|
1 |
A
CORRESPONDENCE
On the Question
WHETHER DR. NEWMAN TEACHES THAT
TRUTH IS NO VIRTUE?
LONDON:
LONGMAN, GREEN, LONGMAN, ROBERTS, AND GREEN
1864
Price One Shilling
|
2 |
|
3 |
To prevent misconception, I think it necessary to observe, that, in my Letters here published, I am far indeed from implying any admission of the truth of Mr. Kingsley's accusations against the Catholic Church, although I have abstained from making any formal protest against them. The object which led to my writing at all, has also led me, in writing, to turn my thoughts in a different direction.
J.H.N.
4
5
CORRESPONDENCE
&c.
"The Roman religion had, for some time past, been making
men not better men, but worse. We must face, we must
conceive honestly for ourselves, the deep demoralization
which had been brought on in Europe by the dogma that
the Pope of Rome had the power of creating right and
wrong; that not only truth and falsehood, but morality
and immorality, depended on his setting his seal to a bit
of parchment. From the time that indulgences were
hawked about in his name, which would insure pardon
for any man, 'etsi matrem Dei violavisset,'
the world in general began to be of that opinion. But the mischief was
older and deeper than those indulgences. It lay in the very
notion of the dispensing power. A deed might be a crime,
or no crime at all--like Henry the Eighth's marriage of
his brother's widow--according to the will of the Pope.
If it suited the interest or caprice of the old man of Rome not
to say the word, the doer of a certain deed would be
burned alive in hell for ever. If it suited him, on the other
hand, to say it, the doer of the same deed would go, sacramentis munitus, to endless bliss. What rule of morality,
what eternal law of right and wrong, could remain in the
6
"And the shadow did not pass at once, when the Pope's
authority was thrown off. Henry VIII. evidently thought
that if the Pope could make right and wrong, perhaps he
could do so likewise. Elizabeth seems to have fancied, at
one weak moment, that the Pope had the power of making
her marriage with Leicester right, instead of wrong.
"Moreover, when the moral canon of the Pope's will was
gone, there was for a while no canon of morality left. The
average morality of Elizabeth's reign was not so much low,
as capricious, self-willed, fortuitous; magnificent one day
in virtue, terrible the next in vice. It was not till more
than one generation had grown up and died with the Bible
in their hands, that Englishmen and Germans began to
understand (what Frenchmen and Italians did not understand)
that they were to be judged by the everlasting laws
of a God who was no respecter of persons.
"So, again, of the virtue of truth. Truth, for its own
sake, had never been a virtue with the Roman clergy.
Father Newman informs us that it need not, and on the
whole ought not to be; that cunning is the weapon which
Heaven has given to the saints wherewith to withstand the
brute male force of the wicked world which marries and
is given in marriage. Whether his notion be doctrinally
correct or not, it is at least historically so.
"Ever since Pope Stephen forged an epistle from
St. Peter to Pepin, King of the Franks, and sent it with
some filings of the saint's holy chains, that he might bribe
him to invade Italy, destroy the Lombards, and confirm
to him the 'Patrimony of St. Peter'; ever since the first
monk forged the first charter of his monastery, or dug the
first heathen Anglo-Saxon, out of his barrow; to make him
a martyr and a worker of miracles, because his own minster
did not 'draw' as well as the rival minster ten miles off;--
ever since this had the heap of lies been accumulating,
spawning, breeding fresh lies, till men began to ask
themselves whether truth was a thing worth troubling a
practical man's head about, and to suspect that tongues were given
to men, as claws to cats and horns to bulls, simply
for purposes of offence and defence."
7
The Oratory, Dec. 30, 1863. GENTLEMEN,
I do not write to you with any controversial purpose, which would be
preposterous; but I address you simply because of your special interest
in a Magazine which bears your name.
That highly respected name you have associated with a Magazine, of which the January number has been sent to me by this morning's post, with a pencil mark calling my attention to page 217.
There, apropos of Queen Elizabeth, I read as follows:--
"Truth, for its own sake, had never been a virtue with the Roman clergy. Father Newman informs us that it
need not, and on the whole ought not to be; that cunning
is the weapon which Heaven has given to the saints wherewith
to withstand the brute male force of the wicked
world which marries and is given in marriage. Whether
his notion be doctrinally correct or not, it is at least historically so."
There is no reference at the foot of the page to any words of mine, much less any quotation from my writings,
in justification of this statement.
I should not dream of expostulating with the writer of such a passage, nor with the editor who could insert it
without appending evidence in proof of its allegations.
