Full text of "The history of the Romeward movement in the Church of England, 1833-1864"

See other formats

FRDM-THE- LIBRARY-OF
TR1NITYCOLLEGE-TORQNTO

THE HISTORY OF

THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

IN THE

CHURCH OF ENGLAND

THE HISTORY

OF THE

ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

IN THE

CHURCH OF ENGLAND

1833-1864

WALTER WALSH

AUTHOR OF
1 THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE OXFORD MOVEMENT," ETC.

LONDON

JAMES NISBET fcf CO., LIMITED

21 BERNERS STREET

1900

Printed by BALLANTYNE, HANSON &• Co.
At the Ballantyne Press

1 1 3 -1 0 8

MAR 1 1

PREFACE

MANY books have been written on the Oxford Move
ment, but this is, so far as I am aware, the first
attempt to write its History from the standpoint of
an Evangelical Churchman. It will be admitted by
all that there is room for a distinctly Protestant, just
as much as for a Ritualistic or High Church, record
of events which have transformed the outward appear
ance of a considerable portion of the Church of
England during the past sixty-seven years. I have
not undertaken this task unasked, nor without a sense
of the difficulty to deal with such an important subject
in anything like an adequate manner. But I have
honestly tried to do my best, and no man can do more
than that. As to how far I have succeeded, or failed,
others are better able to judge than I am. Although
an Evangelical Churchman, I have certainly tried to
deal with my theme in no narrow-minded manner. I
claim to be as broad as the Church of England, nor
would I banish from her ranks any of her loyal sons,
though they may disagree with me on minor matters.
I believe that I have written nothing but that which
will meet with the approbation of old-fashioned High
Churchmen and Broad Churchmen, as well as of those

vi PREFACE

who glory in being termed Evangelical Churchmen.
And certainly I have set down nothing in malice. I
would not willingly misrepresent my opponents ; my
desire is only to tell the truth about them. It is
human to err, yet I have done my best to be accurate.
Full references are given for every statement in this
work, and nothing is brought forward without ample
proof. I am not afraid to have my assertions tested
by the original documents. I claim that not more
than one alleged fact has been refuted in my last book,
The Secret History of the Oxford Movement, though
the Ritualists in every part of the British Empire
have attacked it fiercely again and again during the
past three years. Whether I shall be as fortunate
this time remains to be seen.

And I have tried to write in moderate language,
even about very immoderate and highly censurable
conduct. There is much recorded in the following
pages which would justify stronger language than I
have applied to it ; but I prefer that my readers shall
judge the Romeward Movement in the Church of
England by facts rather than by adjectives of abuse
and insult. I cannot, of course, expect to please the
Ritualists ; indeed, I think it possible that they will be
even more angry with this book than with its prede
cessor, for, in some respects, the facts here recorded
are more damaging to their cause than those revealed
in the Secret History. The exposures, herein con
tained, of the conduct of not a few of the leaders of

PREFACE vii

the Oxford Movement will be unpleasant reading for
their followers, as well as for those loyal Churchmen
who love honest, straightforward conduct, and hate all
crooked ways and double-dealing. It is a sad,
though true, story I have to relate. Yet these are
days when the truth, however unpleasant, needs to
be told without fear or favour, and in the plainest
terms.

No candid person who reads this book can fail to
see that the destination of the Oxford Movement from
its very t birth .has been Rome. The evidence is too
abundant and clear to leave room for doubt. For
Corporate Reunion with Rome Newman (in his
Anglican days), Froude, Keble, and, above all, Dr.
Pusey, laboured and prayed. They did not wish to
go to Rome as individuals. They wished to take the
whole Church of England, with all her Cathedrals and
Parish Churches, and her vast wealth, with them — a
present worthy of the Pope's acceptance, and on
conditions easy for him to accept. Nothing less
than this would satisfy them, and nothing less than
this will satisfy the leaders of the Ritualists of
the present day. But before they can succeed the
Protestantism of the Church must be destroyed, and
the work God did for us in the sixteenth century,
through the Protestant Martyrs and Reformers, must
be undone. How they hope to accomplish this, and
the tactics necessary for such a cause, are revealed in
these pages. It is an attack not merely on the

viii PREFACE

Protestantism of the Church of England, but of the
whole nation also, with which we have to deal. What
affects the National Church must, indirectly at least,
affect Free Churchmen also. They have cause to
dread the Romeward Movement ; while the Church of
Rome has cause to view it with unbounded joy. It
is her work that the Ritualists are doing, and if it is
allowed to go on unhindered we may expect ere long
that the forces of Rome and of the Romanisers will
join hands, with a view to destroying our National Pro
testantism by political weapons. And, therefore, it
is that I rejoice to see the formation of an orga
nisation like the Imperial Protestant Federation, in
which some twenty-seven organisations have united,
on strictly Evangelical lines, to defend Reformation
principles against the attacks of Romanists and
Romanisers, quite apart from ordinary views of
Church polity and party politics. I believe that, with
God's blessing, this Federation has a great future
before it, in the Colonies as well as in the mother
country. While Ritualists are looking to the Church
of Rome for unity, let true Protestants seek unity
with their brethren who hold the Evangelical faith.
It was so at the time of the Reformation. Cranmer,
Ridley, Latimer, Jewel, and all the learned English
Reformers sought brotherly sympathy and help from
their Protestant brethren on the Continent, even
though they did not accept an Episcopal form of
Church government. Their brotherly letters one to

PREFACE ix

another may be read in the publications of the Parker
Society, and in the historical works of Burnet and
Strype.

I have only been able to bring this History down
to the year 1864. If God shall spare my life I may
complete it at a future date. It is not a repetition
of my Secret History, but an entirely distinct work,
covering different ground, though here and there I
have been compelled, in a few instances only, to touch
upon subjects already referred to. The book is issued
with thankfulness to God for the wide circulation
throughout the British Empire of my former work,
and with an earnest prayer that He may graciously
use this volume to open still more widely the eyes of
the British nation to the many dangers which sur
round it from the labours of a gigantic army within
the gates, whose dearest ambition it is to bring us
back to the spiritual darkness of the Dark Ages, to
the rule of priestcraft, and to the intolerable bondage
of the Papacy. But, " We are not of the night, nor
of the darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do
others; but let us watch and be sober" (i Thess.

v. 5, 6).

W. W.

LONDON, October 30, 1900.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I

The Reformation and Justification by Faith— The Evangelical Party
represents the Reformers — Evangelicals and Puritans — The
Evangelical Revival — What It did for the Church and Nation
—Testimony of Canon Liddon, Mr. Gladstone, Dean Church,
Lord Selborne, and Mr. Lecky — The Oxford Movement not a
supplement to the Evangelical Revival — The two Movements
were antagonistic — The Rule of Faith — The Founder of the
Oxford Movement — Its real object — Was Newman ever an
Evangelical? — Newman's early life — Blanco White's warning —
What Newman thought of the Reformation in 1833 .

CHAPTER II

The Birth of the Oxford Movement — Newman and Froude's Inter
view with Wiseman at Rome — Its deep impression on Wise
man's mind — His bright expectations from it — Was the
Tractarian Movement born in Oxford or Rome ? — Keble's ser
mon on National Apostasy — He denounces the State and exalts
the Church — Archbishop Sumner on Foreign Protestant Non-
Episcopal Pastors — The Tractarians on Church and State —
Generally favourable to entire separation — Dr. Arnold's Prin
ciples of Church Reform — Its good and objectionable features —
Newman wants to " make a row in the world " — The Conference
at Hadleigh — The Association of Friends of the Church — Its
plans of work — Efforts to win Evangelical Churchmen — " The
seeds of revolution planted " — They wished to bring back the
principles of Laud— Clerical and Lay addresses to the Arch
bishop of Canterbury — The Tracts for the Times — Their Rome-
ward tendency — Newman called a "Papist" — Names of the
writers of the Tracts for the Times — Dr. Pusey joins the
Movement — Fasting — Roman Catholic opinion of the Tracts —
Exalting the priesthood — Dr. Arnold's faithful warning . .18

CHAPTER III

The first " outbreak of Tractism " — Dr. Hampden's case — Newman
on Subscription to the Articles — He was " not a great friend to
them" — Hampden appointed Regius Professor of Divinity —

Xll CONTENTS

PAGE

Agitation against his appointment — Lord Melbourne's letter to
Pusey — Newman's Elucidations — Stanley's opinion of them —
Dr. Wilberforce and Hampden — Lord Selborne and Dean
Church's testimony as to Hampden's views — The real cause of
opposition was Hampden's Protestantism — Proof of his Pro
testantism — Extracts from his writings — Vote of want of con
fidence by Convocation — Hampden's Letter to the Archbishop
of Canterbury — Mr. Macmullen's case — Hampden appointed
Bishop of Hereford — Protest of thirteen Bishops — Lord John
Russell's reply — Archdeacon Hare defends Hampden — A Pro
secution commenced — Organised by Pusey, Keble, Marriott,
and Mozley — Wilberforce' s eleven questions for Hampden —
His answer — The Bishop withdraws his Letters of Request —
Pusey's bitter disappointment — Tractarian anxiety to prosecute
their opponents — Bishop Phillpotts denounces the Episcopal
Veto — Protests by the Dean of Hereford— Hampden elected
Bishop by the Chapter of Hereford— Protest in Bow Church —
An exciting scene — Consecration of Dr. Hampden — The new
Bishop's sympathisers — Addresses of confidence . . .46

CHAPTER IV

Dr. Pusey's early Protestantism — Extracts from his Historical En
quiry—His Theological Society — "The young Monks" — The
Library of the fathers — Mr. Bickersteth approves of the Library
— Lord Selborne on the Fathers — Richard Hurrell Froude —
His influence on Newman — His admiration of Rome, and
dislike of the Reformation — Newman's early love of Rome —
His mind "essentially Jesuitical" — Froude's Remains — Extracts
from the Remains, showing his Romanising principles — Pro
fessor Faussett's University sermon against the Tractarians —
The Rev. Peter Maurice's Popery in Oxford — Dr. Pusey insults
Mr. Maurice — Newman's reply to Faussett — Dr. Hook's Call
to Union — Bishop of Oxford's Visitation Charge — The Oxford
Martyrs' Memorial — Pusey thinks it " unkind to the Church of
Rome " — Keble thinks Cranmer a Heretic — " Cranmer burnt
well " — Tractarian opposition to the Memorial — The inscription
on the Oxford Martyrs' Memorial 86

CHAPTER V

CONTENTS Xlll

PAGE

on the cry for peace — Prayers for the Dead — Breeks v, Wool-
frey — West v. Shuttleworth — Egerton v. All of Rode — Moresby
Faculty Case — Dr. Pusey begins to hear Confessions in 1838 —
In 1846 he goes to Confession for the first time — His Protestant
notes in the Works of Tertullian — Wiseman hopes the Trac-
tarians will "succeed in their work" — He realises the Roman
tendency of their teaching — Extracts from the Tracts for the
Times — Margaret Chapel as a centre of Tractarianism — Mr.
Serjeant Bellasis— Oakeley claims the right to "hold all
Roman doctrine" — He is prosecuted by the Bishop of London
His licence revoked — Pusey defends Oakeley — Says the judg
ment against him has no moral force — Pusey says he believes
in Purgatory and Invocation of Saints — Thinks England and
Rome "not irreconcilably at variance" — Oakeley secedes to
Rome 114

CHAPTER VI

Tract XC.—L\st of Pamphlets on Tract XC.— Newman's object in
writing the Tract — Extracts from it — Rejoicings at Oscott —
The letter of the Four Tutors — Dr. Arnold's opinion of the
Tract — Declaration by the Heads of Houses — Interesting letter
from one of the Four Tutors — Newman's Letter to Dr. Jelf—
Wiseman's attitude towards the advanced Tractarians — Ward's
traitorous letter to the Univers — An English Catholic's letter
to Newman — Wiseman's reply to Newman — Mr. Ambrose Lisle
Phillipps' letter — The Bishop of Oxford's difficulties — His cor
respondence with Pusey and Newman — The Tracts for the
Times discontinued — Newman's Letter to the Bishop of Oxford
— Newman withdraws his "dirty words" against Rome — His
reasons for doing so — The Rev. William George Ward — Thinks
the Reformers guilty of rebellion and perjury — Mr. Percival's
defence of the Tracts for the Times — Keble's defence of Tract
XC. — His opinion -on Canonical Obedience to the Bishops —
Pusey's defence of Tract XC. — Manning's dislike for Tract XC.
— Jfa&osffis Judgment of the Bishops upon Tractarian Theology
—What the Bishops said against Tract XC. .... 147

CHAPTER VII

XIV CONTENTS

PAGE

promises to be " prudent and reserved " — Bloxam's fear of
publicity — De Lisle's extraordinary letter to his wife — The
Oxford men wish " to come to an understanding with the Pope
at once " — Their proposals to be sent to the Pope — The Fathers
of Charity — A startling suggestion — Cordial meetings at Oxford
between the Tractarians and Romanists — Negotiations with
Wiseman and Rome — Wiseman visits Oxford — Has an inter
view with Newman — Wiseman writes to Rome for secret
instruction and guidance — He desires to become "the organ
of intercourse" between Rome and Oxford — A secret con
spiracy — De Lisle's letter to Lord Shrewsbury — It is necessary
"to blind" the Low Church party — "Throwing dust in the
eyes of Low Churchmen " — " Unpleasant disclosures " in the
papers — " A holy reserve " — Ward's double-dealing — Remains
in the Church of England " to bring many towards Rome "-
The ultimate aim "submission to Rome" . .180

CHAPTER VIII

The Jerusalem Bishopric — Chevalier Bunsen's mission to England
— Puseyite opposition — Hope - Scott's objections — Dr. Hook
supports the Bishopric — His description of the Romanisers —
Pusey's Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury — Lord Ashley's
letter to Pusey — Mr. Gladstone supports the Bishopric — New
man and the Jerusalem Bishopric — He thinks it "atrocious"
and " hideous " — His Protest — Contest for Professorship of
Poetry — Isaac Williams and Reserve in Communicating Reli
gious Knowledge — Extracts from his writings — Mr. Garbett,
the Protestant candidate — Samuel Wilberforce on the contest
— He denounces the Romanisers — Success of the Protestant
candidate — Secessions to Rome — The Rev. F. W. Faber — His
visit to the Continent — His Sights and Thoughts in Foreign
Churches — How he deceived the public — The Rev. William
Goode — His Protestant works — His Case as It Is — His Divine
Rule of Faith and Practice — Bishop Bagot's Visitation Charge
— Mr. Goode answers it — The Parker Society .... 201

CHAPTER IX

CONTENTS XV

PAGE

Romeward— He resigns St. Mary's and retires to Littlemore —
Archdeacon Wilberforce on " the insane love for Rome "—
Palmer's Narrative of Events — Pusey issues " adapted " Roman
Catholic books of devotion — Newman tells him they will " pro
mote the cause of the Church of Rome"— Hook thinks "they
will make men Infidels"— Extracts from these books— What
Pius IX. said about Dr. Pusey — Bishop Blomfield on the effect
of adapted Roman books — Puseyites advocate Ecclesiastical
Prosecutions of Protestant clergy — The Bishop of Exeter and
the Surplice in the Pulpit— Legality of the Black Gown in the
Pulpit — Ward's Ideal of a Christian Church — Puseyite attack on
Dr. Symons — Defeated — Attempt to prosecute the Rev. James
Garbett — Failure — Stone Altars and Credence Tables — Faul-
kener v. Litchfield— Judgment of the Court of Arches — The
Cambridge Camden Society — Denounced by the Rev. F. Close . 226

CHAPTER X

Pusey thinks that God is "drawing" Newman to Rome — Pusey
refuses to write against the Church of Rome — Newman secedes
to Rome — Father Dominic's narrative of Newman's reception —
Pusey on the secession — Newman goes to see the Pope — When
and where was Newman ordained a Roman Catholic ? Some
noteworthy circumstances — St. Saviour's, Leeds — Founded by
Dr. Pusey — He insists on an Altar — The distinction between an
Altar and a Table — Dr. Hook's anxiety — Dr. Wilberforce ap
pointed Bishop of Oxford — Pusey tries to secure his goodwill
for Puseyism — He fails — Pusey's desire for Union with Rome —
His subtle tactics with his penitents — Hook believes Pusey is
under the influence of the Jesuits — The Exeter Surplice Riots —
Debate in the House of Lords — More Puseyite exhortations to
prosecute Evangelical clergy — An extraordinary case in Salis
bury Diocese — Extempore prayers in a Schoolroom "a gross
scandal " — The case of the Rev. James Shore — Pusey's Sermon
on The Entire Absolutio?i of the Pe?iitent — Extracts from the
Sermon — Pusey goes to Confession for the first time — The
effect of Pusey's Confessional work on his penitents — Testi
mony of Dean Boyle— Clerical Retreats 256

CHAPTER XI

XVI CONTENTS

PAGE

this point — Reducing the distance to Rome — Sackville College,
East Grinstead — The Rev. J. M. Neale inhibited — Freeland v.
Neale — The Gorham Case — Judgment of the Court of Arches —
Judgment of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council — Puseyite
Protest against the judgment — Dr. Pusey and Keble wish to
prosecute Gorham for heresy — Bishop Phillpotts threatens to
excommunicate the Archbishop of Canterbury — The Exeter
Synod — The case of the Rev. T. W. Allies — His extraordinary
and disloyal conduct — His visit to Rome — The Pope tells him
that Pusey has "prepared the way for Catholicism" — What Mr.
Allies told the Pope — Allies secedes to Rome— Correspondence
with Pusey on Auricular Confession — Startling charges against
Pusey — " In fear and trembling on their knees before you" —
"The rules of the Church of Rome are your rules" — How the
Oxford Movement helped Rome — Wilberforce calls Pusey "a
decoy bird" for the Papal net — He says that he is "doing the
work of a Roman Confessor" — The Papal Aggression — Lord
John Russell's Durham Letter — Bishop Blomfield on the Rome-
ward Movement — St. Paul's, Knightsbridge — St. Barnabas', Pim-
lico — Riots in St. Barnabas' Church — Resignation of the Rev.
W. J. E. Bennett — St. Saviour's, Leeds — Traitorous resolutions
of twelve clergymen — A Confessional inquiry by the Bishop —
The Clergy defend questioning women on the Seventh Com
mandment 284

CHAPTER XII

The Bristol Church Union — Pusey objects to a protest against
Rome —Archbishop Tait on the Church Discipline Act — The
Judicial Committee of Privy Council — Lay Address to the Queen
— Her Majesty's action in response — Lay Address to the Arch
bishop of Canterbury — The appeal to the Bishops — An Epis
copal Manifesto — A Clerical and Lay Declaration in support
of the Gorham judgment — The Confessional at Plymouth —
Revival and reform of Convocation — Prosecution of Archdeacon
Denison — The power and privileges of examining chaplains —
The Archbishop's Commission of Inquiry — The Archbishop's
judgment at Bath — How the Archdeacon evaded punishment —
Pusey hoists the flag of rebellion — The protest against the Bath
judgment — The Society of the Holy Cross — The Association for
the Promotion of the Unity of Christendom — Startling revela
tions as to its early history — Secret negotiations with Rome — De
Lisle's secret letter to Cardinal Barnabo — The Cardinal's
answer — Newman consulted by De Lisle — The conspirators
meet in London — Their secret, traitorous, and treacherous mes
sage to the Pope — The case of Westerton v. Liddell — Judgment
-A Ritualistic rebel 326

CONTENTS XV11

CHAPTER XIII

PAGE

The Convent Case at Lewes — Charges against the Rev. J. M. Neale
— Riot at Lewes at the burial of a Sister of Mercy — Bishop of
Chichester's letters to Mr. Scobell and the Mother Superior—
The Bishop withdraws his patronage from St. Margaret's, East
Grinstead — Threatening the Bishop — Mr. Neale's pamphlet —
His underhand conduct — Confession on the sly — The Case of
the Rev. Alfred Poole — His licence withdrawn — His admissions
— Remarkable assertions at a Communicants' Meeting — Mr.
Poole appeals to the Archbishop of Canterbury— His judgment
The Lavington Case — Romanising books — Theological Colleges
—Attack upon Cuddesdon College— Mr. Golightly's Facts and
Documents Showing the Alarming State of the Diocese of Oxford
— An exciting controversy 3^3

CHAPTER XIV

The St. George's in the East Riots— The Rev. Bryan King— The
Rev. Hugh Allen — The attitude of the Bishop of London — The
Rector resigns — Church of England Protection Society — For
mation of the English Church Union — Its early delight in
Ecclesiastical Prosecutions — Opposes Prayer Book Revision
"at present"— Dr. Littledale advocates "Catholic Revision"—
He is "bowed down" with grief, shame, and indignation —
Expulsion of Protestant clergymen aimed at — Preaching in
Theatres "a profane and degrading practice" — The Union
attempts to prosecute Evangelical clergymen — The Union
praises the Bishop of Salisbury for prosecuting Dr. Williams —
The Union demands the prosecution and deprivation of the
Evangelical Bishop Waldegrave — The E.C.U. demands a cheap
and easy way to prosecute Archbishops, Bishops, and clergy —
Tries to prosecute foreign Protestant Pastors — The Church
Review says the Union was established to "enforce the law"-
It declares that "to silence the teaching of heresy is the plain
duty of the Church's Governors" — Dr. Pusey prosecutes Pro
fessor Jowett — Pusey says that "prosecution is not persecu
tion"— The Church Review praises prosecutors as men of
"moral courage" — The President of the E.C.U. promises
obedience to the Courts of Judicature 405

INDEX 421

THE HISTORY OF THE

ROMEWARD MOVEMENT IN THE
CHURCH OF ENGLAND

1833-1864

CHAPTER I

The Reformation and Justification by Faith — The Evangelical Party
represents the Reformers — Evangelicals and Puritans — The Evan
gelical Revival — What It did for the Church and Nation — Testi
mony of Canon Liddon, Mr. Gladstone, Dean Church, Lord
Selborne, and Mr. Lecky — The Oxford Movement not a supplement
to the Evangelical Revival — The two Movements were antagon
istic — The Rule of Faith — The Founder of the Oxford Movement-
Its real object — Was Newman ever an Evangelical? — Newman's
early life — Blanco White's warning — What Newman thought of the
Reformation in 1833.

AT the Protestant Reformation there was one truth which,
perhaps, more than any other, came before the world with
all the freshness and power of a new revelation from God.
It had been revealed to man fifteen hundred years before
in the New Testament, but there it had remained buried
during the Dark Ages, unheard of and unknown to those
to whom the Bible was a closed book. Men learnt, in
the sixteenth century, with joyful surprise, that it was pos
sible to obtain absolution of their sins, and an entrance to
Heaven, without the assistance of any Sacrificing Priest,
and without the aid of a Father Confessor. They learnt
that it was the blessed privilege of even the vilest and
most sinful to go for pardon direct to the Saviour of
mankind, to approach direct to the Mercy Seat, without
money and without price, and without any priestly
intervention or aid. " At the very root of the Reforma-

2 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

tion changes," said the Bishop of Winchester, in his Visi
tation Charge, in 1899, " lay the principle of the direct
access of the individual soul to God, without human inter
vention of any kind, a principle which destroys the whole
theory upon which the Roman Confessional had built its
power." l This doctrine was embodied by our Reformers
in the Book of Homilies, in which we are taught, as to the
application of the merits of Christ to our souls : — " Herein
thou needest no other man's help, no other sacrifice or
Oblation, no Sacrificing Priest, no Mass, no means estab
lished by man's invention." 2

The acceptance of this grand and glorious truth made
our Reformers free men. It was the death-knell of priest
craft, and the grave of Sacerdotalism. The cry of " No
priest between the sinner and his Saviour," soon led to
the further cry of " No Pope between the Englishman
and his Sovereign." The rule of the priest was intoler
able for men who were no longer spiritual slaves, and
submission to Papal Supremacy became an impossibility
for free-born Englishmen. Round this great truth, this
doctrine of Justification by Faith only, centred the whole
battle of the Reformation. Everything else, however im
portant in itself, was of comparatively little moment.
Here we have the real heart and soul of the Reformation
Movement ; this is the centre from which its pulsations
vibrate, and from which its life-blood flows. Those who
preach it are alone the true descendants of those to whom,
under God, we owe the English Reformation of the six
teenth century. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the
Evangelical party is new in the Reformed Church of
England. The Reformers, with scarcely a solitary ex
ception, held Evangelical doctrines, while their Protes
tantism was far more extreme than anything heard from
Protestant platforms in the present day. A study of their
writings, as reprinted by the Parker Society nearly sixty
years since, affords ample evidence of their hatred of
Sacerdotalism. Evangelical Churchmen do not represent

1 The Times ; October 2, 1899.

2 Homily Concerning the Sacrament, Part I.

EVANGELICALS AND PURITANS 3

now the Puritan party of the reign of Elizabeth, who
were bitterly opposed to the Episcopal form of Church
government, while Evangelical Churchmen were its warm
friends. The Churchmen who fought against the Eliza
bethan Puritans held Evangelical views. All other parties
within the Church date their birth from long after the
Reformation.

Canon Overton, a member of the English Church
Union, proves conclusively how great was the difference
between Evangelical Churchmen and Puritans.

"The typical Puritan," he says, "was gloomy and austere; the
typical Evangelical was bright and genial. The Puritan would not
be kept within the pale of the National Church ; the Evangelical
would not be kept out of it. The Puritan was dissatisfied with our
Liturgy, our ceremonies, our vestments, and our hierarchy; the
Evangelical was perfectly contented with them. If Puritanism was
the more fruitful in theological literature, Evangelicalism was infin
itely more fruitful in works of piety and benevolence ; there was
hardly a single missionary or philanthropic scheme of the day which
was not either originated or warmly taken up by the Evangelical
party. The Puritans were frequently in antagonism with * the powers
that be,' the Evangelicals never ; no amount of ill-treatment could
put them out of love with our constitution in both Church and
State." J

The Evangelical Movement of the latter half of the
eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth centuries
was a Revival and not a Birth. It did great things for
England and England's Church, as even those who have
been its keenest critics have admitted. The testimony of
Canon Liddon, the intimate friend and biographer of Dr.
Pusey is, on this subject, important. He writes : —

" In its earlier days the Evangelical Movement was mainly if not
exclusively interested in maintaining a certain body of positive truth.
The great doctrines which alone make 'repentance towards God
and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ ' seriously possible were its
constant theme. The world to come, with its boundless issues of
life and death, the infinite value of the one Atonement, the regene
rating, purifying, guiding action of God the Holy Spirit in respect of

1 Overton's English Church in the Eighteenth Century, chap. iii.

4 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

the Christian soul, were preached to our grandfathers with a force
and earnestness which are beyond controversy. The deepest and
most fervid religion in England during the first three decades of
this century was that of the Evangelicals ; and, to the last day of his
life, Pusey retained that 'love of the Evangelicals' to which he
often adverted, and which was roused by their efforts to make
religion a living power in a cold and gloomy age." 1

We thus learn that the Evangelicals were chiefly engaged
on the most important subjects affecting the glory of God
and the salvation of human souls, and that, under God,
to them it is mainly due that true religion was revived
as " a living power in a cold and gloomy age." What
higher praise could be offered to any Church party than
this, which comes from one of the warmest friends of the
Oxford Movement ? I may now be permitted to cite the
opinion of Mr. Gladstone, who, in his essay on " The
Evangelical Movement," which first appeared in the British
Quarterly Review for July 1879, pointed out what he con
ceived to be many serious defects in its system. Yet even
he was constrained to admit that, " though Evangeli
calism as a system may have been eminently narrow and
inconsequent, it was born to do a noble work, and that
the men to whom the work was committed, were men
worthy of this high election."' Mr. H. O. Wakeman, an
active supporter of the Ritualists, admits that, " During
the latter part of the eighteenth century the Evangelical
party were the salt of the Church of England." 3

Two more High Churchmen I will quote before I pass
on. The testimony of the first of these proves that the
Evangelical Revival was powerful in the interests of
philanthropy, and did not forget the interests of the
body while engaged chiefly in looking after the eternal
welfare of immortal souls. The late Dean Church had
many supposed faults to point out in the Evangelical
Movement when he wrote his historical sketch of The
Oxford Movement; but he acknowledged that

" Evangelical religion had not been unfruitful, especially in

1 Liddon's Life of Dr. Pusey > vol. i. p. 255.

2 Gladstone's Gleanings of Past Years, vol. vii. p. 236.

3 Wakeman's History of the Church of England, p. 452, 6th edition.

LORD SELBORNE ON THE EVANGELICALS 5

public results. It had led Howard and Elizabeth Fry to assail the
brutalities of the prisons. It led Clarkson and Wilberforce to over
throw the slave trade, and ultimately slavery itself. It had created
great Missionary Societies. It had given motive and impetus to
countless philanthropic schemes."1

In this Dean Church was of one mind with the
Evangelical Lord Shaftesbury, who with truth declared :—
" I am satisfied that most of the great philanthropic
movements of the century have sprung from " the Evan
gelicals.2

The testimony of the late Earl of Selborne, at one
time Lord Chancellor of England, a decided High
Churchman, though not a Ritualist, is important. He
says : —

" Next to the home influence which surrounded me, none con
tributed more to preserve the balance of my mind than that of the
excellent representatives of ' Evangelical ' opinion, with whom I had
been brought into contact. There were many things in that system,
particularly the Calvinistic tenets held by the most powerful of its
teachers, with which I never agreed ; and it always seemed to me
defective, as leaving too much out of sight the organic side of
Christianity. But in its spirituality, in its constant presentation of
Christ and His work as the foundation of faith and practice, and in
its reverence for the Scriptures, I thought it set an example which
all might have done well to follow." 8

One of the most bitter writers against the Evan
gelical party whom I have ever met with is the Rev.
W. H. B. Proby, an enthusiastic supporter of the Ritual
istic party. Yet even he, writing in 1888, was compelled
to acknowledge its services both to the Church of
England and to the cause of practical godliness.

