my controversial antipathy will be at an end, and i will readily express to him that i am truly sorry that i have made such a mistake.'

"so candid an avowal is what i should have expected from a mind like your uncle's. i am extremely glad he has brought it to this issue.

"by a 'concealed romanist' i understand him to mean one, who, professing to belong to the church of england, in his heart and will intends to benefit the church of rome, at the expense of the church of england. he cannot mean by the expression merely a person who in fact is benefiting the church of rome, while he is intending to benefit the church of england, for that is no discredit to him morally, and he (your uncle) evidently means to impute blame.

"in the sense in which i have explained the words, i can simply and honestly say that i was not a concealed romanist during the whole, or any part of, the years in question.

"for the first four years of the ten (up to michaelmas, 1839) i honestly wished to benefit the church of england, at the expense of the church of rome:

"for the second four years i wished to benefit the church of england without prejudice to the church of rome:

"at the beginning of the ninth year (michaelmas, 1843) i began to despair of the church of england, and gave up all clerical duty; and then, what i wrote and did was influenced by a mere wish not to injure it, and not by the wish to benefit it:

"at the beginning of the tenth year i distinctly contemplated leaving it, but i also distinctly told my friends that it was in my contemplation.

"lastly, during the last half of that tenth year i was engaged in writing a book (essay on development) in favour of the roman church, and indirectly against the english; but even then, till it was finished, i had not absolutely intended to publish it, wishing to reserve to myself the chance of changing my mind when the argumentative views which were actuating me had been distinctly brought out before me in writing.

"i wish this statement, which i make from memory, and without consulting any document, severely tested by my writings and doings, as i am confident it will, on the whole, be borne out, whatever real or apparent exceptions (i suspect none) have to be allowed by me in detail.

"your uncle is at liberty to make what use he pleases of this explanation."

i have now reached an important date in my narrative, the year 1843, but before proceeding to the matters which it contains, i will insert portions of my letters from 1841 to 1843, addressed to catholic acquaintances.

1. "april 8, 1841 ... the unity of the church catholic is very near my heart, only i do not see any prospect of it in our time; and i despair of its being effected without great sacrifices on all hands. as to resisting the bishop's will, i observe that no point of doctrine or principle was in dispute, but a course of action, the publication of certain works. i do not think you sufficiently understood our position. i suppose you would obey the holy see in such a case; now, when we were separated from the pope, his authority reverted to our diocesans. our bishop is our pope. it is our theory, that each diocese is an integral church, intercommunion being a duty (and the breach of it a sin), but not essential to catholicity. to have resisted my bishop, would have been to place myself in an utterly false position, which i never could have recovered. depend upon it, the strength of any party lies in its being true to its theory. consistency is the life of a movement.

"i have no misgivings whatever that the line i have taken can be other than a prosperous one: that is, in itself, for of course providence may refuse to us its legitimate issues for our sins.

"i am afraid, that in one respect you may be disappointed. it is my trust, though i must not be too sanguine, that we shall not have individual members of our communion going over to yours. what one's duty would be under other circumstances, what our duty ten or twenty years ago, i cannot say; but i do think that there is less of private judgment in going with one's church, than in leaving it. i can earnestly desire a union between my church and yours. i cannot listen to the thought of your being joined by individuals among us."

2. "april 26, 1841. my only anxiety is lest your branch of the church should not meet us by those reforms which surely are necessary. it never could be, that so large a portion of christendom should have split off from the communion of rome, and kept up a protest for 300 years for nothing. i think i never shall believe that so much piety and earnestness would be found among protestants, if there were not some very grave errors on the side of rome. to suppose the contrary is most unreal, and violates all one's notions of moral probabilities. all aberrations are founded on, and have their life in, some truth or other—and protestantism, so widely spread and so long enduring, must have in it, and must be witness for, a great truth or much truth. that i am an advocate for protestantism, you cannot suppose—but i am forced into a via media, short of rome, as it is at present."

3. "may 5, 1841. while i most sincerely hold that there is in the roman church a traditionary system which is not necessarily connected with her essential formularies, yet, were i ever so much to change my mind on this point, this would not tend to bring me from my present position, providentially appointed in the english church. that your communion was unassailable, would not prove that mine was indefensible. nor would it at all affect the sense in which i receive our articles; they would still speak against certain definite errors, though you had reformed them.

"i say this lest any lurking suspicion should be left in the mind of your friends that persons who think with me are likely, by the growth of their present views, to find it imperative on them to pass over to your communion. allow me to state strongly, that if you have any such thoughts, and proceed to act upon them, your friends will be committing a fatal mistake. we have (i trust) the principle and temper of obedience too intimately wrought into us to allow of our separating ourselves from our ecclesiastical superiors because in many points we may sympathise with others. we have too great a horror of the principle of private judgment to trust it in so immense a matter as that of changing from one communion to another. we may be cast out of our communion, or it may decree heresy to be truth—you shall say whether such contingencies are likely; but i do not see other conceivable causes of our leaving the church in which we were baptized.

"for myself, persons must be well acquainted with what i have written before they venture to say whether i have much changed my main opinions and cardinal views in the course of the last eight years. that my sympathies have grown towards the religion of rome i do not deny; that my reasons for shunning her communion have lessened or altered it would be difficult perhaps to prove. and i wish to go by reason, not by feeling."

4. "june 18, 1841. you urge persons whose views agree with mine to commence a movement in behalf of a union between the churches. now in the letters i have written, i have uniformly said that i did not expect that union in our time, and have discouraged the notion of all sudden proceedings with a view to it. i must ask your leave to repeat on this occasion most distinctly, that i cannot be party to any agitation, but mean to remain quiet in my own place, and to do all i can to make others take the same course. this i conceive to be my simple duty; but, over and above this, i will not set my teeth on edge with sour grapes. i know it is quite within the range of possibilities that one or another of our people should go over to your communion; however, it would be a greater misfortune to you than grief to us. if your friends wish to put a gulf between themselves and us, let them make converts, but not else. some months ago, i ventured to say that i felt it a painful duty to keep aloof from all roman catholics who came with the intention of opening negotiations for the union of the churches: when you now urge us to petition our bishops for a union, this, i conceive, is very like an act of negotiation."

5. i have the first sketch or draft of a letter, which i wrote to a zealous catholic layman: it runs as follows, as i have preserved it:—september 12, 1841. "it would rejoice all catholic minds among us, more than words can say, if you could persuade members of the church of rome to take the line in politics which you so earnestly advocate. suspicion and distrust are the main causes at present of the separation between us, and the nearest approaches in doctrine will but increase the hostility, which, alas, our people feel towards yours, while these causes continue. depend upon it, you must not rely upon our catholic tendencies till they are removed. i am not speaking of myself, or of any friends of mine; but of our church generally. whatever our personal feelings may be, we shall but tend to raise and spread a rival church to yours in the four quarters of the world, unless you do what none but you can do. sympathies, which would flow over to the church of rome, as a matter of course, did she admit them, will but be developed in the consolidation of our own system, if she continues to be the object of our suspicions and fears. i wish, of course i do, that our own church may be built up and extended, but still, not at the cost of the church of rome, not in opposition to it. i am sure, that, while you suffer, we suffer too from the separation; but we cannot remove the obstacles; it is with you to do so. you do not fear us; we fear you. till we cease to fear you, we cannot love you.

"while you are in your present position, the friends of catholic unity in our church are but fulfilling the prediction of those of your body who are averse to them, viz. that they will be merely strengthening a rival communion to yours. many of you say that we are your greatest enemies; we have said so ourselves: so we are, so we shall be, as things stand at present. we are keeping people from you, by supplying their wants in our own church. we are keeping persons from you: do you wish us to keep them from you for a time or for ever? it rests with you to determine. i do not fear that you will succeed among us; you will not supplant our church in the affections of the english nation; only through the english church can you act upon the english nation. i wish of course our church should be consolidated, with and through and in your communion, for its sake, and your sake, and for the sake of unity.

"are you aware that the more serious thinkers among us are used, as far as they dare form an opinion, to regard the spirit of liberalism as the characteristic of the destined antichrist? in vain does any one clear the church of rome from the badges of antichrist, in which protestants would invest her, if she deliberately takes up her position in the very quarter, whither we have cast them, when we took them off from her. antichrist is described as the ?νομο?, as exalting himself above the yoke of religion and law. the spirit of lawlessness came in with the reformation, and liberalism is its offspring.