Nor do I want any reparation from either of them. I neither
complain of them for their act, nor should I thank them if
they reversed it. Nor do I even write to you with any desire
of troubling you to send me an answer. I do but wish to
draw the attention of yourselves, as gentlemen, to a grave
and gratuitous slander, with which I feel confident you
will be sorry to find associated a name so eminent as yours.
8
Eversley Rectory, January 6, 1864.
Reverend Sir,
I have seen a letter of yours to Mr. Macmillan,
in which you complain of some expressions of mine in an
article in the January number of Macmillan's Magazine.
That my words were just, I believed from many passages
of your writings; but the document to which I expressly
referred was one of your Sermons on "Subjects of the
Day," No. XX., in the volume published in 1844, and
entitled "Wisdom and Innocence."
It was in consequence of that Sermon, that I finally
shook off the strong influence which your writings exerted
on me; and for much of which I still owe you a deep debt
of gratitude.
I am most happy to hear from you that I mistook (as
I understand from your letter) your meaning; and I shall
be most happy, on your showing me that I have wronged
you, to retract my accusation as publicly as I have made it.
Reverend Sir,
I have to acknowledge your letter of the 6th,
informing me that you are the writer of an article in
Macmillan's Magazine, in which I am mentioned, and
referring generally to a Protestant sermon of mine, of
seventeen pages, published by me, as Vicar of St. Mary's,
in 1844, and treating of the bearing of the Christian towards
the world, and of the character of the reaction of that
9
have only to remark; in addition to what I have already
said with great sincerity to Messrs. Macmillan and Co., in
the letter of which you speak, and to which I refer you,
that, when I wrote to them, no person whatever, whom
I had ever seen or heard of, had occurred to me as the
author of the statement in question. When I received your
letter, taking upon yourself the authorship, I was amazed.
I am, Reverend Sir, The Oratory, January 8, 1864.
DEAR SIR,
I thank you for the friendly tone of your letter
of the 5th just received; and I wish to reply to it with the
frankness which it invites. I have heard from Mr. Kingsley,
avowing himself, to my extreme astonishment, the author
of the passage about which I wrote to Messrs. Macmillan.
No one, whose name I had ever heard, crossed my mind
as the writer in their Magazine: and, had any one said
that it was Mr. Kingsley, I should have laughed in his
face. Certainly, I saw the initials at the end; but, you
must recollect, I live out of the world; and, I must own,
if Messrs. Macmillan will not think the confession rude,
that, as far as I remember, I never before saw even the
outside of their Magazine. And so of the Editor: when I
saw his name on the cover, it conveyed to me absolutely no
idea whatever. I am not defending myself, but merely
stating what was the fact; and as to the article, I said to
10
All this will make you see, not only how I live out of
the world, but also how wanton I feel it to have been in the
parties concerned thus to let fly at me. Were I in active
controversy with the Anglican body, or any portion of it,
as I have been before now, I should consider untrue assertions
about me to be in a certain sense a rule of the game,
as times go, though God forbid that I should indulge in
them myself in the case of another. I have never been very
sensitive of such attacks; rarely taken notice of them.
Now, when I have long ceased from controversy, they
continue: they have lasted incessantly from the year 1833
to this day. They do not ordinarily come in my way:
when they do, I let them pass through indolence. Sometimes
friends send me specimens of them; and sometimes
they are such as I am bound to answer, if I would not
compromise interests which are dearer to me than life.
The January number of the Magazine was sent to me,
I know not by whom, friend or foe, with the passage on
which I have animadverted, emphatically, not to say
indignantly, scored against. Nor can there be a better
proof that there was a call upon me to notice it, than the
astounding fact that you can so calmly (excuse me) "confess
plainly" of yourself, as you do, "that you had read
the passage, and did not even think that I or any of my
communion would think it unjust."
Most wonderful phenomenon! An educated man,
breathing English air, and walking in the light of the
nineteenth century, thinks that neither I nor any members
of my communion feel any difficulty in allowing that
"Truth for its own sake need not, and on the whole ought
not to be, a virtue with the Roman clergy;" nay; that they
are not at all surprised to be told that "Father Newman
had informed" the world, that such is the standard of
morality acknowledged, acquiesced in, by his co-religionists!
But, I suppose, in truth, there is nothing at all, however
base, up to the high mark of Titus Oates, which a Catholic
may not expect to be believed of him by Protestants,
however honourable and hard-headed. However, dismissing
this natural train of thought, I observe on your
11
I think you will allow then, that there is a broad difference
between a virtue, considered in itself as a principle or rule,
and the application or limits of it in human conduct.
