NEWMAN'S RETRACTATION. Οικονομία. Φενακισμὸς.

APPENDIX B.

669

I. MR. NEWMAN'S RETRACTATION.

The following Letter has been forwarded to us for publication. It is without any signature; but we dare say some of our Oxford readers will find no difficulty in fixing upon the name of the writer." For ourselves, we give it without note or comment.-The Conservative Journal.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CONSERVATIVE Journal.

It is true that I have at various times, in writing against the Roman system, used not merely arguments, about which I am not here speaking, but what reads like declamation..

1. For instance, in 1833, in the Lyra Apostolica, I called it a "lost Church." 2. Also, in 1833, I spoke of the "Papal Apostasy" in a work upon the Arians.+ 3. In the same year, in No. 15 of the series called The Tracts for the Times, in which Tract the words are often mine, though I cannot claim it as a whole, I say

"True, Rome is heretical now-nay, grant she has thereby forfeited her Orders: yet, at least, she was not heretical in the primitive ages. If she has apostatized, it was at the time of the Council of Trent. Then, indeed, it is to be feared the whole Roman Communion bound itself, by a perpetual bond and covenant, to the cause of Antichrist."

Of this and other Tracts, a friend, with whom I was on very familiar terms, observed, in a Letter some time afterwards, though not of this particular part of it :— "It is very encouraging about the Tracts-but I wish I could prevail on you, when the second edition comes out, to cancel or materially alter several. The other day accidentally put in my way the Tract on the Apostolical Succession in the English Church, and it really does seem so very unfair, that I wonder you could, even in the extremity of oikovoμla and pevakioμds, have consented to be a party to it."

On the passage above quoted, I observe myself, in a pamphlet published in 1838"I confess I wish this passage were not cast in so declamatory a form; but the substance of it expresses just what I mean.'

4. Also, in 1833, I said:

"Their communion is infected with heresy; we are bound to flee it as a pestilence. They have established a lie in the place of God's truth, and by their claim of immutability in doctrine, cannot undo the sin they have committed." Tract 20.

5. In 1834, I said, in a Magazine :—

"The spirit of old Rome has risen again in its former place, and has evidenced its identity by its works. It has possessed the Church there planted, as an evil spirit might seize the demoniacs of primitive times, and makes her speak words which are not her own. In the corrupt papal system we have the very cruelty, the craft, and the ambition of the republic; its cruelty in its unsparing sacrifice of the happiness and virtue of individuals to a phantom of public expediency, in its forced celibacy within, and its persecutions without; its craft in its falsehoods, its deceitful deeds and lying wonders; and its grasping ambition in the very structure of its policy, in its assumption of universal dominion; old Rome is still alive; no where have its eagles lighted, but it still claims the sovereignty under another pretence. The Roman Church I will not blame, but pity-she is, as I have said, spell-bound, as if by an evil-spirit; she is in thraldom."

I say in the same paper :

"In the book of Revelations, the sorceress upon the seven hills is not the Church of Rome, as is often taken for granted, but Rome itself, that bad spirit which, in its for

* The Rev. J. H. Newman, whose friends are shewing it about in Oxford as the production of his pen.

Arians of the Fourth Century, by the Rev. J. H. Newman.

mer shape, was the animating principle of the fourth monarchy. In St. Paul's p phecy, it is not the Temple or Church of God, but the man of sin in the Temple, old man or evil principle of the flesh which exalteth itself against God. Certainly is a mystery of iniquity, and one which may well excite our dismay and horror, the in the very heart of the Church, in her highest dignity, in the seat of St. Peter, the evil principle has throned itself, and rules. It seems as if that spirit had gained subtlety by years; Popish Rome has succeeded to Rome Pagan: and would that we had reason to expect still more crafty developments of Antichrist amid the wreck of inst tutions and establishments which will attend the fall of the Papacy! . . . . I deny the the distinction is unmeaning. Is it nothing to be able to look on our mother, to wh we owe the blessing of Christianity, with affection instead of hatred, with pity indeed, nay and fear, but not with horror? Is it nothing to rescue her from the hard name which interpreters of prophecy have put on her, as an idolatress and an enemy of God when she is deceived rather than a deceiver ?"

I also say:

"She virtually substitutes an external ritual for moral obedience; penance for pen tence, confession for sorrow, profession for faith, the lips for the heart; such at least is her system as understood by the many."

