A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P R S T U V W X Z

Memoirs of James Robert Hope Scott, Volume 2

R >> Robert Ornsby >> Memoirs of James Robert Hope Scott, Volume 2




For myself, of course, I do not care what people think of me; and, on the
other hand, one does not like to waste what one has employed time upon; but
I am quite willing to give it up and be still, if it seems best; of course,
one should be very sorry to add to our confusions.

No one has suggested the mere omission of ye Romanist part. Jelf only (who
had seen that part only without some additions which I have since made,
that I might not seem gratuitously to exalt Rome to the disparagement of
our own Church) suggested that it be printed only to send to ye Bishops. N.
thinks this of no use. I have no other opinions. But I am entangling you
with the opinions of others, when I meant to ask you yours simply. I know
you will not mind ye trouble.

Yours affectionately, E. B. PUSEY.

Christ Church: September 27.

The Romanist part, of course, has not ye Abp's sanction, and it must be so
expressed.

In the date of the above letter 'September' is struck out; 'January'
substituted, and '42' added in Mr. Hope-Scott's hand, I think. How this
is to be explained I do not know, but Dr. Pusey can hardly have made such a
clerical error. Mr. Hope-Scott has endorsed the letter: 'I recommended
publication, with some alterations and additions.--J. R. H.'

Whatever influence Dr. Pusey may at an earlier period have exercised on the
religious views of Mr. Hope must have been a good deal shaken by his
inclination in the first instance to favour the Jerusalem Bishopric,
followed, indeed, by a disapproval, but one far short of the energy with
which Mr. Hope himself combated the measure.

_The Rev. E.B. Pusey to J.R. Hope, Esq._

My dear Hope,--I thank you much for your 'letter,' which I had been looking
for anxiously, but which by some mistake was not forwarded to me, so that I
only saw it two days ago. It is very satisfactory to me; it seems quite to
settle the point as to the duty of Bp A. I was also very much cheered to
see yr own more hopeful view of things in our Church.

I am a good deal discomforted by this visit of ye Kg. of Pr. It seems so
natural for persons to wish that Episcopacy shd be bestowed upon those who
desire to receive; and people for ye most part have very little or no
notion as to ye unsoundness even of the sounder part of ye G. Divines. As
far as I have heard of ye progress of truth there, the restoration of Xty
in some shape has been far more rapid than I anticipated or dared hope, the
soundness of the restoration far less.

Yours affectionately,

E. B. PUSEY.

116 Marine Parade, Brighton: January 7, 1842.

In another letter, dated Sexagesima Sunday [January 30], 1842, Dr. Pusey
says:--


I do not know your [Greek: topos] about ye Augsburg Conf. I have very
little, next to nothing, about it. Do not leave anything for me. Each can
do best what he feels most. I should be very sorry to take anything out of
your hands; and altogether I can say ye less about this because, wretched
as it would be that we should appear in ye E. connected with Lutherans, I
do not feel that it would introduce any organic change in us, and so cannot
anticipate that it would.

I see that the Conf. of Augs. does not express consubstantiation. Art. X.
may express Catholic doctrine.


I subjoin a few more letters from Mr. Hope's correspondence relating to his
pamphlet on the Jerusalem Bishopric question, interesting as it is in
itself, and forming so great a crisis in his religious history.

_The Ven. Archdeacon Manning [since Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster]
to J. R. Hope, Esq._

December 30, 1841.

My dear Hope,--I have this moment ended your pamphlet, and will not wait
for a cooler moment to thank you. I do so heartily. God grant we may be
true and manly in affirming the broad rule of Catholic order. I add my
thanks to you in another shape. In your last three or four pages you and I
were nearing each other's thoughts. It is refreshing to find an answer at a
distance. Forgive my long neglect of the enclosed paper, which after all
bears only my name, and probably too late for use.

Ever yours, dear Hope, most sincerely,

H. E. MANNING.


_The Rev. William Palmer (of Magdalen College, Oxford) to J. R. Hope,
Esq._

Mixbury, near Brackley: December 29, 1841.