Catholics and Protestants, in their view of the substance
of the moral virtues, agree, but they carry them out
variously in detail; and in particular instances, and in the
case of particular actors or writers, with but indifferent
success. Truth is the same in itself and in substance
to Catholic and Protestant; so is purity: both virtues are to
be referred to that moral sense which is the natural possession
of us all. But when we come to the question in detail;
whether this or that act in particular is conformable to
the rule of truth, or again to the rule of purity; then
sometimes there is a difference of opinion between individuals, sometimes between schools, and sometimes between
religious communions. I, on my side, have long thought,
even before I was a Catholic, that the Protestant system, as
such, leads to a lax observance of the rule of purity;
Protestants think that the Catholic system, as such, leads
to a lax observance of the rule of truth. I am very sorry
that they should think so, but I cannot help it; I lament
their mistake, but I bear it as I may. If Mr. Kingsley had
said no more than this, I should not have felt it necessary
to criticize such an ordinary remark. But, as I should be
committing a crime, heaping dirt upon my soul, and storing
up for myself remorse and confusion of face at
a future day, if I applied my abstract belief of the latent sensuality
of Protestantism, on a priori reasoning, to individuals, to
living persons, to authors and men of name, and said (not
to make disrespectful allusion to the living) that Bishop
Van Mildert, or the Rev. Dr. Spry, or Dean Milner, or the
Rev. Charles Simeon "informs us that chastity for its own
sake need not be, and on the whole ought not to be, a virtue
with the Anglican clergy," and then, when challenged for
the proof, said, "Vide Van Mildert's Bampton Lectures
and Simeon's Skeleton Sermons passim;" and, as I should
only make the matter still worse, if I pointed to flagrant
instances of paradoxical divines or of bad clergymen among
Protestants, as, for instance, to that popular London
12
Such being the state of the case, I think I shall carry
you along with me when I say, that, if there is to be any
explanation in the Magazine of so grave an inadvertence,
it concerns the two gentlemen who are responsible for it,
of what complexion that explanation shall be. For me,
it is not I who ask for it; I look on mainly as a spectator,
and shall praise or blame, according to my best judgment,
as I see what they do. Not that, in so acting, I am implying
a doubt of all that you tell me of them; but "handsome is,
that handsome does." If they set about proving their
point, or, should they find that impossible, if they say so,
in either case I shall call them men. But,—bear with me
for harbouring a suspicion which Mr. Kingsley's letter to
me has inspired,—if they propose merely to smooth the
matter over by publishing to the world that I have "complained,"
or that "they yield to my letters, expostulations,
representations, explanations," or that "they are quite
ready to be convinced of their mistake, if I will convince
them," or that "they have profound respect for me, but
really they are not the only persons who have gathered
from my writings what they have said of me," or that
"they are unfeignedly surprised that I should visit in
their case what I have passed over in the case of others,"
or that "they have ever had a true sense of my good points,
but cannot be expected to be blind to my faults," if this
be the sum total of what they are to say, and they ignore
13
January 10.—I will add, that any letter addressed to
me by Mr. Kingsley, I account public property; not so,
should you favour me with any fresh communication
yourself.
Eversley Rectory, January 14, 1864.
I have the honour to acknowledge your answer to my letter.
I have also seen your letter to Mr. X. Y. On neither of
them shall I make any comment, save to say, that, if you
fancy that I have attacked you because you were, as you
please to term it, "down," you do me a great injustice;
and also, that the suspicion expressed in the latter part of
your letter to Mr. X. Y., is needless.
The course, which you demand of me, is the only course
fit for a gentleman; and, as the tone of your letters (even
more than their language) make me feel, to my very deep
pleasure, that my opinion of the meaning of your words
was a mistaken one, I shall send at once to Macmillan's
Magazine the few lines which I inclose.
You say, that you will consider my letters as public.
You have every right to do so.
14
"TO THE EDITOR OF MACMILLAN'S MAGAZINE.
"SIR,
"In your last number I made certain allegations against the
teaching of the Rev. Dr. Newman, which
were founded on a Sermon of his, entitled 'Wisdom and
Innocence', (the sermon will be fully described, as to ...
[2]
"Dr. Newman has, by letter, expressed in the strongest
terms, his denial of the meaning which I have put upon
his words.
"No man knows the use of words better than Dr. Newman; no man,
therefore, has a better right to define what
he does, or does not, mean by them.