Also I say in the same paper :

"Rome has robbed us of high principles which she has retained herself, though in s corrupt state. When we left her, she suffered us not to go in the beauty of holiness, we left our garments and fled."

Against these and other passages of this paper the same friend, before it was pub lished, made the following protest :

"I only except from this general approbation, your second and most superfluous hit at the poor Romanists; you have first set them down as demoniacally possessed by the evil genius of Pagan Rome, but notwithstanding are able to find something to admire in their spirit, particularly because they apply ornament to its proper purposes: and then you talk of their churches; and all that is very well, and one hopes one has heard the end of name-calling, when all at once you relapse into your Protestantism, and deal in what I take leave to call slang."

Then, after a remark which is not to the purpose of these extracts, he adds :— "I do not believe that any Roman Catholic of education would tell you that he identified penitence and penance. In fact I know, that they often preach against this very error as well as you could do."

66

6. In 1834, I also used of certain doctrines of the Church of Rome, the epithets "unscriptural," "profane," "impious," "bold," unwarranted," blasphemous," "gross, "monstrous," 66 cruel," "administering deceitful comfort," and "una thorized," in Tract 38. I do not mean to say that I had not a definite meaning in every one of these epithets, or that I did not weigh them before I used them. With reference to this passage the same monitor had said:

"I must enter another protest against your cursing and swearing at the end of the first Via Media as you do, (Tract 38.) What good can it do?

I call it uncharitable to an excess. How mistaken we may ourselves be on many points that are only gradually opening on us?"

I withdrew the whole passage several years ago. 7. I said in 1837 of the Church of Rome :—

"In truth she is a Church beside herself abounding in noble gifts and rightful titles, but unable to use them religiously; crafty, obstinate, wilful, malicious, cruel, natural, as madmen are. Or, rather, she may be said to resemble a demoniac, p sessed with principles, thoughts, and tendencies not her own, in outward form and in outward powers what God made her; but ruled within by an inexorable spirit, whe is sovereign in his management over her, and most subtle and most successful in the use of her gifts. Thus, she is her real self only in name, and till God vouchsafe to re store her, we must treat her as if she were that evil one which governs her." 8. In 1837, I also said in a Review :—

"The second and third Gregories appealed to the people against the Emperor for a most unjustifiable object, and in apparently a most unjustifiable way. They became rebels, to establish image worship. However, even in this transaction, we trace the original principle of Church power, though miserably defaced and perverted, whose form

NEWMAN'S RETRACTATION.—Οικονομία AND Φενακισμός. 671

Upon the same basis, as is notorious, was built the Ecclesiastical Monarchy. It was not the breath of princes, or the smiles of a court, which fostered the stern and lofty spirit of Hildebrand and Innocent. It was the neglect of self, the renunciation of worldly pomp and ease, the appeal to the people."

I must observe, however, upon this passage, that no reference is made in it (the idea is shocking) to the subject of Milton's lines, who ill answers to the idea of purity and virtue defaced, of which they speak. An application is made of them to a subject which I considered, when I so wrote, to befit them better, viz. the Roman Church as viewed in a certain exercise of her power in the person of two Popes.

Perhaps I have made other statements in a similar tone, and that, again, when the statements themselves were unexceptionable and true. 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 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' respect, and a wish to repel the charge of Romanism.

An admission of this kind involves no retractation of what I have written in defence of Anglican doctrine. And as I make it for personal reasons, I make it without consulting others. I am as fully convinced as ever, indeed I doubt not Roman Catholics themselves would confess, that the Anglican doctrine is the strongest, nay, the only possible antagonist of their system. If Rome is to be withstood, it can be done in no other way.

December 12, 1842.

II. LETTER TO MR. NEWMAN FROM A MEMBER OF CONVOCATION.

TO THE REV. J. H. NEWMAN.

REV. SIR,—In the Oxford Herald of Saturday last there appears a Letter, which, claiming you for its author, although without any name attached to it, has naturally created a great sensation in the University by its retractation of several of the passages in your published writings, in which you were considered to have "pledged yourself the most strongly" (to borrow your own expressiont)" against the Church of Rome." Allow me to point out to you one or two difficulties which have occurred to me in the perusal of your Letter, which have probably suggested themselves to other persons as well. You refer to a series of passages penned by you, between the years 1833 and 1838, in which you denounce the Church of Rome as a communion infected with heresy, crafty, obstinate, cruel, malicious, and as having bound itself, you feared, at the Council of Trent by a perpetual bond and covenant to the cause of Antichrist ;" and you further cite, with an apparent acknowledgment of their justice, the observations of a friend, in which he blames you for this language, and remarks upon some of your expressions that they were "so very unfair," that he wondered you could "even in the extremity of oikovouía and pevakioμòs‡” have permitted yourself to use them. At the close of your Letter you say, "If you ask me how an individual could venture, not simply to hold, but to publish such views of a communion so ancient, so

i. e. in the following passage :-" Also in 1833 I spoke of the Papal Apostacy' in a work upon the Arians," the title of the work being, "The Arians of the Fourth Century, by the Rev. J. H. Newman."

+ Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 30.

Pevakioμds in Donnegan's Lexicon is rendered "imposture; deception by a false appear. ance; delusion; deception." Of the oikovoμía you have yourself given the following account in your work upon the Arians:

"The Alexandrian Father who has already been referred to (Clement) accurately describes the rules which should guide the Christian in speaking and acting economically. Being ever persuaded of the omnipresence of God,' he says, and ashamed to come short of the truth, he is satisfied with the approval of God, and of his own conscience. Whatever is in his mind, is also on his tongue; towards those who are fit recipients, both in speaking and living, he harmonizes his profession with his opinions. He both thinks and speaks the truth; except when consideration is necessary, and then, as a physician for the good of his patients, he will be false, or utter a falsehood, as the Sophists say.'"-p. 81.

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 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."" You add, "Such views too are necessary for our position."

Now, sir, in your Letter, which is dated Dec. 12, 1842, you make no reference (sch, I shall not stop to enquire) to your Letter to Dr. Jelf, dated March 13, 1841, in which, and therefore not quite two years ago, you used the following language, which I am wholly unable to account for by the foregoing explanation.

"As to the present authoritative teaching of the Church of Rome, to judge by what we see of it in public, I think it goes very far indeed to substitute another Gospel for the true one: instead of setting before the soul the Holy Trinity, and Heaven, and Hel, it does seem to me as a popular system, to preach the Blessed Virgin, and the Saints. and Purgatory. Or, to use words in which I have only a year ago expressed myself, when contrasting Romanism with the teaching of the ancient Church, That a certain change in objective and external religion has come over the Latin, nay and in a measure the Greek Church, WE CONSIDER TO BE A PLAIN HISTORICAL PACT; a change sufficiently startling to recal to our minds with very unpleasant sensations the awful words, Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."""

Now, sir, when you here say that the corruption of the Romish system is a “PLAIN HISTORICAL FACT," and "YOU JUDGE BY WHAT YOU SEE OF IT IN PUBLIC," that it "goes far to substitute another Gospel for the true one," do you really mean that these are not your own words, and that you are "merely following almost a consensus of the divines of your Church?" Is this olkovoμla or pevakioμds, to speak Greek, or, in plain English, is it common honesty?

But you inform us that you satisfied your conscience with another reflection, namely, that "such views were necessary for your position." I am at a loss to understand you here. Is your excuse that of Bishop Montague, when the Pope's agent⚫ reproached him with his censures of the Church of Rome, "Oh, they are things of form, chiefly to humour the populace, and are not to be too much regarded?" And if you do not mean this, allow me to ask what you do mean?

At all events, you now abandon the language which you had been in the habit of using for not less than eight years, and acknowledge that in using it you were in no small measure influenced by an impetuous temper, a hope of approving yourself to persons' respect, and a wish to repel the charge of Romanism.” It is thus that you have shifted from point to point through every stage of your erratic course. First, those who agreed with you were Anglo-Catholic, now they are Catholic; those who differed from you were ultra-Protestant, now Protestant; first the Council of Trent was "atrocious," then only "unhappy," at last quite orthodox. And now, you have fulfilled Dr. Wiseman's prediction, addressed to you upon the repetition in your Letter to Dr. Jelf of the language which you now disclaim. "Why not suspect your own judgments, if you find that they vary? If there ever was a time when you did not see many of our doctrines as you now view them, when you utterly rejected all comprecation with as well as prayers to Saints; all honour without reserve to images and relics; when you did not practise prayers for the departed, nor turned from the congregation in your services; when you did not consider bodily mortification necessary, or the Breviary so beautiful; when in fine you were more remote from us in practice and feeling than your writings now shew you to be; why not suspect that a further approximation may yet remain; that further discoveries of truth in what to day seems erroneous, may be reserved for to-morrow, and that you may be LAYING UP FOR YOUR

SELF THE PAIN AND REGRET OF HAVING BEFORE-HAND BRANDED WITH OPPROBRIOUS AND
AFFLICTING NAMES THAT WHICH YOU NOW DISCOVER to be good and HOLY ?"

