Mr. Bowden's Death. 409 I do not know. I suppose not long, perhaps no time. Mrs. Bowden bears it as no one could but herself. ... Ever yours affectionately, J. H. N. E. B. P. TO REV. J. H. NEWMAN. MY VERY DEAR N. Sept., Emb. Wed., 1844. I was going to write to you to-day, though what have I to say to you which has not been said to you by Him Who is ever with you? These peaceful departures are bright spots in a cloudy sky. 'Lord, brighten our declining day.' I could not but think, from some words which he used, that he suffered more in body than he allowed to appear, for Mrs. Bowden's sake. He thought each closing day so much of his trial over. I was struck too by the way in which he asked for our prayers. And this makes that bright calm close the brighter. God be praised for His mercies. What a long, long past seems closed; it makes one think that there can be but a short remaining earthly future. Yet He, I trust, is in the cloud now, Who was in the pillar of fire before. I have not written to Mrs. Bowden, because she has now in you all which she can have on earth. But give my love to any of the dear little ones, whom it would not interrupt. Ever, my dearest Newman, your very affectionate friend, E. B. PUSEY. It was but last year we compared [notes]; I had had twenty years of your friendship, he only had more. Thank you very much for your account. Bowden's calm death was not without a certain although passing effect on Newman's convictions. 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, . . . it is impossible not to feel more at ease in our Church1.' Pusey, with his quick sensitiveness, was alive to this result of Bowden's death, and his buoyant sanguineness led him to make more of it than the facts would warrant. 'I have been most cheered,' he wrote to Newman, 'to hear of the comfort you have had in your late sorrowful but blessed occupation.' But Newman had sobbed bitterly over Bowden's coffin to think that 'he left me still dark as to what the way of truth was 2.' 1 'Apologia,' p. 359. 2 Ibid. CHAPTER XXXII. OPPOSITION TO THE NEW VICE-CHANCELLOR-DEFEAT PROPOSED NEW UNIVERSITY TEST-CONDEMNATION OF MR. WARD - ATTEMPTED CONDEMNATION 1844-1845. OF AT the beginning of Michaelmas Term, 1844, Dr. Wynter's term of office as Vice-Chancellor expired. Next in the order of succession was Dr. Symons, Warden of Wadham. Dr. Symons, as one of the Six Doctors, had joined in the condemnation of Pusey's sermon; or, as Pusey himself would have said, of the doctrine contained in that sermon. Whilst at Ilfracombe, Pusey had received a letter from C. Marriott, insisting on this consideration, and asking whether it would be necessary to oppose Dr. Symons' nomination. Pusey thought that it would, not for any reason personal to himself, but 'as a protest against heresy.' He gave this opinion subject to Newman's assent. It would seem that at the time Newman expressed no opinion: those of the younger men who were verging towards Rome were opposed to the protest against Dr. Symons on the ground that it was useless to struggle for Catholic truths in the English Church, and that Dr. Pusey's judges represented her true principles. When the Senior Proctor, Mr. Guillemard of Trinity, asked Dr. Wynter, the outgoing Vice-Chancellor, on what day the nomination of his successor would take place in Convocation, Dr. Wynter was unable or unwilling to satisfy him. Yet almost immediately after this application a circular was Opposition to Dr. Symons' Appointment. 411 issued, addressed to all the Masters of Arts of Wadham College, inviting them to dinner in the hall on Oct. 8tha pretty plain intimation of the date of the event. This circular was the signal for others: the war had begun. The British Critic having expired in 1843, its more moderate successor, the Christian Remembrancer, appeared in October with a vigorous article on 'Dr. Symons and the ViceChancellorship.' The writer argued that Dr. Symons' share in the condemnation of Dr. Pusey justified the opposition to his nomination, and contended that the real disturbers of the peace of the University were those who by their arbitrary measures made such opposition necessary, in order to preserve the rights of Convocation. If the 'Wynter dynasty' had already encroached on those rights, what was to be expected from its successor ? 'If Dr. Wynter, a sort of High Churchman, thinks proper to suspend Dr. Pusey without a trial, and to arrogate to himself and his successors the power of refusing degrees to persons whose theology they dislike', not a fortiori, but a fortissimo, what could be anticipated from Dr. Symons??' It was well for Oxford that no long time would elapse before the question was decided and from the first there was no probability of a majority for the opposition to Dr. Symons, notwithstanding the signal defeat of the Hebdomadal Council on May 2nd 3. The natural unwillingness of members of Convocation to interfere with the routine of academical government was reinforced by the misgiving whether victory, if it were attainable, would secure the objects which the opposition had at heart. Keble indeed contended that it would 'make the next man, whoever he 1 Alluding to the case of the Rev. R. G. Macmullen. 