Dear Hope,--I am much obliged to you for sending me a copy of your letter,
which I have read with the greatest pleasure.... I see that in the
statement just published by authority, _no Prussian_ documents are
given. I think your letter will be a puzzling one; but the spirit of
practical Protestantism is subtle and versatile, and able to set aside
everything--laws, principles, rubrics, and canons. Else I do not see how
the mischief which I apprehend could be realised.

Ever yours sincerely,

W. Palmer

P.S.--I am glad you think my pamphlet may be useful. We have taken entirely
different sides of the same subject; I the theoretical (as it seemed to
me), and you the practical view of the question.

_Sir John Taylor Coleridge to J. R. Hope, Esq._

My dear Hope,--Many thanks for your letter, which I have read through with,
I may say, a painful interest. Of course, in a matter so difficult in
itself, and so new, I must confess, to me, I do not take on me at once to
pronounce that you are right, but I cannot at present find out where you
are wrong; and I am the more inclined to think that you may be right
because I see in the Act just words enough to satisfy people rather
precipitate that the Prussian scheme might be carried through safely on
them. 'Spiritual jurisdiction,' 'over other Protestant congregations,'
would seem to ordinary minds enough--till it was further considered
_how_ the English Bishop was to work out the scheme by virtue of these
words, and yet be consistent with his own engagements.

I shall not be sorry, however, to find that you are answered; not that I
wish to accomplish, or seem rather to accomplish _any_ end by a
disorderly and indigested attempt at union; nor do I think _this_
thing of itself so important as many do: still it is one which very much
arrests the imagination, and excites strong devotional feeling; and I
rather looked on it as leading to more important matters with Prussia
itself. I cannot, too, help a little more personal feeling for the Bishop
than it fell within our plan to express--a good and pious man, I believe,
but not by intellect or previous habits fitted to meet such emergencies as
you place before him.

Very truly yours,

J. T. Coleridge.

December 30,1841.

Montague Place.

_Sir Francis Palgrave, K.H. to J. R. Hope, Esq._

Rolls House: January 4, 1842.

My dear Sir,--I ought before this to have thanked you for your kindness in
sending me your most able letter, but I did not like to do so until I had
read it with that attention which it deserves.

It is difficult to understand how your arguments can possibly be shaken.
The statute 25 Hen. VIII. c. 21 evidently relates only to such
dispensations upon the suit or for the benefit of individuals as had been
theretofore usually issued by the Roman Chancery, and to wrest it into the
power of establishing an _uncanonical_ see appears a most bold
attempt.

Nothing would more clearly show the true relation of the Church of England
to 'other Protestant churches' than a reprint of the _whole_
proceedings of the Convocations from William and Mary to their extinction--
adding proper notes.

Yours ever truly,

Francis Palgrave.

_The Right Rev. Dr. Philpotts, Bishop of Exeter, to J. R. Hope, Esq._

Bishopstowe, Torquay: November 10, 1842.

My dear Sir,--Permit me to ask you whether you can receive and answer a
case of ecclesiastical law? That you can answer it better than any other
man I have no doubt; but can you receive the case _professionally_, so
as to enable a Bishop to show your opinion as his authority for action?

I have never thanked you for your kindness in sending me a copy of the
second edition of 'The Bishopric of the U. C., &c., at Jerusalem,' for I am
ashamed to own I have never, till this day, read the new matter which it
gives to us. Accept now my hearty thanks for your kindness to me in sending
to me a copy, and my still heartier acknowledgments of your invaluable
service to the Church in furnishing it with such a lesson.

You have, of course, seen the 'Alterius orbis Papa's' letter of June 18 to
the King of Prussia, and have, with me, wondered at the mixture of temerity
and cowardice (which latter quality, by the way, is the rashest of all
feelings) indicated in such a mode of escaping from the difficulties by
which he was pressed.

