Chapter 22: Seeking a Middle Ground or Via Media
CHAPTER 22
SEEKING A MIDDLE
GROUND OR VIA MEDIA
FOR Newman, the Oxford Movement was a war against the government and various Church parties over Church Principles. After an initial declaration of principles, Newman tried to clarify in his mind what the Anglican Church was, or should be. In order to do so, he was forced to distinguish the Anglican Church from what he called the abuses of the Church of Rome and the Protestant churches. In this new stage of the war, he unwittingly began to examine some of the claims made by Rome more seriously and to adopt some Catholic practices. At the end of June 1834, Newman began daily morning services at St. Mary’s and expressed his desire to start observing saints’ feasts. By doing so, he was putting into effect the liturgical practice of the Church before the English Reformation. He was, however, conscious of the charge of Romanism. His friends, especially Bowden, warned him of this Catholic appearance and encouraged him to write in his own defense. Newman held three main objections to the Roman Catholic Church: his perception of its doctrine of Transubstantiation, devotion to saints, and Purgatory.
In July and August 1834, Newman wrote two Tracts on the Via Media in which he justified the Thirty-Nine Articles as a defense against doctrinal and liturgical additions and other abuses by Rome. Newman then tried to delineate and justify a system that he thought lay between the Roman Catholic and Protestant excesses. Newman believed that the Church of England constituted a Via Media, which was based on Scripture and the teaching of Antiquity, between the corrupt Roman Church, which appealed to its own infallibility, and Protestantism, which appealed to private judgment.
In 1835, Newman continued correspondence that he had begun late in 1834 with Abbé Jean-Nicholas Jager, a French priest. Jager was a professor of theology and chair of Ecclesiastical History in the Faculty of Theology at the University of Paris. This exchange of letters started in 1834 as a debate between Benjamin Harrison and Jager in the periodical L’Univers. Harrison was a Hebrew scholar and author of some of the Tracts of the Times. The debate initially centered on the application of the canon of Vincent of Lerins as a rule of faith by Anglicans and Roman Catholics. In the fifth century, Vincent had proposed Tradition as a rule of faith, with Tradition understood as that which was held always, everywhere, and by everyone (quod semper, quod ubique, ab omnibus).
After some correspondence between Jager and Harrison, the latter pressed Newman to take up the debate. Newman wrote two letters; the first was printed in various installments in L’Univers: on December 25, 1834, and on January 28 and 29, 1835. In the first one, Newman explained his understanding of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition.1 According to him, Anglicans hold Scripture as the ultimate basis of proof and appeal for fundamental doctrines (those necessary for Church communion).2
Newman claimed that Roman Catholics allow for a certain use of Tradition that did not appeal to Scripture. He wrote that Robert Bellarmine, the sixteenth-century Roman Catholic theologian, held that Scripture does not measure everything. The Council of Trent spoke of the Tradition by which the Church receives the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Newman pointed out two other examples from Trent: the offering of Mass for the souls in Purgatory, and the decree concerning indulgences. All these doctrines are explained in terms of Tradition divinely handed down, not in terms of Scripture texts.
At the root of the debate were various questions: What are the fundamental doctrines one must believe for salvation? What are the fundamental doctrines one must believe for communion with the Church? Moreover, what are the criteria used to ascertain which doctrine is fundamental? He claimed Anglicans believe that fundamental doctrines must be found in Scripture, the only exception being the doctrine about the canon, or the list of the New Testament books.3 For him, this doctrine was the only one legitimately established by the Church’s Tradition. Thus with one sweep of the pen, Newman was granting a major exception to his theory yet denying any further role to the Church in establishing fundamental doctrines.
Newman underestimated the intellectual capacity of the French priest. He had entered the controversy to dispel any suggestion of weakness on the part of Anglicans. In addition, he saw this correspondence as a beneficial opportunity to work out his own beliefs and especially to show that he was not a papist. In the course of the debate, and during the lectures, Newman began to reach an important understanding of the development of doctrine, which would lead to his eventual acceptance of Roman Catholic belief in Tradition.