"And what, with all this dignity and influence," he asks, "had
the Low Church party effected ? They had effected a true conver
sion to God in Christ in the cases of numberless individuals, and
they had effected certain reforms and improvements in the English
Church at large, tending to the edification of individuals. Then

1 The Oxford Movement. By Dean Church, p. 13, ist edition.

2 Life and Work of ihe Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, popular edition, p. 519.

3 Memorials Family and Personal, 1766-1865. By the Earl of Selborne, vol. i.
p. 211.

6 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

they had been the means of improving the psalmody, by the singing
of hymns, the psalmody having previously been confined almost
entirely to the performance of metrical versions of Psalms. They
had caused the public service of the Church to be gone through
generally in a more becoming manner than had too often been
customary ; doubtless through practising the same rule which in
later times was formulated by Charles Simeon, of Cambridge, ' Do
not read the prayers, but pray them.' . . . There was, besides, an
improvement of the outward face of society at large. There was
less drunkenness in the upper classes, less indecent language, and
less profane swearing. Shops were not so frequently opened on
Good Friday. And of course there was an improvement in the
general efficiency of the clergy; that is to say, owing to the Low
Church movement there were more religious clergymen than there
had ever been before. There was an increased care about Divine
Service : the Prayer Book (so far, that is, as Low Churchmen chose,
or had learnt to use it) was used more devoutly ; several parts of the
system of religion inculcated by the Church of England began to be
made of more account than they had been ; people learned to come
to church in time for the commencement of the prayers ; people
were induced to join in the Amens and responses aloud." 1

Many of my readers will, I doubt not, be influenced
on this subject by the opinion of an historian, who would
pay but little attention to the opinion of divines. I may
therefore appeal to the testimony of Mr. Lecky, who also
criticises the Evangelical party, but is constrained to ac
knowledge their valuable services to the country.

"Great, however," he remarks, "as was the importance of the
Evangelical Revival in stimulating these [philanthropic] efforts, it had
other consequences of perhaps a wider and more enduring influence.
Before the close of the century in which it appeared, a spirit had begun
to circulate in Europe threatening the very foundations of society and
belief. The revolt against the supernatural theory of Christianity
which had been conducted by Voltaire and the Encyclopaedists . . .
had produced in France a revolutionary spirit, which in its intensity
and its proselytising fervour was unequalled since the days of the
Reformation. . . . Religion, property, civil authority, and domestic
life were all assailed, and doctrines incompatible with the very
existence of government were embraced by multitudes with the

1 Annals of the Low Church Party. By the Rev. W. H. B. Proby, vol. i.
PP- 350-352.

MR. LECKY ON THE EVANGELICALS 7

fervour of a religion. England, on the whole, escaped the contagion.
Many causes conspired to save her, but among them a prominent
place must, I believe, be given to the new and vehement religious
enthusiasm which was at that very time passing through the middle
and lower classes of the people, which had enlisted in its service
a large proportion of the wilder and more impetous reformers, and
which recoiled with horror from the anti-Christian tenets that were
associated with the Revolution in France." l

To have contributed thus powerfully towards preserv
ing England from Atheism and the horrors of the French
Revolution constitutes, I venture to suggest, a strong
claim on the gratitude of all patriots to the Evangelical
party. Referring to the Evangelical leaders of the latter
part of the eighteenth and the commencement of the nine
teenth centuries, Mr. Lecky affirms that : —

"All these possessed, in an eminent degree, the qualities of
heart and mind that influence great masses of men; and they
and their colleagues gradually changed the whole spirit of the
English Church. They infused into it a new fire and passion of
devotion, kindled a spirit of fervent philanthropy, raised the
standard of clerical duty, and completely altered the whole tone
and tendency of the preaching of its ministers. Before the close of
the [eighteenth] century the Evangelical Movement had become the
almost undisputed centre of religious activity in England, and it
continued to be so till the rise of the Tractarian Movement of 1833." 2

The Tractarian Movement has been to the Evangelical
Movement what the Jesuit Order was to the Reformation.
It has paralysed the energies of every Evangelical who has
yielded to its influence. It has been frequently asserted
that the new Sacerdotal Revival in the Church of Eng
land is only supplementary to the Evangelical Movement
and is not opposed to it. "The High Church Revival,"
writes Canon Overton, " was not the antagonist but the
supplement of the Evangelical Revival which preceded
it."J And Canon Liddon asserts that "the Oxford Move
ment was a completion of the earlier Revival of religion

1 Lecky's History of England, vol. iii. pp. 145, 146, edition 1892.

2 Ibid. p. 134.

8 The Anglican Revival. By J. H. Overton, D.D., p. 15.

8 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

known as Evangelical."1 Mr. H. O. Wakeman asserts
that the Oxford Movement " did not so much supersede
the Caroline, Latitudinarian, and Evangelical Movements
as supplement them." 2 To all this, so far at least as it
applies to the Evangelicals, I reply by denying that the
Oxford Movement was either the " supplement " to or
the " completion " of the Evangelical Revival ; and by
asserting most emphatically that its attitude was distinctly
antagonistic. If in any sense it was a " supplement " it
was in the sense that poison is a supplement to whole
some food. The chief characteristics of Evangelical
religion can never be reconciled with the Sacerdotal
system. The Evangelical theory that Divine grace with
pardon of sins is conveyed directly to each individual soul
by God Himself, through Jesus Christ, our only Mediator,
and not by Sacramental elements or priestly absolution,
can never be reconciled with the general teaching of the
early Tractarians and their successors of the present day.
That well-known champion of Ritualism, the late Rev.
Dr. Littledale, perceived and acknowledged this thirty
years since. He said: "And first, it ought to be said
that they [the ' Catholic and Protestant '] are logically two
distinct religions, and not merely differing aspects of the
same religion. They are quite as diverse from each other
as Judaism is from Islam ; though like these two creeds,
they have a common stock of books, sacred names, and
ideas." And, again : " But the real fact, that these two
systems are rival religions, can easily be discovered by
considering what we mean by Religion." 3 Another char
acteristic of Evangelical teaching is the doctrine that the
Bible is the sole and only Rule of Faith, and a claim to
the right of Private Judgment ; while that of the Trac
tarians and Ritualists is that Tradition also forms a part
of the Christian's Rule of Faith, and that Private Judgment
is a thing to be condemned. The ingenuity of man can
never reconcile these opposing theories together, or prove

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. i. p. 254.

2 Wakeman's History of the Church of England, p. 491.

3 The Two Religions. By Richard F. Littledale, LL.D., pp. 2, 3. London :
G. J. Palmer. 1870.

RIVETING THE CHAINS OF PRIESTCRAFT 9

that the one is but the supplement to the other. In this
connection it is worthy of note that one of the first blows
struck by the leaders of the Oxford Movement was aimed
against direct access to God for pardon of sins, and with
the object of riveting once more on English Churchmen
the intolerable chains of priestcraft. Writing to the Hon.
and Rev. A. P. Percival, on August 14, 1833, the Rev.
Richard Hurrell Froude announced : —

" Since I have been back to Oxford, Keble has been here, and
he, and Palmer, and Newman, have come to an agreement, that
the points which ought to be put forward by us are the following : —

" '(i) The doctrine of Apostolic Succession as a rule of practice,
i.e. that the participation of the body and blood of Christ is essential
to the maintenance of Christian life and hope in each individual.

" ' (2) That it is conveyed to individual Christians only by the hands
of the successors of the Apostles, and their delegates.' " x

Here it is implied that something which " is essential
to the maintenance of Christian life," can " only" be " con
veyed to individual Christians," not direct by the Saviour
Himself, but by « the successors of the Apostles," a term
which, in the estimation of the Tractarians, excluded all
ministers who did not possess Episcopal ordination.
Here we have the essence of Sacerdotalism, taught by
the founders of the Oxford Movement within a month
from its birth. In 1835 Newman declared, in his "Ad
vertisement " to the second volume of the Tracts for the
Times, that "the essence of Sectarian Doctrine" was found
in those who " consider faith, and not the Sacraments, as
the instrument of justification" : —

"We have," he exclaimed, "almost embraced the doctrine, that
God conveys grace only through the instrumentality of the mental
energies, that is, through faith, prayer, active spiritual contempla
tions, or (what is called) communion with God, in contradiction to
the primitive view, according to which the Church and her Sacra
ments are the ordained and direct visible means of conveying to the
soul what is in itself supernatural and unseen." 2

1 Percival's Collection of Papers connected with the Theological Movement of
1833, p. 12. "James Skinner," p. 2.

2 Tracts for the Times, vol. ii. p. vi.

IO HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

This doctrine, that tf visible " things, viz., priests and
Sacramental elements, " convey to the soul " Divine grace,
instead of its being conveyed " through faith " and by
"communion with God," has been the general teaching
of the Tractarians and their successors from 1833 to the
present time. In recent years, however, it has been ex
pressed in clearer and more daring language. The so-
called " Cowley Fathers " teach that : —

" They (priests) are peacemakers under Him who carry on this
work for Him, applying the precious Blood to the souls of men by
the Sacraments for the remission of sins."1

The Rev. Edward Stuart, formerly Vicar of St. Mary
Magdalene, Munster Square, London, actually had the
daring to write : —

" God alone is the Giver of all spiritual life and grace and favour,
and yet we are not bid to go direct to God for these gifts (for that
right we forfeited at the Fall), but we are to go to the Church which
stands between us and God in its appointed sphere." 2

On the subject of the Bible as the only Rule of Faith,
and the right and duty of Private Judgment in its inter
pretation, the teaching of Evangelical Churchmen is, as
I have just asserted, irreconcilably opposed to that of
Tractarians and Ritualists. As early as the month of
September 1833 — only two months after the birth of
the Oxford Movement — Mr. Newman published his views
on these gravely important questions. No amount of
sophistry could persuade a Protestant Churchman to
accept his teaching : —

"Surely," wrote Mr. Newman, "the Sacred Volume was never
intended, and is not adapted, to teach us our creed ; however certain
it is that we can prove our creed from it, when it has once been
taught us, and in spite of individual producible exceptions to the
general rule. From the very first, that rule has been, as a matter of
fact, that the Church should teach the truth, and then should appeal
to Scripture in vindication of its own teaching. And from the first, it
has been the error of heretics to neglect the information thus pro-

1 The Evangelist Library : Exposition of the Beatitudes > p. 31.

2 The Mediation of the Church. By the Rev. Edward Stuart, p. 9.

THE BIBLE AND PRIVATE JUDGMENT II

vided for them, and to attempt of themselves a work to which they
are unequal, the eliciting a systematic doctrine from the scattered
notices of the truth which Scripture contains. . . . The insufficiency
of the mere private study of Holy Scripture for arriving at the exact
and entire truth which Scripture really contains, is shown by the
fact, that creeds and teachers have ever been divinely provided." l

When, in 1837, Mr. Newman published his Lectures on
Popular Protestantism, he expressed himself more clearly
and strongly : —

"Accordingly," he said, "acute men among them [Protestants]
see that the very elementary notion which they have adopted, of the
Bible without note or comment being the sole authoritative Judge in
controversies of faith, is a self-destructive principle." 2

"For though we consider Scripture a satisfactory, we do not con
sider it our sole informant in divine truths. We have another source
of information in reserve, as I shall presently show. . . . We rely
on Antiquity to strengthen such intimations of doctrine as are but
faintly, though really, given in Scripture." 3

"I would not deny as an abstract proposition that a Christian
may gain the whole truth from the Scriptures, but would maintain
that the chances are very seriously against a given individual. I
would not deny, rather I maintain that a religious, wise, and in
tellectually gifted man will succeed : but who answers to this de
scription but the collective Church ? " 4

Of the Rev. Richard Hurrell Froude, one of the
principal founders of the Tractarian Movement, Cardinal
Newman states that : — " He felt scorn of the maxim,
'The Bible and the Bible only is the religion of Pro
testants ' ; and he gloried in accepting Tradition as a main
instrument of religious teaching." 5

A refutation of the assertions in these extracts would
take up several chapters of this work, and would be
generally considered out of place here. But I am happy
to state that they have all been ably and amply discussed
and refuted in Dean Goode's Divine Rule of Faith and

1 The Artans in the Fourth Century. By the Rev. J. H. Newman, p. 50,
7th edition.

2 Newman's Via Media, vol. i. p. 27, edition 1891.

3 Ibid. pp. 28, 29.

4 Ibid. p. 158.

6 Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Stta, 1st edition, p. 85.

12 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

Practice? one of the most valuable works on the subject
ever produced by an Evangelical Churchman. It seems
a pity that it has never yet been issued in a condensed
form in one volume. I need only remark here that once
a Christian man gives up the theory that the Bible and
the Bible alone contains a perfect Rule of Faith, and at
the same time discards the use of Private Judgment, he is
open to believe any false doctrine, however preposterous
it may be. The ridiculous superstitions now advocated
by the Ritualists may be appealed to in proof of this
assertion.

Who was the founder of the Oxford Movement ?
Cardinal Newman asserts that "the true and primary
author of it " was the Rev. John Keble.2 No doubt
Newman was better qualified than any other man to
express an opinion on this question, yet no one who has
carefully studied the early history of the Movement can
fail to see that the principal worker and the most prominent
figure was Newman himself. The ostensible cause of its
birth was the alleged encroachments of the State on the
province of the Church, more especially as manifested in
the proposal of the Irish Church Temporalities Bill to
suppress a large number of the Bishoprics of the Church
of Ireland, and the demands of men like Dr. Arnold to
enlarge the borders of the Establishment so as to embrace
Dissenters. The real reason was the desire to exalt the
clergy into a sacerdotal caste, and to bring the laity under
the rule of the priesthood, with a view to the Reunion of
Christendom. The way for the movement had been pre
pared by the publication of Keble's Christian Year in 1827,
and many of the chief actors had themselves been prepared
by study and conversations with each other, for the part they
were about to take in the work before them. It is quite a
mistake to suppose that the founders commenced the
Oxford Movement while sound Protestants. I know that
Newman is said to have been originally an Evangelical.

1 The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition. By William Goode,
M.A. Three vols. London : J. H. Jackson. 1853.

2 Newman's Apologia, p. 75.

WAS NEWMAN AN EVANGELICAL? 13

It is true that he was brought up under Evangelical in
fluence, but I do not believe that he ever accepted the
system in its entirety. A true Evangelical is one in heart
as well as in name, whose soul and life are moved by its
Gospel teaching, and not merely his intellect. Much ado
is made about his " conversion " in his young days, yet
after all it is evident that what he meant by it was some
thing different from what Evangelicals themselves mean
by the term "conversion." In his " Autobiographical
Memoir," written in 1874, he speaks of himself in the
third person. In it he affirms : —

"And, in truth, much as he [Newman] owed to the Evangelical
teaching, so it was he never had been a genuine Evangelical. That
teaching had been a great blessing for England; . . . but, after all, the
Evangelical teaching, considered as a system and in what was peculiar
to itself, had from the first failed to find a response in his own
religious experience, as afterwards in his parochial. He had indeed
been converted by it to a spiritual life, and so far his experience
bore witness to its truth ; but he had not been converted in that
special way which it laid down as imperative, but so plainly against
rule, as to make it very doubtful in the eyes of normal Evangelicals
whether he had really been converted at all. Indeed, at various times
of his life, as, for instance, after the publication of his Apologia,
letters, kindly intended, were addressed to him by strangers or
anonymous writers, assuring him that he did not yet know what
conversion meant, and that the all-important change had still to be
wrought in him if he was to be saved. . . . He [Newman] was sensible
that he had ever been wanting in those special Evangelical ex
periences which, like the grip of the hand or other prescribed signs
of a secret society, are the sure token of a member."1

It is interesting to note the various steps by which
Newman at length reached the position he held at the
birth of the Oxford Movement. He tells us that when
he was not quite ten years old he drew, in a " verse
book " in his possession, " the figure of a solid cross
upright, and next to it is, what may indeed be meant
for a necklace, but what I cannot make out to be any
thing else than a set of beads suspended, with a little

1 Letters and Correspondence of J. H. Newman, ist edition, vol. i. pp. 122,
123.

14 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

cross attached."1 Newman tells us that when he was
fifteen years old he "was very superstitious, and for
some time previous to my conversion used constantly
to cross myself on going into the dark."5 In 1823
he began to believe in the doctrine of Apostolic Suc
cession.3 His first sermon after his ordination — which
event took place on June 13, 1824 — implied in its tone
a denial of Baptismal Regeneration ; but it was not long
afterwards when he accepted that doctrine, having been
persuaded into believing it from reading Archbishop
Sumner's Treatise on Apostolic Preaching. This book, he
asserts, " was successful beyond anything else in rooting
out Evangelical doctrines" from his creed.4 In 1824
his brother, F. W. Newman, was shocked, while arranging
the furniture in some new rooms he was about to occupy,
to find a beautiful engraving of the Blessed Virgin Mary
fixed up, and that it was a present from his brother, John
Henry.5 About a year later Dr. Hawkins taught him to
believe in the doctrine of Tradition, and that "the sacred
text [of the Bible] was never intended to teach doctrine,
but only to prove it, and that if we would learn doctrine
we must have recourse to the formularies of the Church." 6
In 1832 Newman had gone so far wrong on this gravely
important subject as to write to Dr. Pusey : "As to
Scripture being practically sufficient for making the
Christian, it seems to me a mere dream." 7

As early as his fifteenth year Newman " became most
firmly convinced that the Pope was the Antichrist pre
dicted by Daniel, St. Paul, and St. John," and he states
that his " imagination was stained by the effects of this
doctrine up to the year 1843 ; it had been obliterated
from my reason and judgment at an earlier date." * It is,
indeed, marvellous how any one who ever held such
views as to the Pope could go over to Rome. With this
view of Antichrist Newman also believed that Rome was

1 Apologia Pro Vita Sua, p. 57. 2 Ibid. p. 56. 3 Ibid. p. 67.

4 Newman's Letters and Correspondence, vol. i. p. 120.

5 The Early History of Cardinal Newman. By his Brother, F. W. Newman,
p. 1 8.

6 Apologia, p. 66. 7 Life of Dr. Pusey ^ vol. i. p. 233. 8 Apologia, p. 63.

ROME AND BABYLON 15

the Babylon of the Revelation ; but while at Naples, early
in 1833, he adopted the view held by many Roman
Catholic writers, and in substance sanctioned in the
notes to the Rheims New Testament, that Babylon was
the city of Rome, but not the Church of Rome. He
communicated his views on this question to his friend,
the Rev. S. Rickards : —

"A notion has struck me," he wrote, "on reading the Revelation
again and again, that the Rome there mentioned is Rome considered
as a city or a//0#, without any reference to the question whether it
be Christian or Pagan. As a seat of government, it was the first
cruel persecutor of the Church, and as such condemned to suffer
God's judgments, which had not yet been fully poured out upon it,
from the plain fact that it still exists. Babylon is gone. Rome is a
city still, and judgments await her therefore." 1

By adopting this theory, one of the greatest barriers
against reunion with the Church of Rome is removed
in the mind of any one who accepts it. The command
of God, as to Babylon the Great, is " Come out of her,
my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that
ye receive not of her plagues." ' If the Church of Rome
be identical with Babylon, this divine command, " Come
out of her," settles the whole question as to union with
her, either on the part of individuals or Churches. And
that she is Babylon has been most ably and learnedly
proved by the late Bishop Christopher Wordsworth, of
Lincoln (an old-fashioned High Churchman), in his little
book, entitled Union with Rome, which has never yet been
refuted.

Sometime before 1828, when Dr. Copleston resigned
jthe office of Provost of Oriel College, Oxford, Mr. New
man's conduct seems to have alarmed one, at least, of his
intimate friends. His brother writes : —

"The Provost of Oriel (Dr., afterwards Bishop, Copleston),
admired him [Blanco White], and invited him to join the Fellows'

1 Newman's Letters, vol. i. p. 388.

2 Rev. xviii. 4.

1 6 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

table ; but breakfast and tea he shared with us. He and my brother
[John Henry Newman], enjoyed the violin together. I gradually
heard their theological talk, which was apt to end by Blanco's sharp
warning : * Ah ! Newman ! if you follow that clue it will draw you
into Catholic error.' But I believe he meant into self-flagellation,
maceration of the body." 1

Mr. Blanco White was a converted Roman Catholic
priest of great learning, and, no doubt, he could see more
clearly than others around him in what direction Newman
was at that time moving. On this occasion White was a
true prophet. In 1829 Newman sent his mother and
sisters two sermons which he had published. In ac
knowledging their receipt his sister remarked : " We have
long since read your two sermons ; they are very High
Church."5 By the year 1831 Newman appears to
have become dissatisfied with the present Book of
Common Prayer, and wished to restore one which had
in it a considerable amount of Romanism. " You may
assure Rickards from me," he wrote to his sister, on Oct.
1 6, 1831, " that I am a reformer as much as he can be. I
should like (as far as I can understand the matter), to substi
tute the First Prayer Book of King Edward for the present
one." 3 His ideas at that time of what a reformer should
accomplish were set forth very clearly in his Apologia
Pro Vita Sua: —

"I saw," wrote Newman, "that Reformation principles were
powerless to rescue her [the Church of England]. As to leaving
her, the thought never crossed my imagination ; still, I ever kept
before me that there was something greater than the Established
Church, and that was the Church Catholic and Apostolic, set up
from the beginning, of which she was but the local presence and
organ. She was nothing, unless she was this. She must be dealt
with strongly, or she would be lost. There was need of a second
Reformation." 4

Writing from Rome, March 19, 1833, Newman told
Dr. Pusey what he even then thought of the Protestant

1 Early History of Cardinal Newman, p. 13.

2 Newman's Letters, vol. i. p. 215. * Ibid. vol. i. p. 250.
4 Apologia, p. 95.

A SECOND REFORMATION 17

Reformation. " I wish/' he wrote, " I could make up
my mind whether the 1260 years of Captivity begin
with Constantine — it seems a remarkable coincidence that
its termination should fall about on the Reformation —
(I speak from memory) — which, amid good, has been the
source of all the infidelity, the second woe, which is now
overspreading the earth." l

At about the same time Newman defined more clearly
what he then meant by " a second Reformation." " It
would be," he said, " in fact a second Reformation : a better
Reformation, for it would be a return, not to the sixteenth
century, but to the seventeenth." ' Unfortunately, as we
shall see later on, Newman's " second Reformation "
developed into a return, not merely to the seventeenth
century, but to a period anterior to the sixteenth century
Reformation.

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. i. p. 249.

2 Newman's Apologia, p. 113.

CHAPTER II

The Birth of the Oxford Movement— Newman and Froude's Interview
with Wiseman at Rome — Its deep impression on Wiseman's mind —
His bright expectations from it — Was the Tractarian Movement
born in Oxford or Rome ? — Keble's sermon on National Apostasy —
He denounces the State and exalts the Church — Archbishop Sumner
on Foreign Protestant Non-Episcopal Pastors — The Tractarians on
Church and State — Generally favourable to entire separation — Dr.
Arnold's Principles of Church Reform — Its good and objectionable
features — Newman wants to "make a row in the world" — The Con
ference at Hadleigh — The Association of Friends of the Church — Its
plans of work — Efforts to win Evangelical Churchmen — " The
seeds of revolution planted " — They wished to bring back the prin
ciples of Laud— Clerical and Lay addresses to the Archbishop of
Canterbury — The Tracts for the Times — Their Romeward tendency
— Newman called a " Papist" — Names of the writers of the Tracts
for the Times — Dr. Pusey joins the Movement — Fasting — Roman
Catholic opinion of the Tracts — Exalting the priesthood — Dr.
Arnold's faithful warning.

ON Tuesday, July 9, 1833, Mr. Newman returned to
Oxford from a prolonged visit to Italy. The Rev. R. H.
Froude, who had been his companion during a portion
of his journey, had returned some time before. " The
following Sunday/' writes Mr. Newman, "July I4th, Mr.
Keble preached the Assize sermon in the University
pulpit. It was published under the title of National
Apostasy. I have ever considered and kept the day as
the start of the religious movement of i833/'] During
their travels in Italy, Newman and Froude had two inter
views with Monsignor Wiseman at Rome, to which the
latter gentleman ever afterwards attached the highest
importance, and apparently considered as the real birth
date of the Oxford Movement. I have already, in the
ninth chapter of my Secret History of the Oxford Movement,
referred to this interview, which seems to have been kept

1 Newman's Apologia, p. 100.
18

A SECRET INTERVIEW AT ROME 19

from the knowledge of the other leaders of the Tractarian
Movement for some years after. These two gentlemen
discussed with the Monsignor the conditions upon which
they could be taken into the Church of Rome, and,
according to the testimony of one of their friends, the
Rev. William Palmer, they seem to have thought it
possible to obtain from the Papal authorities " some dis
pensation " which " would enable them to communicate
with Rome without violation of conscience " — apparently
thinking that they could thus " communicate with Rome "
while remaining as clergymen of the Church of England.
The impression produced on the mind of Wiseman by
these visits was deep and lasting. He evidently was led
to understand that a Movement towards Corporate Re
union was about to be started at Oxford, by men whom
he considered as of a " truly Catholic turn of mind ; "
and so much impressed was he by the interviews that he
determined to abandon his favourite studies and devote
himself to " the new era " which would soon dawn upon
England. Cardinal Wiseman's Roman Catholic bio
grapher relates of one of these meetings at Rome : —

" The interview left Wiseman with two vivid impressions — sparks
which the course of the Oxford Movement fanned later into a flame.
He was struck by the truly Catholic temper of mind of the two men,
and by their utter sincerity. Both these impressions were contrary
to the views current among his co-religionists alike in Rome
and] in England, who thought that Catholic sympathies in the
Anglican Church were, for the most part, purely superficial and
aesthetic. Where they were deeper, adherence to the Church of
England — then beyond question predominantly Protestant in its
religious tone — was supposed to be incompatible with sincerity.
Wiseman judged differently from this brief visit, and, with character
istic hopefulness, made up his mind that if these men represented
the rising generation at Oxford, the centre of English religious life,
great changes were in store for the country. The existence of such
opinions in Oxford itself was not, indeed, a justification of Father
Spencer's chimerical hopes. But it promised no longer the acces
sion of units only in a people of millions. A movement which was
in its degree corporate was apparently beginning among leading
minds within the Anglican Church. Such a movement must have

20 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

peculiar elements of power, resulting from its claim to be national
as well as Catholic. It appealed to English Churchmen as the
work of their friends, while the hereditary supporters of the Roman
See necessarily appeared in a measure to assail them as foes. From
this year dates the rise of a new hopefulness in Wiseman. ' From
the day of Newman and Froude's visit to me,' he wrote in 1847,
* never for an instant did I waver in my conviction that a new era
had commenced in England ... to this grand object I devoted
myself . . . the favourite studies of former years were abandoned
for the pursuit of this aim alone.' " 1

There can be no doubt that Wiseman's biographer
accurately describes his attitude towards the Oxford
Movement from the moment that he had the interview
with Newman and Froude in Rome, three months before
the avowed birth of the Movement. The biographer's
statements are confirmed by the writings of Wiseman
himself. In the preface to the second volume of his
Essays, Wiseman writes : —

" I have already alluded, in the preface to the first volume, as
well as in the body of this, to the first circumstance which turned my
attention to the wonderful movement then commenced in England
— the visit which is recorded in Froude's Remains. FROM THAT
MOMENT it took the uppermost place in my thoughts^ and became the
object of their intensest interest." 2

In a footnote to the reprint of his review of Fronde's
Remains, and written fourteen years after its appearance
in the Dublin Review, Wiseman remarks : —

" In p. 307 of the Remains, will be found an account of what
remains marked, with gratitude in my mind, as an epoch in my life
— the visit which Mr. Froude unexpectedly paid me, in company
with one [Newman] who never afterwards departed from my
thoughts, and whose eloquent pleadings for the faith have endeared
him to every Catholic heart. For many years it had been a promise
of my affection to St. Philip, that I would endeavour, should oppor
tunity be afforded me, to introduce his beautiful Institute into
England. But little could I foresee, that when I received that most
welcome visit, I was in company with its future founder. FROM THAT

1 Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman. By Wilfrid Ward, vol i. pp. 1 18, 119.

2 Wiseman's Essays on Various Subjects, vol. ii. p. vi.

WISEMAN EXPECTS GREAT THINGS 21

HOUR, however, I matched with intense interest and love the Move
ment of which I THEN caught the first glimpse. My studies changed
iheir course, the bent of my mind was altered, in the strong desire
to co-operate with the new mercies of Providence." 1

We may here well ask, in amazement, What could
Newman and Froude have told Monsignor Wiseman, at
this secret interview, which led him to alter greatly
the course of his life, to form apparently extravagant
hopes for the future, and such blessings for the
Church of Rome, as the result of their forthcoming
labours in the Church of England ? A really adequate
report of their interview will, I fear, never be given to
the public. But it is evident that these founders of the
Oxford Movement consulted with this Roman prelate as
to their plans for the future, and gave him clearly to
understand that their work would be on " Catholic " lines.
Nothing less than information of this kind would ever have
led Wiseman to look upon their call on him as a " most
welcome visit," or made him ever afterwards to think of
it as " an epoch " in his life. " From THAT HOUR," he
declares, " I watched with intense interest and love the
Movement of which / THEN caught the first glimpse."
From that memorable day, he assures us, he was certain
that " a new era had commenced in England," and he
determined to give up his " favourite studies," and instead
of following them he gave "the uppermost place in his
thoughts," and his most zealous labours to help on "with
intense interest and love the Movement " of which he
" then caught the first glimpse," revealed to him, there can
be no reasonable doubt, by Newman and Froude. These
founders of the Romeward Movement do not appear to
have, at first, consulted the Archbishops of the Church of
England. They thought, no doubt, that their schemes
would have a better chance of success if they first con
sulted a prelate of that Church which has ever been the
bitterest enemy of the Church of England. No doubt,
from their own standpoint, they acted wisely. But their
most shameful conduct naturally suggests the important

1 Wiseman's Essays on Various Subjects, vol. ii. pp. 94, 95, note.

22 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

question, Was the Oxford Movement really born in
Oxford, or had it its birth in Rome ?