I grieve for this marvellous indiscretion. But I am amused by the bolder
defiance of all consistency which is exhibited by his prime Adviser, who,
while he prompts his Chief to trample Rubrics, Canons, Statutes, under his
feet, commands His own Clergy to observe them 'with Chinese exactness.'

I went to your second edition, in order that I might find your promised
remarks on the need in which the Church stands of a Church Legislature. I
have read them with great gratification, and implore your close attention
to the subject. My Clergy are, I believe, about to meet and to address me
to urge on the Archbishop their earnest desire of leave from the Crown for
Convocation to consider the best means of altering its own constitution, or
otherwise devising a new Body empowered and fitted to act synodically.

This is, at present, somewhat of a secret, but it will in a few days, I
believe, transpire.

From other quarters, I hear, similar proceedings may be expected. The
Bishop of Llandaff tells me that he makes the necessity of a Church
Legislature one topic in his Charge.

Yours, my dear Sir,

Most faithfully,

H. EXETER.

[P.S.] Pray tell me whether you think the argument in my Charge on Escott
_v_. Mastin is now tolerably effective?

What 'oath of obedience' is the ordained German to take to the Bishop? Not
Canonical--that is plain. What oath can it be? Of course, it will hardly be
an absolute promise on oath to obey all commands. All _lawful_
commands would involve a question--what are lawful commands? Who is to
judge? What law is to be the rule?

Somebody named by the King is to attest for the Candidates their
qualification for the _Pastoral Office_; but the Bishop is 'to
convince himself of their qualifications for the _especial_ duties of
their office, of the purity of their faith, and of their _desire to
receive ordination_ at his hands!'

What is meant by the Clergyman's preparing Candidates for Confirmation in
the _usual_ manner? Usual _where_? in Prussia or in England?

Have they baptised Godfathers in Prussia? If they have not, how can they be
confirmed according to the Liturgy of the U. C. of E. and I.?

To these letters from such distinguished co-religionists of Mr. Hope's, all
belonging, with various shades of difference, to his own religious party, I
add a portion of one, bearing on the same subject, from a Catholic and
foreign friend of his who has been mentioned in a previous
chapter,[Footnote: Vol. i. chap. xiii. p. 246.] Count Senfft-Pilsach. The
contrast will be interesting; and it is also interesting to record a
specimen of an influence, no doubt beginning to be more and more felt,
though years had to pass before the result was visible in action. Count
Senfft, though an active diplomatist, a friend of Metternich's, and quite
in the great European world, was an example of the union, so often found in
the lives of the saints, of deep retirement and devotion in the very thick
of affairs; and we may be sure that his prayers for Mr. Hope were
faithfully applied to assist his arguments.

_Count Senfft-Pilsach to J. R. Hope, Esq_.

La Haye: 21 Janvier, 1842

Mon cher Hope,-- ... J'ai lu avec un vif intérêt vos réflexions sur ce
nouvel Evêché de Jérusalem, dont on paraît vouloir faire un lien entre
l'Église anglicane et le Protestantisme Evangélique de Prusse, en cherchant
à vivifier les ossemens arides de celui-ci par une sorte de greffe de votre
Episcopat auquel nous contestons encore, comme question, la continuité de
la succession Apostolique. Si on réussiroit dans ce projet, une partie de
vos objections pourroient se résoudre. Mais M. Bunsen, l'artisan de la
complication de Cologne, n'a pas la main heureuse, et la fécondité de son
génie, secondant son ardeur de courtisan, pourroit bien, en prétendant
servir les tendances vagues de piété de son maître, embarquer celui-ci dans
les plus graves difficultés en provoquant l'opposition des vieux protestans
réunis aux rationalistes allemands. 'Quid foditis vobis cisternas
dissipatas?' O mon ami! Comment s'arrêter à quelques abus plus apparens
peut-être que réels, que l'Église supporte çà et là sans les autoriser, et
ne pas reconnoître cette admirable unité de doctrine, cette continuité de
la Tradition, qui caractérise la cité bâtie sure la montagne, figure de la
véritable Église selon l'Évangile. Certes ce n'est pas sous la domination
de César qu'on pourroit aller chercher l'Épouse légitime de J. C. Mais
doit-on espérer la trouver dans la création combinée de la volonté
tyrannique de Henri VIII. et de la politique d'Elisabeth, tandis que la
Doctrine comme la Discipline du Concile de Trente ne vous laisse rien à
désirer, et conquiert déjà vos suffrages?...