In his first reply to Jager, he wrote that Anglican and Roman Catholics agree that the Church is the keeper and teacher of doctrine, but they disagree about the Church’s authority over doctrine. “We believe that the fundamentals admit of no increase. Christ’s doctrine is the foundation: Christ, the Trinity as confessed in the baptismal form.”4 Newman wrote that Anglicans believe that the Church has the power to develop its fundamental Creed into Articles of religion according to times and circumstances. These Articles are necessary for communion only, not for salvation. He argued that, at Trent, the Church of Rome imposed belief in some doctrines as necessary for salvation; it was “adding to the fundamentals of faith.”5
Concerning ecclesiastical practice, Newman wrote that he accepted the doctrine and practice of infant Baptism handed down by ecclesiastical tradition, but not as a doctrine necessary for salvation because this teaching was not found in Scripture. In writing this, he contradicted himself because the Baptism of children was precisely for the sake of their salvation.
An example that he offered of legitimate development of doctrine is the early Church’s reasoning about the Procession of the Holy Spirit, which was based on Scripture. He affirmed that when the whole Church had made these declarations in early times, they held great weight. Newman wrote to Jager that Anglicans give particular weight to the first four General councils; these are the rule of orthodoxy against heresy.6 As the distance in time from the Apostles becomes greater and there are more external circumstances, such as political ones, the subjects debated have a less fundamental character and should not be imposed on any as terms of communion. According to Newman, only the contents of the Apostles’ Creed are fundamental for Church communion.
Jager replied with three long letters to Newman’s first letter. He asked Newman where he found the principle that Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation, and denied his claim that this principle was supported by Vincent’s rule. In fact, in his famous work, the Commonitorium, Vincent had held that Scripture is insufficient for judging and putting an end to a dispute about the faith, because it can be mutilated.7 For Vincent, the Tradition of the Church, comprised by the teaching of the Fathers and Church doctrine contained in Creeds and councils, is essential.
Jager placed into question the Protestant’s certainty of faith, and he defended the infallibility of that of Roman Catholics. He did this by indicating how Church councils saw themselves as teaching what had always been professed. He adduced Scripture’s promise of assistance to Peter and to the Church. In addition, the French priest pointed out how the Fathers calmly affirm the Church’s authority, although they do not refer explicitly to it as a dogma. According to Jager, the Fathers of the first centuries declared Catholic doctrine necessary for salvation.
Jager argued that Tradition and Catholic doctrine are necessary for the correct interpretation of Scripture.8 He explained that Christ gave us a body of teaching necessary for our salvation, but since disputes of faith are inevitable, an infallible voice is needed: the voice of the Church’s authority. Scripture alone is insufficient because it is subject to so many interpretations. The interpretation of the Fathers is inadequate because it requires a vast amount of reading.
In the last of a series of replies to Newman, Jager refuted the Reformation’s distinction between fundamental and nonfundamental doctrine.9 This notion of a system of nonfundamental doctrines was, in itself, an innovation that even heretics had not used in the past. The Scriptures require accepting all of Christ’s commands and maintaining the unity of faith. Jager asked if anything could be more exclusive of the idea of nonfundamental errors than Christ’s commands. He argued that the system of nonfundamentals implies that the Church before the sixteenth century was mistaken in excluding heretics, and did not understand the Creed because it expelled people who did not hold to so-called nonfundamental doctrines. Jager pointed out that, in France, sects have reduced the fundamental doctrines to Redemption only, considering all other doctrines to be non-fundamental doctrines.
Lastly, in refutation of assertions by Blanco White, Jager explained that Roman Catholics believe that Tradition and Scripture are in perfect harmony, even though apparent contradictions exist. Furthermore, the Church of Rome never claimed Tradition to be superior.
Newman spent a long time writing a draft of a second letter to Jager, and discussed it with Froude, who pointed out various mistakes. Writing as if he were Jager, Froude told Newman: “The Fathers say that the Holy Eucharist is a tradition; that it is fundamental.”10 He challenged Newman to “prove that I misrepresent them, and prove that they state doctrines, not in Scripture, as authoritative.”11 Part of Newman’s letter was published in two sections by Le Moniteur de la religion, between December 1835 and February 1836.
