Mr. Newman from the claim to
bona fides?
He had attacked no foundation of Christianity; he
had denied or doubted no article of the Creed.
He gave his explanations, certainly not more far-fetched
than those of some of his judges. In a Church
divided by many conflicting views, and therefore bound
to all possible tolerance, he had adopted one view
which certainly was unpopular and perhaps was dangerous.
He might be confuted, he might be accused, or, if
so be, convicted of error, perhaps of heresy.
But nothing of this kind was attempted. The incompatibility
of his view, not merely with the Articles, but with
morality in signing what all, of whatever party, had
signed, was asserted in a censure, which evaded the
responsibility of specifying the point which it condemned.
The alarm of treachery and conspiracy is one of the
most maddening of human impulses. The Heads of
Houses, instead of moderating and sobering it, with
the authority of instructed and sagacious rulers,
blew it into a flame. And they acted in such
a hurry that all sense of proportion and dignity was
lost. They peremptorily refused to wait even a
few days, as the writer requested, and as was due
to his character, for explanation. They dared
not risk an appeal to the University at large.
They dared not abide the effect of discussion on the
blow which they were urged to strike. They chose,
that they might strike without delay, the inexpressibly
childish step of sticking up at the Schools’
gates, and at College butteries, without trial, or
conviction, or sentence, a notice declaring that certain
modes of signing the Articles suggested in a certain
Tract were dishonest. It was, they said, to protect
undergraduates; as if undergraduates would be affected
by a vague assertion on a difficult subject, about
which nothing was more certain than that those who
issued the notice were not agreed among themselves.
The men who acted thus were good and conscientious
men, who thought themselves in the presence of a great
danger. It is only fair to remember this.
But it is also impossible to be fair to the party of
the movement without remembering this deplorable failure
in consistency, in justice, in temper, in charity,
on the part of those in power in the University.
The drift towards Rome had not yet become an unmanageable
rush; and though there were cases in which nothing
could have stopped its course, there is no reason
to doubt that generous and equitable dealing, a more
considerate reasonableness, a larger and more comprehensive
judgment of facts, and a more patient waiting for strong
first impressions to justify and verify themselves,
would have averted much mischief. There was much
that was to be regretted from this time forward in
the temper and spirit of the movement party. But
that which nourished and strengthened impatience,
exaggeration of language and views, scorn of things
as they were, intolerance of everything moderate,
both in men and in words, was the consciousness with