Keble's sermon on National Apostasy, with which
Newman considered that the Tractarian campaign com
menced, was in reality a denunciation of the State, and
an exaltation of the Church. He mourned over the
" impatience under pastoral control," which he considered
was one of the characteristics of the day, and " a never-
failing symptom of an unchristian temper." ] He was
particularly indignant at any want of respect shown to
the " Successors of the Apostles," meaning, of course, the
Episcopally ordained clergy only. " Disrespect to the
Successors of the Apostles, as such," he exclaimed, "is an
unquestionable symptom of enmity to Him, who gave
them their commission at first, and has pledged Himself
to be with them for ever. Suppose such disrespect general
and national . . . that nation, how highly soever she may
think of her own religion and morality, stands convicted
in His sight of a direct disavowal of His sovereignty." 2
And all this respect he claimed for the clergy, quite apart
from their personal character. Apparently, no one, in
the opinion of Mr. Keble, should show any " disrespect "
to a " Successor of the Apostles," no matter what his
character might be. On this occasion Mr. Keble took the
gloomiest view of the condition of the country, affirming
that it " is fast becoming hostile to the Church, and
cannot therefore long be the friend of God " 3 — an
assertion which implies that no Dissenter, who is hostile
to the Church of England, can be " the friend of God."
He defined the " Church," in this sermon, as tl the laity, as
well as the clergy in their three orders — the whole body
of Christians united, according to the will of Jesus Christ,
under the Successors of the Apostles."4 From this it
manifestly follows that the " whole body of Christians "
are united only under those " Successors of the Apostles "
who are divided into "three orders;" and therefore no non-

1 National Apostasy Considered. By John Keble, M.A., p. 18. Oxford:
Parker. 1833.

2 Ibid. p. 1 8. 3 Ibid. p. 20. 4 Ibid. p. 21.

NON-EPISCOPAL CHURCHES 23

Episcopalian body can possibly be any part of the visible
Church of God at all. This sermon stamps the Tractarian
Movement from its commencement as narrow-minded
and bigoted; and void of true Catholicity. The whole
sermon was a glorification of the clerical order at the
expense of the State.

It is refreshing to turn from such assertions as those
of Keble to the broad-minded and Christian charity of
Dr. J. B. Sumner, Archbishop of Canterbury, who, re
plying to the Brighton Protestant Defence Committee, on
October 13, 1851, said: —

"It would as little represent my sentiments, as it would ill
become my station, if I should be suspected of undervaluing the
perfect constitution of the Church of England. It is our great
privilege to enjoy apostolical discipline, together with apostolical
doctrine. But we do not disparage these advantages when we
acknowledge our conviction that foreign Protestants who teach
apostolical doctrine though not under apostolical discipline, may
yet be owned of God as faithful Ministers of His Word and Sacra
ments, and enjoy His blessing on their labours."1

And there was surely much wisdom in what the late
Duke of Argyll (a Presbyterian) said at a meeting in
London in May 1851: — "Remember too," he said, "that
in after times, when influences come to operate upon the
character of the English Church, similar to those which
you are dreading now, in the latter end of the reign of
Elizabeth, and of the succeeding Stuarts, then was the
time when there was a withdrawal of sympathy from the
other non-episcopal communions. You will find as an
historical fact that the feeling of sympathy with other
Protestant communions, non-episcopal, was coincident
with the best and most Protestant times of the Church
of England, whilst the withdrawal of that sympathy was
coincident with times when Romish tendencies and Romish
influences began to invade that Church." 2

It seems to have been forgotten in the present day,
that many of the leaders of the Tractarian party were

1 Guardian, October 29, 1851, p. 761.

2 Gttardian, May 14, 1851, p. 348.

24 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

from its very birth favourable to the entire separation of
the Church of England from State control. Mr. F. W.
Newman tells us that, on one occasion, when he visited his
brother, Dr. Newman, at Birmingham, soon after the
Colenso Case was ended, the future Cardinal said to
him : —

'"When in 1833 we met to start the Tracts for the Times, we
thought it only prudent to be frank to one another, and we all
submitted to free questioning on every important subject : among
them, the Union of Church and State. To our astonishment we
found that, one and all, we desired entire separation. The book
on Scotch Episcopalianism (ascribed to Archbishop Whately) had
converted us.' 'Is this a secret?' asked I. 'Not at all/ was his
reply, ' tell it as widely as you choose.' " l

I do not wonder that Mr. F. W. Newman adds, in
relating this anecdote : — " I am amused to find, that while
the clergy were looking to the Puseyites as their defence
against the formidable Dissenters, those very Puseyites
were on the side of the foe." In his Apologia, Newman
admits that Whately fixed in his mind " those anti-Eras-
tian views of Church polity which were one of the most
prominent features of the Tractarian Movement," and that
his work on Scotch Episcopalianism " had a gradual but
a deep effect" upon his mind.2 And yet, on August 14,
1833, Mr. R. H. Froude was able to announce that New
man had agreed to a declaration containing the following
clauses : — " IV. We protest against all efforts directed
to the subversion of existing institutions, or to the separa
tion of Church and State ; V. We think it a duty steadily
to contemplate and provide for the contingency of such
a separation." Mr. Froude added : — " Keble demurs to
these, because he thinks the union of Church and State, as
it is now understood, actually sinful." 3 The Rev. William
Palmer, of Worcester College, Oxford, who was for several
years a leader of the Tractarian party until its rapid

1 The Early History of Cardinal Newman^ p. 37.

2 4*0logia, pp. 69, 71.

8 A Collection of Papers Connected with the Theological Movement of 1833.
By the Hon. and Rev. A. P. Percival, 2nd edition, p. 12.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 25

progress towards Romanism alarmed him, states that at
the commencement of the movement " there was some
difference of opinion on the question of the union of
Church and State, which some of our friends seemed
inclined to regard as an evil ; while I (and perhaps
another), was desirous to maintain this union." This
statement shows that only one or perhaps two of the
party were in favour of the union of Church and State.
Mr. Froude himself seems to have anticipated a separation,
and to have looked forward to it with hope. Writing
from Rome, March 16, 1833, he remarks: — " To be
sure it would be a great thing to have a true Church in
Germany ; in Scotland it seems to be thriving, and if the
State will but kick us off we may yet do in England." 2
In the following August Froude wrote to another friend
mentioning that a sermon which he had written had
met with strong approbation from an unnamed gentle
man, and adding : —

" My subject is the duty of contemplating the contingency of a
separation between Church and State, and of providing against it,
i.e. by studying the principles of ecclesiastical subordination, so
that when the law of the land ceases to enforce this, we may have a
law within ourselves to supply its place." 3

Although, as we have seen, early in August, Newman
had agreed to a protest against efforts being put forth for
" the separation of Church and State," yet, on the 3ist
of the same month, he wrote a letter to an intimate friend,
Mr. ]. W. Bowden, in which, by contrast, his double-
dealing is clearly revealed : —

" Not," wrote Newman, " that I would advocate a separation of
Church and State unless the nation does more tyrannical things
against us ; but I do feel I should be glad if it were done and over,
much as the nation would lose by it, for I fear the Church is being
corrupted by the union." 4

1 Narrative of Events Connected with the Tracts for the Times. By William
Palmer, edition 1883, p. 103.

2 Froude's Remains, vol. i. p. 302.

3 Ibid. p. 323.

4 Newman's Letters, vol. i. p. 449.

26 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

What the Tractarian party, as a whole, seemed to
desire in the relations of Church and State was, perhaps,
accurately expressed in No. 59 of the Tracts for the Times,
dated April 25, 1835, and written by Mr. R. H. Froude.
It pleads for "State Protection" for the Church, and
protests against " State Interference " with its concerns.
The early Tractarians were alarmed at what seemed to
them the increasing encroachments of the State on the
province of the Church. They believed that the Govern
ment of the day were in favour of a Revision of the
Liturgy with a view to a comprehension of Dissenters
within the pale of the Established Church ; and they were
certainly made extremely angry by the publication of Dr.
Arnold's pamphlet on Principles of Church Reform, which
was issued from the press early in 1833, and obtained a
very large circulation.1 It created a great sensation by its
daring proposal to "extinguish Dissent" "by comprehen
sion." Apart from the main object of the pamphlet, it
contained several expressions which must have been pecu
liarly distasteful to the rising party of Sacerdotalists. In
it Dr. Arnold declared that Christianity " has provided
in the strongest manner against superstition and priest
craft " ; 2 and he expressed himself as " ashamed " of " the
petty tyranny of Laud " ; 3 affirming that " the mischievous
confusion of the Christian ministry with a priesthood, that
anything can be lawful for a Christian layman which is
unlawful for a Christian minister," was " a most ground
less superstition." 4

" I may be allowed to express an earnest hope," wrote Dr.
Arnold, "that if ever an union with Dissenters be attempted, and
it should thus become necessary to alter our present terms of com
munion, the determining on the alterations to be made should never
be committed to a Convocation, or to any commission consisting of
clergymen alone. . . . Laymen have no right to shift from their own
shoulders an important part of Christian responsibility ; and as no
educated layman individually is justified in taking his own faith upon

1 Principles of Church Reform. By Thomas Arnold, D.D., Head Master of
Rugby School. London : B. Fellowes. 1833.

2 Ibid, 2nd edition, p. n. 3 Ibid. p. 20. 4 Ibid. p. 62.

DR. ARNOLD ON CHURCH REFORM 27

trust from a clergyman, so neither are the laity, as a body, warranted
in taking the national faith in the same way. If ever it should be
thought right to appoint commissioners to revise the Articles, it is of
paramount importance, in order to save the plan from utter failure,
that a sufficient number of laymen, distinguished for their piety and
enlarged views, should be added to the ecclesiastical members of
the commission." l

I do not wonder that such assertions, and such pro
posals, made the Tractarians furious with Dr. Arnold. It
must be admitted that there were valid objections against
certain portions of his scheme of Church Reform. What
he really aimed at was to turn the Church of England
into a kind of ecclesiastical Noah's Ark, in which its
inmates, however, would remain untamed. A plan for
including the orthodox Nonconformists only in the Estab
lishment would no doubt have secured the support of
many members of the Church of England. In the reign
of William III. a scheme of comprehension was drawn up
by a Royal Commission, consisting of the Archbishop of
York, the Bishops of London, Winchester, St. Asaph,
Rochester, Carlisle, Exeter, Salisbury, Bangor, and Chester,
and a large number of lesser Dignitaries and Divines ;
but unfortunately it was eventually defeated. Dr. Arnold's
scheme was far more Latitudinarian than that which was
proposed in the reign of William III. ; for it aimed at
including Unitarians and Romanists also ; and treated
Christian doctrine as a matter of little or no importance.

" Might it not be possible," asked Dr. Arnold, " to constitute a
Church thoroughly national, thoroughly united, thoroughly Christian,
which should allow great varieties of opinion, and of ceremonies,
and forms of worship, according to the various knowledge, and
habits, and tempers of its members, while it truly held one common
faith, and trusted in one common Saviour, and worshipped one
common God ? " 2

As to Quakers, Roman Catholics, and Unitarians, Dr.
Arnold admitted that their " differences appear to offer
greater difficulty " than those amongst ordinary Dis-

1 Arnold's Principles of Church Reform, pp. 80, 8 1.

2 Ibid, p, 28.

28 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

senters ; and that so long as these three particular sects
" preserve exactly their present character, it would seem
impracticable to comprehend them i^ any national Christian
Church." But, nevertheless, he was full of hope that
these difficulties would be removed. " Is it/' he asked,
" beyond hope, that many who are now Roman Catholics,
would ere long unite themselves religiously as well as
politically with the rest of their countrymen ? Lastly,
with regard to the Unitarians, it seems to me that in
their case an alteration of our present terms of com
munion would be especially useful," provided they (the
Unitarians) would, as to our Saviour, " call him Lord and
God." 1 In a comprehensive Church of this kind, Dr.
Arnold, however, insisted on the necessity of an Episcopal
form of government, though not as a matter of divine right.
" It will be observed," he wrote, "that the whole of this
scheme supposes an Episcopal government, and requires
that all ministers should receive Episcopal ordination." '

Dr. Arnold's scheme of Church Reform was attacked
from all quarters. His biographer, Dean Stanley, states
that : " Dissenters objected to its attacks upon what he
considered their sectarian narrowness ; the clergy of the
Establishment to its supposed Latitudinarianism ; its advo
cacy of large reforms repelled the sympathy of many
Conservatives ; its advocacy of the importance of religious
institutions repelled the sympathy of many Liberals." 3 It
is remarkable that, notwithstanding so much violent opposi
tion from so many quarters, nearly all the plans of Church
Reform laid down in Dr. Arnold's pamphlet, excepting that
for Church comprehension, have since been adopted, many
of them with the hearty approbation of the Ritualists.
He pleaded for an increased number of Bishops, but
without seats in the House of Lords ; the " institution of
diocesan general assemblies " now realised in Diocesan
Conferences ; for the ordination of Clergymen too poor
to pay for a University education ; for parochial

1 Arnold's Principles of Church Reform^ pp. 36, 37.

2 Ibid. p. 56.

3 Stanley's Life of Dr. Arnold. Ward, Lock, & Co.'s edition, p. 190.

"WE MUST MAKE A ROW" 2Q

councils; the removal of sinecures and pluralities ; the
opening of our Universities to Dissenters ; and that " the
people should have a more direct check than they have
at present on the nomination of their ministers/' which
yet, unfortunately, remains to be realised.

And so, nominally to oppose the Latitudinarian spirit
of the age, but in reality to build up a High Church
Movement opposed to Protestantism, Keble, Newman,
Froude, Percival, and their disciples banded themselves
together into a party. Meeting the Rev. Isaac Williams
one day soon after their work began, Newman said to
him, " Isaac, we must make a row in the world ! " l No
one can now deny that the Oxford Movement has made
" a row in the world." It has torn the Church of
England asunder, broken up its peace, and rilled it with
quarrels and dissensions. Those who begin a " row "
are to be held primarily responsible for it. How the
work began is related by the Rev. William Palmer :—

" I had not," he writes, " been very intimately acquainted with
Mr. Newman and Mr. Froude, and was scarcely known to Mr.
Keble or Mr. Percival, when our deep sense of the wrongs sus
tained by the Church in the suppression of Bishoprics, and our
feeling of the necessity of doing whatever was in our power to
arrest the tide of evil, brought us together in the summer of 1833.
It was at the beginning of long vacation (when, Mr. Froude being
almost the only occupant of Oriel College, we frequently met in
the common room) that the resolution to unite and associate in
defence of the Church, of her violated liberties, and neglected
principles, arose. This resolution was immediately acted on ; and
while I corresponded with Mr. Rose, Mr. Froude communicated
our design to Mr. Keble. Mr. Newman soon took part in our
deliberations, on his return from the Continent. The particular
course which we were to adopt became the subject of much and
anxious thought; and as it was deemed advisable to confer with
Mr. Rose on so important a subject, Mr. Froude and myself, after
some correspondence, visited him at Hadleigh, in July, where I
also had the pleasure of becoming personally acquainted with Mr.
Percival, who had been invited to take part in our deliberations.
The conference at Hadleigh, which continued for nearly a week,

1 Autobiography of Isaac Williams, p. 63.

30 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

concluded without any specific arrangements being entered into,
though we all concurred as to the necessity of some mode of com
bined action, and the expediency of circulating tracts or publica
tions on ecclesiastical subjects, intended to inculcate sound and
enlightened principles of attachment to the Church. On our return
to Oxford, frequent conferences took place at Oriel College, between
Mr. Froude, Mr. Newman, Mr. Keble, and the writer, in which
various plans were discussed, and in which especial attention was
given to the preparation of some formulary of agreement as a basis
for our Association." *

Hadleigh was, indeed, a strange place for holding
such a conference. "The town of Hadleigh/' says Foxe,
" was one of the first that received the Word of God in
all England, at the preaching of Master Thomas Bilney,
by whose industry the Gospel of Christ had such gracious
success, and took such root there, that a great number of
that parish became exceeding well learned in the Holy
Scriptures, as well women as men . . . that the whole
town seemed rather a university of the learned, than a
town of cloth-making or labouring people ; and, what most
is to be commended, they were for the most part faithful
followers of God's Word in their living." 2 At this period
Rowland Taylor was rector of Hadleigh, a holy and godly
man in life and doctrine, and a very decided Protestant.
Soon after Queen Mary came to the throne, hearing his
church bells ringing one day, he went into the building
to ascertain the cause. There, to his utter astonishment,
he found that his honest communion table had been
changed for a Popish altar, and a priest was actually
saying Mass there at the moment, surrounded by armed
men. Thereupon Dr. Taylor said to the priest, in the
forcible language common in those days, " Thou devil !
Who made thee so bold to enter into this Church of
Christ to profane and defile it with this abominable
idolatry ? I command thee, thou Popish wolf, in the
name of God to avoid hence, and not to presume here,
with such Popish idolatry, to poison Christ's flock." 3 For

1 Palmer's Narrative of Events, pp. 101, 102.

2 Foxe's Acts and Monuments, vol. vi. p. 676, edition 1859.

3 Ibid. p. 679.

THE HADLEIGH CONFERENCE 31

faithful conduct like this Dr. Taylor was committed to
prison, and put upon his trial. The principal charges
against him were his denial of the doctrines of the Real
Presence and the Sacrifice of the Mass, both of which
doctrines are now commonly taught by the men who
are the successors of those who, by a strange coincidence,
met in Hadleigh Rectory in the month of July 1833.
And was it not strange indeed, remembering what has
passed since then, that in the course of a special sermon
preached in Hadleigh church during this High Church
conference, the preacher should have said : " I stand
where the Martyr, Rowland Taylor, stood [i.e. in the
self-same pulpit from which Taylor preached the Pro
testant religion]. May God in His mercy give grace
to the clergy of this day to follow his example, and, if
need be, to testify for the truth, even unto the death." 1
In the very spot where the Protestant Reformation began
in that part of the country, the anti-Reformation Move
ment first erected its head. What the nature of the
work done at the Hadleigh Conference was we learn
from a statement of Mr. Newman made late in his life.
He remarks that : —

"Between July 25 and 29 a meeting was held at Mr. Rose's
Rectory at Hadleigh, at which were present Mr. Palmer, Mr. Froude,
Mr. Percival, and Mr. Rose. Mr. Keble was to have been there,
but there is evidence that he was not. Mr. Newman was not there.
There appears to have been some division of opinion at the meeting,
but two points were agreed on : to fight for the doctrine of the
Apostolical Succession, and for the integrity of the Prayer Book.
And two things followed from it — the plan of associating for the
defence of the Church, and the Tracts for the Times. Mr. Newman
was not at the meeting, but he had already suggested the plan of
the Association to Froude and Keble, with whom he was in close
correspondence; and, as soon as the determination was taken to
move, he, with Mr. Palmer, took the labouring oars in the effort
which followed." 2

There was another work undertaken at this Hadleigh

1 Percival's Collection of Paper s> p. 43.

2 Newman's Letter s> vol. i. pp. 431, 432.

32 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

Conference. It was that of revising a new Catechism for
the laity, which was subsequently published under the
title of The Churchman's Manual. Mr. Percival, in his
Collection of Papers, reprints the whole of this noteworthy
document, in which the chief feature is the doctrine of
Apostolical Succession. The attitude of the new party
towards Dissenters is indicated by the following unchari
table statement : —

"In what respect do all the Protestant Dissenters differ from
the Church ?

11 A. Each sect has some point of difference peculiar to itself:
but they all differ in this, namely, that their teachers can produce
no commission from Christ to exercise the office of Ministers of the
Gospel. These have departed from the Apostles' fellowship."

From the commencement of the Oxford Movement its
proceedings were conducted with a considerable amount
of secrecy. Ample evidence in proof of this assertion is
given in the first chapter of my Secret History of the Oxford
Movement, to which I must refer my readers, since I am
anxious, as far as possible, to avoid travelling over the
same ground a second time.

After the Hadleigh Conference the friends of the cause
held several private meetings at Oriel College, Oxford, for
the purpose of maturing their plans. Eventually it was
decided to form " The Association of Friends of the
Church." The founders of this Association pledged them
selves to inculcate on all committed to their charge "the
inestimable privilege of communion with our Lord through
the successors of the Apostles " ; to " provide and circulate
books and tracts which may tend to familiarise the ima
ginations of men to the idea of an Apostolical Commis
sion " ; to revive " among Churchmen the practice of
daily Common Prayer, and more frequent participation
of the Lord's Supper " ; and " to resist any attempt that
may be made to alter the Liturgy on insufficient autho
rity, i.e. without the exercise of the free and deliberate
judgment of the Church on the alterations proposed." It
will thus be seen that the party did not object in itself to

"THE FRIENDS OF THE CHURCH'* 33

any alterations, or Revision of the Liturgy, but only to
such as were made on " insufficient authority." l

The intention of the founders of the new Society was
to form an organisation which should extend through the
whole of England. For this purpose they issued a series
of " Suggestions for the Formation of an Association of
Friends of the Church/' to be composed of both clergy
and laity. In these Suggestions they asserted that, tf The
privilege possessed by parties hostile to her [the Church
of England] doctrine, ritual, and polity, of legislating for
her, their avowed and increasing efforts against her, their
close alliance with such as openly reject the Christian
faith, and the lax and unsound principles of many who
profess and even think themselves her friends," were
"calculated to inspire the true members and friends of
the Church with the deepest uneasiness." The question
of keeping up the Establishment was pushed on one side
as of comparatively little importance. "The most obvious
dangers," said the Suggestions, " are those which impend
over the Church as an Establishment ; but to these it is
not here proposed to direct attention. However necessary
it may be on the proper occasion to resist all measures
which threaten the security of Ecclesiastical property
and privileges, still it is felt that there are perils of a
character more serious than those which beset the politi
cal rights and temporalities of the clergy." A brief state
ment of " The Objects of the Association " followed the
Suggestions. They were as follows : —

" i. To maintain pure and inviolate the doctrines, the services,
and the discipline of the Church ; that is, to withstand all change
which involves the denial and suppression of doctrine, a departure
from primitive practice in religious offices, or innovation upon the
Apostolical prerogatives, order, and commission of bishops, priests,
and deacons.

" 2. To afford Churchmen an opportunity of exchanging their
sentiments, and co-operating together on a large scale."2

It will be observed that these were " objects " which

1 Percival's Collection of Letters, pp. 13, 14.

2 Palmer's Narrative of Events, pp. 104, 105.

34 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

might well receive the countenance and aid of Evangelical
Churchmen. The real objects of the wire-pullers were, in
it, kept carefully out of sight, in accordance, no doubt,
with that doctrine of " Reserve in Communicating Religious
Knowledge," which was so widely adopted by the Tract-
arians from the commencement of their Movement. On
September 18, 1833, Newman informed Froude : " Pal
mer is about to make a journey to Hook and others, and
has sounded the Evangelicals of Liverpool." ] On Novem
ber 14, 1833, one of the leaders of the party wrote to a
Member of Parliament, with reference to the Association :
— " We want to unite all the Church, orthodox and
Evangelical; clergy, nobility, and people in maintenance
of our doctrine and polity." ' A little over two months
before this letter was written, the Rev. J. B. Mozley
wrote to his sister (September 3, 1833) a confidential
letter, in which he revealed the real object of what he
termed a " Society established for the dissemination of
High Church principles."3 With his letter Mr. Mozley
enclosed some of the Tracts, which he described as "the
first production of the Society," and added this signi
ficant opinion : — " The fact is, we must not be very
scrupulous as to views or particular as to sentiments in
the distribution of these things."

The promoters of the Association at once set to work to
push it with all the energy of young and enthusiastic men.
They visited various parts of the country, taking with them
copies of an address to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to
be signed by the clergy. " There was indeed/' says Mr.
Palmer, " much misapprehension abroad as to our motives,
and we had no means of explaining those motives, without
the danger of giving publicity to our proceedings, which,
in the then state of the public mind on Church matters,
might have led to dangerous results." 4 Meetings of Church
men in support of the work of the Association were held
in various towns, including York, Liverpool, Nottingham,

1 Newman's Letters, vol. i. p. 458.

2 Palmer's Narrative of Events, p. 212.

3 Mozley's Letters, p. 33.

4 Palmer's Narrative of Events, p. 108.

NEWMAN AND THE EVANGELICALS 35

Cheltenham, Northampton, Derby, Plymouth, Dorchester,
Poole, Norwich, Newcastle, Hull, Bristol, Bath, and
Gloucester. But, says Mr. Palmer, " so great was the
apprehension at this time, that they did not venture at first
to assemble openly, for the purpose of recording their
attachment to the Established Church ; admission was in
general restricted to those friends who were provided
with tickets." ] Enthusiastic friends rapidly joined the
Association, but some of them had their doubts about
portions of the policy adopted. The Rev. S. Rickards,
for instance, wrote to Newman, on September 6, 1833 : —
"As far as my opinion goes for anything, I disapprove of
the concealment of names." * Two days later Newman
boasted to a friend of the cause : —

" We have set up Church Societies all over the kingdom, or at
least mean to do so. Already the seeds of revolution are planted
in Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Devonshire, Gloucestershire, Kent, and
Suffolk. Our object is to maintain the doctrine of the Apostolical
Succession and save the Liturgy from illegal alterations. Hitherto
we have had great success. ... It is no slight thing to be made
the instrument of handing down the principles of Laud till the time
comes. . . . "8

There is here a provoking omission in Newman's
letter, as printed in his Letters and Correspondence. What
"time" did he refer to, when he wrote "till the time
come " ? And what further would happen when the
"time" came? Newman's object was evidently that of
propagating a system which had ever been hateful to Pro
testants, whether they were Evangelicals or not. And
yet, with the cunning worthy of a Jesuit, he could boast to
his friend Froude, two months after, that his real ambition
was to bring back Laudianism : —

" Evangelicals, as I anticipated, are struck with the ' Law of
Liberty ' and the ' Sin of the Church ' [referring, no doubt, to
expressions in the eighth of the Tracts for the Times^ issued a
few days previously]. The subject of Discipline, too (I cannot
doubt), will take them. Surely my game lies among them." 4

1 Palmer's Narrative of Events, p. 113. 2 Newman's Letters ', vol. i. p. 453.
3 Ibid. p. 454. 4 Ibid. p. 479.

36 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

The men who were sent out into various parts of the
country to push the new Association received " instruc
tions " for their guidance, written by Newman, headed
" Objects of your Journey." They included the follow
ing : — « To form local Associations. To instruct the corre
sponding member. To sound men on certain questions."
These emissaries were termed by Newman "Propagandists,"
and with the subtlety which characterised him all his life,
he advised them thus : — " If men are afraid of Apostolical
ground [i.e. the ground of Apostolical Succession], then be
cautious of saying much about it. If desirous, then re
commend prudence and silence upon it at present." ]

The Clerical Address to the Archbishop of Canterbury
promoted by the Association was extensively signed, and
when it was presented to his Grace, on February 5, 1834,
it had received no fewer than 6530 signatures. It was
presented by a deputation, which included the Deans of
Lincoln, Carlisle, and Chichester ; the Archdeacons of
Canterbury, London, Middlesex, Stowe, Bedford, Sarum,
Brecon, Taunton, Rochester, and St. Albans. Archdeacon
Froude, father of Rev. R. H. Froude, termed the address
a " milk and water production " ; 2 but as it played such an
important part in the early history of the Oxford Move
ment, I think it well to reproduce it here. It was as
follows : —

"We, the undersigned Clergy of England and Wales, are de
sirous of approaching your Grace with the expression of our venera
tion for the sacred office, to which by Divine Providence you have
been called, of our respect and affection for your personal character
and virtues, and of our gratitude for the firmness and discretion
which you have evinced in a season of peculiar difficulty and
danger.

"At a time, when events are daily passing before us which mark
the growth of Latitudinarian sentiments, and the ignorance which
prevails concerning the spiritual claims of the Church, we are espe
cially anxious to lay before your Grace the assurance of our devoted
adherence to the Apostolical doctrine and polity of the Church over
which you preside, and of which we are ministers ; and our deep-

1 Newman's Letters, vol. ii. p. 4. 2 Ibid. vol. i. p. 492.

CLERICAL AND LAY ADDRESSES 37

rooted attachment to that venerable Liturgy, in which she has em
bodied, in the language of ancient piety, the Orthodox and Primitive
Faith.

" And while we most earnestly deprecate that restless desire of
change which would rashly innovate in spiritual matters, we are not
less solicitous to declare our firm conviction, that should anything,
from the lapse of years or altered circumstances, require renewal or
correction, your Grace, and our other spiritual rulers, may rely upon
the cheerful co-operation and dutiful support of the Clergy in carry
ing into effect any measures that may tend to revive the discipline
of ancient times, to strengthen the connection between the Bishops,
Clergy and people, and to promote the purity, the efficiency, and
the unity of the Church."

This Clerical Address to the Archbishop was followed
by one from the laity of the Church of England, which
was written by Mr. Joshua Watson and signed by the im
mense number of 230,000 heads of families. In this
Address occurred an expression of approval of the alliance
between the Church and State, which was conspicuous by
its absence from that which emanated from the clergy.

" In the preservation, therefore," said the Lay Address, " of this
our National Church in the integrity of her rights and privileges, and
in her alliance with the State, we feel that we have an interest no less
real and no less direct than her immediate ministers ; and we accord
ingly avow our firm determination to do all that in us lies, in our
several stations, to uphold unimpaired in its security and efficiency
that Establishment which we have received as the richest legacy of
our forefathers."1

Although Newman became one of the earliest members
of the " Association of Friends of the Church/' his heart
was never in it. He felt himself in fetters while connected
with it. His imperious will would brook no control.
"We shall/' he wrote to the Rev. C. Girdlestone, " be truly
glad of your co-operation, as of one who really fears God
and wishes to serve Him ; but if you will not, we will march
past you." 2 And so he "marched past" the chief friends
of the Association, who were anxious to move forward at
a slower pace than suited his impetuous temper. He

1 Churton's Memoir of Joshua Watson, p. 208, 2nd edition.
a The Early History of Cardinal Newman, p. 77.

38 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

finally broke away from the Association, which soon after
came to an end.