The debate with Jager forced Newman to think seriously about the nature of Tradition and the Church’s authority and to discuss this with Froude. Newman later admitted that the correspondence with Jager resulted in a series of lectures that he gave during 1836 at St. Mary’s. As the lectures progressed, some young adherents to the Movement were made; one of these was William George Ward, whose son, Wilfred Philip Ward, and granddaughter, Maisie Ward, later became biographers of Newman. The lectures on Romanism, as Newman called them, were published in 1837 under the title of Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church Viewed Relatively to Romanism and Popular Protestantism. He dedicated the volume to Martin Routh of Magdalen College, who was a patristic scholar and representative of the Anglo-Catholic Tradition of the English Church. Routh, who lived to his hundredth year, referred to Newman as “that clever young gentleman of Oriel.”
In December 1835, Nicholas Wiseman gave a series of well-attended public lectures in London on the Catholic Church. In these, he referred to Newman’s book on the Arians to argue that the Christian faith was taught in the Church by oral Tradition, not by the Bible.12 Newman reviewed these lectures in the October 1836 issue of the British Critic. Years later, Newman wrote that Wiseman’s lectures had been another impetus for the publication of his own Lectures on the Prophetical Office, in which he indirectly answers Wiseman.13
Newman considered that the Anglican Church respected the Antiquity without sacrificing the authority of Sacred Scripture. It was a Via Media between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Thomas Sharkey, who worked for Thomas Cromwell under Henry VIII, had used the term Via Media already in 1533. In the midst of the early struggle between Roman Catholic and Lutheran parties in the Anglican Church, Sharkey made a plea for a middle ground in the observance of religious rites and traditions. A middle ground was not reached, although some advocated giving up liturgical and ascetical practices in order to reach a peaceful coexistence. Over the next three centuries, religious bodies would seek the support of the government to extend their own practices.
In the introduction to the lectures, Newman presented the most likely objections to his affirmation of a Via Media. The first objection was that a Via Media was unreal, an illusion; second, that the Church of England, despite its episcopacy, was essentially Protestant; third, that the Church of England did not have an intellectual basis and was, in fact, a department of the State.
Newman held Antiquity as the measure of orthodoxy and considered that it was represented by the Anglo-Catholic doctrine and the practices of the Anglican Church. At that time, he thought that the Anglican Church was the nearest approximation to the primitive Church of Ignatius and Polycarp, both disciples of the Apostle John. In the first lecture, Newman claimed that Rome retains the principle of true Catholicism, but perverted, while popular Protestantism lacked the principle. He considered the errors of both positions. In the next lectures, he argued that the Roman Church must be held accountable for many instances of abuse of political power. An example of perceived abuse was Catholic support for Irish politicians like O’Connell.
Newman was aware of problems in the appeal to Antiquity. The voluminous nature of the Fathers’ writings made them an impracticable guide for ordinary men who wished to know Christian doctrine. Newman recognized the problem of sorting out what was essential in the large mass of patristic teaching, and he thought the answer lay in the Creeds, the Book of Common Prayer, and Church formularies.14 In other words, Antiquity, as a test of orthodoxy, was contained in the Church’s Creeds and liturgy. The Latitudinarians, or Broad Churchmen, instead had given up historical tradition as a truth-bearer and had retained a vague allegiance to the Bible as conferring a Christian mind.
These lectures marked an important point in Newman’s life because in them, he examined Catholic claims in a more serious manner. He identified objections that he saw in Roman Catholicism and began to notice the weakness of his own position. In the years that followed he realized that his interpretation of the Church Fathers was tainted by the Anglican theologians, Laud, Taylor, and Leslie. In an 1877 re-edition of the lectures he admitted, with a certain shame, his derogatory use of the word “Romanists” and his vague charges and scornful name-calling. Newman granted that two objections made by Anglican Divines were worthy of consideration: one being the difference in teaching, liturgy, and ecclesiastical government between the Primitive Church and the Roman Catholic Church, and the other being the difference in the Roman Catholic Church between its formal teaching and popular manifestations, such as sermons and addresses by ecclesiastics. Newman addressed at length the first set of difficulties in his book On the Development of Christian Doctrine, which he finished within days before entering into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
In the years that preceded the lectures, Newman had been disturbed by what he thought were inconsistencies between doctrinal, liturgical, and ecclesiastical matters. In the lectures, he focused on only one of the three offices of the Church, namely that of teaching doctrine, which he called the prophetical. The other two, sanctification through the liturgy and ecclesiastical governance, were not addressed. Over the years, Newman arrived at the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church was gifted with infallibility in doctrinal matters, but not with impeccability in liturgical or ecclesiastical matters.15
Richard Hurrell Froude played a key role in helping Newman examine more critically his positions. Froude finally returned from a prolonged stay in Barbados since October 1833. His health had not improved, but he wished to see his family and friends. In May, after a short visit to Oxford he went to his family home in Devonshire. Froude arrived at the end of a few months of heated debate in Oxford over the proposal by Renn D. Hampden, Principal of St. Mary’s House, for the repeal of the oath of Subscription by undergraduates upon admission to Oxford.