"and now i fear i am going to pain you by telling you, that you consider the approaches in doctrine on our part towards you, closer than they really are. i cannot help repeating what i have many times said in print, that your services and devotions to st. mary in matter of fact do most deeply pain me. i am only stating it as a fact.

"again, i have nowhere said that i can accept the decrees of trent throughout, nor implied it. the doctrine of transubstantiation is a great difficulty with me, as being, as i think, not primitive. nor have i said that our articles in all respects admit of a roman interpretation; the very word 'transubstantiation' is disowned in them.

"thus, you see, it is not merely on grounds of expedience that we do not join you. there are positive difficulties in the way of it. and, even if there were not, we shall have no divine warrant for doing so, while we think that the church of england is a branch of the true church, and that intercommunion with the rest of christendom is necessary, not for the life of a particular church, but for its health only. i have never disguised that there are actual circumstances in the church of rome, which pain me much; of the removal of these i see no chance, while we join you one by one; but if our church were prepared for a union, she might make her terms; she might gain the cup; she might protest against the extreme honours paid to st. mary; she might make some explanation of the doctrine of transubstantiation. i am not prepared to say that a reform in other branches of the roman church would be necessary for our uniting with them, however desirable in itself, so that we were allowed to make a reform in our own country. we do not look towards rome as believing that its communion is infallible, but that union is a duty."

the following letter was occasioned by the present of a book, from the friend to whom it is written; more will be said on the subject of it presently:—

"nov. 22, 1842. i only wish that your church were more known among us by such writings. you will not interest us in her, till we see her, not in politics, but in her true functions of exhorting, teaching, and guiding. i wish there were a chance of making the leading men among you understand, what i believe is no novel thought to yourself. it is not by learned discussions, or acute arguments, or reports of miracles, that the heart of england can be gained. it is by men 'approving themselves,' like the apostle, 'ministers of christ.'

"as to your question, whether the volume you have sent is not calculated to remove my apprehensions that another gospel is substituted for the true one in your practical instructions, before i can answer it in any way, i ought to know how far the sermons which it comprises are selected from a number, or whether they are the whole, or such as the whole, which have been published of the author's. i assure you, or at least i trust, that, if it is ever clearly brought home to me that i have been wrong in what i have said on this subject, my public avowal of that conviction will only be a question of time with me.

"if, however, you saw our church as we see it, you would easily understand that such a change of feeling, did it take place, would have no necessary tendency, which you seem to expect, to draw a person from the church of england to that of rome. there is a divine life among us, clearly manifested, in spite of all our disorders, which is as great a note of the church, as any can be. why should we seek our lord's presence elsewhere, when he vouchsafes it to us where we are? what call have we to change our communion?

"roman catholics will find this to be the state of things in time to come, whatever promise they may fancy there is of a large secession to their church. this man or that may leave us, but there will be no general movement. there is, indeed, an incipient movement of our church towards yours, and this your leading men are doing all they can to frustrate by their unwearied efforts at all risks to carry off individuals. when will they know their position, and embrace a larger and wiser policy?"

the last letter, which i have inserted, is addressed to my dear friend, dr. russell, the present president of maynooth. he had, perhaps, more to do with my conversion than any one else. he called upon me, in passing through oxford in the summer of 1841, and i think i took him over some of the buildings of the university. he called again another summer, on his way from dublin to london. i do not recollect that he said a word on the subject of religion on either occasion. he sent me at different times several letters; he was always gentle, mild, unobtrusive, uncontroversial. he let me alone. he also gave me one or two books. veron's rule of faith and some treatises of the wallenburghs was one; a volume of st. alfonso liguori's sermons was another; and to that the letter which i have last inserted relates.

now it must be observed that the writings of st. alfonso, as i knew them by the extracts commonly made from them, prejudiced me as much against the roman church as anything else, on account of what was called their "mariolatry;" but there was nothing of the kind in this book. i wrote to ask dr. russell whether anything had been left out in the translation; he answered that there certainly was an omission of one passage about the blessed virgin. this omission, in the case of a book intended for catholics, at least showed that such passages as are found in the works of italian authors were not acceptable to every part of the catholic world. such devotional manifestations in honour of our lady had been my great crux as regards catholicism; i say frankly, i do not fully enter into them now; i trust i do not love her the less, because i cannot enter into them. they may be fully explained and defended; but sentiment and taste do not run with logic: they are suitable for italy, but they are not suitable for england. but, over and above england, my own case was special; from a boy i had been led to consider that my maker and i, his creature, were the two beings, certainly such, in rerum natura. i will not here speculate, however, about my own feelings. only this i know full well now, and did not know then, that the catholic church allows no image of any sort, material or immaterial, no dogmatic symbol, no rite, no sacrament, no saint, not even the blessed virgin herself, to come between the soul and its creator. it is face to face, "solus cum solo," in all matters between man and his god. he alone creates; he alone has redeemed; before his awful eyes we go in death; in the vision of him is our eternal beatitude. "solus cum solo:"—i recollect but indistinctly the effect produced upon me by this volume, but it must have been considerable. at all events i had got a key to a difficulty; in these sermons (or rather heads of sermons, as they seem to be, taken down by a hearer) there is much of what would be called legendary illustration; but the substance of them is plain, practical, awful preaching upon the great truths of salvation. what i can speak of with greater confidence is the effect upon me a little later of the exercises of st. ignatius. here again, in a pure matter of the most direct religion, in the intercourse between god and the soul, during a season of recollection, of repentance, of good resolution, of inquiry into vocation, the soul was "sola cum solo;" there was no cloud interposed between the creature and the object of his faith and love. the command practically enforced was, "my son, give me thy heart." the devotions then to angels and saints as little interfered with the incommunicable glory of the eternal, as the love which we bear our friends and relations, our tender human sympathies, are inconsistent with that supreme homage of the heart to the unseen, which really does but sanctify and exalt what is of earth. at a later date dr. russell sent me a large bundle of penny or half-penny books of devotion, of all sorts, as they are found in the booksellers' shops at rome; and, on looking them over, i was quite astonished to find how different they were from what i had fancied, how little there was in them to which i could really object. i have given an account of them in my essay on the development of doctrine. dr. russell sent me st. alfonso's book at the end of 1842; however, it was still a long time before i got over my difficulty, on the score of the devotions paid to the saints; perhaps, as i judge, from a letter i have turned up, it was some way into 1844, before i could be said to have got over it.

i am not sure that another consideration did not also weigh with me then. the idea of the blessed virgin was as it were magnified in the church of rome, as time went on,—but so were all the christian ideas; as that of the blessed eucharist. the whole scene of pale, faint, distant apostolic christianity is seen in rome, as through a telescope or magnifier. the harmony of the whole, however, is of course what it was. it is unfair then to take one roman idea, that of the blessed virgin, out of what may be called its context.

thus i am brought to the principle of development of doctrine in the christian church, to which i gave my mind at the end of 1842. i had spoken of it in the passage, which i quoted many pages back, in home thoughts abroad, published in 1836; but it had been a favourite subject with me all along. and it is certainly recognised in that celebrated treatise of vincent of lerins, which has so often been taken as the basis of the anglican theory. in 1843 i began to consider it steadily; and the general view to which i came is stated thus in a letter to a friend of the date of july 14, 1844; it will be observed that, now as before, my issue is still faith versus church:—

"the kind of considerations which weigh with me are such as the following:—1. i am far more certain (according to the fathers) that we are in a state of culpable separation, than that developments do not exist under the gospel, and that the roman developments are not the true ones. 2. i am far more certain, that our (modern) doctrines are wrong, than that the roman (modern) doctrines are wrong. 3. granting that the roman (special) doctrines are not found drawn out in the early church, yet i think there is sufficient trace of them in it, to recommend and prove them, on the hypothesis of the church having a divine guidance, though not sufficient to prove them by itself. so that the question simply turns on the nature of the promise of the spirit, made to the church. 4. the proof of the roman (modern) doctrine is as strong (or stronger) in antiquity, as that of certain doctrines which both we and romans hold: e.g. there is more of evidence in antiquity for the necessity of unity, than for the apostolical succession; for the supremacy of the see of rome, than for the presence in the eucharist; for the practice of invocation, than for certain books in the present canon of scripture, etc., etc. 5. the analogy of the old testament, and also of the new, leads to the acknowledgment of doctrinal developments."