The first great work undertaken by Newman after the
Hadleigh Conference was the commencing of the now
well-known Tracts for the Times. The first of the series
was issued on September 9, 1833, and the last on January
25, 1841. Of these, twenty were issued before the close
of 1833, thirty in the year 1834, twenty in 1835, seven in
1836, five in 1837, three in 1838, one in 1839, two in
1840, and two in 1841. Several of the series were not
really " Tracts " at all, but large volumes ; Tract LXXXL
ran into 424 pages. At first they were not offered
for sale to the public. They were, says Mr. Palmer,
" privately printed and dispersed amongst friends and
correspondents in the country." J " Probably," writes
Cardinal Newman's sister, "they never got into circula
tion through ordinary trade machinery. They were read
by thinkers and talkers, they were widely distributed,
and universally discussed ; but at a vast expense of money,
trouble, and worry to the writers, and with real difficulty
to the readers, who could rarely procure them through the
ordinary channels." : It was not long before they pro
duced a spirit of well-founded suspicion. One clergyman
wrote about them : — " They have been the cause of more
injury to the united operations of the Church than can
well be calculated " ; while another uttered the much
needed warning : — " We must take care how we aid the
cause of Popery." J Even the earliest of the Tracts fully
justified the fears of the enlightened friends of the Church
of England. In Trad I. the Non-Episcopal Churches
were declared to have no validly ordained Ministers, and
the doctrine of " Apostolical Succession " was taught in
unmistakable terms. The Tract was addressed to the
clergy, to whom Newman said : — " We must necessarily
consider none to be really ordained who have not thus
been ordained" — i.e. by Bishops. While Non-Episcopal
Ministers were thus to be brought down to the level of

1 Palmer's Narrative of Events, p. 120. z Newman's Letters, vol. ii. p. 44,

8 Palmer's Narrative of Events, pp. 226, 227.

THE "TRACTS FOR THE TIMES" 39

ordinary laymen, the Bishops and the priests were to
exalt themselves as far above ordinary mortals. tf Exalt,"
he exclaimed to the clergy, " our Holy Fathers the Bishops,
as the Representatives of the Apostles, and the Angels of
the Churches; and magnify your office, as being ordained
by them to take part in their Ministry." In the third
Tract Newman objected to " Alterations in the Liturgy,"
not, however, on the ground that revision was evil in
itself, but because of the dangers which at that time would
have attended it. In a note to the fourth Tract Mr. Keble
discussed the question, " Where is the competent authority
for making alterations " in the Liturgy ? And he answered
it negatively only : — " It does not lie in the British Legis
lature." : In the tenth Tract the Bishops were raised
almost to an equality with the Apostles. " In one sense
they [the Apostles] are still alive ; I mean, they did not
leave the world without appointing persons to take their
place ; and these persons [' the Bishops '] represent them,
and may be considered with reference to us, as if
they were the Apostles." 3 With the Bishops the clergy
must be exalted also. "Then you [the laity] will honour
us [the clergy]," says this Tract, tl as those (if I may
say so) who are intrusted with the keys of heaven
and hell, ... . as intrusted with the awful and mys
terious privilege of dispensing Christ's Body and
Blood." This last sentence was, I believe, the first in
which the Tractarians taught the Real Presence. I do not
wonder that directly after this Tract was issued, the Tract
arians " were called heretics, Papists," as Newman admits
in a letter which he wrote on December 15, i833,5 and
it is not astonishing even to learn that some persons called
Newman " a Papist " to his face.6 To a friend, who re
monstrated with him for his language in Tract X., he
candidly acknowledged : — " In confidence to a friend, I
can only admit it was imprudent, for I do think we have
most of us dreadfully low notions of the Blessed Sacra-

1 Tracts for the Timesy No. I. pp. 3, 4.

2 Ibid. No. IV. p. 8. 3 Ibid. No. X. p. 2. 4 Ibid. pp. 5, 6.
6 Newman's Letters^ vol. ii. p. 8. 8 Ibid. p. 10.

40 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

ment. I expect to be called a Papist when my opinions
are known." Startling, then, as Newman's opinion was,
as expressed in Tract X., that publication only revealed a
portion of what he really believed. His full faith was
held in reserve, to be revealed on some more auspicious
occasion.

It may be useful to mention here the names of the
writers of the Tracts for the Times, and the Tracts for which
each was responsible. My authority for this list is the
Appendix to the third volume of the Life of Dr. Pusey.
The Rev. J. H. Newman wrote Nos. i, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10,
n, 19, 20, 21, 31, 33, 34, 38, 41, 45, 47, 71, 73, 74, 75,
76, 79, 82, 83, 85, 88, and 90. The Rev. ]. Keble wrote
Nos. 4, 13, 40, 52, 54, 57, 60, and 89. The Rev. Thomas
Keble, Nos. 12, 22, 43, and part of 84, the other part
being written by the Rev. G. Prevost. The Rev. R. H.
Froude wrote Nos. 9, 59, and 63. Mr. ]. W. Bowden (a
layman) wrote Nos. 5, 29, 30, 56, and 58. The Rev. Dr.
Pusey wrote Nos. 18, 66, 67, 68, 69, 77, and 81. Mr.
Alfred Menzies, No. 14. The Rev. B. Harrison, Nos.
1 6, 17, 24, and 49. The Rev. R. F. Wilson, No. 51.
The Rev. A. Buller, No. 61. The Rev. C. P. Eden, No.
32. The Rev. H. E. Manning (afterwards Cardinal
Manning), part of No. 78, the other part being by the
Rev. C. Marriott. The Rev. Isaac Williams, Nos. 80, 86,
and 87. The Rev. A. P. Percival, Nos. 23, 35, and 36.
Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 37, 39, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 53, 55,
62, 64, 65, 70, and 72, were reprints from old authors.

Next to Newman and Keble the most noteworthy of
all the Tract writers was Dr. Pusey. He did not join the
Movement at its commencement, and, when he did join,
the fact was for a time kept a secret from the public.
As early as November 7, 1833, Newman was able to
announce to Froude that " Pusey circulates Tracts'' 2
On November 13111 he was able to tell another friend of
the cause that Pusey had joined them, but that his name
" must not be mentioned as of our party " ; 3 while on

1 Newman's Letters, vol. i. p. 490.

2 Ibid. p. 476. 3 Ibid, p. 482>

PUSEY JOINS THE TRACTARIANS 4!

December iqth he was able to communicate the good
news to Mr. F. Rogers (afterwards Lord Blackford) : —
" I have a most admirable Tract from Pusey, but his
name must not yet be mentioned." l At length, however,
Pusey was drawn into the net, and became publicly known
as connected with the Tractarians, and this is how it
seems to have come about, as related by the Rev. Isaac
Williams : —

" I had," writes Williams, " up to this time no acquaintance with
Pusey, but he would (now that we had lost Froude from Oxford)
join Newman and myself in our walks. They had been Fellows of
Oriel together, and Newman was the senior. But Pusey's presence
always checked his lighter and unrestrained mood; and I was
myself silenced by so awful a person. Yet I always found in him
something most congenial to myself — a nameless something which
was wanting even in Newman, and, I might almost add, even in
Keble. But Pusey at this time was not one of us, and I have some
recollection of a conversation which was the occasion of his joining
us. He said, smiling to Newman and wrapping his gown around
him, as he used to do, 'I think you are too hard upon the "Peculiars,"
as you call them (i.e. the Low Church party) ; you should conciliate
them. I am thinking of writing a letter myself with that purpose,'
or rather I think it was of printing a letter which had been the
result of private correspondence. 'Well,' said Newman, 'suppose
you let us have it for one of the Tracts ? ' ' Oh, no,' said Pusey, ' I
will not be one of you.' This was said in a playful manner, and
before we parted Newman said, ' Suppose you let us have that letter
of yours, which you intend writing, and attach your own name or
signature to it ? You would then not be mixed up with us, or be in
any way responsible for the Tracts' 'Well,' Pusey said at last, 'if
you will let me do that, I will.' It was this circumstance of Pusey
attaching his initials to that Tract that furnished the Record and the
Low Church party with his name, which they at once attached to
us all." 2

Mr. Williams seems to think that it was Pusey's Tract
on Baptism which was the subject of conversation on this
occasion, but in this his memory must have been at fault,
for Pusey's initials were placed on Tract XVIII. (the first
he wrote), which was issued on December 21, 1833,

1 Newman's Letters, vol. ii. p. 9.

2 Autobiography of Isaac Williams, pp. 70-72.

42 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

while the first of those he wrote on Baptism was not
published until August 24, 1835 — one year and eight
months after. This first of the Tracts written by Pusey,
was entitled " Thoughts on the Benefits of the System of
Fasting, Enjoined by Our Church." In urging upon his
readers the observance of Fasting Dr. Pusey was, to a
considerable extent, on common ground with Evangelical
Churchmen, and even \vith Puritans, though he attached
greater value to the practice than they have done. He
quoted the Church's Homily of Fasting in support of his
views, but omitted from his extracts some cautions which
are, perhaps, as necessary for these times as when they
were first put forth, such, for instance, as the following : —

" To fast then, with this persuasion of mind, that our fasting and
other good works can make us good, perfect, and just men, and
finally bring us to heaven, is a devilish persuasion ; and that fast is
so far off from pleasing of God, that it refuseth His mercy, and is
altogether derogatory to the merits of Christ's death and His precious
blood shedding. This doth the parable of the Pharisee and the
Publican teach."1

It was not quite fair either, on the part of Dr. Pusey,
to omit any mention of the real reason why so many Fast
Days are mentioned in the Prayer-Book Calendar. Any
one who consults Card well's Doctrinal Annals of the
Reformed Church of England will learn that they were
appointed, not in the interests of religion, but in the
interests of the fishermen of the time, who, but for these
Fast Days, in which fish and not flesh was eaten, would
have been utterly ruined. They were the days mentioned
by the Homily on Fasting, as " appointed by public order
and laws made by Princes, and by the authority of the
magistrates, upon policy, not respecting any religion at all in
the same."2 In 1576 Queen Elizabeth's Council sent a
letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, requiring him to
enforce the observance of these Fast Days, and requesting
him to " give order " to the Ministers in his province that

1 Homily of Fasting, Part I.

2 Ibid. Part II.

"BEGINNING OF A CATHOLIC MOVEMENT" 43

they, in their sermons, should teach the people that the
observance of these days " is not required for any liking
of Popish ceremonies heretofore used (which utterly are
detested), but only to maintain the mariners and navy in
this land, by setting men a fishing." ]

In January, 1834, the new Tracts for the Times came
under the notice of Mr. Ambrose Phillipps De Lisle, a
wealthy Leicestershire squire, and a pervert to Romanism.
On reading Tract IV. he returned it to the gentleman who
had lent it to him, with this remarkakle assertion : " Mark
my words, these Tracts are the beginning of a Catholic
Movement which will one day end in the return of her
Church to Catholic unity and the See of Peter."2 Having
formed such a hopeful view of the work of the Tractarians
it is not wonderful to learn that De Lisle spent the best
years of a prolonged life in supporting the Oxford Move
ment in the interests of the Pope. The Tract which thus
impressed this young Roman Catholic squire was an argu
ment in favour of Apostolic Succession, and it asserted
that, " Except, therefore, we can show such a warrant
[that is, of ' commissioned persons '], we [the clergy]
cannot be sure that our hands convey the sacrifice; we cannot
be sure that souls worthily prepared, receiving the bread
which we break, and the cup of blessing which we bless,
are partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ." The
writer further asserted of the Church of England that she
is " the only Church in this realm which has a right to
be quite sure that she has the Lord's Body to give to His
people." J In Tract X., which had been published before
De Lisle wrote his opinion, Newman urged that the clergy
should be considered " as if they were the Apostles " ; and
as saying to the laity : —

"Then you will honour us, with a purer honour than many men
do now, namely, as those (if I may say so) who are intrusted with
the keys of heaven and hell, as the heralds of mercy, as the de
nouncers of woe to wicked men, as intrusted with the awful and

1 Cardwell's Documentary Annals, vol. i. p. 427.

2 Li/6 and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps De Lisle, vol. i. p. 199.
8 Tract No. IV. pp. 2-5.

44 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

mysterious privilege of dispensing Christ's Body and Blood, as far
greater than the most powerful and wealthiest of men in our unseen
strength and our heavenly riches." l

Thus did Priestcraft rear once more its proud head
in the Reformed Church of England and demand of the
laity that they should meekly bow their necks to its
arrogant sway.

Mr. Francis Lyne, a highly respected layman, when in
his seventy-ninth year, wrote to me on January u,
1879, from 5 Seagrave Place, Cheltenham :—" The state
we, as Protestants, are now in was foretold by the Roman
Catholic party many years ago. My relation, the late Mr.
John Aclolphus, a notable Q.C., one day on leaving the
Temple — just when the Tracts for the Times appeared —
was joined by a Roman Catholic, and he said: — <Ah!
Adolphus, this is the grandest move for our Church there
has been since the Reformation.' "

It was not long before voices of warning were heard.
Dr. Pusey sent his Tract on Fasting to Dr. Arnold, the
famous Head Master of Rugby, who was not long in finding
out what way the Tractarians were going. In acknowledg
ing, on February 18, 1834, the receipt of the Tract, Arnold
told Pusey a few plain truths, the wisdom of which can
be seen now after many days. " By the form in which
your Tract appears, I fear you are lending your co-opera
tion to a party second to none in the tendency of their
principles to overthrow the truth of the Gospel. ... I
stand amazed at some apparent efforts in this Protestant
Church to set up the idol of Tradition ; that is, to
render Gibbon's conclusion against Christianity valid,
by taking, like him, the Fathers and the second and
subsequent periods of the Christian History as a fair
specimen of the Apostles and of the true doctrines
of Christ. But Ignatius will far sooner sink the
authority of St. Paul and St. John than they com
municate any portion of theirs to him. The system

1 Tract No. X. pp. 2-5.

2 Palmer's Narrative of Events, pp. 226, 227,

ARNOLD ON TRACTARIANISM 45

pursued in Oxford seems to be leading to a revival of the
Nonjurors, a party far too mischievous and too foolish
ever to be revived with success. But it may be revived
enough to do harm, to cause the ruin of the Church of England
first, and, so far as human folly can, to obstruct the pro
gress of the Church of Christ." 1

1 Life of Pusey, vol. i. pp. 282, 283.

CHAPTER III

The first '," outbreak of Tractism" — Dr. Hampden's case — Newman on
Subscription to the Articles — He was "not a great friend to them"—
Hampden appointed Regius Professor of Divinity — Agitation against
his appointment — Lord Melbourne's letter to Pusey — Newman's
Elucidations — Stanley's opinion of them — Dr. Wilberforce and
Hampden — Lord Selborne and Dean Church's testimony as to
Hampden's views — The real cause of opposition was Hampden's Pro
testantism — Proof of his Protestantism — Extracts from his writings —
Vote of want of confidence by Convocation — Hampden's Letter to
the Archbishop of Canterbury — Mr. Macmullen's case — Hampden
apppointed Bishop of Hereford — Protest of thirteen Bishops —
Lord John Russell's reply — Archdeacon Hare defends Hampden —
A Prosecution commenced — Organised by Pusey, Keble, Marriott,
and Mozley — Wilberforce's eleven questions for Hampden — His
answer — The Bishop withdraws his Letters of Request — Pusey's
bitter disappointment — Tractarian anxiety to prosecute their oppo
nents — Bishop Phillpotts denounces the Episcopal Veto — Protests by
the Dean of Hereford — Hampden elected Bishop by the Chapter of
Hereford — Protest in Bow Church — An exciting scene — Consecra
tion of Dr. Hampden — The new Bishop's sympathisers — Addresses
of confidence.

WHAT Archbishop Whately termed " the first outbreak of
Tractism " was directed against the Rev. Dr. R. D. Hamp
den. In 1832 Dr. Hampden had been selected to preach
the Bampton Lectures at Oxford, which were subsequently
published under the title of The Scholastic Philosophy Con
sidered in its Relation to Christian Theology. These lectures
were delivered to large congregations ; but do not appear
to have excited any remarkable attention after their publi
cation, until their author was appointed, in 1836, Regius
Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford, when
they became the centre round which a fierce contest
raged, a contest which was renewed with even greater
violence in 1847, when Dr. Hampden was appointed

Bishop of Hereford. A pamphlet which he issued in

THE HAMPDEN CONTROVERSY 47

1834 added greatly to the flame of Tractarian wrath, and
was used against its author again and again during the
succeeding thirteen years. It bore the title of Observations
on Religious Dissent. With Particular Reference to the Use of
Religious Tests in the University. It was, in brief, a plea
for the admission of Dissenters into the University of
Oxford, on certain conditions. He wished to abolish Sub
scription to the Thirty-Nine Articles on the part of those
entering the University, as had already been done in the
University of Cambridge, and therefore there was nothing
new in his proposal in itself, though no doubt it seemed
revolutionary to the authorities of the University of Oxford,
and was particularly distasteful to those Tractarians who
wished to keep Dissenters out of the University. Newman
led the attack on Hampden's pamphlet, a copy of which,
the author had sent to him on its publication. In thank
ing him for his courtesy, Newman wrote : — " While I re
spect the tone of piety in which the pamphlet is written,
I feel an aversion to the principles it professes, as (in my
opinion), legitimately tending to formal Socinianism."
Newman's real opinion as to Subscription to the Thirty-
Nine Articles was given on January n, 1836, in a letter
which he addressed to Mr. Percival, in the course of which
his hatred for the study of Christian Evidences, and his
wish that young men should believe " prior to reason " ;
and should, without reason, accept what their instructors
taught them, is clearly manifested. " Shut your eyes, and
open your mouths, and take what the priests may give you,
without examination," is a policy which is ever dear to a
proud Sacerdotal priesthood ; but is quite inconsistent with
the Scriptural injunction : — " Believe not every spirit,
but try the spirits whether they are of God ; because many
false prophets are gone out in the world " (i John iv. i).

"The advantage of subscription (to my mind) is," Newman
wrote, "its witnessing to the principle that religion is to be ap
proached with a submission of the understanding. Nothing is so

1 Newman's Letters, vol. ii. p. 77.

48 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT*

common, as you must know, as fur young men to approach serious
subjects as judges, to study them as mere sciences. Aristotle and
Butler are treated as teachers of a system, not as if there was
more truth in them than in Jeremy Bentham. The study of the
' Evidences] now popular (such as Paley's), encourages this evil frame
of mind. The learner is supposed external to the system . . . and
to have to choose it by an act of reason before he submits to it ;
whereas, the great lesson of the Gospel is faith, an obeying prior to
reasoning, and proving its reasonableness by making experiment of
it — a casting of heart and mind into the system and investigating
the truth by practice. I should say the same of a person in a
Mahometan country or under any system which was not plainly
and purely diabolical 1 . . . In an age, then, when this great
principle is scouted, Subscription to the Articles is a memento and
a protest, and again actually does, I believe, impress upon the
minds of young men the teachable and subdued temper expected
of them. THEY ARE NOT TO REASON, BUT TO OBEY, and this quite
independently of the degree of accuracy, the wisdom, &c., of the
Articles themselves. / am no great friend of them, and should
rejoice to substitute the Creeds for them, were it not for the Roman
ists, who might be excluded by the plan you suggest of demanding
certificates of baptism and confirmation."2

This is, I think, the first recorded instance in which
Tractarian dislike to the Thirty-Nine Articles was clearly
expressed. In later years members of the party spoke out
more emphatically. A collection of extracts from their
utterances on this subject will be found in the Appendix
to my Secret History of the Oxford Movement. Newman's
exhortation to young men " NOT TO REASON, BUT TO
OBEY," reminds me of the advice of a priestly member
of the English Church Union. " It was not," said the
Rev. Luke Rivington, at a meeting of the Union, January
14, 1868, " that he undervalued the office of the laity,
whose high and noble prerogative it was to listen and obey ;
but it was for the ministers of the Church to magnify
their office." J A Ritualistic newspaper recently put the
matter thus : " In the Catholic Church it is for the clergy

^ ! In other words, this is equivalent to advising a young man to swallow any
spiritual poison offered to him first, and after it has done its deadly work he
will be able to refuse to take any more of it. Such advice would justify a belief
in any lying legend taught by a Roman Catholic priest.

2 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. i. p. 301.

3 English Church Union Monthly Circular, vol. for 1868, p. 65.

HAMPDEN'S LATITUDINARIANISM 49

to teach and govern, for the people to obey." * This
kind of teaching tends to make slaves of the laity, and
enables the clergy to assume the position of " being lords
over God's heritage" (i Peter v. 3).

There was a Latitudinarian spirit throughout Dr.
Hampden's pamphlet which I, for one, deeply regret,
especially in his remarks on Unitarians. He avowed
himself as "favourable to a removal of all tests, so far
as they are employed as securities of orthodoxy among
our members at large." ' As to the Unitarians, he
specially applied to them the following statement : " In
religion, properly so called, few Christians, if any (I
speak, of course, of pious minds) really differ " ; and
he further declared, "When I look at the reception by
the Unitarians, both of the Old and New Testament, I
cannot, for my part, strongly as I dislike their theology,
deny to those, who acknowledge this basis of divine facts,
the name of Christians." ' He was no great friend to
articles of faith : " Articles of religious communion," he
declared, "from their reference to the fixed objects of
our faith, assume an immovable character fatally adverse
to all theological improvement." 4 Though in favour of
admitting Dissenters to the University without subscribing
to the Articles, Dr. Hampden insisted that when they
entered they should receive religious instruction from
clergymen of the Church of England. " I see," he wrote,
"no objection at the same time to the admission of
Dissenters into the University, because they are Dissenters.
I should be glad indeed to see them appearing among us,
as on a neutral ground, on which we may forget war,
and learn together the arts of peace and charity. If
persons of different communions are willing to conform
to our discipline, and receive instruction from us, know
ing that we are members of the Church of England, and
sincere teachers of its theological system, where can be
the real objection in such a case ? " 6

1 Church Review, August 23, 1900, p. 583.

2 Hampden's Observations on Religiotis Dissent, 2nd edition, p. 35.

3 Ibid. p. 20. 4 Ibid. p. 22. B Ibid. p. 34.

50 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

The Tractarian party took the lead in resisting every
attempt to admit Dissenters into the University of
Oxford, and with such success that it was not until
1854 that Subscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles was
made no longer compulsory as a condition of matri
culation.

Towards the end of 1835, the Rev. Dr. Burton, Regius
Professor of Divinity at Oxford, died. At that time Lord
Melbourne was Prime Minister. The Archbishop of
Canterbury (Dr. Howley), whose sympathies were to a
considerable extent with the new Oxford Movement, sent
to his lordship a list of persons whom he conceived to be
best qualified to succeed Dr. Burton. Eight names were
mentioned by his Grace, the first being Dr. Pusey ; the
fourth, the Rev. J. H. Newman; and the fifth, the Rev.
John Keble. Lord Melbourne consulted Archbishop
Whately as to the merits of these gentlemen. " It will be
observed," writes Canon Liddon, " that each of the three
leaders of the Movement, as they subsequently became,
was named by the Archbishop for the vacant Chair of
Divinity. What might not have been the result on the
future of the English Church had any one of them been
chosen ! " l Whatever may be said against the gentleman
who succeeded Dr. Burton, there can be no doubt that
his appointment was a serious blow to the hopes of the
sacerdotalists. A rumour of Dr. Hampden's appointment
reached Oxford on February 8, 1836. No time was lost
in getting up an agitation against it. That very evening
Pusey brought his friends together at a dinner party, at
which the case was fully discussed. There was still a
hope that an agitation would prevent the dreaded appoint
ment being made. Two days later another meeting was
held in Corpus Common Room, at which a petition to the
King was agreed to, and by the next evening it was sent
off to the Archbishop of Canterbury for presentation to
his Majesty, signed by seventy-three resident Masters. It
seems to have produced a considerable effect upon the
King, who at once communicated with Lord Melbourne.

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. i. p. 370.

LORD MELBOURNE'S OPINION 51

The Prime Minister, however, remained firm, and on
February i5th, wrote to William IV.: —

"To what do the charges against Dr. Hampden amount?
That Dr. Hampden is known to have expressed himself in printed
publications in such a manner as to produce on the minds of many
an impression that he maintains doctrines and principles funda
mentally opposed to the integrity of the Christian faith. Is this
sufficient ? Is his faith to be denied on such grounds as these —
'an impression on the minds of many,' without even stating whether
in the opinion of those who signed the paper the impression is just?
There are innumerable impressions upon the minds of many, but
who ever considered such impressions as any proof against the
person whom they affected ? " 1

Archbishop Whately lost no time in informing the
Prime Minister what was, in his opinion, the real secret
of the opposition to Hampden's appointment. " Hamp
den/' he wrote, " is not a Tory. And he was for the
relaxation of the subscription to the Articles at Matri
culation. Hence it is that men now bring a charge of
heresy against him which, if they had been sincere
and honest, they would have brought before the regular
tribunal three or four years ago, when he was deliver
ing before the University of Oxford and printing at the
University Press the sermons which they charge with
Socinianism." 2

No stone was left unturned to prevent the appoint
ment. Pusey hoped that he could reach the heart or
move the will of Lord Melbourne, and therefore he lost
no time in writing to him what Newman has termed
" one of his most earnest, weightiest, crushing letters " ;
but all in vain, for Newman adds that Lord Melbourne
"answered him cleverly and sharply, and did not conceal
the great antipathy he felt in consequence towards Pusey."3
The answer is printed in full in Lord Melbourne's Papers.
It was dated February 24, and contains a hint that Pusey

1 Lord Melbourne's Papers, p. 499.

2 Ibid. p. 501.

3 Newman's Letters^ vol. ii. p. 158.

52 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

would do well to clean out his own stables before he
attempted to clean those of other persons : —

" Your principle," he wrote, " would make the opinions of the
present Professors the standard of every future appointment. Before
persons are chosen on account of the consonance of their tenets
with those of the individuals who at present fill the theological chairs,
you must admit that we must a little consider what are the tenets of
those gentlemen ; and you are very well aware that great alarm has
been excited in the minds of many whose authority I respect by
certain tenets, which have, I believe, been published anonymously,
but with which you are supposed to have had some connection, and
which are represented to me to be of a novel character and incon
sistent with the hitherto received doctrines of the Church of
England. I have not seen the Tracts I refer to, and I should be
glad to obtain them ; I only speak from what I hear. I therefore
mean to pronounce no opinion upon them." 1

Meanwhile the Committee for resisting Dr. Hampden
continued its sittings in Corpus Christi College. They
brought before the Heads of Houses a petition asking
them to bring before Convocation a censure of the
alleged errors of Dr. Hampden. Th^t gentleman,
however, heard of the proposal in time, went to
the special meeting of the Heads of Houses, and de
feated, for the time being, the plot against himself. Writing
to his friend, Archbishop Whately, on February iyth,
he tells him what occurred. " At a special meeting "
of the Board of Heads of Houses, he wrote, " on Thursday
last, it was the subject of deliberation whether any step
should be taken by the Board in consequence of the
rumour that it was the intention of Ministers to place me
in the Divinity Chair. Numbers were canvassed before
hand in order to get a majority for the hostile measure
designed, and they tried, out of mock kindness, to prevent
my attendance. I did attend, however, to confront their
folly and intolerance, and with the kind and skilful support
of the Provost of Oriel succeeded in disappointing their
attempt." 2

Mr. Henry George Liddell, afterwards well known as

1 Lord Melbourne's Papers, p. 504.

2 Memorials of B 'is hop Hampden, p. 54.

NEWMAN'S " ELUCIDATIONS " 53

Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, was in Oxford at the time
of the Hampden controversy, and wrote an interesting
description of the meeting of the Heads of Houses, at
which Dr. Hampden was present : —

"On Wednesday," wrote Mr. Liddell, "the Heads of Houses,
roused by the energy of the Movement party, called a meeting. To
the horror and surprise of the Doctors, the Principal of St. Mary
Hall (Dr. Hampden) himself appeared. ' Strange,' said the Dean
of Christ Church, 'very strange that you should be here, Mr.
Principal : we have met to talk of you. Do you mean to stay ? '
'I do,' was the reply. 'And to vote?' interposed Shuttleworth
(Warden of New College). ' I have not made up my mind,' said
Hampden. A very angry discussion followed, after which certain
propositions (I know not what) were put to the vote. On the first
two Hampden was left in a minority, himself taking no part. On
the third the division was equal, whereupon Dr. Hampden inter
posed, and by his vote turned the decision of the august body in his
own favour." l

Newman was quick in perceiving that attacks like these
needed supplementing by material of a more formidable
kind. He therefore at once set to work to write a pamphlet
containing extracts from Hampden's published works, add
ing to them such comments as he thought necessary. It
was published on February I3th, only five days after
the rumour of the appointment had reached Oxford. He
had to sit up all through one night writing, so as to get it
out as quickly as possible. It bore the title of Elucidations
of Dr. Hampden B Theological Statements, and formed a pamph
let of forty-seven pages. It was certainly the most influential
document ever produced against Dr. Hampden ; and yet,
by friends and foes alike, it was censured for unfairness.
Mr. Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, subsequently known as
Dean Stanley, was at that time in residence at Oxford,
and took the deepest interest in the Hampden controversy.
He did not approve of the new appointment to the Divinity
Chair, but when the Elucidations appeared, he attacked the
pamphlet in the most vigorous style.