J'ose compter partant sur votre intérêt amical, et vous connoissez les
sentimens sincères d'attachement et de respect avec lesquels je suis à
jamais

Tout à vous, SENFFT.




CHAPTER XIX.

1842-3.

Oxford Commotions of 1842-3--Mr. Newman's Retractation--Correspondence of
Mr. Newman and J. R. Hope on the Subject--Mr. Hope pleads for Mr.
Macmullen--Dr. Pusey suspended for his Sermon on the Holy Eucharist--Seeks
Advice from Mr. Hope--Mr. Newman resigns St. Mary's--Correspondence of Mr.
Newman and Mr. Hope on the 'Lives of the English Saints'--Mr. Ward's
Condemnation--Mr. Hope sees the 'Shadow of the Cross' through the Press--
Engaged with 'Scripture Prints,' 'Pupilla Oculi,' &c.--Lady G. Fullerton's
Recollections of J. R. Hope--He proposes to make a Retreat at Littlemore.


It results in general from the documents furnished in the preceding
chapter, that Mr. Hope's confidence in the Anglican Church had sustained a
severe shock by the Jerusalem Bishopric movement; and from about the year
1842 he seems to have thrown himself with increasing energy into his
professional occupations, not certainly as becoming less religious (for his
was a mind never tempted to the loss of faith), but as being deprived of
that scope which his convictions had formerly presented to him in the
pursuit of ecclesiastical objects. It seems probable, also, that the same
cause was not unconnected with his entering, some years later, into the
married life; the news of which step is known to have fallen like a knell
on the minds of those who looked up to him and shared his religious
feelings, as it appeared a sign that he no longer thought the ideal
perfection presented by the celibate life--which he certainly contemplated
in 1840-1--was congenial with the spirit of the Church of England. That
communion was now losing her hold upon him, though he still could not make
up his mind to leave her, and might conceivably never have done so but for
events which forced the change upon him at last. His professional career
and his habits in domestic life will require to be separately described;
for, though of course they proceeded simultaneously with a large part of
that phase of his existence which is now before us, it would only confuse
the reader to pass continually from one to the other. I propose, therefore,
without any interruption that can be avoided, to go on with the history of
his religious development up to the period of his conversion.

The year 1842, commencing, as we have seen, with the storms of the
Jerusalem Bishopric movement and the Poetry Professorship contest, agitated
also, towards the end of May, by a movement for the repeal of the Statute
of Censure against Dr. Hampden, passed off, for the rest, quietly enough--
at least, Mr. Hope's correspondence shows little to the contrary; but 1843
was marked by much disturbance, commencing early with Mr. Newman's
'Retractation,' which the great leader announced to Mr. Hope in the
following letter a few days before that document appeared in the
'Conservative Journal:'--


_The Rev. J. H. Newman to J. R. Hope, Esq._

Littlemore: In fest. Conv. S. Pauli, 1843.


My dear Hope,--In return for your announcement of some change of purpose, I
must tell you of one of my own, in a matter where I told you I was going to
be very quiet.

My conscience goaded me some two months since to an act which comes into
effect, I believe, in the _Conservative Journal_ next Saturday, viz.
to eat a few dirty words of mine. I had intended it for a time of peace,
the beginning of December, but against my will and power the operation has
been delayed, and now, unluckily, falls upon the state of irritation and
suspicion in good Anglicans, which Bernard Smith's step [Footnote: The
conversion of the Rev. Bernard Smith, Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford.]
has occasioned. I had committed myself when all was quiet. The meeting of
Parliament will, I hope, divert attention.