Hampden, already holding a university chair, would now be promoted to the highest rank of professorship at Oxford: Regius Professor. In January 1836, the Archbishop of Canterbury submitted six names to the government as candidates for one of the two university professorships of theology. Newman, Pusey, Keble, and Hampden were among these names. Archbishop Whately and Bishop Copleston of Llandaff recommended Hampden. Newman held little hope of Pusey or his own appointment and urged Keble to accept the position if he were chosen.
In February 1836, Lord Melbourne, then Prime Minister, appointed Hampden as Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford. The appointment shocked everyone, including heads of colleges, because of Hampden’s views on Revelation and his recent support of discarding religious tests at the university. Newman wrote a pamphlet titled “Elucidations of Dr. Hampden’s theological statements” in which he objected to Hampden’s theological views. Newman sent the pamphlet to Hampden, and they exchanged acrimonious letters. On February 19, 1836, despite the opposition at Oxford, the king confirmed Hampden’s appointment.
Richard William Church, then at Oxford, explained that Hampden did not wish to be unorthodox or unevangelical and actually claimed to be orthodox. He wished to give greater weight to Scripture over dogma and to be anti-scholastic and anti-Roman. In the end, however, the Creeds and dogmas were minimized and he “left nothing standing but the authority of the letter of Scripture.”16
Newman and Pusey sought to censure Hampden’s works and prepared a declaration against him, which was signed by 385 Members of Convocation.17 In May, a meeting of Convocation passed a public vote of no confidence against Hampden by a majority of five to one that curtailed Hampden’s powers. Newman, who played a significant role along with Pusey in articulating Hampden’s errors, considered it a victory. Later, the responsibility for the university’s reaction to Hampden’s appointment, the so-called “persecution of Dr. Hampden,” was blamed on the Tractarians, even though almost all of the university had felt seriously threatened by Hampden’s unguarded speculations.18
Since Hampden was about to vacate the head of St. Mary’s Hall, Newman sought Keble’s appointment as head. Through James Hugh Rose, he obtained the support of the Archbishop, but the Duke of Wellington, Chancellor of the University, had already chosen someone else.19
When Hampden resigned from White’s chair of Moral Philosophy to take the chair of Regius Professor of Theology, Martin Routh, President of Magdalen College, expressed his desire that Newman be appointed. Newman declined upon knowledge of Sewell’s interest in the position, and Sewell became Professor of Moral Philosophy.20 The great irony in the course of events was that in order for Newman to obtain his B.D. degree, he was obliged to read the Thirty-Nine Articles to Hampden, the new Regius Professor of Divinity.21
The resistance to Hampden’s position at Oxford was based on the general acceptance of the Thirty-Nine Articles as religious truths essential to Christian belief. In addition, there was a sense that a theology professor had the obligation to adhere to the Church’s doctrine as understood by the general consensus of Tradition embodied in Church Creeds and liturgy. Hampden was departing from Christian orthodoxy by undermining fundamental points of Christian Revelation. His position could be compared to the so-called academic freedom sought by many contemporary theologians to teach whatever they please.
Lord Melbourne not only failed to understand the outcry at Oxford over Hampden’s writings, but he did not do anything to correct his mistaken appointment once he had made it. Similar disregard for doctrine by the government and various usurpations of ecclesiastical power created a growing resistance on the part of Churchmen. The close alliance between Church and government could only possibly work if the government respected ecclesiastical decisions and did not exert undue control over the Church. After some years of tolerating this abuse of power by the State, many clergymen and some laymen were determined to fight for the Church’s rights.