1 Henry George Liddell \ D.D. : A Memoir, p. 33.

54 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

" No one," he remarked, " who has not compared Newman and
Pusey's 1 extracts with the original writings of Hampden, and who
has not had experience, in himself or others, of the fearfully erron
eous impression that those extracts convey, can duly appreciate the
appearance that must have presented itself to Arnold's mind of
shameless and wilful fabrication. If they (the extracts) had been
made by any one else than Newman and Pusey, I should not have
hesitated to attribute them to wilful dishonesty; as it is, I must
call it culpable carelessness, blindness, and recklessness, in matters
of the most vital importance to the Church and nation, and to the
peace of a good man. They have applied to doctrines what
Hampden says of phraseology, to the Atonement what he said of
Penance, to denial of Sacramental Grace, and original sin, and
regeneration, and Trinitarianism, what he has said in confirmation
and approval of all these truths. They have, till they were com
pelled by counter-pamphlets to notice that there were such books,
kept out of sight his Parochial Sermons and Philosophical Evidences^
which contain the very essence of orthodoxy ; they have attacked
him because he has impugned their own peculiar theory of Church
authority, and the submission of human reason, and have enlisted
in their ranks persons who differ as entirely from that theory as does
Hampden himself; and all this while they themselves hold tenets
barely compatible with their remaining in the English Church."2

Newman's Elucidations had a most powerful effect on
the public mind. People were entirely guided by the
pamphlet who had never read a word of Hampden's
writings in his published books. The Rev. T. Mozley,
one of the opponents of Hampden, and all his life through
a friend of the Oxford Movement, frankly tells us that
when Hampden was condemned by the Oxford Convoca
tion : —

"The great mass of the multitude that inflicted this penalty were
very, if not entirely, ignorant of the book which was the corpus delicti.
They might have seen it on a counter, or on a table ; they might
have opened it, turned over a leaf or two, and might even have had
their attention directed to a few passages. The very hurry in which
the thing was done, and the fact that the book was and is compara-

1 Dr. Hampden's Past and Present Statements Compared. By Dr. Pusey.
Oxford : Parker. 1836.

Life of Dean Stanley ', vol. i. p. 163. London. 1893.

BISHOP WILBERFORCE'S OPINION 55

tively rare, forbid the supposition that there could have been much,
or even an adequate, acquaintance with its contents." l

One of those who took a leading part in opposing Dr.
Hampden's appointment was the Rev. Samuel Wilber
force, who based his opposition on the extracts from his
Bampton Lectures given in Newman's Elucidations. It was
not until Hampden's appointment to the Bishopric of
Hereford, in 1847, that Wilberforce carefully read the
book for himself, and then he at once changed his opinions
on the question. How this change of opinion came about
is told, in an interesting narrative, by Newman's brother,
Mr. F. W. Newman : —

" My old friend, the late Bonamy Price, well known in recent
Oxford, had been a Rugby Master, and with Grenfell and the rest
had voted against disabling Hampden. Happening to be in Oxford
just after the Bubble burst [i.e. in 1847], he called upon Dr.
Hawkins, who had been gracious to him in old days ; and inevitably
the two began mutual congratulation on the event [i.e. Bishop
Wilberforce's decision to veto the proposed prosecution of Hamp
den]. Hawkins was delighted and boiling over, and soon poured
out ample details of what passed between him and the Bishop
[Samuel Wilberforce].

"After the Bishop perceived that his old tutor looked grave on
the open war against Crown Patronage, and on the rumour that the
Dean of Hereford would risk a Praemunire, the Bishop said that to
listen to Keble was not a new or active deed : that in fact he was
constrained to it [that is, to grant permission to prosecute Hampden]
by consistency ; for he had voted against Hampden's becoming
Regius Professor of Divinity, and he could not possibly make light
of unsoundness concerning such a doctrine as the Trinity. (These
two points were the fulcra of the talk.) On the former, the
Provost said, 'You voted in 1836, true; but then you were a Curate;
then you were one out of four hundred ; now you are a Lord
Bishop : then your responsibility was nil; now, you will bring on
yourself the chief responsibility. An error here may affect all your
future life.' When the Bishop made some remark that for sacred
truth we must encounter great risk, he so expressed himself that
Hawkins exclaimed : ' Bless me ! why, you cannot have read Hamp
den's lectures ; you can only have read Newman's Elucidations of

1 Mozley's Reminiscences of the Oxford Movement ', vol. i. pp. 366, 367.

56 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

them.' The Bishop replied : ' Well, I must confess I could not for
a moment distrust Newman.' ' Ah ! my Lord, I do not blame you ;
four hundred trusted him, and I have no right to say, believe me
rather than him. But since you have not read Hampden yourself,
and must now, as Bishop, seem to judge his book, and to oppose his
appointment by the Crown, I do say, that if you are a wise Bishop
you will read his book at once. And I will tell you what! We
ought this evening to sit side by side, and read the book together.'

" The Bishop freely confessed the wisdom of the advice, and
acted on it. The two sat together, with feet on fender, and read
the lectures through from end to end.

" Then the Bishop said, ' My kind old tutor, you are right. I
have no right to open my lips against Hampden.'

" What actual words the Bishop next day used to Keble I am
not sure that I learned from Bonamy, but either from him or from
some other quarter I heard them to be : ' I have now read Hampden
myself, and cannot presume to blame him.'" *

This interview between Bishop Wilberforce and Dr.
Hawkins took place, as Mr. F. W. Newman informs us, in
December 1847, and the substantial accuracy of the story
of what took place is corroborated by a letter of Wilber
force himself to Hampden, dated December 28, 1847, as
published in his biography. In this he wrote : —

" Unless I was satisfied that there was matter for a criminal suit,
I could not think myself justified in sending an accusation against
you to be tried in the Arches Court. Whether there was such
matter could be determined by me only after a careful study of the
works in question, with all your explanations in my mind.

" Regarding, then, the Observations on Dissent as virtually with
drawn, I accordingly applied myself to a thorough and impartial exami
nation of the ' Bampton Lectures.' I have now carefully studied
them throughout, with the aid of those explanations of their meaning
which you have furnished to the public since their first publication,
and now in your private communications. The result of this exami
nation, I am bound plainly to declare, is my own conviction that
they do not justly warrant those suspicions of unsoundness to which
they have given rise, and which, so long as I trusted to selected
extracts, I myself shared."2

1 Contributions Chiefly to the Early History of the late Cardinal Newman.
By his Brother, F. W. Newman. 1891, pp. 85-88.

2 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. pp. 486, 487.

EVANGELICALS AND HAMPDEN 57

Not only was Bishop Wilberforce misled by Newman's
Elucidations: many Evangelical Churchmen also joined in
the hue and cry against Hampden; under the impression
that he was heretical in his teaching as to the Trinity and
the Incarnation. But, after all, the question here arises,
was there sufficient ground for these charges ? As early
as February 27, 1836, Hampden wrote to the Archbishop
of Canterbury : — " I may be indulged on this occasion
with saying, that a belief in the great revealed truths of
the Trinity and the Incarnation has been my stay through
life ; and I utterly disclaim the imputation of inculcating
any doctrines at variance with these foundations of Chris
tian hope." 1 Though not holding heretical views on these
points himself, Hampden was, apparently, willing to op
pose the use of strong abuse against those who really were
heretical. It was true that he held very liberal views as
to the value of Confessions of Faith and Articles of Reli
gion ; but, as Bishop Wilberforce cleverly showed in the
letter just cited, Newman himself, at about the very time
when Hampden's accused publications had first appeared,
was himself guilty of a very similar offence.

" I read in them [Hampden's Bampton Lectures]," wrote Wilber
force, " a thoughtful and able history of the formation of dogmatic
terminology, not a studied depreciation of authorised dogmatic lan
guage, still less any conscious denial of admitted dogmatic truth. 1
see in them, in fact, so far, little more than what has already been ex
pressed in the words (never, I believe, considered liable to censure)
of one of your ablest opponents [Newman] in 1834, who says: 'If I
avow my belief that freedom from symbols and Articles is ab
stractedly the highest state of Church communion and the peculiar
knowledge of the Primitive Church, it is ... first, because techni
cality and formality are, in their degree, inevitable results of public
Confessions of Faith.' And again : ' Her rulers were loth to confess
that the Church had grown too old to enjoy the free unsuspicious
teaching with which her childhood was blest, and that her dis
ciples must for the future calculate and reason before they acted '
(Newman's Arians, pp. 41, 42)." 2

1 Memorials of Bishop Hampden, p. 55.

2 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 487.

58 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

The fact is that it is now admitted by prominent High
Churchmen that Hampden was not, strictly speaking,
heretical at all. That well-known High Churchman, Lord
Selborne, admits that : — " Dr. Hampden, as a Bishop, was
neither better nor worse than many others ; he did
nothing to confirm any suspicion of his orthodoxy." ]
Archdeacon Clark testifies, " after twenty years' intimacy "
with Dr. Hampden, that : — " He was as loyal and sound
a member of the Church of England as any of her sons ;
as orthodox in his views and teaching on the doctrines of
the faith as it is held by our Reformed Church, and ex
pressed in her Articles and formularies, as any who
belong to the ranks of her ministering clergy ; as clear
and as sound in his views and teaching on the subject of
the Church's two Sacraments, nay, much more so than
many who thought it their duty to attack him." 2 The
testimony of the late Dean Church will, no doubt, carry
great weight with many High Churchmen. And this is
what he says : — " Dr. Hampden was in fact unexceptionably,
even rigidly orthodox in his acceptance of Church doctrine
and Church Creeds. He had published a volume of
sermons containing, among other things, an able state
ment of the Scriptural argument for the doctrine of the
Trinity, and an equally able defence of the Athanasian
Creed."3

Why, then, it may be asked, was such an ado made
about the appointment of such a man to the office of
Regius Professor of Divinity in 1836 ; and, again, to his
appointment as Bishop of Hereford in 1847? The real
fact is, I believe, that the outcry against Hampden for
heresy was but the ostensible and not the real cause of
the furious opposition of the Tractarian party. They
simply used this cry for the purpose of blinding the eyes
of Evangelical Churchmen, and induce them to join in
the hue and cry against him. The real head and front of
Dr. Hampden's offence was his Protestantism, and his

1 Memorials Family and Personal, 1766-1865. By the Earl of Selborne,
vol. ii. p. 10.

2 Memorials of Bishop Hampden, p. 259.

3 The Oxford Movement. By Dean Church, 1st edition, p. 144.

HAMPDEN'S PROTESTANTISM 59

well-known opposition to the sacerdotal doctrines of the
rising Tractarian party, whom he thoroughly distrusted.
The Rev. William Sinclair, who knew him well, tells us
that (apparently soon after the commencement of the
Tractarian Movement) : — " I well remember seeing the
Doctor come into his study, flushed with excitement and
with a little tract in his hand. It was one of the well-
known Tracts for the Times. His remark upon it was :
1 These gentlemen, without even knowing it, have passed
the Rubicon ; they do not see that they are already
Romanists.' " x

Hampden's Protestantism was seen in his Observations
on Religious Dissent, in which he placed the Holy Scrip
tures above every human composition, and avowed him
self an opponent of the theory that Tradition is of equal
value with the Bible. He wished to tl guard the depository
of sacred doctrine, the Scripture itself, against the inroads
of Tradition, or any human authority " ; and he urged his
readers "to go to Scripture for every matter of religious
debate. If the alleged point cannot be proved out of
Scripture, it is no truth of revelation." 2 In his Bampton
Lectures Hampden's opposition to the Sacerdotalism
which had been adopted by the Tractarian leaders, was
revealed in a most unmistakable manner. He attributed
the "theory of Sacramental influence," advocated in the
Scholastic philosophy, not to Holy Scripture, but to " the
general belief in Magic in the early ages of the Church." 3

" The relative importance of the Eucharist," said Dr. Hampden,
"in comparison with the other Sacraments, and, indeed, with the
whole doctrine and ritual of Christianity, in the system of the
Church of Rome, may be drawn from this primary notion of
Sacramental efficiency. It may well be asked, why this sacred rite
should stand so pre-eminent in the scheme of Christianity. I do
not say, that it ought not to hold a principal station among the
observances of a holy life. But it is the doctrinal supremacy given
to it, to which I refer. View it, as it exists in the Roman Church,
and it is there found absorbing into it the whole, it may be said,

1 Memorials of Bishop Hampdeny p. 32.

2 Observations on Religioiis Dissent ', 2nd edition, p. 9.

3 Hampden's Scholastic Philosophy Considered, 1st edition, p. 315.

60 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

of Christian worship. There, the ministers of religion seem to be
set apart chiefly for this sacred celebration : it is the spiritual power
of their office — the essence of their priesthood. If we ask then,
why this particular Sacrament should have attained this superiority
over all other rites of Christianity, we may find an answer in the
Scholastic theory. Whilst the other Sacraments, recognised by
that theory, participate of the virtue of Christ's passion, this is the
passion itself Q{ Christ — the whole virtue of His priesthood mystically
represented and conveyed. ... It was freely admitted that Christ
was once offered for all on the Cross ; that henceforth He is seated
at the right hand of the Divine Majesty, to die no more. But the
sacrifice performed by the priest was still a real offering of Christ;
as being the appointed channel through which the expiatory virtue
of the Great Sacrifice descends in vital efflux from the person of the
Saviour.1

" The history of the Sacraments, in the Scholastic system, is,
God working by the instrumentality of man. The theory is of the
Divine causation, but the practical power displayed is the sacerdotal ;
the necessary instrument for the conveyance of Divine grace becom
ing in effect the principal cause.

"Surely it requires no research into ecclesiastical history or
philosophy, to see that so operose a system is utterly repugnant to
the spirit of Christianity. Contemplate our Saviour at the Last
Supper, breaking bread, and giving thanks, and distributing to His
disciples ; and how great is the transition from the institution itself
to the splendid ceremonial of the Latin Church? Hear Him, or
His Apostles, exhorting to repentance ; and can we suppose the
casuistical system, to which the name of Penance has been given,
to be the true sacrifice of the broken and contrite spirit ? . . .

"Thanks to the Christian resolution of our Reformers, they
broke that charm which this mystical number of the Sacraments
carried with it, and dispelled the theurgic system which it supported.
We are not, perhaps, sufficiently sensible of the advantages which
we enjoy through their exertions in this respect — exertions which
cost them so many painful struggles, even to the bitterness of death.
They have taken our souls out of the hand of man, to let them
repose in the bosom of our Saviour and our God. We have been
enabled thus to fulfil the instruction of Scripture, to 'come boldly
to the throne of Grace,' and ask of Him who gives liberally and
denies to none. The perplexities and distress of heart, of which we
have been relieved, none perhaps can now adequately conceive.

1 Hampden's Scholastic Philosophy Considered, pp. 321, 322.

TRACTARIAN ATTACK ON HAMPDEN 6 1

We must ask of those who have experienced the false comfort of
that officious intercession of the Sacramental system of the Latin
Church. They will tell us that, under that system, they knew not
the liberty of the Gospel. They were unhappy without resource.
Their wounds were opened, but there was none to heal." l

In statements such as these we find, I believe, the
real cause of the Tractarian attack on Dr. Hampden.
Latitudinarian views as to Holy Scripture are now very
common and widespread amongst a certain section of
the Ritualistic party. Their zeal now, as was that of
their predecessors in 1836, is mainly directed to build
ing up that sacerdotal system against which our Re
formers testified with their blood. Hampden protested
against the same evil system ; hence the hatred of Pusey,
Newman, Keble, and others, who made the life of their
opponent unhappy for many years. In saying this I
wish to guard myself against being supposed to be a
friend to Hampden's Latitudinarian views. I have no
sympathy with them whatever, and I think that Lord
Melbourne in 1836, and Lord John Russell in 1847,
would have acted more wisely had they selected some
one else who valued Christian doctrines more highly than
did Dr. Hampden.

We now return to the history of the case. The
appointment of Hampden as Regius Professor of Divinity
was published in the London Gazette on February 17,
1836, and after that it was felt by his opponents that
there was no chance of upsetting it. But it was pos
sible to move the University to express its disapproval
of the appointment. The first attempt in this direction
proved, as I have already stated, a decided failure owing
to the firm action of Hampden himself. But the effort
could be renewed, and it was renewed. At last the
Heads of Houses decided, though with not a little hesi
tation, that they would bring before Convocation a new
statute, providing that Dr. Hampden should not (like his
predecessors in office) be placed on the Board which
nominated select preachers before the University ; and

1 Hampden's Scholastic Philosophy Considered^ pp. 341-343.

62 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

that he should not be consulted when a sermon was
called in question before the Vice-Chancellor. The Con
vocation was to meet to decide this important matter
on March 22nd, and in preparation for it Pusey issued
a pamphlet entitled : Dr. Hampden's Theological Statements
and the Thirty-Nine Articles Compared. It contained extracts
from Hampden's writings. Every effort was made to
bring up voters from the country, and with the result
that on the eventful day about 450 members were present.
But they came up in vain, for no sooner had the Vice-
Chancellor put the question of the proposed new statute,
than the Proctors interposed with their veto, which at
once put an end to the proceedings. The Tractarians
were, of course, very much vexed, but they certainly had
subsequently an ample revenge, when, in 1844, a proposal
to censure Tract XC. was, in the interests of the Tractarians,
vetoed by the then Proctors, Mr. Church and Mr. Guille-
mard. The names of the Proctors who vetoed the
proposed statute against Dr. Hampden should here be
mentioned. They were the Rev. E. G. Bayly, Fellow of
Pembroke College ; and the Rev. Henry Reynolds, Fellow
and Tutor of Jesus College. Though defeated on this
occasion the opponents of Hampden did not lose hope.
They knew that new Proctors would soon be appointed.
This was done on April I3th. In that month appeared
Dr. Arnold's famous article in the Edinburgh Review, on
" The Oxford Malignants and Dr. Hampden," which, by
the strength of its denunciations of the Tractarians fanned
the flame to fiercer heat than ever. The Convocation met
again on May 5th : the vetoed statute was again introduced.
Its adoption was moved by Dr. Cardwell, Principal of St.
Albans Hall ; and seconded by Dr. Symons, Warden of
Wadham ; the latter being an opponent of Tractarianism.
It was carried by 474 votes for, and 94 against, being a
majority of 380. The statute was in the following terms :

" Since it is committed by the University to the Regius Professor
of Sacred Theology that he shall be one of the number of those by
whom the select preachers are appointed, and, moreover, that his
advice shall be had if any preacher shall be called in question before

THE CASE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS 63

the Chancellor ; but since he, who is now the Professor, in certain of
his published works has so treated theological questions, that in this
behalf the University has no confidence in him ; it is enacted that
the Regius Professor shall be deprived of the aforesaid functions
until the pleasure of the University be otherwise, &c." l

This statute was a sting for Dr. Hampden, but it did
not lead to his removal from office, and therefore in the
contest he became the substantial victor. Three eminent
lawyers were consulted as to its legality. Their decision
was given in these terms : — " We think the statute of 1836
is illegal, as violating the restrictions imposed by the
Laudian Code, and as passed by the assumption and
exercise of a power which has not been conceded to the
University." 2 There were, even amongst the leading
opponents of Hampden, some who thought the statute
illegal. The Rev. Thomas Mozley was one of these. He
denounced it as an " audacious act," and declared that : —
"Any reasonable person, too, may doubt the validity of
an act depriving the Regius Professor of Divinity of
privileges appertaining to the very essence of the office.
If he is not to have a vote in the selection of University
preachers, or upon a charge of heresy, where is he ? " 3

On December 21, 1837, the case of Dr. Hampden
was debated in the House of Lords, in the course of a
discussion on University Reform. The Earl of Radnor
warmly defended the Professor, and said that he had no
doubt that all the hostility to him arose from his advocat
ing the admission of Dissenters into the University. Lord
Melbourne said : — (t I certainly do not think that there is
anything to be condemned in the writings of Dr. Hamp
den." The Archbishop of Canterbury attacked Dr. Hamp
den in such a very marked manner that he felt it necessary
to defend himself in a lengthy letter to his Grace, in which
he demanded to know what were the actual charges brought
against him by his accusers, and also that he should not
be judged by mere clamour and shouting, but by proper

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 425.

2 Memorials of B 'is hop Hampden, p. 65.

3 Mozley's Reminiscences of the Oxford Movement, vol. i. p. 364.

64 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

ecclesiastical judges ; and he concluded by a fearless
exposure of the real motives of his chief opponents.

" I implore your Grace," he wrote, "effectually to put an end to
this unnatural warfare. I ask, as I have said, for specific charges,
if such exist. I ask to be called to account before a legal ecclesias
tical tribunal, if there be real matter of accusation against me. . . .
It is also well known, that among the prime movers of the disturb
ance were the leaders and disciples of a new theological school,
which is now attracting notice by its extraordinary publications, and
exciting considerable alarm in the Church. Am I to satisfy this
party ? Am I to purchase exemption from censure by folding my
arms, and suffering myself to be led away captive by a band whom I
regard as making inroads on the constitution of the Church of Eng
land ? You would not, my Lord, have me to consent to such terms
of peace. ... If, indeed, the price of quiet is to be a surrender of
the name and principles of Protestantism — if I am to admit the
authority of Tradition on a parity with Scripture — if the profession
of Justification by Faith only is no longer to be the sign of a stand
ing Church, but a doctrine of Episcopal Grace and Sacramental
Justification is to overlay God's free pardon through Christ to sinful
men — if private judgment is to be restrained, not by appeal to
Scripture and argument, but by intimidation — if self-constituted
associations and the names of men are to rule questions of theology
—if Dissent is to be called sin ; and taking of oaths, piety ; and
mysticism, religion ; and superstition, faith ; and Antichrist, Christ —
then there is no alternative but that I must be objected against by
those who hold what, if I read the Gospel aright, are the most serious
perversions of its truth and its spirit." l

In 1842 the Heads of Houses at Oxford formed a new
Theological Board of Examiners, and actually appointed
Dr. Hampden as its Chairman. This was, of course, prac
tically a withdrawal of the censure passed upon him in
1836, and, curiously enough, the appointment did not
evoke any public opposition ; but when the Heads of
Houses decided to go further, and, at the next meeting
of Convocation, to formally remove the statute of 1836,
the Tractarians took alarm at once, and again set to work
to whip up their friends to vote against the proposal.
This time, however, they had to lament the coldness of

1 Memorials of Bishop Hampden, pp. no, in.

THE CASE OF THE REV. R. G. MACMULLEN 65

those Evangelicals who had helped them in 1836. A few
days before the question came on for decision, Dr. Pusey
wrote despondingly to Keble : — " I fear there is increasing
ground for anxiety ; the Low Church keeps aloof ; the
Standard has begun the Anti-Newman cry." 1 Archdeacon
Samuel Wilberforce, who had voted for the statute of
1836, was strongly inclined to vote against rescinding it ;
but he had his doubts on the point, which seem to have
prevented him from voting either for or against it. " My
principal doubt/' he said, " is this — by an unopposed statute
Hampden was made Chairman of the new Theological
Board ; now, how can we refuse him one voice amongst
five in nominating select preachers on the disqualification
of heresy, and yet allow him to be Chairman of this
Theological Board ? It is not so much the absolute con
tradiction of this, as the look of party which it wears, that
moves me." 2 On June yth, the proposition of the Heads
of Houses was discussed in Convocation, and rejected by
334 to 219, a majority for Hampden's opponents of 115.
The voting showed unmistakably that the opposition to
Hampden was considerably less than in 1836, when the
statute of censure was passed by a majority of 380. " The
Convocation of the University," in Canon Liddon's opinion,
" saved its consistency ; but the diminished majority
showed that recent alarms, and perhaps Dr. Hampden's
appeals to the popular Protestantism, had not been with
out effect." 3

In 1842 a considerable amount of public interest cen
tred round a case with which Dr. Hampden had to deal
as Regius Professor of Divinity. The Rev. Richard Gell
Macmullen, Fellow of Corpus Christi College, was required
by the statutes of his College to take his B.D. degree, if
he wished to retain his Fellowship. It appears to have
been the custom, under such circumstances, for the appli
cant to defend two theses given to him by the Regius
Professor of Divinity. Accordingly, Mr. Macmullen

1 Life of Dr. Pusey , vol. ii. p. 289.

2 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 218.
8 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 290.

66 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

applied to Dr. Hampden to give him two theses to defend.
It was very well known to the Professor and in the Uni
versity that Mr. Macmullen was a Tractarian of a very
pronounced type. Probably as a test of his soundness in
the faith, Dr. Hampden gave him the following theses to
defend : —

" i. The Church of England does not teach, nor can it be proved
from Scripture that any change takes place in the Elements at
Consecration in the Lord's Supper."

"2. It is a mode of expression calculated to give erroneous
views of Divine Revelation to speak of Scripture and Catholic
Tradition as joint authorities in the matter of Christian Doctrine."

Mr. Macmullen refused to defend these theses, and
demanded, as of right, that he should select his own in
stead. Dr. Hampden refused to grant the demand, and
with the result that Mr. Macmullen appealed to the law,
which ultimately led to his defeat, with costs. Dr.
Hampden having thus gained the victory, Mr. Macmullen
gave way, and consented to read his exercises for the B.D.
degree from the original theses submitted to him about
two years before. He read them on April 18 and 19, 1844,
in the Divinity School.1 They were afterwards published
in pamphlet form ; 2 but instead of defending the theses, he
really did his best to upset them by a series of Jesuitical
arguments. He said : " It will therefore be my object to
endeavour to establish in the first place, That the Church
of England does teach or imply that some change takes
place in the Elements at Consecration " ; and he actually
declared that "The very order and rite of Consecration
itself in our Book of Common Prayer is a presumption in
favour of the view that the Church of England does teach
that the Sacramental Elements are themselves changed into
the Body and Blood of Christ." 3 In his exercise on the
second thesis Mr. Macmullen attacked the Protestant
doctrine of Private Judgment in vigorous language.

1 Browne's Annals of the Tractarian Movement, 3rd edition, pp. 570, 571.

2 Two Exercises for the Degree of B.D. By Richard Cell Macmullen, M.A.
Oxford: Parker. 1844.

3 Ibid. pp. 6, 7.

REMONSTRANCE OF THIRTEEN BISHOPS 67

"The statement of our Church/' he said, "That 'Holy
Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation/ does
not mean that it can possibly be the duty, much less, as is
often proudly and profanely said, the right of every man to
go to Scripture to gather out his own system of opinion
for himself, to receive no doctrine, to believe no truth, but
what he sees to be declared therein." ] Dr. Hampden
expressed himself as dissatisfied with the exercises, but,
as Dean Church expresses it, " Somehow or other, Mr.
Macmullen at last got his degree." Within about two
years from doing so he seceded to the Church of Rome.

Towards the end of 1847, Lord John Russell startled
the country by nominating Dr. Hampden to the Bishopric
of Hereford. It was a most injudicious measure, since it
could not be said that there was no other suitable man for
the post in the country, whose appointment would not
have caused such a violent agitation as now arose. The
opposition was fiercer and more widespread than in 1836.
Even the Bishops took alarm, and thirteen of them signed
a united remonstrance to Lord John Russell, which, be
cause of its importance, I print here entire : —

" MY LORD, — We, the undersigned Bishops of the Church of
England, feel it our duty to represent to your lordship, as head of
her Majesty's Government, the apprehension and alarm which have
been excited in the minds of the clergy by the rumoured nomination
to the See of Hereford of Dr. Hampden, in the soundness of whose
doctrine the University of Oxford has affirmed, by a solemn decree,
its want of confidence.

"We are persuaded that your lordship does not know how deep
and general a feeling prevails on this subject, and we consider our
selves to be acting only in the discharge of our bounden duty both
to the Crown and the Church, when we respectfully but earnestly
express to your lordship our conviction that, if this appointment be
completed, there is the greatest danger both of the interruption of the
peace of the Church, and of the disturbance of that confidence which
it is most desirable that the clergy and laity of the Church should
feel in every exercise of the Royal Supremacy, especially as regards
that very delicate and important particular, the nomination to vacant

1 Macmullen's Two Exercises for the Degree of B.D., p. 58.

68 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

sees. We have the honour to be, my Lord, with sincere respect,
your lordship's obedient and faithful servants, &c., &c."

It was the first time since the Reformation that such a
protest against an Episcopal appointment had been made
by so large a number of Bishops, and there were high
hopes held by some that it would be effectual in preventing
the consecration of Dr. Hampden. But such hopes were
doomed to disappointment. On November 26, the Arch
bishop of Canterbury wrote to the Prime Minister to
apprise him " of the extent and intensity of the feeling "
against the appointment ; to whom Lord John Russell
replied on the following day, attributing the opposition
mainly to Mr. Newman's disciples, and giving them a well-
merited censure :—

" I am sorry," he wrote, " to find from your Grace's letter that
the outcry has been greater than you expected. I must attribute
it chiefly to that portion of the clergy who share Mr. Newman's
opinions, but have not had the honesty to follow Mr. Newman in his
change of profession.

" I confess I am not surprised that such persons should dread
to see a man on the Bench who will actively maintain Protestant
doctrines. So long as a Bishop is silent and winks at their attempts
to give a Roman Catholic character to the Church of England, they
are not alarmed ; but when they see a man promoted who has
learning to detect and energy to denounce their errors, they begin
to fear that Confessions, and Rosaries, and Articles taken in a non-
natural sense, and Monkish Legends of Saints, will be discouraged
and exposed." l

In reply to the remonstrance of the thirteen Bishops,
the Prime Minister wrote : —

" I observe that your lordships do not state any want of con
fidence on your part in the soundness of Dr. Hampden's doctrines.
Your lordships refer me to a decree of the University of Oxford,
passed eleven years ago, and founded on lectures delivered fifteen
years ago.

"Since the date of that decree, Dr. Hampden has acted as
Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford, and many

1 Life of Lord John Russell. By Spencer Walpole, edition 1891, vol. i.
p. 495.

ARCHDEACON HARE'S PAMPHLET 69

Bishops, as I am told, have required certificates of attendance on
his lectures before they have proceeded to ordain candidates who
had received their education at Oxford. He has likewise preached
sermons, for which he has been honoured with the approbation of
several prelates of our Church. Several months before I named
Dr. Hampden to the Queen for the See of Hereford, I signified
my intention to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and did not receive
from him any discouragement.