and thus i was led on to a further consideration. i saw that the principle of development not only accounted for certain facts, but was in itself a remarkable philosophical phenomenon, giving a character to the whole course of christian thought. it was discernible from the first years of the catholic teaching up to the present day, and gave to that teaching a unity and individuality. it served as a sort of test, which the anglican could not exhibit, that modern rome was in truth ancient antioch, alexandria, and constantinople, just as a mathematical curve has its own law and expression.

and thus again i was led on to examine more attentively what i doubt not was in my thoughts long before, viz. the concatenation of argument by which the mind ascends from its first to its final religious idea; and i came to the conclusion that there was no medium, in true philosophy, between atheism and catholicity, and that a perfectly consistent mind, under those circumstances in which it finds itself here below, must embrace either the one or the other. and i hold this still: i am a catholic by virtue of my believing in a god; and if i am asked why i believe in a god, i answer that it is because i believe in myself, for i feel it impossible to believe in my own existence (and of that fact i am quite sure) without believing also in the existence of him, who lives as a personal, all-seeing, all-judging being in my conscience. now, i dare say, i have not expressed myself with philosophical correctness, because i have not given myself to the study of what others have said on the subject; but i think i have a strong true meaning in what i say which will stand examination.

moreover, i came to the conclusion which i have been stating, on reasoning of the same nature, as that which i had adopted on the subject of development of doctrine. the fact of the operation from first to last of that principle of development is an argument in favour of the identity of roman and primitive christianity; but as there is a law which acts upon the subject-matter of dogmatic theology, so is there a law in the matter of religious faith. in the third part of this narrative i spoke of certitude as the consequence, divinely intended and enjoined upon us, of the accumulative force of certain given reasons which, taken one by one, were only probabilities. let it be recollected that i am historically relating my state of mind, at the period of my life which i am surveying. i am not speaking theologically, nor have i any intention of going into controversy, or of defending myself; but speaking historically of what i held in 1843-4, i say, that i believed in a god on a ground of probability, that i believed in christianity on a probability, and that i believed in catholicism on a probability, and that all three were about the same kind of probability, a cumulative, a transcendent probability, but still probability; inasmuch as he who made us, has so willed that in mathematics indeed we arrive at certitude by rigid demonstration, but in religious inquiry we arrive at certitude by accumulated probabilities—inasmuch as he who has willed that we should so act, co-operates with us in our acting, and thereby bestows on us a certitude which rises higher than the logical force of our conclusions. and thus i came to see clearly, and to have a satisfaction in seeing, that, in being led on into the church of rome, i was proceeding, not by any secondary grounds of reason, or by controversial points in detail, but was protected and justified, even in the use of those secondary arguments, by a great and broad principle. but, let it be observed, that i am stating a matter of fact, not defending it; and if any catholic says in consequence that i have been converted in a wrong way, i cannot help that now.

and now i have carried on the history of my opinions to their last point, before i became a catholic. i find great difficulty in fixing dates precisely; but it must have been some way into 1844, before i thought not only that the anglican church was certainly wrong, but that rome was right. then i had nothing more to learn on the subject. how "samaria" faded away from my imagination i cannot tell, but it was gone. now to go back to the time when this last stage of my inquiry was in its commencement, which, if i dare assign dates, was towards the end of 1842.

in 1843, i took two very important and significant steps:—1. in february, i made a formal retractation of all the hard things which i had said against the church of rome. 2. in september, i resigned the living of st. mary's, littlemore inclusive:—i will speak of these two acts separately.

1. the words, in which i made my retractation, have given rise to much criticism. after quoting a number of passages from my writings against the church of rome, which i withdrew, i ended thus:—"if you ask me how an individual could venture, not simply to hold, but to publish such views of a communion so ancient, so wide-spreading, so fruitful in saints, i answer that i said to myself, 'i am not speaking my own words, i am but following almost a consensus of the divines of my own church. they have ever used the strongest language against rome, even the most able and learned of them. i wish to throw myself into their system. while i say what they say, i am safe. such views, too, are necessary for our position.' yet i have reason to fear still, that such language is to be ascribed, in no small measure, to an impetuous temper, a hope of approving myself to persons i respect, and a wish to repel the charge of romanism."

these words have been, and are, cited again and again against me, as if a confession that, when in the anglican church, i said things against rome which i did not really believe.

for myself, i cannot understand how any impartial man can so take them; and i have explained them in print several times. i trust that by this time they have been sufficiently explained by what i have said in former portions of this narrative; still i have a word or two to say about them, which i have not said before i apologised in the lines in question for saying out charges against the church of rome which i fully believed to be true. what is wonderful in such an apology?

there are many things a man may hold, which at the same time he may feel that he has no right to say publicly. the law recognises this principle. in our own time, men have been imprisoned and fined for saying true things of a bad king. the maxim has been held, that, "the greater the truth, the greater is the libel." and so as to the judgment of society, a just indignation would be felt against a writer who brought forward wantonly the weaknesses of a great man, though the whole world knew that they existed. no one is at liberty to speak ill of another without a justifiable reason, even though he knows he is speaking truth, and the public knows it too. therefore i could not speak ill against the church of rome, though i believed what i said, without a good reason. i did believe what i said; but had i a good reason for saying it? i thought i had, viz. i said what i believed was simply necessary in the controversy, in order to defend ourselves; i considered that the anglican position could not be defended, without bringing charges against the church of rome. is not this almost a truism? is it not what every one says, who speaks on the subject at all? does any serious man abuse the church of rome, for the sake of abusing her, or because it justifies his own religious position? what is the meaning of the very word "protestantism," but that there is a call to speak out? this then is what i said; "i know i spoke strongly against the church of rome; but it was no mere abuse, for i had a serious reason for doing so."

but, not only did i think such language necessary for my church's religious position, but all the great anglican divines had thought so before me. they had thought so, and they had acted accordingly. and therefore i said, with much propriety, that i had not done it simply out of my own head, but that i was following the track, or rather reproducing the teaching, of those who had preceded me.

i was pleading guilty; but pleading also that there were extenuating circumstances in the case. we all know the story of the convict, who on the scaffold bit off his mother's ear. by doing so he did not deny the fact of his own crime, for which he was to hang; but he said that his mother's indulgence, when he was a boy, had a good deal to do with it. in like manner i had made a charge, and i had made it ex animo; but i accused others of having led me into believing it and publishing it.

but there was more than this meant in the words which i used:—first, i will freely confess, indeed i said it some pages back, that i was angry with the anglican divines. i thought they had taken me in; i had read the fathers with their eyes; i had sometimes trusted their quotations or their reasonings; and from reliance on them, i had used words or made statements, which properly i ought rigidly to have examined myself. i had exercised more faith than criticism in the matter. this did not imply any broad misstatements on my part, arising from reliance on their authority, but it implied carelessness in matters of detail. and this of course was a fault.

but there was a far deeper reason for my saying what i said in this matter, on which i have not hitherto touched; and it was this:—the most oppressive thought, in the whole process of my change of opinion, was the clear anticipation, verified by the event, that it would issue in the triumph of liberalism. against the anti-dogmatic principle i had thrown my whole mind; yet now i was doing more than any one else could do, to promote it. i was one of those who had kept it at bay in oxford for so many years; and thus my very retirement was its triumph. the men who had driven me from oxford were distinctly the liberals; it was they who had opened the attack upon tract 90, and it was they who would gain a second benefit, if i went on to retire from the anglican church. but this was not all. as i have already said, there are but two alternatives, the way to rome, and the way to atheism: anglicanism is the halfway house on the one side, and liberalism is the halfway house on the other. how many men were there, as i knew full well, who would not follow me now in my advance from anglicanism to rome, but would at once leave anglicanism and me for the liberal camp. it is not at all easy (humanly speaking) to wind up an englishman to a dogmatic level. i had done so in a good measure, in the case both of young men and of laymen, the anglican via media being the representative of dogma. the dogmatic and the anglican principle were one, as i had taught them; but i was breaking the via media to pieces, and would not dogmatic faith altogether be broken up, in the minds of a great number, by the demolition of the via media? oh! how unhappy this made me! i heard once from an eyewitness the account of a poor sailor whose legs were shattered by a ball, in the action off algiers in 1816, and who was taken below for an operation. the surgeon and the chaplain persuaded him to have a leg off; it was done and the tourniquet applied to the wound. then, they broke it to him that he must have the other off too. the poor fellow said, "you should have told me that, gentlemen," and deliberately unscrewed the instrument and bled to death. would not that be the case with many friends of my own? how could i ever hope to make them believe in a second theology, when i had cheated them in the first? with what face could i publish a new edition of a dogmatic creed, and ask them to receive it as gospel? would it not be plain to them that no certainty was to be found anywhere? well, in my defence i could but make a lame apology; however, it was the true one, viz. that i had not read the fathers critically enough; that in such nice points, as those which determine the angle of divergence between the two churches, i had made considerable miscalculations; and how came this about? why the fact was, unpleasant as it was to avow, that i had leaned too much upon the assertions of ussher, jeremy taylor, or barrow, and had been deceived by them. valeat quantum—it was all that could be said. this then was a chief reason of that wording of the retractation, which has given so much offence, and the following letter will illustrate it:—