"It only remains, therefore, for me to express my hearty
regret at having so seriously mistaken him; and my
hearty pleasure at finding him on the side of Truth, in this,
or any other, matter.
The Oratory, January 17, 1864.
REVEREND SIR,
Since you do no more than announce to me your
intention of inserting in Macmillan's Magazine the letter,
a copy of which you are so good as to transcribe for me,
perhaps I am taking a liberty in making any remarks to
you upon it. But then, the very fact of your showing it to
me seems to invite criticism; and so sincerely do I wish to
bring this painful matter to an immediate settlement, that,
at the risk of being officious, I avail myself of your courtesy
to express the judgment which I have carefully formed
upon it.
15
I believe it to be your wish to do me such justice as is
compatible with your duty of upholding the consistency
and quasi-infallibility which is necessary for a periodical
publication; and I am far from expecting any thing from
you which would be unfair to Messrs. Macmillan and Co.
Moreover, I am quite aware, that the reading public, to
whom your letter is virtually addressed, cares little for
the wording of an explanation, provided it be made aware
of the fact that an explanation has been given.
Nevertheless, after giving your letter the benefit of both
these considerations, I am sorry to say I feel it my duty
to withhold from it the approbation which I fain would
bestow.
Its main fault is, that, quite contrary to your intention,
it will be understood by the general reader to intimate,
that I have been confronted with definite extracts from any
works, and have laid before you my own interpretations
of them. Such a proceeding I have indeed challenged, but
have not been so fortunate as to bring about.
But besides, I gravely disapprove of the letter as a whole.
The grounds of this dissatisfaction will be best understood
by you, if I place in parallel columns its paragraphs, one
by one, and what I conceive will be the popular reading
of them.
This I proceed to do.
1. Sir, -In your last number I made certain allegations against the teaching of the Rev. Dr. Newman, which were founded on a Sermon of his, entitled "Wisdom and Innocence", preached by him as Vicar of St. Mary's, and published in 1844. 16
2. Dr. Newman has, by letter, expressed in the strongest terms his denial of the meaning which I have put upon his words. 3. No man knows the use of words better than Dr. Newman; no man, therefore, has a better right to define what he does, or does not, mean by them. 4. It only remains, therefore, for me to express my hearty regret at having so seriously mistaken him, and my hearty pleasure at finding him on the side of truth, in this or any other matter. 2. I have set before Dr. Newman, as he challenged me to do, extracts from his writings, and he has affixed to them what he conceives to be their legitimate sense, to the denial of that in which I understood them. 3. He has done this with the skill of a great master of verbal fence, who knows, as well as any man living, how to insinuate a doctrine without committing himself to it. 4. However, while I heartily regret that I have so seriously mistaken the sense which he assures me his words were meant to bear, I cannot but feel a hearty pleasure also, at having brought him, for once in a way, to confess that after all truth is a Christian virtue. Eversley Rectory, January 18, 1864.
REVEREND SIR,
I do not think it probable that the good sense
and honesty of the British Public will misinterpret my
apology, in the way in which you expect.
Two passages in it, which I put in in good faith and
good feeling, may, however, be open to such a bad use, and
I have written to Messrs. Macmillan to omit them; viz. the
words, "No man knows the use of words better than
Dr. Newman;" and those, "My hearty pleasure at finding
him in the truth (sic) on this or any other matter."
As to your Art. 2, it seems to me, that, by referring publicly to the Sermon on which my allegations are founded,
I have given, not only you, but every one an opportunity
17
The Oratory, January 22, 1864.
GENTLEMEN,
Mr. Kingsley, the writer of the paragraph to
which I called your attention on the 30th of last month,
has shown his wish to recall words, which I considered
a great affront to myself, and a worse insult to the Catholic
priesthood. He has sent me the draft of a Letter which
he proposes to insert in the February number of your
Magazine; and, when I gave him my criticisms upon it,
he had the good feeling to withdraw two of its paragraphs.
However, he did not remove that portion of it, to which,
as I told him, lay my main objection:
That portion ran as follows:—
"Dr. Newman has by letter expressed in the strongest
terms his denial of the meaning which I have put upon his words."
My objection to this sentence, which (with the addition
of a reference to a Protestant sermon of mine, which he
says formed the ground of his assertion, and of an expression
of regret at having mistaken me) constitutes, after the
withdrawal of the two paragraphs, the whole of his proposed
letter, I thus explained to him:—
"Its [the proposed letter's] main fault is, that, quite
contrary to your intention, it will be understood by the
general reader to intimate, that I have been confronted
with definite extracts from my works, and have laid before
you my own interpretation of them. Such a proceeding
18
I have indeed challenged, but have not been so fortunate
as to bring about."