2 Christian Remembrancer, Oct. 1844, P. 537. A statute had been on that day proposed to Convocation substituting read Dissertations for Disputations, as exercises for the degree of B.D., the virtual effect of which was to place the refusal of the degree in the hands of the Regius Professor of Divinity and the Vice-Chancellor. This measure, intended to support Dr. Hampden in his contest with Mr. Macmullen, was rejected by 341 votes to 21'a majority,' remarked C. Marriott, 'which makes its proposers look rather foolish' (letter to Bishop of New Zealand, May 9, 1844). be, more careful1. Pusey became more decided as the day of nomination approached. E. B. P. TO REV. W. B. PUSEY. October, 1844. 'I use no concealment now, if I ever did, that I think Dr. S. ought to be opposed as a protest against heresy and heretical decisions. If the University accepted him without a protest, it seemed like making itself a party to it.' And, referring to those of his friends who on various grounds refused to join in the opposition to Dr. Symons, he added: 'I hope some good will come of all this independence: but so many good people have crotchets. It is the most difficult thing to bring people to act together: every one has a way of his own, or grounds of his own, instead of acting on broad principles.' The nomination was fixed for Tuesday, October 8th. Pusey had gone to Pusey with his mother, who, since his eldest daughter's death, had spent a great part of her time with him. Poor Dr. Pusey,' writes his sister-in-law, 'looks much harassed by this coming election of the Vice-Chancellor at Oxford'; and this would not have been lessened on his returning to Oxford on Saturday, October 5th. LADY LUCY PUSEY TO LADY EMILY PUSEY. Oxford, Oct. 5, 1844. Edward hears that there may be 900 voters coming up. Dr. Hook has made an exceeding blunder, and thrown things just at the last into extreme confusion. He has given out, on a conjecture, that only Mr. Ward's friends are going to vote, so he shall not come up. This is to be contradicted in The Times. Edward says we are all in a great mess. This is all dictated by Edward. The result was a foregone conclusion: the opposition to Dr. Symons' nomination was defeated by 882 votes to 183. The minority was certainly small; yet that a protest of such a kind should receive so many votes was quite unexpected by the majority. Although Pusey, in his sanguine way, tried to make the 1 'Letters of Rev. J. B. Mozley,' p. 154. Defeat of the Opposition. 413 best of a serious defeat, he could not, upon reflection, fail to see that he had been wrong in sanctioning the contest at all. He sanctioned it as a 'protest against heresy'; but in this case the question of heresy was so bound up with the personal issue between himself and his judges, that the protest could not be made without being attributed to a selfish motive. Pusey was too conscious of the purity of his own motive to take this into account: but nevertheless it had much to do with the result. The contest of October, 1844, marks the transfer of the mass of the country clergy who were members of Convocation from an attitude of vague sympathy with the Tractarian leaders to the cause of their opponents. Newman, with his keen statesmanlike instincts, was painfully aware of its significance. He writes to Pusey : Littlemore, F. of St. John, 1844. 'The country parsons are of unfathomable strength: they and the Conservative feeling which moved with them turned out Sir Robert Peel in 1829; brought in the Duke of Wellington in 1834; censured Hampden in 1836; and made Symons Vice-Chancellor in 1844.' Newman indeed attributed the error of embarking on the last contest to the letters of the Rev. John Morris, under the signature of N. E. S., in the English Churchman. But Pusey would not disavow his own responsibility for what he now felt to have been a wrong method of asserting a right principle. E. B. P. TO REV. J. H. NEWMAN. MY DEAREST N., 56 Marine Parade, [Brighton.] Mo. in Oct. of Xmas. [Dec. 30], 1844. The mistake about opposing the V. C. was mine, much more than N. E. S.'s; C. M. wrote to me, when at Ilfracombe, and although I wished the matter to be decided by others I fear it was decided in consequence of what I said myself. I was applying a principle of yours, of a protest against heresy, in a wrong way and I did not get at your real opinion, being prevented, I forget how, from seeing you. Meanwhile the majority of the Heads of Houses were at least as much alive as Pusey to the mistake which had been |