"april 3, 1844. i wish to remark on w.'s chief distress, that my changing my opinion seemed to unsettle one's confidence in truth and falsehood as external things, and led one to be suspicious of the new opinion as one became distrustful of the old. now in what i shall say, i am not going to speak in favour of my second thoughts in comparison of my first, but against such scepticism and unsettlement about truth and falsehood generally, the idea of which is very painful.

"the case with me, then, was this, and not surely an unnatural one:—as a matter of feeling and of duty i threw myself into the system which i found myself in. i saw that the english church had a theological idea or theory as such, and i took it up. i read laud on tradition, and thought it (as i still think it) very masterly. the anglican theory was very distinctive. i admired it and took it on faith. it did not (i think) occur to me to doubt it; i saw that it was able, and supported by learning, and i felt it was a duty to maintain it. further, on looking into antiquity and reading the fathers, i saw such portions of it as i examined, fully confirmed (e.g. the supremacy of scripture). there was only one question about which i had a doubt, viz. whether it would work, for it has never been more than a paper system....

"so far from my change of opinion having any fair tendency to unsettle persons as to truth and falsehood viewed as objective realities, it should be considered whether such change is not necessary, if truth be a real objective thing, and be made to confront a person who has been brought up in a system short of truth. surely the continuance of a person who wishes to go right in a wrong system, and not his giving it up, would be that which militated against the objectiveness of truth, leading, as it would, to the suspicion, that one thing and another were equally pleasing to our maker, where men were sincere.

"nor surely is it a thing i need be sorry for, that i defended the system in which i found myself, and thus have had to unsay my words. for is it not one's duty, instead of beginning with criticism, to throw oneself generously into that form of religion which is providentially put before one? is it right, or is it wrong, to begin with private judgment? may we not, on the other hand, look for a blessing through obedience even to an erroneous system, and a guidance even by means of it out of it? were those who were strict and conscientious in their judaism, or those who were lukewarm and sceptical, more likely to be led into christianity, when christ came? yet in proportion to their previous zeal, would be their appearance of inconsistency. certainly, i have always contended that obedience even to an erring conscience was the way to gain light, and that it mattered not where a man began, so that he began on what came to hand, and in faith; and that anything might become a divine method of truth; that to the pure all things are pure, and have a self-correcting virtue and a power of germinating. and though i have no right at all to assume that this mercy is granted to me, yet the fact, that a person in my situation may have it granted to him, seems to me to remove the perplexity which my change of opinion may occasion.

"it may be said—i have said it to myself—'why, however, did you publish? had you waited quietly, you would have changed your opinion without any of the misery, which now is involved in the change, of disappointing and distressing people.' i answer, that things are so bound up together, as to form a whole, and one cannot tell what is or is not a condition of what. i do not see how possibly i could have published the tracts, or other works professing to defend our church, without accompanying them with a strong protest or argument against rome. the one obvious objection against the whole anglican line is, that it is roman; so that i really think there was no alternative between silence altogether, and forming a theory and attacking the roman system."

2. and now, secondly, as to my resignation of st. mary's, which was the second of the steps which i took in 1843. the ostensible, direct, and sufficient cause of my doing so was the persevering attack of the bishops on tract 90. i alluded to it in the letter which i have inserted above, addressed to one of the most influential among them. a series of their ex cathedra judgments, lasting through three years, and including a notice of no little severity in a charge of my own bishop, came as near to a condemnation of my tract, and, so far, to a repudiation of the ancient catholic doctrine, which was the scope of the tract, as was possible in the church of england. it was in order to shield the tract from such a condemnation, that i had at the time of its publication so simply put myself at the disposal of the higher powers in london. at that time, all that was distinctly contemplated in the way of censure, was the message which my bishop sent me, that it was "objectionable." that i thought was the end of the matter. i had refused to suppress it, and they had yielded that point. since i wrote the former portions of this narrative, i have found what i wrote to dr. pusey on march 24, while the matter was in progress. "the more i think of it," i said, "the more reluctant i am to suppress tract 90, though of course i will do it if the bishop wishes it; i cannot, however, deny that i shall feel it a severe act." according to the notes which i took of the letters or messages which i sent to him in the course of that day, i went on to say, "my first feeling was to obey without a word; i will obey still; but my judgment has steadily risen against it ever since." then in the postscript, "if i have done any good to the church, i do ask the bishop this favour, as my reward for it, that he would not insist on a measure, from which i think good will not come. however, i will submit to him." afterwards, i get stronger still: "i have almost come to the resolution, if the bishop publicly intimates that i must suppress the tract, or speaks strongly in his charge against it, to suppress it indeed, but to resign my living also. i could not in conscience act otherwise. you may show this in any quarter you please."

all my then hopes, all my satisfaction at the apparent fulfilment of those hopes, were at an end in 1843. it is not wonderful then, that in may of that year i addressed a letter on the subject of st. mary's to the same friend, whom i had consulted about retiring from it in 1840. but i did more now; i told him my great unsettlement of mind on the question of the churches. i will insert portions of two of my letters:—

"may 4, 1843.... at present i fear, as far as i can analyze my own convictions, i consider the roman catholic communion to be the church of the apostles, and that what grace is among us (which, through god's mercy, is not little) is extraordinary, and from the overflowings of his dispensation. i am very far more sure that england is in schism, than that the roman additions to the primitive creed may not be developments, arising out of a keen and vivid realizing of the divine depositum of faith.

"you will now understand what gives edge to the bishops' charges, without any undue sensitiveness on my part. they distress me in two ways:—first, as being in some sense protests and witnesses to my conscience against my own unfaithfulness to the english church, and next, as being samples of her teaching, and tokens how very far she is from even aspiring to catholicity.

"of course my being unfaithful to a trust is my great subject of dread—as it has long been, as you know."

when he wrote to make natural objections to my purpose, such as the apprehension that the removal of clerical obligations might have the indirect effect of propelling me towards rome, i answered:—

"may 18, 1843.... my office or charge at st. mary's is not a mere state, but a continual energy. people assume and assert certain things of me in consequence. with what sort of sincerity can i obey the bishop? how am i to act in the frequent cases, in which one way or another the church of rome comes into consideration? i have to the utmost of my power tried to keep persons from rome, and with some success; but even a year and a half since, my arguments, though more efficacious with the persons i aimed at than any others could be, were of a nature to infuse great suspicion of me into the minds of lookers-on.

"by retaining st. mary's, i am an offence and a stumbling-block. persons are keen-sighted enough to make out what i think on certain points, and then they infer that such opinions are compatible with holding situations of trust in our church. a number of younger men take the validity of their interpretation of the articles, etc., from me on faith. is not my present position a cruelty, as well as a treachery towards the church?

"i do not see how i can either preach or publish again, while i hold st. mary's;—but consider again the following difficulty in such a resolution, which i must state at some length.

"last long vacation the idea suggested itself to me of publishing the lives of the english saints; and i had a conversation with [a publisher] upon it. i thought it would be useful, as employing the minds of men who were in danger of running wild, bringing them from doctrine to history, and from speculation to fact;—again, as giving them an interest in the english soil, and the english church, and keeping them from seeking sympathy in rome, as she is; and further, as seeking to promote the spread of right views.

"but, within the last month, it has come upon me, that, if the scheme goes on, it will be a practical carrying out of no. 90; from the character of the usages and opinions of ante-reformation times.