Ever yrs,

JOHN H. NEWMAN.


P.S.--I am publishing my Univ. Sermons. You got a headache for _one_--
it would be an act of gratitude to send you _all_. Shall I do so?


_J. R. Hope, Esq. to the Rev. J. H. Newman._

6 Stone Buildings, Linc. Inn: Feast of Purification [Feb. 2], '43.

Dear Newman,--You will think me ungracious for having so long delayed my
answer to your last, but I did not get hold of the _Conservative
Journal_ till Monday, and have been very busy since.

Perhaps you will like to know what effect your article has produced on me.
Simply this: it has convinced me that you are clearing your position of
some popular protections which still surrounded it. Beyond this I do not
see. I mean it does not show me that, esoterically, you have made any great
move, nor yet that, to the world at large, you are disposed to do more than
say, 'Do not cry me up as a champion against Popery; for the rest, you may
judge of me as you please.' People whom I have heard speak of it (few,
perhaps, but fair samples) are rather puzzled than anything else.

I give you this merely as gossip, and not as asking whether my construction
is right, though if you think it material or useful to tell me, of course I
shall be glad.

I need not say that I shall be very thankful for a copy of your sermons--
that is, if you will write my name in it yourself; otherwise I will buy the
book, for Rivington's 'from the author' does not fix the stamp which I
chiefly value.

Do you observe in the papers that Sir R. P. is designing _great_
things for the Church? It gives me some hopes that they will also be
_good_, to see that Gladstone is in his councils. We shall have much
ado about the Eccl. Courts Bill, which, I believe, is certainly to come on.
I am in some hopes we may make it an instrument for drawing a line between
us and the Dissenters, but must not be sanguine.

Believe me, dear Newman, ever yrs truly,

JAMES R. HOPE.

Rev. J. H. Newman.

Mr. Newman wrote in explanation as follows:--

_The Rev. J. H. Newman to J. R. Hope, Esq._

Littlemore: February 3, 1843.

My dear Hope,--It is amusing in me to talk of being tired of giving
explanations, when I have neither given nor mean to give any; but so it is,
whether my hand aches, or I am sick of the subject, I feel as if I have
given a hundred. Since you ask me, I will say, as far as I can collect my
thoughts on an instant, that my reason for writing and publishing that
notice was (but first I will observe that I do not wish it talked about,
though it is not worth while going into the reasons why I did it in the way
I have. I did it thus after a good deal of thought and fidget, and not
seeing any better way, _i.e._ clearer of objections)--but my reason
for the _thing_ was my long-continued feeling of the great
inconsistency I was in of letting things stand in print against me which I
did not hold, and which I could not but be contradicting by my acting every
day of my life. And more especially (_i.e._ it came home to me most
vividly in that particular way) I felt that I was _taking people_ in;
that they thought me what I was not, and were trusting me when they should
not, and this has been at times a very painful feeling indeed. I don't want
to be trusted (perhaps you may think my fear, even before this affair,
somewhat amusing); but so it was and is; people _won't_ believe I go
as far as I do--they will cling to their hopes. And then, again, intimate
friends have almost reproached me with 'paltering with them in a double
sense, keeping the word of promise to their ear, to break it to their
hope.' They have said that my words against Rome often, when narrowly
examined, were only what _I_ meant, but that the effect of them was
what _others_ meant. I am not aware that I have any great motive for
this paper beyond this--setting myself right, and wishing to be seen in my
proper colours, and not unwilling to do such penance for wrong words as
lies in the necessary criticism which such a retractation will involve on
the part of friends and enemies; though, since nothing one does is without
a meaning [that is, higher than one's own], things may come from it beyond
my own meaning.

Thanks for ... the information from newspapers, which you give me, of our
hopes from Sir R. P., which I had not seen in them.