I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient, humble Servant,
A MEMBER OF CONVOCATION.

Feb. 21, 1843.

Panzani. See his Memoirs by Berington.

III.

LETTER TO DR. PUSEY, FROM ANOTHER MEMBER OF
CONVOCATION.

TO THE REV. E. B. PUSEY, REGIUS PROFESSOR OF HEBREW.

REV. SIR," A Member of Convocation," in a public letter, dated February the 21st, which has hitherto been "treated as though it had never been written," has very distinctly indicated the character of Mr. Newman's recent retractation of certain "statements" and "views," by which he, some years since, wished persons to understand him as "pledging himself strongly" against Rome.* Allow me to suggest that your own position is materially affected by the terms of this retractation.

You will recollect the publication, in 1836, by an eminent Divine, now no more, of a Satire entitled "The Pope's Pastoral Letter to Certain Members of the University of Oxford," which, among other passages, contained the following, addressed to your party, and which I transcribe as extracted by yourself.+

"We make allowance for those difficulties which impede your perception or your avowal of the truth." (p. 6.) "We pardon some expressions towards us; compelled, no doubt, partly by the unhappy circumstances of your country. You have indeed sometimes employed terms which we well know our adversaries use in derision of us; but, we repeat, we can pardon these, whether they are the result of prejudices still entertained by you, or are employed for some other reason. (p. 6, 7.) That communion, of which the present circumstances of your country have made you, almost unavoidably, members. (p. 11.) While we perceive with delight that you have always spoken, in your own persons, in accordance with our sentiments on this head, you have, at the same time, selected some tracts from early writers of your communion, in which our sentiments are impugned. These old tracts will not be read with much attention, compared, at least, with your own more lively productions: they can too be readily withdrawn when it is expedient; for they are not a pledge of your opinions as strong as your own writings. In the mean time, you may appeal to your republication of them as a proof that you have not leagued yourselves with us."

To these insinuations you thought fit to rejoin, in “An Earnest Remonstrance to the Author" of the Satire; in which, after indignantly charging the writer with "sacrifice of truth," "-"false insinuation, and consequently slandering,"-"want of honesty," and "evil desertion of the truth," and indulging in many just expressions on the beauty of truth, sincerity, and simplicity, you thus conclude:

"Now of all this, Sir, you do not believe one syllable; you do not think that, either in the republication of the older, or the protests of the more modern tracts against Popery, their editors or authors were actuated by any such motives; while you impute insincerity, you have reason to believe them as sincere as yourself. It is an ill tree which brings forth fruit thus corrupt."

I am by no means inclined (unless your silence should force on me a conviction to the contrary) to dispute, that this "Remonstrance was at the time as sincere as it was energetic. But now that we have in Mr. Newman, a "confitentem reum," now that he has (whether spontaneously, or in deference to some eager follower) admitted, that there were "difficulties impeding his avowal of the truth," such perhaps as "the unhappy circumstances of our country," that the terms he employed were "employed for some other reason than on account of prejudices still entertained by him,"-now that he has, in effect, "withdrawn the tracts selected from early writers of our communion, in which the sentiments of the Bishop of Rome are impugned;"—and has availed himself of the distinction that they were "not a pledge of his opinions as strong as his own writings," although he, " in the mean time, appealed to his republication" of such views, as a proof that he had not leagued himself” with Rome;¶—permit me,

• Newman's Letter to Jelf, page 30.

+ Pusey's Earnest Remonstrance, page 32.

"Such views too are necessary to our position."-Newman's Letter to the Editor of the Conservative Journal.

"Such language is, I fear, to be, in no small measure, ascribed to an impetuous temper, and a hope of approving myself to persons' respect."-Ibid.

"I said to myself, I am not speaking my own words, I am but following a consensus of the Divines of my Church."-Ibid.

Newman's Letter to Jelf, page 30. "I pledged myself most strongly against the Church of Rome." Also, vide Appendix to Pusey's Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, containing "Extracts from the Tracts for the Times, the Lyra Apostolica, and other publications, shewing that to oppose Ultra-Protestantism is not to favour Popery, 1839."--Ibid.