"it is easy to say, 'why will you do any thing? why won't you keep quiet? what business had you to think of any such plan at all?' but i cannot leave a number of poor fellows in the lurch. i am bound to do my best for a great number of people both in oxford and elsewhere. if i did not act, others would find means to do so.

"well, the plan has been taken up with great eagerness and interest. many men are setting to work. i set down the names of men, most of them engaged, the rest half engaged and probable, some actually writing." about thirty names follow, some of them at that time of the school of dr. arnold, others of dr. pusey's, some my personal friends and of my own standing, others whom i hardly knew, while of course the majority were of the party of the new movement. i continue:—

"the plan has gone so far, that it would create surprise and talk, were it now suddenly given over. yet how is it compatible with my holding st. mary's, being what i am?"

such was the object and the origin of the projected series of the english saints; and, as the publication was connected, as has been seen, with my resignation of st. mary's, i may be allowed to conclude what i have to say on the subject here, though it will read like a digression. as soon then as the first of the series got into print, the whole project broke down. i had already anticipated that some portions of the series would be written in a style inconsistent with the professions of a beneficed clergyman, and therefore i had given up my living; but men of great weight went further, when they saw the life of st. stephen harding, and decided that it was of such a character as to be inconsistent even with its being given to the world by an anglican publisher: and so the scheme was given up at once. after the two first parts, i retired from the editorship, and those lives only were published in addition, which were then already finished, or in advanced preparation. the following passages from what i or others wrote at the time will illustrate what i have been saying:—

in november, 1844, i wrote thus to one of the authors of them: "i am not editor, i have no direct control over the series. it is t.'s work; he may admit what he pleases; and exclude what he pleases. i was to have been editor. i did edit the two first numbers. i was responsible for them, in the way in which an editor is responsible. had i continued editor, i should have exercised a control over all. i laid down in the preface that doctrinal subjects were, if possible, to be excluded. but, even then, i also set down that no writer was to be held answerable for any of the lives but his own. when i gave up the editorship, i had various engagements with friends for separate lives remaining on my hands. i should have liked to have broken from them all, but there were some from which i could not break, and i let them take their course. some have come to nothing; others like yours have gone on. i have seen such, either in ms. or proof. as time goes on, i shall have less and less to do with the series. i think the engagement between you and me should come to an end. i have anyhow abundant responsibility on me, and too much. i shall write to t. that if he wants the advantage of your assistance, he must write to you direct."

in accordance with this letter, i had already advertised in january 1844, ten months before it, that "other lives," after st. stephen harding, "will be published by their respective authors on their own responsibility." this notice is repeated in february, in the advertisement to the second volume entitled "the family of st. richard," though to this volume also, for some reason, i also put my initials. in the life of st. augustine, the author, a man of nearly my own age, says in like manner, "no one but himself is responsible for the way in which these materials have been used." i have in ms. another advertisement to the same effect, but cannot tell whether it was ever put into print.

i will add, since the authors have been considered hot-headed boys, whom i was in charge of and whom i suffered do intemperate things, that, while the writer of st. augustine was of the mature age which i have stated, most of the others were on one side or other of thirty. three were under twenty-five. moreover, of these writers some became catholics, some remained anglicans, and others have professed what are called free or liberal opinions.

the immediate cause of the resignation of my living is stated in the following letter, which i wrote to my bishop:—

"august 29, 1843. it is with much concern that i inform your lordship, that mr. a. b., who has been for the last year an inmate of my house here, has just conformed to the church of rome. as i have ever been desirous, not only of faithfully discharging the trust, which is involved in holding a living in your lordship's diocese, but of approving myself to your lordship, i will for your information state one or two circumstances connected with this unfortunate event.... i received him on condition of his promising me, which he distinctly did, that he would remain quietly in our church for three years. a year has passed since that time, and, though i saw nothing in him which promised that he would eventually be contented with his present position, yet for the time his mind became as settled as one could wish, and he frequently expressed his satisfaction at being under the promise which i had exacted of him."

i felt it impossible to remain any longer in the service of the anglican church, when such a breach of trust, however little i had to do with it, would be laid at my door. i wrote in a few days to a friend:

"september 7, 1843. i this day ask the bishop leave to resign st. mary's. men whom you little think, or at least whom i little thought, are in almost a hopeless way. really we may expect anything. i am going to publish a volume of sermons, including those four against moving."

i resigned my living on september 18th. i had not the means of doing it legally at oxford. the late mr. goldsmid aided me in resigning it in london. i found no fault with the liberals; they had beaten me in a fair field. as to the act of the bishops, i thought, as walter scott has applied the text, that they had "seethed the kid in his mother's milk."

i said to a friend:—

"victrix causa diis placuit, sed victa catoni."

and now i have brought almost to an end, as far as this sketch has to treat of them, the history both of my opinions, and of the public acts which they involved. i had only one more advance of mind to make; and that was, to be certain of what i had hitherto anticipated, concluded, and believed; and this was close upon my submission to the catholic church. and i had only one more act to perform, and that was the act of submission itself. but two years yet intervened before the date of these final events; during which i was in lay communion in the church of england, attending its services as usual, and abstaining altogether from intercourse with catholics, from their places of worship, and from those religious rites and usages, such as the invocation of saints, which are characteristics of their creed. i did all this on principle; for i never could understand how a man could be of two religions at once.

what then i now have to add is of a private nature, being my preparation for the great event, for which i was waiting, in the interval between the autumns of 1843 and 1845.

and i shall almost confine what i have to say to this one point, the difficulty i was in as to the best mode of revealing the state of my mind to my friends and others, and how i managed to do it.

up to january, 1842, i had not disclosed my state of unsettlement to more than three persons, as has been mentioned above, and is repeated in the letters which i am now about to give to the reader. to two of them, intimate and familiar companions, in the autumn of 1839: to the third, an old friend too, when, i suppose, i was in great distress of mind upon the affair of the jerusalem bishopric. in may, 1843, i mentioned it to the friend, by whose advice i wished, as far as possible, to be guided. to mention it on set purpose to any one, unless indeed i was asking advice, i should have felt to be a crime. if there is anything that was and is abhorrent to me, it is the scattering doubts, and unsettling consciences without necessity. a strong presentiment that my existing opinions would ultimately give way, and that the grounds of them were unsound, was not a sufficient warrant for disclosing the state of my mind. i had no guarantee yet, that that presentiment would be realised. supposing i were crossing ice, which came right in my way, which i had good reasons for considering sound, and which i saw numbers before me crossing in safety, and supposing a stranger from the bank, in a voice of authority, and in an earnest tone, warned me that it was dangerous, and then was silent, i think i should be startled, and should look about me anxiously, but i also should go on, till i had better grounds for doubt; and such was my state, i believe, till the end of 1842. then again, when my dissatisfaction became greater, it was hard at first to determine the point of time, when it was too strong to suppress with propriety. certitude of course is a point, but doubt is a progress; i was not near certitude yet. certitude is a reflex action; it is to know that one knows. i believe i had not that, till close upon my reception into the catholic church. again, a practical, effective doubt is a point too, but who can easily ascertain it for himself? who can determine when it is, that the scales in the balance of opinion begin to turn, and what was a greater probability in behalf of a belief becomes a positive doubt against it?

in considering this question in its bearing upon my conduct in 1843, my own simple answer to my great difficulty was, do what your present state of opinion requires, and let that doing tell: speak by acts. this i did; my first act of the year was in february, 1843. after three months' deliberation i published my retractation of the violent charges which i had made against rome: i could not be wrong in doing so much as this; but i did no more: i did not retract my anglican teaching. my second act was in september; after much sorrowful lingering and hesitation, i resigned my living. i tried indeed to keep littlemore for myself, even though it was still to remain an integral part of st. mary's. i had made it a parish, and i loved it; but i did not succeed in my attempt. i could indeed bear to become the curate at will of another, but i hoped still that i might have been my own master there. i had hoped an exception might have been made in my favour, under the circumstances; but i did not gain my request. indeed, i was asking what was impracticable, and it is well for me that it was so.

these were my two acts of the year, and i said, "i cannot be wrong in making them; let that follow which must follow in the thoughts of the world about me, when they see what i do." they fully answered my purpose. what i felt as a simple duty to do, did create a general suspicion about me, without such responsibility as would be involved in my taking the initiative in creating it. then, when friends wrote me on the subject, either i did not deny or i confessed it, according to the character and need of their letters. sometimes, in the case of intimate friends, whom i seemed to leave in ignorance of what others knew about me, i invited the question.

