|
[Letter of Francis William Newman to Dr. J. Chapman] 10 Circus Road, Dear Sir, Although I certainly did not expect that the remarks which you elicited from me would be laid before the writer of the article, it is satisfactory to have his assurance that he wrote it in no animosity to those who come near without coinciding. I think it of real value to warn those youths who have not yet entangled themselves in the delusive logic of this liberal school, in how sadly real fetters they will find themselves if once "in orders." If Oxford youths read the WR, to such this article may be of much value. And as for the 7 gentlemen (or I may say 5) who would be personally pained,—perhaps they will not read, and there is an end of it. But I am not able to go along with the writers' statements which you now copy for me. He says, "Unfortunately we cannot regard them as sincere Christians." But, unless I have definite ground for believing a man insincere, I cannot conclude that he is so, because he stops short of the inferences to which I see his logic ought to lead him. Else I must condemn Martineau & Taylor as insincere,—and I may add, quite as much, Maurice & Robertson, whom the writer contrasts for defence. He professes to know officially that Mr. Temple is "slippery", and "has no root in him." If he is right, I shall grieve to know that there is one more rogue than I was aware, under a mask of worth. I know Mr. Temple very slightly, having been perhaps three times in his company. I was very favourably impressed by him, & have always heard him spoken of honourably. I have never met any of the circle, to which peculiarly he belongs, without feeling much respect for them, as worthy and valuable men. Their faults of logic seem to me exactly those of Arnold. Their adherence externally to Christianity fits them for work which is impossible to those who have avowedly thrown it off. If they are hypocrites, I grieve for it. But if they are, as I think, moving towards light, though more slowly than some of us, this very slowness, though a loss to them individually, is a gain to the nation. Nor do I think I should do right in accepting the idea that Mr. Temple is "slippery" (in a base sense, as implying a low morality) upon anonymous information of one who does not even professes to know him. He also says: "The notion of regarding men like Wilson, Williams & Pattison as coming over to us is impossible. Why, in that book at least they are going over to the enemy away from us." Perhaps I do not understand this. Perhaps the words us & the enemy have not the same sense with me & with him. I had no idea at all that any of those 7 gentlemen were likely to disavow the authority of Christ & the Bible. To come towards us, is one thing; to come over to us, is another. That they are doing their best to move their coreligionists in our direction, is on the face of the facts, & I think I may add, on the face of the article. It almost seems to me as if I must unawares have used a wrong phrase in my former letter to you: but at any rate you will now understand me. I return Mr. Greg's letter. I agree with him & Dr. Carpenter in thinking the article very able & its logic unanswerable. I also return the former clergyman's letter. I imperfectly understand its details, & am sorry to have no suggestion to make. I am Very sincerely yours,
|