In answer to this representation, Mr. Kingsley wrote to
me as follows:—
"It seems to me, that, by referring publicly to the
sermon, on which my allegations are founded, I have
given, not only you, but every one, an opportunity of
judging of their injustice. Having done this, and having frankly
accepted your assertion that I was mistaken, I have done
as much as one English gentleman can expect from another.'[***shd be"]
I received this reply the day before yesterday. It disappointed me,
for I had hoped that, with the insertion of
a letter from him in your Magazine for February, there
would have been an end of the whole matter. However,
I have waited forty-eight hours, to give time for his
explanation to make its full, and therefore its legitimate impression
on my mind. After this interval, I find my judgment of
the passage just what it was.
Moreover, since sending to Mr. Kingsley that judgment,
I have received a letter from a friend at a distance, whom
I had consulted, a man about my own age, who lives out
of the world of theological controversy and contemporary
literature, and whose intellectual habits especially qualify
him for taking a clear and impartial view of the force of
words. I put before him the passage in your January
number, and the writer's proposed letter in February
3
and I asked him whether I might consider the letter
sufficient for its purpose, without saying a word to show
him the leaning of my own mind. He answers:
"In answer to your question, whether Mr. Kingsley's
proposed reparation is sufficient, I have no hesitation in
saying, Most decidedly not. Without attempting to quote
any passage from your writings which justifies in any
manner the language which he has used in his review, he
leaves it to be inferred that the representation, which he has
given of your statements and teaching in the sermon to
which he refers, is the fair and natural and primary sense
of them, and that it is only by your declaring that you did
not mean what you really and in effect said, that he finds
that he had made a false charge."
19
This opinion thus given came to me, I repeat,
after I had sent to Mr. Kingsley the letter of objection, of which
I have quoted a portion above. You will see that, though
the two judgments are independent of each other, they in
substance coincide.
It only remains for me then to write to you again; and,
in writing to you now, I do no more than I did on the
30th of December. I bring the matter before you, without
requiring from you any reply.
SIR,
In your last number I made certain allegations
against the teaching of Dr. John Henry Newman, which
I thought were justified by a Sermon of his, entitled
"Wisdom and Innocence" (Sermon 20 of "Sermons
bearing on Subjects of the Day"). Dr. Newman has by
letter expressed, in the strongest terms, his denial of the
meaning which I have put upon his words. It only remains,
therefore, for me to express my hearty regret at having
so seriously mistaken him.
Eversley, January 14, 1864.
I shall attempt a brief analysis of the foregoing
correspondence; and I trust that the wording which I shall
adopt will not offend against the gravity due both to myself
20
Mr. Kingsley begins then by exclaiming,— "O the
chicanery, the wholesale fraud, the vile hypocrisy, the
conscience-killing tyranny of Rome! We have not far
to seek for an evidence of it. There's Father Newman to
wit: one living specimen is worth a hundred dead ones.
He, a Priest writing of Priests, tells us that lying is never
any harm."
I interpose: "You are taking a most extraordinary
liberty with my name. If I have said this, tell me when
and where."
Mr. Kingsley replies: "You said it, Reverend Sir, in
a Sermon which you preached, when a Protestant, as Vicar
of St. Mary's, and published in 1844; and I could read
you a very salutary lecture on the effects which that Sermon
had at the time on my own opinion of you."
I make answer: "Oh ... Not, it seems, as a Priest
speaking of Priests;—but let us have the passage."
Mr. Kingsley relaxes: "Do you know, I like your tone.
From your tone I rejoice, greatly rejoice; to be able to believe
that you did not mean what you said."
I rejoin : "Mean it! I maintain I never said it, whether
as a Protestant or as a Catholic."
Mr. Kingsley replies: "I waive that point."
I object: "Is it possible! What? waive the main
question! I either said it or I didn't. You have made
a monstrous charge against me; direct, distinct, public.
You are bound to prove it as directly, as distinctly, as
publicly,—or to own you can't."
"Well," says Mr. Kingsley, "if you are quite sure you
did not say it, I'll take your word for it; I really will."
My word! I am dumb. Somehow I thought that it
was my word that happened to be on trial. The
word of a Professor of lying, that he does not lie!
But Mr. Kingsley re-assures me: "We are both gentlemen,"
he says: "I have done as much as one English
gentleman can expect from another."