and here comes in another point for explanation. while i was fighting for the anglican church in oxford, then indeed i was very glad to make converts, and, though i never broke away from that rule of my mind (as i may call it) of which i have already spoken, of finding disciples rather than seeking them, yet, that i made advances to others in a special way, i have no doubt; this came to an end, however, as soon as i fell into misgivings as to the true ground to be taken in the controversy. then, when i gave up my place in the movement, i ceased from any such proceeding: and my utmost endeavour was to tranquillise such persons, especially those who belonged to the new school, as were unsettled in their religious views, and, as i judged, hasty in their conclusions. this went on till 1843; but, at that date, as soon as i turned my face romeward, i gave up altogether and in any shape, as far as ever was possible, the thought of acting upon others. then i myself was simply my own concern. how could i in any sense direct others, who had to be guided in so momentous a matter myself? how could i be considered in a position, even to say a word to them one way or the other? how could i presume to unsettle them, as i was unsettled, when i had no means of bringing them out of such unsettlement? and, if they were unsettled already, how could i point to them a place of refuge, which i was not sure that i should choose for myself? my only line, my only duty, was to keep simply to my own case. i recollected pascal's words, "je mourrai seul." i deliberately put out of my thoughts all other works and claims, and said nothing to any one, unless i was obliged.

but this brought upon me a great trouble. in the newspapers there were continual reports about my intentions; i did not answer them; presently strangers or friends wrote, begging to be allowed to answer them; and, if i still kept to my resolution and said nothing, then i was thought to be mysterious, and a prejudice was excited against me. but, what was far worse, there were a number of tender, eager hearts, of whom i knew nothing at all, who were watching me, wishing to think as i thought, and to do as i did, if they could but find it out; who in consequence were distressed, that, in so solemn a matter, they could not see what was coming, and who heard reports about me this way or that, on a first day and on a second; and felt the weariness of waiting, and the sickness of delayed hope, and did not understand that i was as perplexed as themselves, and, being of more sensitive complexion of mind than myself, were made ill by the suspense. and they too of course for the time thought me mysterious and inexplicable. i ask their pardon as far as i was really unkind to them. there was a gifted and deeply earnest lady, who in a parabolical account of that time, has described both my conduct as she felt it, and that of such as herself. in a singularly graphic, amusing vision of pilgrims, who were making their way across a bleak common in great discomfort, and who were ever warned against, yet continually nearing, "the king's highway" on the right, she says, "all my fears and disquiets were speedily renewed by seeing the most daring of our leaders (the same who had first forced his way through the palisade, and in whose courage and sagacity we all put implicit trust) suddenly stop short, and declare that he would go on no further. he did not, however, take the leap at once, but quietly sat down on the top of the fence with his feet hanging towards the road, as if he meant to take his time about it, and let himself down easily." i do not wonder at all that i thus seemed so unkind to a lady, who at that time had never seen me. we were both in trial in our different ways. i am far from denying that i was acting selfishly both towards them and towards others; but it was a religious selfishness. certainly to myself my own duty seemed clear. they that are whole can heal others; but in my case it was, "physician, heal thyself." my own soul was my first concern, and it seemed an absurdity to my reason to be converted in partnership. i wished to go to my lord by myself, and in my own way, or rather his way. i had neither wish, nor, i may say, thought of taking a number with me. but nothing of this could be known to others.

the following three letters are written to a friend, who had every claim upon me to be frank with him:—it will be seen that i disclose the real state of mind to him, in proportion as he presses me.

1. "october 14, 1843. i would tell you in a few words why i have resigned st. mary's, as you seem to wish, were it possible to do so. but it is most difficult to bring out in brief, or even in extenso, any just view of my feelings and reasons.

"the nearest approach i can give to a general account of them is to say, that it has been caused by the general repudiation of the view, contained in no. 90, on the part of the church. i could not stand against such an unanimous expression of opinion from the bishops, supported, as it has been, by the concurrence, or at least silence, of all classes in the church, lay and clerical. if there ever was a case, in which an individual teacher has been put aside and virtually put away by a community, mine is one. no decency has been observed in the attacks upon me from authority; no protests have been offered against them. it is felt,—i am far from denying, justly felt,—that i am a foreign material, and cannot assimilate with the church of england.

"even my own bishop has said that my mode of interpreting the articles makes them mean anything or nothing. when i heard this delivered, i did not believe my ears. i denied to others that it was said.... out came the charge, and the words could not be mistaken. this astonished me the more, because i published that letter to him (how unwillingly you know) on the understanding that i was to deliver his judgment on no. 90 instead of him. a year elapses, and a second and heavier judgment came forth. i did not bargain for this,—nor did he, but the tide was too strong for him.

"i fear that i must confess, that, in proportion as i think the english church is showing herself intrinsically and radically alien from catholic principles, so do i feel the difficulties of defending her claims to be a branch of the catholic church. it seems a dream to call a communion catholic, when one can neither appeal to any clear statement of catholic doctrine in its formularies, nor interpret ambiguous formularies by the received and living catholic sense, whether past or present. men of catholic views are too truly but a party in our church. i cannot deny that many other independent circumstances, which it is not worth while entering into, have led me to the same conclusion.

"i do not say all this to every body, as you may suppose; but i do not like to make a secret of it to you."

2. "oct. 25, 1843. you have engaged in a dangerous correspondence; i am deeply sorry for the pain i shall give you.

"i must tell you then frankly (but i combat arguments which to me, alas, are shadows), that it is not from disappointment, irritation, or impatience, that i have, whether rightly or wrongly, resigned st. mary's; but because i think the church of rome the catholic church, and ours not part of the catholic church, because not in communion with rome; and because i feel that i could not honestly be a teacher in it any longer.

"this thought came to me last summer four years.... i mentioned it to two friends in the autumn.... it arose in the first instance from the monophysite and donatist controversies, the former of which i was engaged with in the course of theological study to which i had given myself. this was at a time when no bishop, i believe, had declared against us, and when all was progress and hope. i do not think i have ever felt disappointment or impatience, certainly not then; for i never looked forward to the future, nor do i realise it now.

"my first effort was to write that article on the catholicity of the english church; for two years it quieted me. since the summer of 1839 i have written little or nothing on modern controversy.... you know how unwillingly i wrote my letter to the bishop in which i committed myself again, as the safest course under circumstances. the article i speak of quieted me till the end of 1841, over the affair of no. 90, when that wretched jerusalem bishopric (no personal matter) revived all my alarms. they have increased up to this moment. at that time i told my secret to another person in addition.

"you see then that the various ecclesiastical and quasi-ecclesiastical acts, which have taken place in the course of the last two years and a half, are not the cause of my state of opinion, but are keen stimulants and weighty confirmations of a conviction forced upon me, while engaged in the course of duty, viz. that theological reading to which i had given myself. and this last-mentioned circumstance is a fact, which has never, i think, come before me till now that i write to you.

"it is three years since, on account of my state of opinion, i urged the provost in vain to let st. mary's be separated from littlemore; thinking i might with a safe conscience serve the latter, though i could not comfortably continue in so public a place as a university. this was before no. 90.

"finally, i have acted under advice, and that, not of my own choosing, but what came to me in the way of duty, nor the advice of those only who agree with me, but of near friends who differ from me.

"i have nothing to reproach myself with, as far as i see, in the matter of impatience; i.e. practically or in conduct. and i trust that he, who has kept me in the slow course of change hitherto, will keep me still from hasty acts or resolves with a doubtful conscience.

"this i am sure of, that such interposition as yours, kind as it is, only does what you would consider harm. it makes me realise my own views to myself; it makes me see their consistency; it assures me of my own deliberateness; it suggests to me the traces of a providential hand; it takes away the pain of disclosures; it relieves me of a heavy secret.

"you may make what use of my letters you think right."

my correspondent wrote to me once more, and i replied thus: "october 31, 1843. your letter has made my heart ache more, and caused me more and deeper sighs than any i have had a long while, though i assure you there is much on all sides of me to cause sighing and heartache. on all sides i am quite haunted by the one dreadful whisper repeated from so many quarters, and causing the keenest distress to friends. you know but a part of my present trial, in knowing that i am unsettled myself.