Newman held a prudent position regarding the Thirty-Nine Articles. He was aware that many of the Articles had a Protestant origin, but he thought that they should nonetheless be upheld for the sake of maintaining authority in the Church. He told his friend R. F. Wilson that he did not tell others his reason lest they should scoff at authority. He would submit and obey. On January 11, 1836, Newman wrote to Perceval that Subscription to the Articles was important because they impart the notion that religion is the submission of reason to faith. He wrote: “[T]he great lesson of the Gospel is faith, an obeying prior to reason, and proving its reasonableness by making experiment of it—a casting of heart and mind into a system, and investigating the truth by practice.”22
He told Perceval that he would prefer the Creeds and certificates of Baptism and Confirmation to the Articles, but these would not exclude Roman Catholics. He also told his friend that he thought the “Romanists” had an advantage over the Anglicans by professing, at the Council of Trent, their belief in Tradition as that which is received from the Apostles. Nevertheless, he thought they erred by making this profession necessary for salvation and for Church communion.23
In the year 1836, one of intense controversy at Oxford, Newman endured two of the greatest losses of his life: the deaths of his friend Hurrell Froude and, later, of his mother. By the start of the year, he was thinking of the impending death of Froude. He wrote his sister Jemima expressing his desire to work for God’s glory and confiding in her that God was teaching him to depend solely on Him. He told her that Froude’s death would be the greatest loss that he could have for his work in the next 25 years. Archdeacon Froude kept Newman informed of his son’s failing health. On February 28, Hurrell Froude died at the age of 33.
Archdeacon Froude wrote Newman asking him to distribute £100 to five of Hurrell’s friends.24 Newman was also to take whatever he wished of Hurrell’s possessions. On Roger’s suggestion, he kept a copy of the Roman Breviary that once had belonged to Froude. Newman later asked for the theological work of Petavius, his Dogmata theologica, which cost £20. Among Hurrell’s greatest spiritual gifts to Newman were his love for the sacrament of the Eucharist and an understanding of Tradition in the Church. With these, he had opened for Newman the door to Roman Catholicism.
Hurrell had been like a dear brother to Newman, one of the closest friends that he would have in his life. In a beautiful letter to Bowden, another of his close friends, Newman wrote of his debt to Froude in intellectual principles, religion, and morals. Despite the earnest friendship and support of Bowden and his family, as well as that of Keble and Pusey, nobody would be able to fill the void left by Hurrell. His spontaneity and vigor, his independent spirit and love for the Church’s Tradition, his honesty and zeal for the truth in religion had inspired Newman.
After the death of his friend came another strong blow, the death of his own mother. On May 17, Mrs. Newman died at the age of 63. Newman wrote his Aunt Elizabeth Newman: “Every thing is strange in this world—every thing is mysterious. Nothing but sure faith can bring us through.”25 The previous year, Mrs. Newman had laid the first stone of the new church at Littlemore and continued to follow the activity of her son. At Littlemore, Mrs. Newman and her daughters had helped Newman by carrying out a great deal of charitable work. They had played an important feminine role in the life of this small Christian community.
Newman was saddened by not having been able to share more of his mother’s company when she had moved from Brighton to be close to him. What made him even sadder was the absence of a shared religious understanding of Christianity. He wrote that, from the start, his mother and sisters had not understood the Oxford Movement; as it had developed, so had their differences. Charles wrote, lamenting his ungratefulness to his mother and expressing remorse for his behavior: “I feel deeply indebted to my brothers and sisters for having so amply filled the office, in which either from my fault or misfortune I have failed, of good children towards my Mother.”26 In a second letter, he remarked on the unfortunate difference of opinions in religious matters that existed between the three brothers.
Mrs. Newman had been a pious and upright woman and had given her son a great deal of affection and moral support. She had taught him many virtues such as piety, order, service to others, and courtesy. Sadly, she had failed to appreciate his pursuit of doctrinal orthodoxy. In the relationship with his mother, we have a glimpse of one of Newman’s personal difficulties, namely that of expressing his sentiments outside of writing. He wrote the following shortly after her death: “I know in my own heart how much I ever loved her, and I know too how much she loved me—and often, when I had no means of showing it, I was overpowered from the feeling of her kindness.”27
Newman’s two sisters married that same year: Jemima to John Mozley in April 1836, and Harriet to Thomas Mozley in September. Newman was happy to have introduced his sisters to their future spouses. He did, however, lament that Harriet would marry so soon after their mother’s death and tried to dissuade her, but to no avail. He gave Harriet a gift of £30 and regretted not having been able to do the same with Jemima. Frank had married in December 1835.