I begin to see: he thought me a gentleman at the
21
So we have confessedly come round to this, preaching
without practising; the common theme of satirists from
Juvenal to Walter Scott! "I left Baby Charles and
Steenie laying his duty before him," says King James of
the reprobate Dalgarno: "O Geordie, jingling Geordie, it
was grand to hear Baby Charles laying down the guilt of
dissimulation, and Steenie lecturing on the turpitude of
incontinence."
While I feel then that Mr. Kingsley's February explanation is
miserably insufficient in itself for his January
enormity, still I feel also that the Correspondence, which
lies between these two acts of his, constitutes a real
satisfaction to those principles of historical and literary justice
to which he has given so rude a shock.
Accordingly, I have put it into print, and make no
further criticism on Mr. Kingsley.
J. H. N.
22
23
A
CAREFUL AND STRICT INQUIRY, &c.
PART I.
WHEREIN ARE EXPLAINED AND STATED VARIOUS TERMS AND THINGS BELONGING TO THE SUBJECT OF THE ENSUING DISCOURSE
SECTION 1.
A
I.
vols. vii. and viii., in Macmillan's Magazine
for January, 1864, signed "C. K."
hearts of men born and bred under the shadow of so
hideous a deception?
II
I am, Gentlemen,
Your obedient Servant,
(Signed)
JOHN H. NEWMAN.
III
I am, Reverend Sir,
Your faithful Servant,
(Signed)
CHARLES KINGSLEY
IV
The Oratory, Birmingham,
January 7, 1864.
bearing upon him; and also, referring to my works passim;
in justification of your statement, categorical and definite,
that "Father Newman informs us that truth for its own
sake need not, and on the whole ought not to be, a virtue
with the Roman clergy.'[***shd be"]
I
Your obedient Servant,
(Signed)
JOHN H. NEWMAN
V
1
myself, "Here is a young scribe, who is making himself
a cheap reputation by smart hits at safe objects."
avowal as follows; and I think what I shall say will
commend itself to your judgment as soon as I say it.
preacher at the end of last century who advocated polygamy
in print; so, in like manner, for a writer, when he is
criticizing definite historical facts of the sixteenth century,
which stand or fall on their own merits, to go out of his way
to have a fling at an unpopular name, living but "down,"
and boldly to say to those who know no better, who know
nothing but what he tells them, who take their tradition
of historical facts from him, who do not know me,
—to say
of me, "Father Newman informs us that Truth for its own
sake need not be, and on the whole ought not to be, a virtue
with the Roman clergy," and to be thus brilliant and
antithetical (save the mark!) in the very cause of Truth,
is a proceeding of so special a character as to lead me to
exclaim, after the pattern of the celebrated saying, "O
Truth; how many lies are told in thy name!"
the fact that the onus probandi of a very definite accusation
lies upon them, and that they have no right to throw the
burden upon others, then, I say with submission, they had
better let it all alone, as far as I am concerned, for a half-measure settles nothing.
I am, Dear Sir,
Yours faithfully,
(Signed)
JOHN H. NEWMAN
VI
I remain, Reverend Sir,
Yours faithfully,
(Signed)
C. KINGSLEY
VII
(Signed)
CHARLES KINGSLEY"
VIII
I have the honour to be,
Reverend Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
(Signed)
JOHN H. NEWMAN.
popular rendering of it.
IX
of judging of their injustice. Having done this, and having
frankly accepted your assertion that I was mistaken, I have
done as much as one English gentleman can expect from
another.
I have the honour to be,
Reverend Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
(Signed)
CHARLES KINGSLEY.
X
I am, Gentlemen,
Your obedient Servant,
(Signed)
JOHN H. NEWMAN.
XI
Macmillan's Magazine for February, 1864, p. 368.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed)
CHARLES KINGSLEY.
XII
and to the occasion. It is impossible to do justice to the
course of thought evolved in it without some familiarity
of expression.
very time that he said I taught lying on system. After all,
it is not I, but it is Mr. Kingsley who did not mean what
he said. "Habemus confitentem reum."
1 A gentleman who interposed between Mr. Kingsley and Dr. Newman.
2 Here follows a word or half-word, which neither I nor any one else to whom I have shown the MS. can decypher. I have at p. 15 filled in for Mr. Kingsley what I understood him to mean by "fully."—J. H. N.
3 Viz. as it is given above, p. 14.—J. H. N.
| Calvin College. Last modified on 08/11/06. Contact the CCEL. |  |