"since the beginning of this year i have been obliged to tell the state of my mind to some others; but never, i think, without being in a way obliged, as from friends writing to me as you did, or guessing how matters stood. no one in oxford knows it or here" [littlemore], "but one friend whom i felt i could not help telling the other day. but, i suppose, very many suspect it."

on receiving these letters, my correspondent, if i recollect rightly, at once communicated the matter of them to dr. pusey, and this will enable me to state as nearly as i can the way in which my changed state of opinion was made known to him.

i had from the first a great difficulty in making dr. pusey understand such differences of opinion as existed between himself and me. when there was a proposal about the end of 1838 for a subscription for a cranmer memorial, he wished us both to subscribe together to it. i could not, of course, and wished him to subscribe by himself. that he would not do; he could not bear the thought of our appearing to the world in separate positions, in a matter of importance. and, as time went on, he would not take any hints, which i gave him, on the subject of my growing inclination to rome. when i found him so determined, i often had not the heart to go on. and then i knew, that, from affection to me, he so often took up and threw himself into what i said, that i felt the great responsibility i should incur, if i put things before him just as i might view them. and, not knowing him so well as i did afterwards, i feared lest i should unsettle him. and moreover, i recollected well, how prostrated he had been with illness in 1832, and i used always to think that the start of the movement had given him a fresh life. i fancied that his physical energies even depended on the presence of a vigorous hope and bright prospects for his imagination to feed upon; so much so, that when he was so unworthily treated by the authorities of the place in 1843, i recollect writing to the late mr. dodsworth to state my anxiety, lest, if his mind became dejected in consequence, his health would suffer seriously also. these were difficulties in my way; and then again, another difficulty was, that, as we were not together under the same roof, we only saw each other at set times; others indeed, who were coming in or out of my rooms freely, and as there might be need at the moment, knew all my thoughts easily; but for him to know them well, formal efforts were necessary. a common friend of ours broke it all to him in 1841, as far as matters had gone at that time, and showed him clearly the logical conclusions which must lie in propositions to which i had committed myself; but somehow or other in a little while, his mind fell back into its former happy state, and he could not bring himself to believe that he and i should not go on pleasantly together to the end. but that affectionate dream needs must have been broken at last; and two years afterwards, that friend to whom i wrote the letters which i have just now inserted, set himself, as i have said, to break it. upon that, i too begged dr. pusey to tell in private to any one he would, that i thought in the event i should leave the church of england. however, he would not do so; and at the end of 1844 had almost relapsed into his former thoughts about me, if i may judge from a letter of his which i have found. nay, at the commemoration of 1845, a few months before i left the anglican church, i think he said about me to a friend, "i trust after all we shall keep him."

in that autumn of 1843, at the time that i spoke to dr. pusey, i asked another friend also to communicate to others in confidence the prospect which lay before me.

to another friend i gave the opportunity of knowing it, if he would, in the following postscript to a letter:—

"while i write, i will add a word about myself. you may come near a person or two who, owing to circumstances, know more exactly my state of feeling than you do, though they would not tell you. now i do not like that you should not be aware of this, though i see no reason why you should know what they happen to know. your wishing it otherwise would be a reason."

i had a dear and old friend, near his death; i never told him my state of mind. why should i unsettle that sweet calm tranquillity, when i had nothing to offer him instead? i could not say, "go to rome;" else i should have shown him the way. yet i offered myself for his examination. one day he led the way to my speaking out; but, rightly or wrongly, i could not respond. my reason was, "i have no certainty on the matter myself. to say 'i think' is to tease and to distress, not to persuade."

i wrote to him on michaelmas day, 1843: "as you may suppose, i have nothing to write to you about, pleasant. i could tell you some very painful things; but it is best not to anticipate trouble, which after all can but happen, and, for what one knows, may be averted. you are always so kind, that sometimes, when i part with you, i am nearly moved to tears, and it would be a relief to be so, at your kindness and at my hardness. i think no one ever had such kind friends as i have."

the next year, january 22, i wrote to him: "pusey has quite enough on him, and generously takes on himself more than enough, for me to add burdens when i am not obliged; particularly too, when i am very conscious, that there are burdens, which i am or shall be obliged to lay upon him some time or other, whether i will or no."

and on february 21: "half-past ten. i am just up, having a bad cold; the like has not happened to me (except twice in january) in my memory. you may think you have been in my thoughts, long before my rising. of course you are so continually, as you well know. i could not come to see you; i am not worthy of friends. with my opinions, to the full of which i dare not confess, i feel like a guilty person with others, though i trust i am not so. people kindly think that i have much to bear externally, disappointment, slander, etc. no, i have nothing to bear, but the anxiety which i feel for my friends' anxiety for me, and their perplexity. this [letter] is a better ash-wednesday than birthday present;" [his birthday was the same day as mine; it was ash-wednesday that year]; "but i cannot help writing about what is uppermost. and now all kindest and best wishes to you, my oldest friend, whom i must not speak more about, and with reference to myself, lest you should be angry." it was not in his nature to have doubts: he used to look at me with anxiety, and wonder what had come over me.

on easter monday: "all that is good and gracious descend upon you and yours from the influences of this blessed season; and it will be so (so be it!), for what is the life of you all, as day passes after day, but a simple endeavour to serve him, from whom all blessing comes? though we are separated in place, yet this we have in common, that you are living a calm and cheerful time, and i am enjoying the thought of you. it is your blessing to have a clear heaven, and peace around, according to the blessing pronounced on benjamin. so it is, and so may it ever be."

he was in simple good faith. he died in september that year. i had expected that his last illness would have brought light to my mind, as to what i ought to do. it brought none. i made a note, which runs thus: "i sobbed bitterly over his coffin, to think that he left me still dark as to what the way of truth was, and what i ought to do in order to please god and fulfil his will." i think i wrote to charles marriott to say, that at that moment, with the thought of my friend before me, my strong view in favour of rome remained just what it was. on the other hand, my firm belief that grace was to be found in the anglican church remained too.[5] i wrote to a friend upon his death:—

"sept. 16, 1844. i am full of wrong and miserable feelings, which it is useless to detail, so grudging and sullen, when i should be thankful. of course, when one sees so blessed an end, and that, the termination of so blameless a life, of one who really fed on our ordinances and got strength from them, and see the same continued in a whole family, the little children finding quite a solace of their pain in the daily prayer, it is impossible not to feel more at ease in our church, as at least a sort of zoar, a place of refuge and temporary rest, because of the steepness of the way. only, may we be kept from unlawful security, lest we have moab and ammon for our progeny, the enemies of israel."

i could not continue in this state, either in the light of duty or of reason. my difficulty was this: i had been deceived greatly once; how could i be sure that i was not deceived a second time? i then thought myself right; how was i to be certain that i was right now? how many years had i thought myself sure of what i now rejected? how could i ever again have confidence in myself? as in 1840 i listened to the rising doubt in favour of rome, now i listened to the waning doubt in favour of the english church. to be certain is to know that one knows; what test had i, that i should not change again, after that i had become a catholic? i had still apprehension of this, though i thought a time would come, when it would depart. however, some limit ought to be put to these vague misgivings; i must do my best and then leave it to a higher power to prosper it. so, i determined to write an essay on doctrinal development; and then, if, at the end of it, my convictions in favour of the roman church were not weaker, to make up my mind to seek admission into her fold. i acted upon this resolution in the beginning of 1845, and worked at my essay steadily into the autumn.

i told my resolution to various friends at the beginning of the year; indeed, it was at that time known generally. i wrote to a friend thus:—

"my intention is, if nothing comes upon me, which i cannot foresee, to remain quietly in statu quo for a considerable time, trusting that my friends will kindly remember me and my trial in their prayers. and i should give up my fellowship some time before anything further took place."

one very dear friend, now no more, charles marriott, sent me a letter at the beginning of the next year, from which, from love of him, i quote some sentences:—

"january 15, 1845. you know me well enough to be aware, that i never see through anything at first. your letter to b. casts a gloom over the future, which you can understand, if you have understood me, as i believe you have. but i may speak out at once, of what i see and feel at once, and doubt not that i shall ever feel: that your whole conduct towards the church of england and towards us, who have striven and are still striving to seek after god for ourselves, and to revive true religion among others, under her authority and guidance, has been generous and considerate, and, were that word appropriate, dutiful, to a degree that i could scarcely have conceived possible, more unsparing of self than i should have thought nature could sustain. i have felt with pain every link that you have severed, and i have asked no questions, because i felt that you ought to measure the disclosure of your thoughts according to the occasion, and the capacity of those to whom you spoke. i write in haste, in the midst of engagements engrossing in themselves, but partly made tasteless, partly embittered by what i have heard; but i am willing to trust even you, whom i love best on earth, in god's hand, in the earnest prayer that you may be so employed as is best for the holy catholic church."

there was a lady, who was very anxious on the subject, and i wrote to her the following letters:—

1. "october, 1844. what can i say more to your purpose? if you will ask me any specific questions, i will answer them, as far as i am able."