" In these circumstances, it appears to me that, should I with
draw my recommendation from Dr. Hampden, which has been
sanctioned by the Queen, I should virtually assent to the doctrine
that a decree of the University of Oxford is a perpetual bar of
exclusion against a clergyman of eminent learning and unimpeach
able life ; and that, in fact, the supremacy which is now vested in
the Crown, is to be transferred to a majority of the members of one
of our Universities.

" Nor should it be forgotten that many of the most prominent
among that majority have since joined the communion of the See
of Rome.

11 1 deeply regret the feeling which is said to be common among
the clergy on this subject. But I cannot sacrifice the reputation of
Dr. Hampden, the rights of the Crown, and what I believe to be
the true interests of the Church, to a feeling which I believe to be
founded on misapprehension and fomented by prejudice."

Meetings of the clergy to protest against the appoint
ment of Dr. Hampden were organised in various parts
of the country. At these gatherings many strong protests
against the agitation were heard. The Venerable Julius
Charles Hare, Archdeacon of Lewes, was asked to con
vene a meeting of the clergy of his Archdeaconry to
protest against the appointment. This request led him,
for the first time, to make a careful examination of
Hampden's writings, and with the result that he not only
refused to call such a meeting, but also published a
pamphlet on the subject, in which he gave his reasons
for believing that Hampden was not a teacher of heresy.
In this pamphlet the Archdeacon stated that on first
hearing of the appointment he had at once condemned
it as " an act of folly almost amounting to madness." l

1 A Letter to the Dean of Chichester on the Agitation Excited by the Appoint
ment of Dr. Hampden. By Julius Charles Hare, Archdeacon of Lewes, p. 6.
London: Parker. 1848.

70 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

Of " Dr. Hampden personally/' he added, " I know
nothing, and ten days ago had never read a word of
his writings," 1 but that, having now read them, he believed
that "Clamour on the part of the accusers, Ignorance
on that of their hearers — in which it is to be hoped that
the accusers themselves have no small share — these are
the powers relied on to bar his way to the Episcopate,
the two uncouth, unwieldy giants that throw their clubs
across his path."' In 1836 Hampden's opponents
circulated privately a pamphlet of fifteen pages, without
any title on the outside. On page 7 commenced a
section headed, " Propositions Maintained in Dr. Hamp
den's Works," followed by a classified set of extracts,
far more unfair than those given by Newman in his
notorious Elucidations. They were reprinted in 1842,
and circulated privately for a third time in 1847, with
no author's name attached. Archdeacon Hare reprinted
the whole of these extracts, and then tested them by the
original documents, proving their dishonest character
thoroughly, and concluding thus : —

" Here at length we may pass out of this valley of death. There
are still three or four Propositions that I have not noticed ; but they
seem to be merely stuck in to swell out the list, and, after what has
already been said, need no examination. Such a collection of
fraudulent misrepresentations has hardly ever come under my
notice, though I have had much sad experience in this way ; and
it has been a painful task to expose them. But, as I have had to
say on a former occasion, a lying spirit is stalking through our
Church, and even taking possession of some minds that would other
wise be among its pillars and noblest ornaments : and this spirit we
must endeavour to cast out at whatsoever cost. Who the collector
of this series of Propositions may be, I know not. Most probably
he will be found among those whose love of truth has sought a
congenial resting-place in the Romish schism ; and his natural end
seems to be, unless some higher spirit arrest him, to become a
Familiar of the Inquisition." 3

There were but very few of the clergy who took the
trouble of imitating the excellent example of Archdeacon

1 Hare's Letter to the Dean of Chichester, p. 61.

2 Ibid. p. 23. a Ibid. pp. 58, 59.

PROPOSED PROSECUTION OF HAMPDEN 71

Hare and studying Hampden's writings for themselves.
Almost in every instance they formed their opinions of
the merits of the case from Newman's Elucidations, and
that set of " Propositions " which raised the just in
dignation of Archdeacon Hare. Stanley, who was by
no means favourably disposed towards Hampden, " was/'
his biographer states, " especially struck by the injustice
of condemning a man for writings which his accusers
had probably not read, and certainly had not studied."
While the excitement about the Hereford Bishopric case
was at its height, Stanley wrote : " The Dean of Norwich
told me to-day that Murray had told him that not one
copy of Hampden's Bampton Lectures had been sold
since these disturbances had begun. ' Not one copy ! '
I exclaimed, perfectly boiling with indignation. ' What !
not one amongst the thousands of the clergy, who are
petitioning or clamouring against his appointment, has
had the conscience to buy his book ? I never heard
anything so disgraceful.' "

It cannot be doubted that a large number of the
clergy who had no sympathy with Tractarianism, or, as it
was then termed, Puseyism, took part in the agitation
against Hampden ; but the real wire-pullers and chief
organisers of the opposition, from first to last, were the
Tractarians. On the very day that Hampden's appoint
ment was announced Pusey wrote to the Rev. B. Harrison,
suggesting that " his elevation to the Episcopate might be
hindered at Bow Church," 2 that is, by a formal protest
at his confirmation. Eight days later, on November 23rd,
he announced to Archdeacon Churton : " He will be
opposed at Bow Church, if by no others, by ]. Keble." 3
Hampden, by virtue of his office as Regius Professor of
Divinity, was also Rector of Ewelme, in the Diocese of
Oxford, a living attached officially to the Professorship.
Here was a further opening for attack on the part of his
opponents. It was seen that while it would be very
difficult to prosecute Hampden for heresy as a Professor, it

1 Life of Dean Stanley, vol. i. p. 349.

2 Life of Dr. Pusey ^ vol. iii. p. 159.

3 Ibid. p. 1 60.

72 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

would be comparatively easy to do so, as a Rector. u There
upon/' says Canon Liddon, " Pusey and Keble set to work
to draw up articles for the < oppositores ' in Bow Church,
and, following the advice of Dr. Addams and Dr. Harding,
and of Keble's proctor, Mr. Townsend, they endeavoured
to institute a suit against Hampden in the Ecclesiastical
Courts. . . . Mr. Townsend visited Oxford in order to
talk over the matter with Pusey, Marriott, and ]. B.
Mozley. Mr. Marriott then applied to the Bishop of
Oxford for Letters of Request, by which the case would
be transferred to the Court of Arches."1 The four chief
workers in the protest at Bow Church, and especially in
the organising of the proposed prosecution, were Keble,
Pusey, Marriott, and J. B. Mozley, all leaders of the
Tractarian party, by whom they were in every respect
thoroughly trusted. But these gentlemen, though the
real wire-pullers of the prosecution, do not appear to
have actually given their names as formal prosecutors,
and it was not until Dr. Hampden had demanded
from the Bishop of Oxford the names of his accusers
that he received them from the Bishop. They were
the Revs. W. H. Ridley, E. Dean, and H. ]. Young.2
Canon Liddon informs us that " Keble characteristically
made himself responsible for the legal expenses, which
Badeley estimated at .£2000. There is no doubt that
Pusey did not allow the burden to fall on him alone.
' Keble/ wrote Badeley to Pusey on January 21, 1848,
' has sent me the guaranty for the costs signed by himself
only ; do you know of any others who would be willing
to join with him?' The object was that < the expenses
should not fall on those who were put forward as the nominal
objectors! " 3 It thus appears who the real prosecutors were.
What the theological opinions of the nominal prosecutors
were I have no means of knowing. I cannot tell whether
they were High Churchmen or Evangelicals.

Bishop Samuel Wilberforce lost no time in dealing

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 161.

2 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 466.

3 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 161, note.

QUESTIONS FOR DR. HAMPDEN 73

with the request of the Tractarian leaders to send the case
on for trial before the Court of Arches. At first he was
in favour of the prosecution, and on December i6th he
actually signed the Letters of Request to the Court of
Arches, which, however, he subsequently withdrew. But,
before withdrawing them, he induced the promoters of
the suit — I quote the language of Bishop Wilberforce's
biographer — " to consent to the withdrawal of the < Letters'
if he could induce Dr. Hampden to give satisfactory as
surances as to some of the points on which the language
of the Bampton Lectures and the Observations on Religious
Dissent was most disquieting." * Accordingly the Bishop
wrote to Hampden, on December iyth, asking him to give
to the Church " such a distinct avowal on your part of
sound doctrine, and such a withdrawal of suspected lan
guage, as may terminate all opposition to your consecra
tion " ; and adding that he (the Bishop) believed him "to
hold the true faith." ' At the same time Dr. Wilberforce
asked Dr. Hampden certain important questions : —

"I will," he wrote, "take seriatim the truths concerning your
supposed denial of which articles are now prepared in reference to
the Court of Arches, and ask you : ist, To avow your unhesitating
reception of them. They are these : —

" i. That you believe that certain doctrines may be required to
be believed, as necessary to salvation, on the ground that they may
be proved by Holy Scripture.

" 2. That you believe that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as
it is taught by the Church, is the expression of that which is from
all eternity in the Divine nature.

" 3. That you fully believe that ' The Son was begotten before
all worlds, being of one substance with the Father,' and that it is
1 necessary to salvation that a man believe rightly the Incarnation of
our Lord Jesus Christ.'

"4. That you believe that the offering of Christ upon the Cross
was not only a means of reconciling us to God, but was also 'a
satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.'

"5. That you believe, in the plain sense of the words, 'all men
to be by nature born in sin and the children of wrath,' and that such

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 455.
* Ibid. p. 455.

74 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

terms may be properly applied to infants before they may have com
mitted actual sin ; and that ' original or birth sin is the fault and
corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered
of the offspring of Adam.'

" 6. That you believe, in the plain sense of the words, ' that the
souls of the faithful, after they are delivered from the burden of the
flesh, are in joy and felicity.'

" 7. That you believe, in the plain sense of the words, that in
Baptism we are made ' members of Christ,' and that they who ' with
a true penitent heart and lively faith receive' 'the Holy Com
munion' do 'spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood,'
— 'are one with Christ and Christ with them.'

"8. That you admit, as containing true doctrine, the words,
'the mystical union between Christ and His Church.'

" 9. That you admit, as a true and wholesome doctrine, that
' we have no power to do good works without the grace of Christ
preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us
when we have that good will.'

" 10. That you receive as true the words, 'Pour Thy grace into
our hearts.'

"IT. That you believe the Sacraments of the Church to be
' effectual signs of grace, by the which God doth work invisibly in
us,' and are ' means whereby we receive the same inward grace.'"1

Bishop Wilberforce also asked Dr. Hampden to with
draw his Bampton Lectures and his Observations on Dissent
from circulation. To Lord John Russell the Bishop sent
a copy of his letter to Dr. Hampden. The Prime Minister
in his reply showed himself far from satisfied with the
Bishop's action : —

" Dr. Hampden has," wrote Lord John Russell on December
1 8th, "for eleven years taught divinity as Regius Professor. Can
didates for Orders were required by the Bishops, with the exception
of five or six, to bring certificates that they had received from
Dr. Hampden instruction in theology. The Bishops of Manchester
and Salisbury, as I am told, sent away candidates who were not pro
vided with Dr. Hampden's certificates. How is such a man to be
interrogated upon articles framed, not by the Church, but by one of
its Bishops, as if he were himself a young student in divinity ?

"This remark applies to two of the three articles drawn up by
your lordship, to which I should not otherwise object. But the

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce^ vol. i. pp. 456, 457.

HAMPDEN'S REPLY TO THE QUESTIONS 75

eleventh, asking Dr. Hampden to withdraw his Bampton Lectures
and his Principles of Dissent, appears to me to require that Dr. Hamp
den should degrade himself in the eyes of all men for the sake of a
mitre. He has repeatedly declared that in these works he has not
intended to profess any doctrine at variance with the doctrines of
the Church. Dr. Arnold could see nothing unsound in them, nor
can the Bishop of Durham, or the Bishop of Chester, or the Bishop
of Norwich, or the Bishop of Llandaff. Indeed I believe that Dr.
Pusey himself, who must be considered as the leader and the oracle
of Dr. Hampden's opponents, has written that he does not consider
the opinions of Dr. Hampden unsound, but that they lead to un-
soundness, and are, therefore, dangerous in a teacher of divinity." x

On the same day that Lord John Russell wrote thus
to the Bishop of Oxford, Dr. Hampden wrote also to that
prelate, in reply to his queries. He might easily have
assumed the dignity of his position as a reason for de
clining to answer the questions put to him. He might
reasonably have refused to be interrogated, to quote Lord
Russell's words, " as if he were himself a young student
of divinity." But instead of assuming this position he
assumed one which was greatly to his credit.

"If," wrote Dr. Hampden to the Bishop, "the queries which this
letter contains had come from any other source, or been addressed
to me under other circumstances, I think I should have been justi
fied in considering that an insult was not only conveyed but intended
to be conveyed to me, by having such elementary tests applied to
one who holds the position I do. But, my Lord, I am sure your
intention is to be a messenger and instrument of peace ; and I know
too well what even Christian warfare is, not to meet such a proceed
ing on your part in the like kindly spirit. On this ground, therefore,
and in perfect respect to you as the Bishop of the diocese, and for your
personal satisfaction, I unhesitatingly reply in the affirmative. I say
' Yes ' to all your queries on my belief — in that sense in which they
are the plain natural sense of the statements of our Articles and
Formularies. I need not discuss them, for I have repeatedly
affirmed every position in them drawn from those authoritative
sources, commencing with my Catechism as a child, in the daily use
of the Liturgy, in my subscription and adherence to the Articles,
and in the constant use of my ministerial office. I have affirmed

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 459,

76 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

them in public and in private, in the pulpit, in my works, from the
Chair of Divinity, and in the other offices I have held in the
University, and in the very works which have attracted so much
notice, and have been subjected to so much misrepresentation." l

Such a letter as this ought to have satisfied Dr.
Hampden's prosecutors. It was sufficient to prove to any
candid mind that, as Bishop of Hereford; there was no
reason to fear that he would teach heretical doctrine.
What had happened would have been quite enough to
make him careful as to the language he employed in
teaching Christian doctrine, however careless he might
have been in this respect in the past. But his prose
cutors were not satisfied. Nothing would suffice for them
but a public apology, and a withdrawal of his Bampton
Lectures. His Observations on Dissent had not been issued
with Dr. Hampden's consent since the second edition was
sold out some years previously. When Bishop Wilber-
force learnt that the pamphlet was no longer in circulation
with the consent of Dr. Hampden, and after he had
received a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury,
stating that in his opinion the Letters of Request should
be withdrawn, he felt that it was no longer desirable that
the prosecution should proceed, and, therefore, he with
drew the Letters of Request accordingly. The Tract-
arians, of course, at once directed their fury against the
unfortunate Bishop of Oxford, who had now given them
mortal offence. Dr. Pusey declared that the Bishop's
conduct " was far more injurious to the Church than Dr.
Hampden's appointment. An act of tyranny hurts not
the Church ; the betrayal by her own guardians does ; "
and he went on to express the opinion that his lordship's
withdrawal of the Letters of Request was " the greatest
blow the Church has had since Newman's secession." 2 At
that time the Tractarians were bitterly opposed to the exer
cise of the Episcopal Veto on the prosecutions which they
had initiated. When the High Church Bishop of Exeter
(Dr. Phillpotts) heard that Bishop Wilberforce had vetoed

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce^ vol. i. pp. 461, 462.

2 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. pp. 162, 163.

OPPOSITION TO THE EPISCOPAL VETO 77

the prosecution of Hampden he was greatly annoyed and
disappointed. He thought the Church Discipline Act of
1840 did not permit of the exercise of the Episcopal
Veto, which he considered " a very invidious " and
" dangerous " power to be placed in the hands of the
Bishops.

"I may," he wrote the Bishop of Oxford, "be mistaken in my
construction of the Statute. It may give you the power to do what
you have done — to determine absolutely, of your own mere will or
on your own mere opinion, that the suit shall not be prosecuted. If
this be the proper construction of the Statute, I shall deeply lament if,
for it will give to us Bishops a much greater amount of power, and, in
consequence, of responsibility, than I think safe for ourselves, much
less wise in the law to entrust to any men.

" Still, even so, I should myself deem it at once my wisdom and
my duty to forbear from acting on so very invidious and dangerous
a power in any case whatever which I can contemplate, certainly in
any way which should have the slightest semblance of affinity to the
one in which you have exercised it." x

One can almost afford to smile at the anxiety of the
early Tractarians to prosecute their opponents. Had they
been successful in their efforts we should never have heard
any Ritualistic complaints against the existing Ecclesias
tical Courts. It was only when they discovered that the
Courts were against them that they turned against the
Courts. When Hampden's opponents found the doors of
the Court of Arches closed against them by the Bishop of
Oxford, they determined to oppose him by publicly pro
testing in Hereford Cathedral against his election by the
Dean and Chapter. On the receipt of the Conge cCelire
addressed to the Dean and Chapter of Hereford, the Dean
of Hereford addressed a Memorial to the Queen, dated
December 17, 1847, containing the following petition:
— "We most humbly pray your Majesty to name and
recommend some other person whom your Majesty shall
think meet to be elected by us for our Bishop, or that
your Majesty will graciously relieve us from the necessity of
proceeding to the election till you shall have been pleased

1 Life, of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 490.

78 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

to submit Dr. Renn Dickson Hampden's published writings
(so judged as aforesaid by the Convocation of the Univer
sity of Oxford), to the judgment either of the two Houses
of Convocation of Clergy of the Province of Canterbury,
which is now sitting, or of the Provincial Council of
Bishops of the same Province, assisted by such divines
as your Majesty or the said Provincial Council shall be
pleased to call, or of some other competent tribunal which
your Majesty shall be graciously pleased to appoint." ]
Unfortunately for the Dean, his Memorial received a very
chilling reception. He received from Sir G. Grey a reply,
stating that it had been laid before the Queen, but that
" Her Majesty has not been pleased to issue any commands
thereupon." Nothing daunted, the militant Dean once
more addressed a letter of protest to Lord John Russell,
dated December 22nd, and concluding with the announce
ment : — " I say, my Lord, having fully counted the cost,
having weighed the sense of bounden duty in the one
scale against the consequences in the other, I have come
to the deliberate resolve, that on Tuesday next no earthly
consideration shall induce me to give my vote in the
Chapter of Hereford Cathedral for Dr. Hampden's eleva
tion to the See of Hereford." 2 The Dean's letter to the
Prime Minister was in vain. His lordship coldly replied
as follows : — " SIR, — I have had the honour to receive
your letter of the 2 2nd inst., in which you intimate to
me your intention of violating the law. — I have, &c.,
]. RUSSELL."

At length the day of Election arrived. People were
everywhere full of curiosity to know what the Dean and
Chapter of Hereford would do. The Chapter assembled
in the Cathedral Library on Tuesday, December 28th.
Seventeen members (including the Dean, who presided)
were present. After the Conge d'e'lire and the Queen's
Letter Missive had been read, the Chapter proceeded to
the election. Fifteen voted for Dr. Hampden, and two
against, viz., Canon Huntingford and the Dean. These

1 The full text of the Memorial was published in the English Churchman,
Dec. 23, 1847, pp. 920, 921.

2 Ibid. Dec. 30, 1847, p. 934.

PROTEST BY THE DEAN OF HEREFORD 79

gentlemen each read a separate protest, explaining their
reasons for the course they took. Canon Huntingford
said : — " With the utmost respect for the Royal Preroga
tive, and with a full conviction that it is for the peace and
safety of the Church, that the Crown should nominate to
vacant Sees, yet in this particular instance I feel obliged
to defer complying with the recommendation which has
been sent down to us, until a competent tribunal shall
have pronounced to have been well founded or not the
sentiments expressed by so many Bishops of our Church,
and by so many members of one of our Universities." 1
The Dean of Hereford gave similar reasons for his vote,
and concluded with this statement: — "I, therefore, John
Merewether, D.D., Dean of the Cathedral Church of Here
ford, am dissentient. I cannot vote for Dr. Renn Dickson
Hampden as a Bishop and Pastor of the Cathedral Church
where I am Dean. And I further protest." 2 It must, I
think, be admitted that both the Dean and Canon Hunt
ingford deserved credit for the courage which led them
thus to act according to the dictates of their consciences,
however mistaken their judgments may have been. But
all their efforts were in vain. Dr. Hampden was declared
elected as Bishop of Hereford. Certificates of his election
were at once forwarded to the Queen, the Archbishop of
Canterbury, and to the Bishop Elect, in which nothing
whatever was said about the alleged unsound teaching of
the divine elected ; but the Dean succeeded in having a
formal protest of his own appended to each of the three
certificates. In this protest the Dean did not object to
Dr. Hampden on account of his supposed heresy, but
because " certain persons have voted, who (I have reason
to believe, being merely Honorary Prebendaries, and not
having conformed to the provisions of the statutes of this
Church, which I have sworn to observe), are not qualified
to vote in Chapter, and also because the majority so
constituted has not, according to the said statutes, the

1 The Case of Dr. Hampden. By Richard Jebb, Barrister-at-Law, p. 6.
London : 1849.

2 Ibid.?, ii.

80 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

Dean and three Residentiaries at the least voting therein." ]
No official notice, so far as I am able to ascertain, appears
to have been taken of this protest.

And now, all efforts at preventing the Election of Dr.
Hampden having utterly failed, the efforts of his enemies
were next directed to preparation for opposition to his
forthcoming Confirmation in Bow Church. Pusey and
Keble were particularly zealous in this direction. " Pusey
and Keble," writes Canon Liddon, " were busily engaged
in preparing theological matter for the use of Counsel at
Bow Church. ' I found things/ writes Pusey to Marriott,
on January 2, 1848, ' in Godliman Street, in most utter
confusion. Our articles of indictment just in the state in
which they were sent in. The heads of K.'s [Keble's]
articles (that is, his preamble) not fitted in into the sequel
(the allegations). I spent five and a half hours there on
Friday, and put them to rights ; at least ready to be copied
out.' " The Confirmation of the Election of Dr. Hampden
took place in Bow Church on Tuesday, January n, 1848.
No fewer than ten legal gentlemen appeared in the
Church, three representing the Dean and Chapter of
Hereford, one for Dr. Hampden, and six for the opposers
of the Confirmation. When opposers were publicly
called by the Apparitor-General to the Archbishop of
Canterbury, several of the learned Counsel rose one
after the other and asked to be heard ; but the Court
refused to hear their objections, after allowing them at
some length to argue in favour of being heard. The
arguments used on this occasion are printed verbatim in
The Case of Dr. Hampden, edited by Mr. Richard Jebb,
Barrister-at-Law, pp. 30-50. Dr. Hampden's accusers
were again unsuccessful, and his Confirmation was there
fore completed. An interesting account of the scene is
given by Archdeacon Clark in his " Recollections," printed
in the Memorials of Bishop Hampden.

"I was present," he writes, "at Bow Church when his [Dr.
Hampden's] Confirmation as Bishop was opposed by the Dean of

1 Jebb's The Case of Dr. Hampden, p. 13.

2 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 163.

HAMPDEN AT BOW CHURCH 8 1

Hereford. The ceremony took place on a week day, at a busy hour,
when Cheapside is usually most densely crowded. On this occasion,
as we approached the Church, the stream of human beings usually
in motion was arrested, Cheapside was in a state of congestion, and
it was with difficulty that the Bishop's carriage reached the Church.
It was evident that all other business was suspended, and that the
one object of interest to the excited crowd was the new Bishop. There
could be no doubt that the popular feeling was on his side. Again
and again, as he passed to and from the Church, he was loudly
cheered, not a single sound of dissent or disapproval being heard.
On entering the Church the scene was still more striking and
memorable. The whole area of the Church and the galleries were
crowded, spectators were standing on the seats and backs of pews. . . .
When at length the ceremony was over, and we succeeded in forcing
our way through the vestry and the crowded porch into the street,
the enthusiasm of the people could not be restrained. It was really
a service of danger for those who accompanied the Bishop. Every
body pressed forward to see and congratulate him ; and if we had
not turned ourselves into his body-guard, and almost covered him
as he passed through the crowd, he was in some danger of being
crushed by his admirers. When we were seated in the carriage,
Cheapside rang again with repeated cheers, which followed us until
we were fairly out of sight. Some of the crowd pursued the carriage
for some distance through St. Paul's Churchyard, to see and con
gratulate the persecuted Bishop."1

But the Bishop-Elect of Hereford was not yet out of
his troubles. Only three days later, viz. on January i4th,
Sir Fitzroy Kelly applied to the Court of Queen's Bench
for a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue
directed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and his Vicar-
General, commanding them, or one of them, to hold a
Court at which they should permit and admit to appear
in due form of law, the Rev. R. W. Huntley, Vicar of
Alderbury ; the Rev. John Jebb, Rector of Peterstow ;
and the Rev. W. F. Powell, Vicar of Cirencester, "to
oppose the said Confirmation of the said Election of the
said Dr. Renn Dickson Hampden, and to hear and
determine upon such opposition, and upon the articles,
matters, and proof thereof." ' The application was really

1 Memorials of Bishop Hampden, pp. 251-253.

2 The Case of Dr. Hampden, p. 92.

82 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

made for the purpose of setting aside the decision of the
Vicar-General at Bow Church refusing to hear objectors.
The Court granted the Rule, and on January 24th the
case came on for hearing before Lord Denman, and
Justices Coleridge, Pattison, and Erie. After hearing
Counsel on both sides the Court reserved judgment until
February ist, when Mr. Justice Coleridge and Mr. Justice
Pattison gave judgment in favour of granting the Rule,
while Lord Denman and Mr. Justice Erie gave judgment
against the Rule. The result was that, the Court being
equally divided, the application of Dr. Hampden's oppo
nents fell to the ground.

On the 4th of February the three clergymen whose
application to the Court of Queen's Bench fell through,
petitioned the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Howley) as
their " remaining and best resource," to grant " a compe
tent ecclesiastical inquiry into our objections, and into
the whole of the works we have mentioned," before the
consecration of Dr. Hampden.1 But, unfortunately for
their hopes, the Archbishop was then on his death-bed,
and died only seven days later. His successor (Dr.
Sumner) sent a formal acknowledgment of the receipt
of the Memorial, but he did not think it wise to grant
its request. And so, on March 26, 1848, Dr. Hampden
was at last consecrated in the Chapel of Lambeth Palace
as Bishop of Hereford. The consecrating prelate was
the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Sumner), who was
assisted by the Bishop of Llandaff (Dr. Copleston), the
Bishop of Norwich (Dr. Stanley), and the Bishop of
Worcester (Dr. Pepys).

It must not be supposed that throughout this heated
controversy Dr. Hampden was without friends and sup
porters. On the contrary, he received the sympathy and
help of many influential personages in Church and State.
The Prime" Minister was throughout one of his firmest
friends, and when the news of his election reached Woburn
Abbey, Lord John Russell's residence, it created quite an

1 The Case of Dr. Hampden^ p. 500.

SYMPATHY WITH HAMPDEN 83

excitement. Baron Bunsen was on a visit there at the
time, and in a letter to his wife described what took place
on the reception of the news : —

"Yesterday," he wrote, "was a day of satisfaction for the house
of Russell, the news having arrived of Dr. Hampden's election.
Lord John had been much vexed in the latter days by the unreason
ableness of the people he had to deal with — but yesterday at three
o'clock, when we were collected in expectation, and talking against
time, in came little Johnny [Viscount Amberley], escorted by his
aunt-like sister, and stationed himself at the entrance of the library,
distinctly proclaiming, like a herald, 'Dr. Hampden, — a Bishop!'
We cheered him, and some one asked him whether he liked Dr.

H . ' I don't mind (was his answer) for I don't know him.' His

father came in afterwards, radiant with satisfaction. After dinner,
I suggested as a toast, c The Chapter of Hereford,' adding sotto
voce to Lord John, ' and he who has managed them.' Milnes and
Stafford gave * The Dean/ in opposition, and we were just divided,
like the Chapter, two against fifteen. Lord John took all very
kindly."1

Dr. Hampden received many addresses of sympathy
from both clergy and laity. His fellow-citizens in Oxford
presented him with a public address, expressing confidence
in him as one who had set forth and enforced " the great
cardinal doctrines of a religion based on the Word of
God." He received also a general address from friends
throughout the country, chiefly signed by the clergy, but
including the names of members of both Houses of Par
liament ; and other addresses from members of Oxford
Convocation, and the Chapters of York and Gloucester.
His daughter states that, in connection with these addresses,
" the point to which he attached the greatest importance
was, that this support was offered to him on account of
his teaching and defence of the principles of the Church
of England as established by the Reformation." 2 Of
these addresses perhaps the most important and signi
ficant was that which was signed by no fewer than

1 Memoirs of Baron Bunsen, vol. ii. p. 155.

2 Memorials of Bishop Hampden^ p. 153.

84 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

fifteen out of the twenty-two Heads of Houses. It was
as follows : —

" To THE REV. DR. HAMPDEN, REGIUS PROFESSOR OF
DIVINITY, &c,

" We, the undersigned Heads of Houses in the University of
Oxford, have seen with great concern the report of proceedings in
various parts of the country upon your proposed appointment to the
See of Hereford, tending to injure your reputation, impede your
future usefulness, and even create a general distrust of the sound
ness of your faith in our Blessed Lord. Under such circumstances,
although we only declare the sentiments which many of us have
expressed before, and particularly upon the enactment in 1842 of
the new statute concerning theological instruction, we desire to
assure you, that having for years enjoyed ample opportunities of
learning the tenor of your public teaching, and hearing your dis
courses from the pulpit of the University, we are not only satisfied
that your religious belief is sound, but we look forward with con
fidence to your endeavours to preach the Gospel of Christ in its
integrity.

"B. P. Symons, Warden of Wadham, and Vice-Chancellor.

Edward Hawkins, Provost of Oriel

James Ingram, President of Trinity.

Philip Wynter, President of St. John's.

John Radford, Rector of Lincoln.

Henry Foulkes, Principal of Jesus College.

Thomas Gaisford, Dean of Christ Church.

John David Macbride, Principal of Magdalene Hall.

David Williams, Warden of New College.

Frederick Charles Plumptre, Master of University College.

Henry Wellesley, Principal of New Inn Hall.