In the midst of these busy years, Newman attended to the pastoral care of his parishioners with the help of Isaac Williams, his curate at Littlemore. He recorded, as usual, his many visits to the sick and the sermons that he preached. In January 1836, the third volume of Parochial Sermons was published; it was dedicated to Archdeacon Robert Hurrell Froude, the father of his dying friend. Rickards wrote to Newman, telling him that he and his wife liked the sermons and found them gentler than the earlier ones.28 The volume contains sermons on important topics, such as baptismal regeneration, intercessory prayer, the invisible church, daily service, and the intermediate state.
Newman’s mind was also occupied in raising money for the construction of the new church at Littlemore and in overseeing the construction itself, which was carried out in less than fourteen months. The Bishop of Oxford consecrated the church and the churchyard on September 22, 1836. The small church was dedicated to St. Mary and to St. Nicholas, for whom a former monastery at Littlemore was named. Newman’s detailed description of the windows, altar, and floor plan, which he relayed to his Aunt Elizabeth and friends, gives a sense of the beauty of the church. It was only 60 feet long by 25 broad and 40 high. It had an altar rail, a pulpit, and the old baptismal font of St. Mary’s, which had been badly damaged by a mob during the Reformation. The three lancet-shaped windows in the east cast light upon the stone sculptings of the Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer beneath them. The stone altar also had some handsome carving.
The simple elegance of the church at Littlemore and Newman’s care for the spiritual life exemplified the Christian ideals of the Oxford Movement. The intense debate with Abbé Jager on the relationship between the Scriptures and Tradition, which had occupied Newman’s attention and inspired his Lectures on the Prophetic Office of the Church, was also emblematic of the Movement’s attempt to defend the Anglican Church. Yet despite Newman’s efforts to portray the Anglican Church as a Via Media, he confided to close friends his hopes and fears for the Anglican Church. Newman’s views on the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Creed, his laboring over the meaning of Tradition, and his introduction of daily service and saints’ days, indicated a movement toward Roman Catholicism. In 1836, he listed the discovery of the Roman Breviary as one of the turning points for that year. The Breviary was, in some sense, Froude’s parting gift to help his friend delve into the spiritual heritage of Roman Catholicism.
________
1John Henry Newman and the Abbé Jager: A Controversy on Scripture and Tradition, 1834-1835, ed. Louis Allen (London: Oxford University Press, 1975), 33-52.
2Ibid., 35.
3Ibid., 48.
4Ibid., 39.
5Ibid., 41.
6Ibid., 40.
7Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, XXVIII, available at: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/434lerins-canon.html.
8John Henry Newman and the Abbé Jager, 58.
9Ibid., 54.
10LD, Vol. V, Richard Hurrell Froude to JHN (July 30, 1835), 116-18; 116.
11Ibid., 116.
12Ian Ker, John Henry Newman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 129, 135.
13Apo., 64.
14Ward, Young Mr. Newman, 264-65.
15VM, Vol. I, Preface to the 3rd ed., xliii-xliv.
16Church, The Oxford Movement, 166.
17LD, Vol. V, 264-66. This Convocation was the Convocation of Masters of Arts at Oxford University, not the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury.
18Church, The Oxford Movement, 171-72.
19LD, Vol. V, JHN to Hugh James Rose (February 21, 1836), 241; JHN to John Keble (February 28, 1836), 243-44.
20LD, Vol. V, JHN to Martin Joseph Routh (March 12, 1836), 256.
21LD, Vol. V, Diary entry (October 26, 1836), 375.
22LD, Vol. V, JHN to Arthur Philip Perceval (Jan. 11, 1836), 196-98; 196.
23Ibid, 196-98; 197.
24Ibid, 246.
25LD, Vol. V, JHN to Elizabeth Newman (May 17, 1836), 299.
26LD, Vol. V, JHN to Newman from Charles Robert Newman (May 18, 1836), 300.
27LD, Vol. V, JHN to Mrs. John (Jemima) Mozley (June 26, 1836), 313-14; 314.
28LD, Vol. V, JHN to Newman from Samuel Rickards (February 18, 1836), 248-49; JHN to Samuel Rickards (March 1, 1836), 247.