2. "november 7, 1844. i am still where i was; i am not moving. two things, however, seem plain, that every one is prepared for such an event, next, that every one expects it of me. few indeed, who do not think it suitable, fewer still, who do not think it likely. however, i do not think it either suitable or likely. i have very little reason to doubt about the issue of things, but the when and the how are known to him, from whom, i trust, both the course of things and the issue come. the expression of opinion, and the latent and habitual feeling about me, which is on every side and among all parties, has great force. i insist upon it, because i have a great dread of going by my own feelings, lest they should mislead me. by one's sense of duty one must go; but external facts support one in doing so."

3. "january 8, 1845. my full belief is, in accordance with your letter, that, if there is a move in our church, very few persons indeed will be partners to it. i doubt whether one or two at the most among residents at oxford. and i don't know whether i can wish it. the state of the roman catholics is at present so unsatisfactory. this i am sure of, that nothing but a simple, direct call of duty is a warrant for any one leaving our church; no preference of another church, no delight in its services, no hope of greater religious advancement in it, no indignation, no disgust, at the persons and things, among which we may find ourselves in the church of england. the simple question is, can i (it is personal, not whether another, but can i) be saved in the english church? am i in safety, were i to die tonight? is it a mortal sin in me, not joining another communion? p.s. i hardly see my way to concur in attendance, though occasional, in the roman catholic chapel, unless a man has made up his mind pretty well to join it eventually. invocations are not required in the church of rome; somehow, i do not like using them except under the sanction of the church, and this makes me unwilling to admit them in members of our church."

4. "march 30. now i will tell you more than any one knows except two friends. my own convictions are as strong, as i suppose they can become: only it is so difficult to know whether it is a call of reason or of conscience. i cannot make out, if i am impelled by what seems clear, or by a sense of duty. you can understand how painful this doubt is; so i have waited, hoping for light, and using the words of the psalmist, 'show some token upon me.' but i suppose i have no right to wait for ever for this. then i am waiting, because friends are most considerately bearing me in mind, and asking guidance for me; and, i trust, i should attend to any new feelings which came upon me, should that be the effect of their kindness. and then this waiting subserves the purpose of preparing men's minds. i dread shocking, unsettling people. anyhow, i can't avoid giving incalculable pain. so, if i had my will, i should like to wait till the summer of 1846, which would be a full seven years from the time that my convictions first began to fall on me. but i don't think i shall last so long.

"my present intention is to give up my fellowship in october, and to publish some work or treatise between that and christmas. i wish people to know why i am acting, as well as what i am doing; it takes off that vague and distressing surprise, 'what can have made him?'"

5. "june 1. what you tell me of yourself makes it plain that it is your duty to remain quietly and patiently, till you see more clearly where you are; else you are leaping in the dark."

in the early part of this year, if not before, there was an idea afloat that my retirement from the anglican church was owing to the feeling that i had so been thrust aside, without any one's taking my part. various measures were, i believe, talked of in consequence of this surmise. coincidently with it was an exceedingly kind article about me in a quarterly, in its april number. the writer praised me in feeling and beautiful language far above my deserts. in the course of his remarks, he said, speaking of me as vicar of st. mary's: "he had the future race of clergy hearing him. did he value and feel tender about, and cling to his position? ...not at all.... no sacrifice to him perhaps, he did not care about such things."

this was the occasion of my writing to a very intimate friend the following letter:—

"april 3, 1845.... accept this apology, my dear c., and forgive me. as i say so, tears come into my eyes—that arises from the accident of this time, when i am giving up so much i love. just now i have been overset by a. b.'s article in the c. d.; yet really, my dear c., i have never for an instant had even the temptation of repenting my leaving oxford. the feeling of repentance has not even come into my mind. how could it? how could i remain at st. mary's a hypocrite? how could i be answerable for souls (and life so uncertain), with the convictions, or at least persuasions, which i had upon me? it is indeed a responsibility to act as i am doing; and i feel his hand heavy on me without intermission, who is all wisdom and love, so that my heart and mind are tired out, just as the limbs might be from a load on one's back. that sort of dull aching pain is mine; but my responsibility really is nothing to what it would be, to be answerable for souls, for confiding loving souls, in the english church, with my convictions. my love to marriott, and save me the pain of sending him a line."

in july a bishop thought it worth while to give out to the world that "the adherents of mr. newman are few in number. a short time will now probably suffice to prove this fact. it is well known that he is preparing for secession; and, when that event takes place, it will be seen how few will go with him."

all this time i was hard at my essay on doctrinal development. as i advanced, my view so cleared that instead of speaking any more of "the roman catholics," i boldly called them catholics. before i got to the end, i resolved to be received, and the book remains in the state in which it was then, unfinished.

on october 8th i wrote to a number of friends the following letter:—

"littlemore, october 8, 1845. i am this night expecting father dominic, the passionist, who, from his youth, has been led to have distinct and direct thoughts, first of the countries of the north, then of england. after thirty years' (almost) waiting, he was without his own act sent here. but he has had little to do with conversions. i saw him here for a few minutes on st. john baptist's day last year. he does not know of my intention; but i mean to ask of him admission into the one fold of christ....

"i have so many letters to write, that this must do for all who choose to ask about me. with my best love to dear charles marriott, who is over your head, etc., etc.

"p.s. this will not go till all is over. of course it requires no answer."

for a while after my reception, i proposed to betake myself to some secular calling. i wrote thus in answer to a very gracious letter of congratulation:—

"nov. 25, 1845. i hope you will have anticipated, before i express it, the great gratification which i received from your eminence's letter. that gratification, however, was tempered by the apprehension, that kind and anxious well-wishers at a distance attach more importance to my step than really belongs to it. to me indeed personally it is of course an inestimable gain; but persons and things look great at a distance, which are not so when seen close; and, did your eminence know me, you would see that i was one, about whom there has been far more talk for good and bad than he deserves, and about whose movements far more expectation has been raised than the event will justify.

"as i never, i do trust, aimed at anything else than obedience to my own sense of right, and have been magnified into the leader of a party without my wishing it or acting as such, so now, much as i may wish to the contrary, and earnestly as i may labour (as is my duty) to minister in a humble way to the catholic church, yet my powers will, i fear, disappoint the expectations of both my own friends, and of those who pray for the peace of jerusalem.

"if i might ask of your eminence a favour, it is that you would kindly moderate those anticipations. would it were in my power to do, what i do not aspire to do! at present certainly i cannot look forward to the future, and, though it would be a good work if i could persuade others to do as i have done, yet it seems as if i had quite enough to do in thinking of myself."

soon, dr. wiseman, in whose vicariate oxford lay, called me to oscott; and i went there with others; afterwards he sent me to rome, and finally placed me in birmingham.

i wrote to a friend:—

"january 20, 1846. you may think how lonely i am. 'obliviscere populum tuum et domum patris tui,' has been in my ears for the last twelve hours. i realise more that we are leaving littlemore, and it is like going on the open sea."

i left oxford for good on monday, february 23, 1846. on the saturday and sunday before, i was in my house at littlemore simply by myself, as i had been for the first day or two when i had originally taken possession of it. i slept on sunday night at my dear friend's, mr. johnson's, at the observatory. various friends came to see the last of me; mr. copeland, mr. church, mr. buckle, mr. pattison, and mr. lewis. dr. pusey too came up to take leave of me; and i called on dr. ogle, one of my very oldest friends, for he was my private tutor when i was an undergraduate. in him i took leave of my first college, trinity, which was so dear to me, and which held on its foundation so many who have been kind to me both when i was a boy, and all through my oxford life. trinity had never been unkind to me. there used to be much snapdragon growing on the walls opposite my freshman's rooms there, and i had for years taken it as the emblem of my own perpetual residence even unto death in my university.

on the morning of the 23rd i left the observatory. i have never seen oxford since, excepting its spires, as they are seen from the railway.