R. Bullock Marsham, Warden of Merton.

William Thompson, Principal of St. Edmund Hall.

James Norris, President of Christ Church College.

Francis Jeune, Master of Pembroke." l

The history of the Hampden Case throws a great deal
of light on the early tactics of the Tractarian party. In
reality, as I have already said, I believe, Dr. Hampden's
latitudinarian views were only the ostensible cause of
the furious attacks made upon him. The real cause of

1 English Churchman, January 6, 1848, p. 6.

TRACTARIANS AS PROSECUTORS 85

offence was his outspoken Protestantism, though it must
be admitted that the early Tractarians were sincerely
opposed to his latitudinarian tendencies. But they could
not bear that the " Traditions " of the Church, her decrees
and Creeds, should be thought of less importance than the
written Word of God. Dr. Hampden's vigorous attacks
upon the sacerdotal teaching, ever so dear to the hearts
of the enemies of the Gospel and the friends of priestcraft,
made the Tractarians almost wild with rage. But, as far
as possible, they carefully concealed from the public gaze
the real cause of offence, and in this way they gained the
support of many Evangelicals, who were at least quite as
zealous for the Orthodox Faith, as any of the Tractarians.
And is it not a remarkable fact that Rationalistic views as
to the inspiration and truth of the Bible, far more objec
tionable than were ever taught by Dr. Hampden, are
now openly avowed by many leading members of the
Ritualistic party, the successors of the Tractarians ?
The Hampden Crusade was conducted by the real wire
pullers as a part of a deeply laid scheme to banish Ultra-
Protestantism, as held by the Reformers in the sixteenth
century, out of the Church of England. All opponents
were to be removed out of the way, and Dr. Hampden, as
Regius Professor, and afterwards as a Bishop, was very
much in the way of the success of their schemes. They
tried to get rid of him, and failed. And in their prosecu
tion of their Crusade they did not despise the strong arm
of the law. The existing Courts of Law, now so much
reviled and abused, were then thought good enough to
decide the law as to the highest Christian doctrines. The
chief leaders of the party, Dr. Pusey and Keble, were, as
we have seen, the most zealous, and the leading workers
in the proposed prosecution of Dr. Hampden, thirty
years before the Church Association came into existence.
Ecclesiastical prosecutions were not abused then by the
leaders of the Oxford Movement. On the contrary, they
were in high favour, and if they had only succeeded in
their hands all our present troubles about Ecclesiastical
Courts would have been unknown.

CHAPTER IV

Dr. Pusey's early Protestantism — Extracts from his Historical Enquiry
—His Theological Society—" The young Monks "—The Library of
the Fathers — Mr. Bickersteth approves of the Library — Lord Sel-
borne on the Fathers — Richard Hurrell Froude — His influence on
Newman — His admiration of Rome, and dislike of the Reformation
— Newman's early love of Rome — His mind " essentially Jesuitical "
— Froude's Remains — Extracts from the Remains, showing his
Romanising principles — Professor Faussett's University sermon
against the Tractarians — The Rev. Peter Maurice's Popery in Oxford
— Dr. Pusey insults Mr. Maurice — Newman's reply to Faussett —
Dr. Hook's Call to Union — Bishop of Oxford's Visitation Charge —
The Oxford Martyrs' Memorial — Pusey thinks it "unkind to the
Church of Rome" — Keble thinks Cranmer a Heretic — " Cranmer
burnt well " — Tractarian opposition to the Memorial — The inscrip
tion on the Oxford Martyrs' Memorial.

THE leaders of the Oxford Movement were wise in their
day and generation. They realised the vast importance
of influencing those who were destined to be the teachers
and leaders of the rising generation. At first, the move
ment was mainly confined to the educated classes, the
poor were only thought of afterwards. I do not say they
were wise in making, even for a time, the poor a secondary
consideration ; but they certainly realised from the com
mencement, in a way the Evangelicals never have done
yet (to anything like a sufficient extent), that if the laity
are to be instructed and influenced, their clergy must first
of all have been educated sufficiently in their faith.

The formation by Dr. Pusey of a Theological Society,
in 1835, greatly assisted the Tractarians in this direction.
Dr. Pusey was much slower in imbibing Roman doctrine
than Newman. As recently as 1828 he had published
the first part of An Historical Enquiry into the Rationalist
Character of the Theology of Germany, the second part of
which appeared in 1830, containing many opinions which

PUSEY'S EARLY PROTESTANTISM 87

in after life he ceased to hold. Its strong praise of Martin
Luther, and its declaration that Scripture is its own inter
preter, instead of being interpreted by the Church, show
that at that early period Pusey was in full sympathy with
much that is held dear by Lutheran Protestants.

"The fruitless attempts," wrote Pusey, "to satisfy an uneasy and
active conscience by the meritorious performances of a Romish Con
vent had opened his [Luther's] eyes to the right understanding of
Scripture, in whose doctrines alone it could find rest ; and the clear
and discerning faith which this correspondence of Scripture with his
own experience strengthened in him, gave him that intuitive insight
into the nature of Christianity, which enabled him for the most part
unfailingly to discriminate between essentials and non-essentials, and
raised him not only above the assumed authority of the Church and
above the might of Tradition, but above the influence of hereditary
scholastic opinions, the power of prejudices, and the dominion of
the letter. Unfortunately, however, the further expansion of his
views necessarily yielded to the then yet more important practical
employments, to which this Great Apostle of Evangelical Truth dedi
cated the most of his exertions." 1

The following statement of Pusey as to the right
method of interpreting the Bible, would certainly not be
accepted by his followers of the present day : —

"The Reformers, in consistency with their great tenet, that
Scripture is the only authoritative source of Christian knowledge,
had laid the study of the sacred volume as the foundation of all
Theological science. In the pursuance of this principle they had
established as the rule of interpretation one which, when correctly
developed, contains all the elements of right exposition, which have
since been gradually vindicated by the combination of several partial
efforts. Their, or rather the Biblical, rule that ' Scripture is its own
interpreter,' includes in itself the religious, historical, grammatical
elements which were imperfectly, because separately, brought forward
by Spener, Semler, and Ernesti. For it is obvious that if Scripture
is to be understood from itself, those only can rightly and fully under
stand it who have a mind kindred to that of its author ; and as any
human production, upon which the mind of its author is impressed,

1 An Historical Enquiry into the Probable Causes of the Rationalist Character
of the Theology of Germany. By E. B. Pusey, M.A. Part I. p. 8. London :
1882.

88 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

will be best understood by him whose intellectual and moral char
acter is most allied to the original which it expresses. ... In
religious writings it is plain that the spirit required is a religious
spirit ; that none can truly understand St. Paul or St. John, whose
mind has not been brought into harmony with theirs, has not been
elevated and purified by the same Spirit with which they were filled ;
and this, unquestionably, is what the pious Spener meant by his
much disputed assertion, that none but the regenerate could under
stand Holy Scripture" x

Pusey withdrew both parts of his book from circulation,
and Canon Liddon informs us that " he never referred to
them without regret and self-condemnation " ; 2 and that
" to the last he felt anxious as to the untoward influence/'
as he called it, " of these books." In his will, dated Nov
ember 19, 1875, he desired that " the two books on the
Theology of Germany should not be republished." : At
the period when this work was issued, Pusey's views as
to Episcopacy were Protestant. " Pusey," says Canon
Liddon, tl had not quite realised, as Rose had in fact
implicitly asserted, that the Episcopate is an organic
feature of the Church of Christ, the absence of which
could not but be attended by spiritual disorder." 4 Even
in 1836 Pusey believed that priestly absolution was not
a judicial act. Writing to the Rev. ]. F. Russell on
December 10, 1836, he remarked : — " In Absolution, the
contrast is not between < declaratory ' and ' ministerial,'
but between ' ministerial ' and ' judicial.' It is this last
which the Church of Rome holds and we do not." 5 In
the preface to his Scriptural Views of Baptism, written in
1836, Pusey declared that, in his opinion, " the Romanist,
by the Sacrament of Penance," " would forestall the sentence
of his Judge." ' Later on in life, Pusey accepted the
doctrine that the priest acts as "judge" when bestowing
Absolution — the doctrine of the Church of Rome.

But even when, in 1835, PuseY founded the Theo
logical Society at Oxford, he had gone far away from

1 Pusey's Historical Enquiry, Part I. pp. 26, 27.

2 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. i. p. 173.

3 Ibid. p. 176. 4 Ibid. p. 171. 5 Ibid. p. 401.
6 Tracts for the Times. Preface to Nos. 67, 68, 69, p. xiv.

PUSEY'S THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 89

Protestantism in many respects, and the consequence was
that, while in theory the new Society was open to every
party in the Church, it became practically a propaganda
for Tractarianism. This is frankly acknowledged by
Canon Liddon, who tells us that: — " There can be no
question of the influence of this Society on the Oxford
Movement. It stimulated theological thought and work
more than any other agency in Oxford at the time. . . .
Above all, it fed both the British Magazine and the Tracts
for the Times, especially the latter, with a series of essays
upon subjects of which little was known or thought in
those days." Canon Overton tells us that this Theo
logical Society " was at first intended to be confined to
no party in the Church. Men were invited to join who
had no sympathy with the founder's views ; but these
either declined or soon withdrew ; and the Society be
came as much a part of the Movement as the Tracts
themselves." 2

At about the time when the Theological Society was
founded, Pusey took into his house at Oxford three or four
Bachelors of Arts, and kept them there at his own expense,
in order that they might give themselves more fully to the
study of Divinity. Of course, those selected were men
likely to prove serviceable to the Oxford Movement. This
plan was continued until the summer of 1838, when
Newman took a house for the young men in St. Aldate's,
Oxford, and for about two years it seems to have been
under his control. It was to be used, Mr. J. B. Mozley
(who was its first inmate) informed his sister, on April 27,
1838, as "a reading and collating establishment, to help
in editing the Fathers." 3 Newman seems to have looked
upon this house as a home for " young Monks," and
desired that his plans concerning it should be kept as
secret as possible. His friend, Mr. J. W. Bowden, made a
contribution towards the expenses of the house, and to him
Newman wrote, on January 17, 1838: — " Your offering

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. i. p. 334.

3 The Anglican Revival. By J. H. Overton, D.D., p. 67. London : 1897.

8 Mozley's Letters, p. 78.

90 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

towards the young Monks was just like yourself, and I
cannot pay it a better compliment. It will be most
welcome. As you may suppose, we have nothing settled,
but are feeling our way. We should begin next Term ;
but since, however secret one may wish to keep it, things get
out, we do not yet wish to commit young men to any
thing which may hurt their chance of success at any
College, in standing for a fellowship." l

The first volume of the now well-known Library of the
Fathers was published on August 24, 1838, and the last
in November 1885. The series comprised forty-eight
volumes, and included the writings of thirteen Fathers,
translated into English. It is remarkable that when, nearly
two years before the first volume was issued, that well-
known Evangelical and thoroughly Protestant clergyman,
the Rev. E. Bickersteth, heard of the projected Library he
wrote enthusiastically about it to Pusey, promising to
become a subscriber, and adding : —

"Though personally unacquainted with you, and differing in
some respects from views which, judging from the volumes of the
Oxford Tracts, I suppose you hold, I cannot but write a few lines
to express the sincere pleasure with which I view your design, in
connection with Mr. Keble and Mr. Newman, of publishing a select
Library of Fathers. Few things could be more seasonable, or more
beneficial to the Church of England." 2

When Mr. Bickersteth wrote this letter he probably
expected that the Library would include all the Fathers of
the first three centuries at least. If so, he must have been
disappointed. Of the thirteen Fathers, whose writings
were translated, only three wrote in the first three centuries,
the remaining ten flourished in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and
seventh centuries. It is well known that during the latter
periods many false doctrines crept into the Church, and
the tendency of the early Tractarians, as of their successors,
the Ritualists, was to rely chiefly on the later Fathers,
rather than on those who lived near Apostolic times. In
1845 Bishop (afterwards Cardinal) Wiseman remarked, on

1 Newman's Letters, vol. ii. p. 249.

2 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. i. p. 435.

TRACTARIANS AND THE FATHERS 91

the authority of Newman, that lt in Pusey's celebrated
Sermon on the Eucharist, out of 140 texts of Fathers
only four are from the first three centuries." x

There is a very interesting passage on this subject in
the late Lord Selborne's Memorials. His lordship, I may
here mention, was a friend of the early Tractarians, and a
sympathiser with their religious views ; but he afterwards
became an opponent of the advanced section of the
party :-

" My father," writes Lord Selborne, " once said to my brother
William— repeating, unless I am mistaken, some words of Bishop
Horsley, who knew the Fathers well — that ' the Fathers must be
read with caution.' When Isaac Taylor, in his Ancient Christianity^
collected out of the Fathers many things tending to disturb the ideal
conception of a golden primitive age of pure faith and practice ; and
when William Goode, afterwards Dean of Ripon, in his Divine Rule
of Faith and Practice, called the Fathers themselves as witnesses in
favour of the direct use of Scripture for the decision of controversies,
some of those who placed confidence in the Oxford Divines, but were
themselves ignorant of the Fathers, waited anxiously for answers
which never came. I remember a reply once made to myself, when
I asked whether anybody was going to answer Isaac Taylor, whose
work I perceived to be producing in some quarters a considerable
effect. I was told that in a little time he would answer himself,
which he never did. It seemed plain that, although the advocates
of Patristic authority might be powerful in attack, they were weak in
defence." 2

The Oxford Movement suffered a great loss by the
death, on February 28, 1836, of the Rev. Richard Hurrell
Froude, at the early age of 33. Young as he was, his
influence on the Oxford Movement was next only to that
of Keble and Newman. At the time of his death he had
done more than either of these to move the Tractarians in
a Romeward direction. The Rev. Thomas Mozley, who
was personally acquainted with Froude, tells us that : — " He
was a High Churchman of the uncompromising school,
very early taking part with Anselm, Becket, Laud, and the

1 Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, vol. i. p. 434.

3 Memorials Family and Personal^ 1766-1865. By the Earl of Selborne,
vol. i. p. 210.

92 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

Nonjurors. Woe to any one who dropped in his hearing
such phrases as the Dark Ages, Superstition, Bigotry,
Right of Private Judgment, enlightenment, march of mind,
or progress." His influence on Newman, leading him to
adopt many Roman Catholic doctrines and practices, was
very great. Of Froude, Newman writes : —

" His opinions arrested and influenced me, even when they did
not gain my assent. He professed openly his admiration of the
Church of Rome, and his hatred of the Reformers. He delighted
in the notion of an hierarchical system, of sacerdotal power, and of
full ecclesiastical liberty. He felt scorn of the maxim, * The Bible
and the Bible only is the religion of Protestants ' ; and he gloried in
accepting Tradition as a main instrument of religious teaching. He
had a high severe idea of the intrinsic excellence of Virginity ; and
he considered the Blessed Virgin its great pattern. He delighted in
thinking of the Saints ; he had a keen appreciation of the idea of
sanctity, its possibility and its heights ; and he was more than
inclined to believe a large amount of miraculous interference as
occurring in the early and Middle Ages. He embraced the principle
of penance and mortification. He had a deep devotion to the
Real Presence, in which he had a firm faith. He was powerfully
drawn to the Mediaeval Church, but not to the Primitive. ... It
is difficult to enumerate the precise additions to my theological
creed which I derived from a friend to whom I owe so much. He
made me look with admiration towards the Church of Rome, and
in the same degree to dislike the Reformation. He fixed deep in
me the idea of devotion to the Blessed Virgin, and he led me
gradually to believe in the Real Presence."2

We thus learn that, for ten years at least before
Newman announced his secession to the Papacy, he had
" looked with admiration towards the Church of Rome,"
and " disliked " that Protestant Reformation which, while
a clergyman in the Church of England, he did his best
to destroy. It is evident that Newman's heart was with
Rome many years before he left the Church of England.
First of all, at the very commencement of the Oxford
Movement, as he tells us : — " I learned to have tender feel
ings towards her [Church of Rome] ; but still my reason

1 Mozley's Reminiscences of the Oxford Movement, vol. i. p. 226.

2 Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua, 1st edition, pp. 85-87.

NEWMAN'S EARLY LOVE OF ROME 93

was not affected at all. My judgment was against her,
when viewed as an institution, as truly as it had ever been.
This conflict between reason and affection I expressed in
one of the early Tracts, published July 1834 ... As a
matter, then, of simple conscience, though it went against
my feelings, I felt it to be a duty to protest against the
Church of Rome . . . / did not at all like the work. Hurrell
Froude attacked me for doing it ; and besides, I felt that
my language had a vulgar and rhetorical look about it.
I believed, and really measured my words when I used
them ; but I knew that I had a temptation, on the other
hand, to say against Rome as much as ever I could, in
order to protect myself against the charge of Popery" ]

It is very easy to persuade ourselves that those whom
we love are in the right, and most unpleasant to say
anything against them. Newman's affections and " feel
ings " went out to Rome first, and after a time his reason
followed them. There are many in a similar position
at the present time : they are guided by feelings instead
of reason ; by what they like rather than by what God
requires in His Holy Word. We know that Newman
kept his love of Rome a secret from the public for several
years after Froude's death, and that his denunciations of
Romanism were largely the result of a selfish desire to
" protect himself from the charge of Popery " which was
justly brought against him. How could any man be
suspected of a leaning towards, and a love for, Rome,
who wrote against her as Newman did ? One of his
intimate friends, and a former curate of his, the Rev. Isaac
Williams, says : — " I have lately heard it stated from one
of Newman's oldest friends, Dr. Jelf, that his mind was
always essentially Jesuitical.1' ' Before the public, at that
time, Newman appeared as the enemy of Rome, while at
heart and in secret he was her lover.

Froude had written three of the Tracts for the Times.
He was the author of Tract IX., on " Shortening the
Church Service," in which he expressed the opinion

1 Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua, 1st edition, pp. 127, 128.

2 Autobiography of Isaac Williams, p. 54.

94 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

that the Church services were already short enough ;
and affirmed that our Reformers " added to the Matin
Service what had hitherto been wholly distinct from it,
the Mass Service or Communion" — thus implying that
the " Mass " and " Communion " were identical. He also
held up the Church of Rome to the admiration of his
readers because she had retained the " primitive mode
of worship," in that she uses the Seven Canonical Hours
of Prayer daily. This was but a small compliment to
the Church of Rome, but it was a compliment never
theless, and was published to the world as early as
October 31, 1833, but a little over three months from
the birth of the Oxford Movement. Tract LIX., " On the
Position of the Church of Christ in England Relatively
to the State and Nation/' was also written by Froude.
In it he tried to prove that the Church of England is
suffering from greater tyranny from the State than in
the Dark Ages. " It cannot," he asserts, " be denied
that at present it [Church of England] is treated far
more arbitrarily, and is more completely at the mercy
of the chance Government of the day, than ever our
forefathers were under the worst tyranny of the worst
times." l The author argues in favour of what he terms
"State Protection" and against "State Interference"
with the Church. Under the first of these heads, how
ever (to his credit be it recorded), he objects to "the
law De Excommunicate Capiendo, by which the State
engages that on receiving due notice of the excommuni
cation of any given person, he shall be arrested and put
in prison until he is absolved." This he justly terms "a
bad, useless law, which cannot be done away with too
soon." : In this Tract Froude was careful not to let his
readers know all that he believed about the connection
of Church and State. He did say in it that he thought
" State Interference " with the Church was an evil, but
he did not tell them what Newman revealed nearly
twenty-eight years after Froude's death, in his Apologia,
"With Froude, Erastianism — that is, the union (so he

1 Tract LIX., p. 6. 2 Ibid. p. 3.

FROUDE ON THE ANCIENT LITURGIES 95

viewed it) of Church and State — was the parent, or if
not the parent, the serviceable and sufficient tool, of
Liberalism. Till that union was snapped, Christian
doctrine could never be safe." l The last of Froude's
contributions to the Tracts for the Times was Tract LXIIL,
on " The Antiquity of the Existing Liturgies," in which he
declared of those ancient documents, that " next to the
Holy Scriptures, they possess the greatest claim on our
veneration and study,2 thus placing them above the
present Liturgy of the Reformed Church of England in
her Book of Common Prayer. He was careful also to
point out that all of those Ancient Liturgies, which have
such a high claim on our " veneration," contain a prayer
" for the rest and peace of all those who have departed
this life in God's faith and fear " ; also u A sacrificial obla
tion of the Eucharistic bread and wine " ; and " A prayer
of consecration, that God will ' make the bread and wine
the Body and Blood of Christ.' " 3 The tendency of this
Tract is to produce the impression that the present
Liturgy of the Church of England, because it does not
contain either of the features just mentioned, is not of
equal value with those extant Ancient Liturgies, " which
possess the greatest claims on our veneration and study."
It must be sorrowfully admitted that Froude's exhortation
to " study " these ancient documents has not been in vain,
and that the studies of his successors have not been con
fined to the portions to which he called attention. The
Ritualists of the present day do study the Liturgies of the
past, but they prefer to imitate those which were in use
in the Church of Rome during the darkest period of the
Dark Ages of Christianity.

The opinions expressed by Froude in the Tracts for the
Times were extremely moderate, when compared with
others which he held, but which were not made known
to the public until after his death, when his writings were
published in four volumes, edited by Keble and Newman.
The first two volumes were issued in 1838, the others

1 Apologia Pro Vita Sua, p. 107.

2 Tract LXIIL, p. 16. 3 Ibid. p. 7.

96 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

later on, under the general title of Remains of the late
Reverend Richard Hurrell Froude, M.A. The public interest
in these volumes mainly centred round the first, which
produced a profound sensation throughout the country,
owing to the startling statements in favour of Roman
doctrines which it contained. Until then no one — outside
the Tractarian party — seems to have even dreamt that it
was possible that one of the chief and trusted leaders of
the Oxford Movement could possibly have gone so far
towards Rome, and yet retain his position as a clergyman
of the Reformed Church of England. I subjoin some
extracts from his " Letters to Friends " in the order in
which they were published. The italics are mine. On
August 31, 1833, Froude wrote : —

" It has lately come into my head that the present state of things
in England makes an opening for revising the Monastic System. I
think of putting the view forward under the title of c Project for
reviving Religion in great towns.' ... I must go about the country
to look for the stray sheep of the true fold ; there are many about I
am sure ; only that odious Protestantism sticks in people's gizzard.
I see Hammond takes that view of the infallibility of the Church,
which P. says was the old one. We must revive it" (vol. i. p.
322).

August, 1833. — "Since I have been at home, I have been doing
what I can to proselytise in an underhand way" (p. 322).

September 16, 1833. — " I should like to know why you flinch from
saying that the power of making the Body and Blood of Christ is
vested in the Successors of the Apostles" (p. 326).

November 17, 1833. — "Is it expedient to put forth any paper
on 'the doctrine necessary to Salvation'? I am led to question
whether Justification by Faith is an integral part of this doctrine. I
have not breathed this to a soul but you, and express myself offhand.
... I wish you could get to know something of S. and W., and
un-ise, un-Protestantise, un-Miltonise them "(p. 331).

January 9, 1834. — "You will be shocked at my avowal, that I
am every day becoming a less and less loyal son of the Reformation.
It appears to me plain that in all matters that seem to us indifferent or
even doubtful, we should conform our practices to those of the Church
which has preserved its traditionary practices unbroken. We can
not know about any seemingly indifferent practice of the Church of
Rome, that it is not a development of the Apostolic ethos ; and it is

FROUDE'S " REMAINS" 97

to no purpose to say that we can find no proof of it in the writings
of the six first centuries " (p. 336).

August 22, 1834. — "If you are determined to have a pulpit in
your Church, which I would much rather be without, do put it at the
west end of the Church, or leave it where it is ; every one can hear
you perfectly, and what can they want more ? But whatever you do>
pray don't let it stand in the light of the Altar, which, if there is any
truth in my notions of Ordination, is more sacred than the Holy of
Holies was in the Jewish Temple" (p. 372).

October, 1834. — "As to the Reformers, / think worse and worse
of them. Jewell was what you would in these days term an irrever
ent Dissenter. His Defence of the Apology disgusted me more than
almost any work I ever read " (p. 379).

December 26, 1834. — "When I get your letter I expect a rowing
for my Roman Catholic sentiments. Really / hate the Reformation
and the Reformers more and more " (p. 389).

January 1835. — "^ am more an^ more indignant at the Pro
testant doctrine on the subject of the Eucharist, and think that the
principle on which k is founded is as proud, irreverent, and foolish
as that of any heresy, even Socinianism " (p. 391).

January 1835. — "I shall never call the Holy Eucharist 'The
Lord's Supper,' nor God's Priests * Ministers of the Word,' or the
Altar 'The Lord's Table,' &c., &c. ; innocent as such phrases are in
themselves, they have been dirtied ; a fact of which you seem
oblivious on many occasions. Nor shall I even abuse Roman
Catholics as a Church for anything except excommunicating us"

(P- 395}

February -25, 1835. — "The Rural Dean and the Clergy 'went a
whoring ' after the Wesleyans, Moravians, and the whole kit besides,
to concoct a joint plan of general education " (p. 400).

February 25, 1835. — "I can see no other claim which the
Prayer Book has on a Layman's deference, as the teaching of the
Church, which the Breviary and Missal have not in a far higher
degree" (p. 402).

In the first volume of Froude's Remains there is a
chapter headed, " Sayings and Doings." Unfortunately,
with only two exceptions, no dates are mentioned when
these sayings were uttered. There are two or three which
are against Rome to a certain extent. He declared : —
" I never could be a Romanist ; I never could think all
those things in Pope Pius' Creed necessary to salvation.
But I do not see what harm an ordinary Romanist gets

98 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

from thinking so." ] On another occasion he termed the
Romanists, " wretched Tridentines everywhere." ' But,
inasmuch as, only one year before his death, he, as we
have seen, declared that he would never " abuse Roman
Catholics as a Church for anything, except excommuni
cating us," I am inclined to think that his anti-Roman
sayings must have been uttered some considerable time
before his death. Two more of Froude's sayings may be
cited here : — " I wonder a thoughtful fellow like H. does
not get to hate the Reformers faster." ft The Reformation
was a limb badly set — it must be broken again in order
to be righted." 3

These extracts will serve to make my readers under
stand why the publication of Froude's Remains created
such a stir throughout the country. Moderate High
Churchmen, like Samuel Wilberforce, deplored their publi
cation, as likely to do " irreparable injury." • Archdeacon
Edward Churton said that one result of the Remains was
to " give deep offence to many minds, and to unsettle the
principles of many more." 5 They were edited by Keble
and Newman, but in their preface to the first volume not
one word of censure of Froude's disloyal utterances is to
be found. On the contrary, the editors appear therein
as his apologists, contenting themselves, by way of caution,
with saying in the mildest possible manner : — " It can
hardly be necessary for them to add, what the name of
editor implies, that while they of course concur in his
[Froude's] sentiments as a whole, they are not to be
understood as rendering themselves responsible for every
shade of opinion or expression." ( Pusey hailed the publi
cation with pleasure. " For myself," he said, tl I am very
glad of the publication of the Remains; they may very
likely be a check, but that in itself may be the very best
thing for us, and prevent a too rapid and weakening
growth." 7

But the Rev. Dr. Faussett, Lady Margaret's Professor

1 Froude's Remains, vol. i. p. 434. 2 Ibid. p. 434. 3 Ibid. pp. 434, 433.

4 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 112.

5 Life of Joshua Watson, p. 270, 2nd edition.

6 Froude's Remains, vol. i. p. xxii. 7 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 45.

"THE REVIVAL OF POPERY" 99

of Divinity in the University of Oxford, was not at all
pleased with the publication of Froude's Remains. He
felt, and rightly felt, that the work was calculated, on the
whole, to glorify the Church of Rome, and to disparage
the Church of England, and to hold up to public con
tempt that Protestantism of which Englishmen were justly
proud. Accordingly, he determined to raise his voice in
the University pulpit, not only against the Remains, but
also against certain statements of the Tracts for the Times,
and of the British Critic, of which at that time Newman
was editor. On Sunday, May 20, 1838, Dr. Faussett
preached before the University of Oxford a sermon on
The Revival of Popery, which became a bombshell in the
enemies' camp. It was subsequently published as a pam
phlet. The text selected by the preacher was : — " Come
out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her
sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues " (Rev. xviii.
4). He first of all directed attention to the revival of
genuine Popery in the country, and then proceeded to
show how the cause of Rome was being assisted by certain
trusted leaders of the Tractarians. He admitted that " a
few unguarded statements, the result probably of indi
vidual haste and indiscretion," might easily have been
passed over without " any severity of censure."