By-the-bye, in the paper, for 'person's respect' near the end, read
'persons I respect;' and 'to the editor' is fudge.

Ever yours,

J. H. NEWMAN.

P.S.--Thanks for your flattering answers about my book. It must go,
however, from Rivington's with 'from the author,' and I will add my own
writing when we meet. Since you have had a specimen of the book (dose?), I
may add, in opposition to you, that it will be the best, not the most
perfect, book I have done. I mean there is more to develop in it, though it
is _im_perfect. [Footnote: A week later (February 10, 1843) he writes
to Mr. Hope: 'My University Sermons are the least theological book I have
published.']

The famous case of Macmullen _versus_ Hampden was disturbing the
University for most of the latter half of the same year 1843. I can only
give a mere chronological outline of it, which may assist such readers as
wish to pursue the subject in consulting other sources of information. The
Regius Professor of Divinity, Dr. Hampden, had refused to act as Moderator
in the Schools, to enable the Rev. E. G. Macmullen, Fellow of Corpus
Christi College, to make his exercises for the degree of B.D. [Mr.
Macmullen, it should be remarked, was a strong opponent of the project at
that time before the University, mentioned a few pages back, to reverse the
condemnation which had been passed on Dr. Hampden when he was first
appointed Regius Professor of Divinity.] Mr. Macmullen, on this refusal,
brought an action into the Vice-Chancellor's Court on May 26, 1843, where,
on June 2, Dr. Kenyon of All Souls' presiding, Mr. Hope appeared for Mr.
Macmullen, Dr. Twiss on the other side. Dr. Kenyon pronounced in his favour
on certain amended articles. Dr. Twiss appealed to the Delegates of
Congregation (none of them lawyers), who heard the appeal on November 29,
sitting from ten in the morning till seven at night. Mr. Erle and Dr. Twiss
both spoke against the articles, and were replied to by Mr. Hope. The Court
ultimately gave judgment against the articles, reversing Dr. Kenyon's
decision, and gave costs against Mr. Macmullen. [Footnote: For this outline
of the proceedings in Macmullen _v_. Hampden, I am indebted to
accurate memoranda kindly furnished me by Mr. David Lewis, late Fellow of
Jesus College, Oxford.] Mr. Badeley's bitter comment will amuse the reader:
'Mischievous idiots! and so all the conclusive arguments you put before
them, are set at nought, and the battle is to be fought again!' [Footnote:
Mr. Badeley to Mr. Hope, January 6, 1844] However, there was no further
litigation, and in the end Mr. Macmullen succeeded in obtaining his degree,
the old form of disputations for that purpose being restored, which has
ever since been in force. It should be added that Mr. Hope's services in
this case, undertaken amidst all the pressure of his ordinary legal work,
were gratuitous.

In the summer of 1843 took place another critical moment of the strife in
Dr. Pusey's suspension from preaching, by sentence of the Vice-Chancellor's
Court, for his sermon 'On the Holy Eucharist a Comfort to the Penitent.' In
the question of his appeal against this, which was matter of anxiety for
more than a twelvemonth, it is almost needless to say that he sought the
advice of Mr. Hope. The Everett affair, on Commemoration Day (June 28),
will have its place in every chronicle of the movement. This was a protest
on the part of members of the Tractarian party against an honorary degree
conferred in the teeth of a demand for scrutiny (which, however, it was
asserted had not been heard in the din), on the American Envoy, Mr.
Everett, who was a Unitarian. Mr. Hope, however, was not present; and I
mention this only as one of the many signs of the times which were then
rapidly accumulating. Nor did he take any part in the opposition made in
the following year to Dr. Symonds' election as Vice-Chancellor, though he
was consulted, in the law of the case, with Mr. Badeley and Dr. Bayford. It
ended in a crushing defeat of the Tractarians, who were beaten by a
majority of 882 against 183.

Copyright (c) 2007. famouswriterz.com. All rights reserved.