Dr. Newman has written another letter to the Standard retracting
his denial that in a letter to Bishop Ullathorne he had 'characterized a certain combination bent on pushing forward the Infallibility definition as "an insolent and aggressive faction." He had referred, he said, to his rough copy of the letter,—which was badly written and much interlined,—and did not find the words, whereupon he wrote to contradict the use of them. A friend in London had, however, apprized him that there were copies of the letter,—made without consent of Dr. Ullathorne,— in London, and that the words in question certainly were in it,— whereupon Dr. Newman looked a second time at his rough copy, and there found them. Dr. Newman can only account for his not seeing them the first time by the intricacies and interlineations in the rough copy, and the very strong impression on his mind that he had not used them. Of course, all the Jesuit- hunters will hold this up as an instance of bad faith in Dr. Newman, and refuse to believe his statement. No one, however, who has the slightest knowledge of the man will hesitate for a moment as to his perfect integrity. But they may say, justly, we think, that it was over-refining to disavow these words at all, even though believing himself not to have used them, in a letter the spirit of which, whether using them or not, dearly must have expressed very keen disapproval, all but tanta- mount to the use of them. And we confess to some regret that a man of so much genius and usually so much charity should not have set an example to all parties in his Church, during these 'Fassionate days, of calm and charitable judgment.
Previous page
