October 31 marks the 125th anniversary of the founding of Pusey House in Oxford. Dr Edward Bouverie Pusey, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford and a Canon of Christ Church for 40 years, was, with John Henry Newman and John Keble, a leading figure in the Oxford Movement. They sought to bring the Church of England into a deeper understanding of its witness as part of the universal Catholic Church.

From its inception Pusey House has had a long association with the University of Oxford, for it was a former Chancellor of the University, the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, who chaired the appeal for the setting up of the House, its chapel and library. That library now contains not only Pusey’s own library but also is an unparalleled resource for 19th-century Church history. In the archives at Hatfield House, home of the Salisbury family, are 17 letters from Pusey to the 3rd Marquess who, as an undergraduate at Christ Church, was strongly influenced by Pusey. Andrew Roberts, the biographer of the Marquess, comments that it was Tractarianism (which the Oxford Movement also came to be called) that had provided the main spiritual and intellectual influence on the future Prime Minister and there is no doubt that the two men greatly respected each other.

The letters at Hatfield provide convincing evidence of Pusey’s conviction that business (or pleasure for that matter) should not be regarded as distraction from prayer. “For prayer,” he wrote, “may take place at any time in the midst of business or employment.” As a result, he became involved in and commented upon many matters, both secular and religious. For example, when Lord Salisbury was Secretary of State for India, Pusey gave advice on the training of men for the Civil Service. “Altogether I am disappointed at the seeming meagreness of the course of study which the Civil Service Commissioners seem to have laid down,” he wrote. Men destined for India, he thought, should receive a longer training to acquire a knowledge of several Eastern languages, including Arabic, Sanskrit, Persian and Hindustani. Pusey then added a personal note to prove the point. Arabic, he admitted, was the most difficult language he had learnt. “I had to employ 12 to 14 hours a day (Sundays excepted) for ten months on this exclusive study.”

Another letter indicates Pusey’s involvement in university matters. He expressed his concern to Lord Salisbury, as Chancellor, about a clerical Fellow who was causing problems in one of the Oxford colleges. “A halfbelieving clergyman is practically much more mischievous and his unbelief much more offensive than that of a half-believing layman.”

Pusey’s concern for the wider Church, and particularly the London diocese, is reflected in several letters. In 1878 he wrote to Lord Salisbury about the abysmal standard of worship in some East London churches. “Spiritual desolation is extreme,” he commented. “Nothing seems to be going on . . . there is no one seemingly to speak the word for God or to their souls.”

Pusey was distressed by what he heard about some clergy, who seemed unaware of their pastoral responsibilities. “In other parts of East London I hear that the clergy are non-resident — and many pass the week in the suburbs.” This letter ends: “A population unvisited in the week will not come to church on Sunday.”

He also quoted for Lord Salisbury an extract from the findings of a report on the state of East London: “In two parishes out of seven, there were no weekday schools. In five out of seven, there were no night schools.” Pusey did not, however, place all the blame on the clergy. “It is no use urging the cry ‘the clergy most do more work’ until they have a leader,” he wrote. “They are wearied and out of heart and cannot work for want of strong sympathy and leadership — of a heart and mind that can show forth these gifts.” In other words, they needed a new bishop.

Aware that there was to be an Episcopal vacancy and that the Marquess could be influential in advising on the appointment, Pusey commented on the sort of man he envisaged. “The remedy must be a bishop who should have good powers of energising who would be the means of enthusing new life into East London, tolerant and with an organising mind.” He realised that a high Churchman might not have been acceptable to Queen Victoria, but he concluded: “Even a high Churchman is tolerable if gifted.”

These letters demonstrate above all that the response to the “call to holiness” — a concern that Pusey shared with Newman and Keble — did not isolate him from “business or employment”. It is also interesting to note that the extracts quoted from the letters clearly reflect the three main aims of the House that bears his name: the importance of upholding high standards of worship, of encouraging scholarship and disciplined study and of providing for the pastoral care and spiritual growth of all who worship there.

Let us hope that the 125th anniversary of the founding of Pusey House will encourage serious study of that “Father of the Oxford Movement”. As the late Professor Henry Chadwick said: “Pusey had all Newman’s ideas before Newman had them but Newman expressed them more stylishly.”