" But," he added, " when they assume more and more unequi
vocally the marks of deliberation and design, the evidence of
numbers and of combination ; when the most plausible palliations
of Romish corruption, and the most insidious cavils against the
wisdom, and even in some measure the necessity, of the Reforma
tion, find their way into the periodical and popular and most widely
disseminated literature of the day ; — when the wild and visionary
sentiments of an enthusiastic mind [Froude's], involving in their
unguarded expression and undisguised preference for a portion at
least of Papal superstition, and occasionally even a wanton outrage
on the cherished feelings of the sincere Protestant — his pious affec
tion for those venerated names which he habitually associates with
the inestimable blessings of the Reformation— are dragged forth
from the sanctuary of confidential intercourse, and recommended to
the public as a 'witness of Catholic views,' and 'to speak a word in
season for the Church of God ' ; as ' likely to suggest thoughts on

100 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

doctrine, on Church policy, and on individual conduct, most true
and most necessary for these times,' and as ' a bold and compre
hensive sketch of a new position ' for the Church of England ; and
this, too, under circumstances which imply the concurrence and
approval, and responsibility too, of an indefinite and apparently
numerous body of friends and correspondents and editors and
reviewers ; — who shall any longer deny the imperative necessity
which exists for the most decisive language of warning and caution,
lest these rash projectors of a new position for our Church should be
unwarily permitted to undermine and impair her old and approved
defences." l

" To affirm," said the preacher, " that these persons are strictly
Papists, or that within certain limits of their own devising they are
not actually opposed to the corruptions and the Communion of
Rome, would, I believe, be as uncharitable as it is untrue. But who
shall venture to pronounce them safe and consistent members of
the Church of England ? and who shall question the obvious ten
dency of their views to Popery itself? For if by some happy con
sistency they are themselves, and for the present, saved from the
natural consequences of their own reasoning, what shall we hope
for the people at large, should these delusive speculations (which
God in His infinite mercy forbid) extend their influence beyond the
circle (and it is hoped not yet a very extensive circle) of educated
men, to which they are at present limited ? If such should become
the ordinary instruction of the unwary pastor to his credulous flock,
what shall preserve them from all the fascinations and idolatries of
the Mass, or from welcoming with open arms those crafty emissaries
who have already succeeded to such a fearful extent in reimposing
the yoke of spiritual bondage on the neck of our deluded country
men?"2

Dr. Faussett rendered an important service to the
Church of England by his faithful and outspoken sermon.
Its warnings were greatly needed, and seem to us now
almost prophetic. All that he foretold, and more than all,
has come true in our own day, and to an extent which
Dr. Faussett never could have anticipated. He proved
his case by numerous quotations from the writings of the
men whose conduct he so justly denounced. Of course
they did not like it. Those who do wrong never love the

1 The Revival of Popery. By Godfrey Faussett, D.D., ist edition, pp. 13-15.
Oxford: Parker. 1838.

2 Ibid. p. 24.

ATTACK ON THE TRACTARIANS IOI

man who has given them a richly deserved castigation.
Dr. Faussett's was not the first public attack on the
teaching of the Tractarians, but it was, I believe, the first
which they had condescended to reply to publicly. Of
these, perhaps, the most noteworthy was that written by
the Rev. Peter Maurice, Chaplain of New and All Souls'
College, Oxford, and published by him with the title of
Popery in Oxford, in 1837. He declared that "an attack
is made by this newly organised system [Tractarianism]
upon the very vitals of our religion, as embodied in the
Book of Common Prayer," l and he brought against the
party a charge of secrecy, just sixty years before the
publication of the first edition of my Secret History of the
Oxford Movement: —

"We find," he said, "a party, whom nobody knows> though every
body seems to pay deference to, entering into a combination, and
issuing Tracts in the capacity of ' Members of the University of
Oxford,' containing the most absurd statements that ever issued
from any body of educated men, addressed to the clergy as well as
to the laity as if they were vested with supernatural powers ; and
moreover (who would credit it ?) suppressing their names" 2

"What are the names of these our Members [of the University
of Oxford]. Let them be announced, that we may know them, at
least by name. Had I not found Dr. Pusey there, by name, I
should have scorned to put my name alongside of his. I fight in
the daylight, neither with small nor great, but with those only who
are not ashamed of their doings." 8

The Islington Evangelical clergy censured the Tract-
arians. Writing on January 6, 1837, Mr. Dods worth
(one of the Tractarians) said : " I hear that there was a
most violent and abusive attack on us at a meeting of
clergy at Islington yesterday, and great alarm expressed
at the spread of High Church principles, which they did
not scruple to denounce as heretical." 4 Later on in the
same year Archdeacon Spooner, of Coventry, in charging
the clergy of his Archdeaconry, denounced the Tracts for

1 Popery in Oxford. By Peter Maurice, M.A., p. 4. London : 1837.

2 Ibid. p. 4. * Ibid. p. II.
4 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 12.

102 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

the Times in vigorous terms. To him belongs the honour
of giving utterance to the first official condemnation of
the Oxford Movement. Pusey wrote to the Archdeacon
a private letter of remonstrance, which brought back a
reply, in the course of which the Archdeacon disclaimed
any intention of imputing any intentional dishonesty to
the writers of the Tracts, but adding that he believed that
" the respectable and learned authors of those Tracts were,
unawares to themselves, injuring the pure and Scriptural
doctrines of the Protestant faith."1 At about this time
the Bishop of Oxford received so many letters of com
plaint against the Tractarians that he felt it necessary to
write to Dr. Pusey on the subject, asking him for an ex
planation. This Dr. Pusey gave in a long letter, dated
September 26, 1837, in which he specially dealt with the
charges brought against his friends by Mr. Peter Maurice,
whose book on Popery in Oxford had by this time caused
a great stir throughout the country, and had been quoted
by Canon G. Stanley Faber, of Durham, in a Charge
which he delivered to the clergy. The charges brought
against Mr. Newman and his friends by Mr. Maurice
were : (i) Needless bowings ; (2) turning to the East while
reading certain prayers ; (3) the use of a Credence Table;
and (4) the use of a stole with embroidered crosses. Dr.
Pusey did not deny the truth of either of these charges,
excepting the first, stating that there had been " no
bowings, except at the name of our Lord " ; as to the
other charges he endeavoured to prove that they were
directed against lawful practices. But, inasmuch as he
was writing a private letter to his Bishop, Dr. Pusey
was not ashamed to unjustly slander an opponent in his
letter : —

"The reports," against his friends, he informs his lordship,
" began with a Mr. Maurice, a Chaplain of New College, who seems
a very excited and vain and half-bewildered person, who seems to
think that he is called by God to oppose what he calls the Popery
of Oxford. He published a heavy pamphlet, which would have

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 14.

NEWMAN'S REPLY TO FAUSSETT 103

died a natural death had not the Christian Observer wished to have
a blow at Mr. Newman and the ' High Church,' and so taken it up
though with a sort of protest against identifying itself with Mr.
Maurice's language ; and thence, I am sorry to say, Mr. Townsend,
Prebendary of Durham, has repeated it in a ' Charge to the Clergy
of the Peculiar of N. Allerton and Allertonshire.'"1

After all, this u very excited and vain and half-
bewildered person/' as Pusey insultingly termed Mr.
Maurice, had only told the truth. I had the pleasure
of Mr. Maurice's personal acquaintance many years later,
and found in him no trace of being either a " vain " or a
" half-bewildered person." Down to his death, at an
advanced age, he was ever foremost in exposing the
misdeeds of the Romanisers. His two volumes on The
Ritualists or Non-Natural Catholics, now long since out of
print, contain a considerable quantity of useful — though
badly-arranged — information concerning the history of
the Oxford Movement, to be found nowhere else.2

Though the Tractarians were much annoyed at these
criticisms, they were careful to abstain as far as possible
from taking public notice of anything said against them.
But when Dr. Faussett publicly denounced them in such
.vigorous terms from the University pulpit, and held them
up to the reprobation of all loyal Churchmen, they could
keep silence no longer. His sermon was not published
until June 2ist, and yet before the next day was over
Newman had written a reply of 104 pages. It was a
calmly written and clever document, in which all the
subtlety for which he was famous seems to have been
called into action. He complains much of Dr. Faussett
that, in his sermon, he had not proved that the opinions
and practices he condemned were " inconsistent with the
doctrines of our Church." 3 Newman here very con
veniently chose to forget that Dr. Faussett was addressing
men whom he knew to be already (with but few excep-

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. pp. 14, 15.

2 The Ritualists or Non-Natural Catholics. By the Rev. Peter Maurice, D.D.
London : J. F. Shaw & Co., pp. xxiv. and 191. Sequel to the Ritualists. By the
Rev. Peter Maurice, D.D., p. 188. Yarnton : 1875.

3 A Letter to the Rev. Godfrey Fans sett, D.D., on Certain Points of Faith and
Practice. By the Rev. J. H. Newman, B.D., 2nd edition, 1838, p. 6.

104 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

tions) convinced that the doctrines and practices censured
were inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church of
England. He had no need to stop and argue the case
with men who were already convinced. His object was
to expose a subtle attempt to revive Popery in the Church
of England, and in proof of the existence of such an
attempt he gave ample extracts from Froude's Remains, the
Tracts for the Times, and the British Critic. It was simply
impossible, in the course of the sermon, to give the proof
demanded. Newman certainly had a point against his
opponent when he complained that he had not cited what
Froude had written against the Church of Rome. Not
that Newman had much to gain from those passages,
which had been specially cited by the editors of the
Remains in their preface. Bishop (afterwards Cardinal)
Wiseman, in the Dublin Review, commenting on the argu
ment sought to be built on these anti-Roman utterances
of Froude, justly remarks : —

" We think we are justified in saying that proofs of Mr. Froude's
disinclination to Catholicity must have been very scarce, for the
editors to have been induced to bring together these superficial
observations, made during a brief residence in a Catholic city, not
generally reputed one of the most edifying. These, however, will
not bear comparison with the growing and expanding tendency of
his mind towards everything Catholic ; and we cannot help feeling,
as we peruse his later declarations, that the passages brought so
prominently forward by his editors, would have been among those
which, dying, he would have wished to blot." 1

There is an interesting statement by Newman at page
25 of his pamphlet, in which he declares that: — "It is
idolatry to bow down to any emblem or symbol as divine
which God Himself has not appointed ; and since He has
not appointed the worship of images, such worship is
idolatrous ; though how far it is so, whether in itself or in
given individuals, we may be unable to determine." He
then proceeds to argue at considerable length in favour of
the doctrine of the Real Presence, though he repudiates

1 Cardinal Wiseman's Essays on Various Subjects, vol. ii. p. 80.

"OUR ANCIENT MOTHER" 105

Transubstantiation. He denies that the Church of Rome
is " the mother of harlots/' but terms her " our ancient
Mother." l As to " the rite of the Roman Church, or St.
Peter's Liturgy," he terms it a " sacred and most precious
monument/' 2 and adds : —

" Well was it for us that they [the Reformers] did not discard it,
that they did not touch any vital part ; for through God's good
providence, though they broke it up and cut away portions, they did
not touch life ; and thus we have it at this day, a violently treated,
but a holy and dear possession, more dear perhaps and precious
than if it were in its full vigour and beauty, as sickness or infirmity
endear us to our friends and relatives."3

This was, of course, equivalent to asserting that the
Communion Service of the Church of England is not in a
state of spiritual " vigour and beauty " ; but rather in a
state of " sickness or infirmity " — thus showing clearly
how much Newman admired the Church of Rome's Mass
Book. Of course he repudiated Dr. Faussett's assertion
that the work of himself and his friends tended to a
" Revival of Popery," and was calculated to lead men to
Rome. Yet within little more than seven years he prac
tically proved the charge by seceding to Rome himself ;
and it is the biographer of Dr. Pusey who tells us that
" to Newman himself, when a Roman Catholic, the
Movement seemed to have been a steady impulse towards
Rome."4 In his Letter to Dr. Faussett Newman did not
censure any of Froude's extravagant statements.

Dr. Hook was at that time Vicar of Leeds, where he
was busily engaged in promoting High Church principles.
It was his boast that he had learned and accepted Tract-
arian doctrines before the commencement of the Tract-
arian Movement. Later on in life he came into direct
conflict with the advanced party, whom he boldly charged
with Romanising ; indeed, the first indication of disagree
ment came out in connection with the publication of
Froude's Remains. In August 1838 Hook was selected
by the Bishop of Ripon (Dr. C. T. Longley) to preach the

1 Newman's Letter to Dr. Faussett^ p. 33. 2 Ibid. p. 46.

3 Ibid. p. 47. 4 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 80.

106 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

sermon at his Primary Visitation, and soon afterwards he
published it. He availed himself of the opportunity to
add some lengthy notes to it, in which he dealt with the
Tracts for the Times, Froude's Remains, and Dr. Faussett's
sermon on The Revival of Popery. For the two former he
had a mixture of praise and blame ; but for the latter
nothing but unmixed censure and vulgar personal insult
and abuse. As to the Tracts for the Times, he said: —

" Against some of the pious opinions supported in these Tracts
objections may occasionally be raised, for perfect coincidence of
opinion is not to be expected. I do not, myself, accord with all the
opinions expressed in them, or always admit the deduction attempted
to be drawn from the principles on which we are agreed. I think,
too, that while manfully vindicating the principles of the English Re
formation, in their fear lest they should appear to respect persons too
highly, the writers of the Tracts do not appreciate highly enough the
character of some of our leading Reformers, or make due allowance
for the difficulties in which they were placed. ... I am not one of
those who would say, ' Read the Oxford Tracts, and take for granted
every opinion there expressed,' but I am one of those who would
say, ' Read and digest those Tracts well, and you will have imbibed
principles which will enable you to judge of opinions.' ';l

As to Froude's Remains, and Dr. Faussett's sermon,
Dr. Hook gave his opinion in one lengthy paragraph : —

"The present discourse," he said, "is sufficient to show that I
am not, any more than Dr. Faussett, inclined to approve of Mr.
Froude's Remains. I deeply, indeed, regret the publication of that
work without a protest, on the part of the editor, against some of
the author's paradoxical positions. With a kind heart and glowing
sensibilities, Mr. Froude united a mind of wonderful power, saturated
with learning, and, from its very luxuriance, productive of weeds,
together with many flowers . . . from many of his opinions the
majority of his readers will, like myself, dissent. But if, in con
templating the evils inseparable from a great movement, he does
not sufficiently appreciate, and I think he does not, the wisdom of
our Reformation, or the virtues of many of our Reformers ; if while
condemning the Romish he censures the English Church; still,
while we think him to be in error in these particulars, we may do

1 A Call to Union on the Principles of the English Reformation. By Walter
Farquhar Hook, D.D., 2nd edition, pp. 108-110. London: 1838.

DR. HOOK'S SERMON ON UNION 107

so without condemning him by wholesale; — still less ought those
persons to condemn him for not fully appreciating our Reformation,
who, like Mr. Scott, consider the work of the Reformers, in retain
ing our present Baptismal Service, 'a burden hard to bear,' 'an
absurdity which they did not believe in their hearts.' Had Dr.
Faussett contented himself with having written a pamphlet or a
review, while we might have considered him incompetent to sit in
judgment on such a mind as Mr. Froude's, we should have had
no cause of complaint. But cause of complaint the Church has
when he makes one work a pretext for attacking certain of his
clerical brethren, whose learning he may be unable to appreciate,
but whose piety and zeal he would do well to imitate ; when he uses
the pulpit to compel that attention to himself which he could not
secure from the press." 1

Hook's sermon pleased nobody altogether. His
Oxford friends were bitterly disappointed. On receiving
a copy of it Pusey wrote to Newman in sorrowful tones : —
" I send you Hook's sermon, which Parker brought me
to-day, to read in your way back ; it shows me that my
letters have been wasted upon him, for he will neither
say one thing nor the other ; not say wherein he disagrees,
and yet say that he does disagree. However, what he
does say will do good, and perhaps keep some young ones
quiet. What he says about Froude is as much as you
could expect." *'

In the month of July 1838, the Bishop of Oxford
(Dr. Bagot) delivered his third Visitation Charge, which
greatly disturbed Newman, when he read a report of it in
an Oxford paper. Indeed he was so upset that he de
termined to give up publishing any more Tracts for the
Times, under the impression, as he told Pusey, that "an
indefinite censure was cast over the Tracts" by the
Bishop's Charge. Pusey also was troubled : — " It is," he
wrote to Newman, "not simply disheartening ; it seems like
a blow from which I shall never live to see things recover."3
Pusey entered into a correspondence with the Bishop on
the subject. His lordship said that he hoped the Tracts
would not be given up, and he felt sure that when Pusey

1 Hook's Call to Union, pp. 167, 168. 2 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 66.
3 Ibid. pp. 53, 54.

I08 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

read what he had said in his published Charge, he would
form a different judgment. When the Charge did appear
in print, Pusey was surprised, and wrote to the Bishop: —
" What your lordship says about our Tracts looks different
from what it did when extracted and put forth by the
Oxford Journal and the like. I need hardly say to your
lordship that I am, for myself, perfectly satisfied, grateful
for your lordship's advice, and for the warning to those
who are more or less our pupils." * I have not been able
to see the report of the Bishop's Charge as it appeared
in the Oxford Journal; but certainly as it appeared in
pamphlet form, and as issued by the Bishop himself,
Newman and Pusey had little or nothing to complain of,
but, on the contrary, a great deal to be thankful for.
The fact is that Dr. Bagot was, at this time, a great
admirer of the Tracts for the Times, and, so far as I can
ascertain, he was the first Bishop in England who publicly
said a good word in their favour. These were the Bishop's
words as issued by himself : —

" With reference to errors in doctrine, which have been imputed
to the series of publications called the Tracts for the Times, it can
hardly be expected that, on an occasion like the present, I should
enter into, or give a handle to anything which might hereafter tend
to controversial discussions. Into controversy I will not enter.
But, generally speaking, I may say that in these days of lax and
spurious liberality, anything which tends to recall forgotten truths is
valuable: and where these publications have directed men's minds
to such important subjects as the union, discipline, and the authority
of the Church, I think they have done good service ; but there may
be some points in which, perhaps, from ambiguity of expression, or
similar causes, it is not impossible, but that evil rather than the
intended good may be produced on minds of a peculiar temperament.
I have more fear of the Disciples than of the Teachers. In speaking
therefore of the authors of the Tracts in question, I would say that
I think their desire to restore the ancient discipline of the Church
most praiseworthy ; I rejoice in their attempts to secure a stricter
attention to the Rubrical directions in the Book of Common Prayer;
and I heartily approve the spirit which would restore a due ob
servance of the Fasts and Festivals of the Church : but I would

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 62.

THE OXFORD MARTYRS' MEMORIAL 109

implore them, by the purity of their intentions, to be cautious, both
in their writings and actions, to take heed lest their good be evil
spoken of; lest in their exertions to re-establish unity, they un
happily create fresh schism ; lest in their admiration of antiquity,
they revert to practices which heretofore have ended in superstition." 1

It will be observed that in this statement the Bishop did
not censure the writers of the Tracts for the Times for any
thing they had written ; he only expressed his fears lest in
the future they should go too far in the direction of super
stition ; and for his words of warnings of danger he
received, as we have seen, the thanks of Pusey. Instead
of censuring the Tracts which had appeared, he praised
them highly ; and in order to prevent any misconception
as to his meaning, in a footnote to the second edition of
his Charge the Bishop wrote : — " As I have been led to
suppose that the above passage [cited above] has been
misunderstood, I take this opportunity of stating, that it
never was my intention therein to pass any general censure
on the Tracts for the Times." When the Bishop delivered
his Charge churchmen everywhere were talking about
Froude's Remains, its denunciation of the Reformers, and
its praise of what ordinary persons called Popery. But
on this burning subject the Bishop said nothing. His
silence, under such circumstances, was worthy of severe
censure.

There was one result of the publication of Froude's
Remains which its editors never anticipated. It led to the
erection of the Martyrs' Memorial at Oxford, in memory of
Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, who were burnt alive in
that city. A prospectus of the proposed Memorial, issued
in 1838 by the Heads of Houses in Oxford, stated
that it was intended to be " A public testimony of respect
for the principles of the Reformation, and veneration for
the personal character of the Martyred Bishops." When
Pusey first heard of the scheme, he exclaimed that it " is
nothing but a cut at us ! " It certainly placed Pusey,

1 A Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Oxford. By Richard
Bagot, D.D., Bishop of Oxford, 2nd edition, pp. 20, 21. 1838.

2 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 64.

IIO HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

Newman, and Keble, and their friends in a very awkward
and uncomfortable position. They dreaded the public
odium which would inevitably fall upon them if they refused
altogether to have anything to do with the Memorial ; and
yet they hated the whole scheme with all their hearts.
Pusey informed Keble that he " had spoken strongly lately
against the Memorial, as perhaps falling within the scope of
onr Lord's words against t building the sepulchres of those
whom their fathers had slain/ and AS UNKIND TO THE
CHURCH OF ROME, in throwing a hindrance to her reform
ing herself and healing the schism." ] It makes one justly
indignant to see tender consideration thus shown towards
the criminal, and none at all for her innocent victims. If
Rome had ever repented of her crimes in burning the
Marian Martyrs, it might have been " unkind " to remind
her of her former misdeeds ; but she never has repented,
or ever expressed a single word of regret for burning alive
in Mary's reign, five Bishops, twenty-one divines, eight gen
tlemen, eighty-four artificers, one hundred husbandmen,
twenty-six wives, twenty widows, nine virgins, two boys,
and two infants. The fact is that the Tractarians had no
real respect for the Reformers, and some of them doubted
whether they were Martyrs at all. " I cannot," said Keble,
" understand how poor Cranmer could be reckoned a bona
fide Martyr according to the rules of the Primitive Church.
Was he not an unwilling sufferer? and did he not in the very
final paper of his confession profess to hold in all points
the doctrine of that Answer to Gardiner? And is not that
doctrine such as the ancient Church would have called
heretical?" ' So Cranmer was nothing better than a heretic, in
Keble's estimation, and, therefore, not a Martyr at all ! One
who was at that time a prominent Tractarian (the Rev.
Thomas Mozley), subsequently wrote : — " I have to own
that, in spite of the telling illustrations of Mrs. Trimmer's
History of England, I have never yet succeeded in getting
up an atom of affection or respect for the three gentle
men canonised in the < Martyrs' Memorial ' at Oxford. As

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 69.
8 Ibid. p. 71.

" CRANMER BURNT WELL " III

Lord Blachford once observed to me, ' Cranmer burnt
well/ and that is all the good I know about him." l What
Froude thought about the Reformers I have already cited.
And Keble declared : — " Anything which separates the
present Church from the Reformers I should hail as a
great good." : And even Dean Church, when, in later
years, he wrote his book on The Oxford Movement, went so
far as to declare : — " It is safe to say that the Divines of
the Reformation never can be again, with their confessed
Calvinism, with their shifting opinions, their extravagant
deference to the foreign oracles of Geneva and Zurich,
their subservience to bad men in power, the heroes and
saints of Churchmen." 3 It is evident that men who wrote
like this, had they lived in the Reformation period, never
would have led a movement against Rome leading to
secession from her communion.

Newman and his friends soon found that it was impos
sible to stop the proposed Memorial ; and therefore they
directed their energies to a vain attempt to spoil it. Pusey
was not at all pleased when he heard that Dr. Sewell talked
of placing on the Memorial an inscription bearing the
expression tf Martyrs for the Truth." Mr. Churton pro
posed that the Memorial should take the form of a new
Church ; but Pusey on this point said that " it must not
be the Martyrs' Church, canonising them." ' He thought
that the proposed new Church " must be called after some
one already canonised, not by individuals." We thus see
that Pusey had no objection to honouring in this way
some one canonised by the Pope, which was an indirect
way of acknowledging the Pope's power to canonise. On
this point one of the biographers of Keble informs us that
that gentleman, in one of his sermons, asserted of English
Churchmen that " we are free to reverence all Saints of
the Roman Communion." 5

The Oxford Protestant Magazine for 1848, in some valu-

1 Reminiscences of the Oxford Movement, vol. ii. p. 230.

2 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 71.

3 Church's Oxford Movement, p. 39, ist edition.

4 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 66.

5 John Keble. By Walter Lock, M. A., p. 149.

112 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

able " Hints towards a History of Puseyism/' thus refers
to the hindrances thrown in the way of the suggested
Martyrs' Memorial : —

" The originators and promoters of this design met with almost
insurmountable obstacles. Their design, and the methods they
adopted, were alike carped at. At a public meeting held in full
term, in February 1839, not more than two hundred persons were
present, and among these were some who, while professing to sup
port the measure, cavilled and censured, and pronounced it a failure.
Such was Mr. Greswell, the Oxford Chairman of Mr. Gladstone's
Committee at the late election. Mr. Greswell, besides describing
the movement as a 'perfect failure,' ^2000 only having been pro
mised, also strongly objected to the use of the word * Protestant ' as
applied to the Church ; 'the word,' he said, ' was not to be found in
the Prayer Book.' Cranmer, he thought, ought not to be praised,
but recorded as a penitent." l

The Bishop of Oxford paid a special visit to Pusey with
a view to persuading him and his friends to help on the
Memorial, and intimated that the Archbishop of Canter
bury felt the same anxiety for their help. Pusey proposed
to the Bishop " to change the Memorial from a com
memoration of the Reformers into a thanksgiving for the
blessings of the Reformation/' and he pressed the Bishop
to endeavour to get the Archbishop to recommend this
alteration. But it was all in vain ; Tractarian efforts to
spoil the Memorial by depriving it of its leading charac
teristic were happily defeated. The beautiful monument
to Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, still to be seen near
St. Mary Magdalene Church, Oxford, was unveiled in 1841.
" It was," says Mr. G. V. Cox, in his Recollections of Oxford, " a
noble proof (though a somewhat tardy one), that Oxford
still cherished the memory of those great martyrs to the
Reformation. The subscription was a large one (^5000),
and was raised with wonderful rapidity ; out of it, besides
the Martyrs' Memorial, was also built an additional aisle
on the north side of Magdalen Parish Church, to be called
"The Martyrs' Aisle." It had been found impracticable
to get a site in Broad Street, the actual scene of the Mar-

1 Oxford Protestant Magazine, vol. for 1848, p. 597.

INSCRIPTION ON THE MARTYRS* MEMORIAL 113

tyrdom." l On the north side of the Memorial is the
inscription, which well merits a place in these pages. It
is as follows : —

"To the Glory of God, and in grateful commemoration of His
servants, Thomas Cranmer, Nicholas Ridley, Hugh Latimer, Prelates
of the Church of England, who, near this spot, yielded their bodies
to be burned ; bearing witness to the sacred truths which they had
affirmed and maintained against the errors of the Church of Rome ;
and rejoicing that to them it was given not only to believe on Christ,
but also to suffer for His sake. This Monument was erected by
public subscription in the year of our Lord God, 1841."

1 Recollections of Oxford. By G. V. Cox, M.A., 2nd edition, p. 305.

CHAPTER V

Newman in 1839 — Influenced by an article in the Dublin Review —
Remarkable acknowledgments — Corporate Reunion with Rome —
Preparing the way for Rome — The Pastor of Antwerp — Breakfasts
with Newman and his friends — Startling and treasonable advice
given him — Pusey writes on Tendencies to Romanism — He pleads
for peace in the Church — Dr. M'Crie on the cry for peace — Prayers
for the Dead — Breeks v. Woolfrey — West v. Shuttleworth — Egerton
v. All of Rode — Moresby Faculty Case — Dr. Pusey begins to hear
Confessions in 1838 — In 1846 he goes to Confession for the first
time — His Protestant notes in the Works of Tertullian — Wiseman
hopes the Tractarians will "succeed in their work" — He realises the
Roman tendency of their teaching — Extracts from the Tracts for
the Times — Margaret Chapel as a centre of Tractarianism — Mr.
Serjeant Bellasis — Oakeley claims the right to "hold all Roman
doctrine" — He is prosecuted by the Bishop of London — His licence
revoked — Pusey defends Oakeley — Says the judgment against him
has no moral force — Pusey says he believes in Purgatory and Invo
cation of Saints — Thinks England and Rome " not irreconcilably at
variance " — Oakeley secedes to Rome.

THE year 1839 was a memorable one in the life of
Newman. It was during the summer of that year that
(as he informed the Rev. J. B. Mozley four years later) :
" It came strongly upon me, from first reading the Mono-
physite controversy, and then turning to the Donatist, that
we were external to the Catholic Church. I have never
got over this."1 Writing to Pusey, on August 28, 1844,
he declared : — •" I am one who, even five years ago [i.e.
1839], nad a strong conviction, from reading the history
of the early ages, that we are not part of the Church." 2
Writing again to Pusey, on March 14, 1845, Newman
tells him : — " My doubts [of the Catholicity of the Church
of England] were occasioned by studying the Monophysite
controversy — which, when mastered, threw light upon all
those which preceded it, not the least on the Arian. I

1 Newman's Letters > vol. ii. p. 430. 2 Life of Pusey, vol. ii. p. 406.

NEWMAN'S REMARKABLE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 115

saw as clear as day (though I was well aware clear im
pressions need not at once be truths) that our Church
was in the position towards Rome of the heretical and
schismatical bodies towards the Primitive Church. This
was in the early summer of 1839 ; in the autumn, Dr.
Wiseman's article on the Donatists completed my unsettle-
ment. Since that time I have tried, first by one means,
then by another, to overcome my own convictions." ]
Newman's first impressions on reading Wiseman's article
(which appeared in the Dublin Review, August 1839) were
conveyed by him to his friend, Mr. F. Rogers, afterwards
Lord Blachford : — " Since I wrote to you," he tells him,
" I have had the first real hit from Romanism which
has happened to me. R. W., who has been passing
through, directed my attention to Dr. Wiseman's article
in the new Dublin. I must confess it has given me a
stomach-ache." 2

Now, to any ordinary mind it must seem strange that
Newman, who confesses that he felt " strongly," in 1839,
that the Church of England was " external to the Catholic
Church," and who, at that time, had " clear impressions "
that the position of the Church of England towards the
Catholic Church was identical with that of the ancient
" heretical and schismatical bodies," could possibly, with a
comfortable conscience, remain " external to the Catholic
Church " for another six years ! But Newman's mind
being of a naturally Jesuitical kind, he seems to have
set himself right with himself, by the following ingenious
illustration (written within a fortnight from the time that
he got the " stomach-ache") to his friend Mr. F. Rogers,
and evidently intended to elicit his opinion of it : —

"Well, then," wrote Newman, "once more; as those who sin
after Baptism cannot at once return to their full privileges, yet are
not without hope, so a Church which has broken away from the
centre of unity is not at liberty at once to return, yet is not nothing.
May she not put herself into a state of penance? Are not her
children best fulfilling their duty to her — not by leaving her, but by

1 Life of Pusey^ vol. ii. p. 450. 2 Newman's Letters •, vol. ii. p. 286.

II 6 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

promoting her return, and not thinking that they have a right to
rush into such higher state as communion with the centre of unity
might give them. If the Church Catholic, indeed, has actually
commanded their return to her at once, that is another matter ; but
this she cannot have done without pronouncing their present Church
good for nothing, which I do not suppose Rome has done of us.
In all this, which I did not mean to have inflicted on you, I assume,
on the one hand, that Rome is right \ on the other, that we are not
bound by uncatholic subscriptions." 1

There is all the wisdom of the serpent in this scheme,
though none of the innocence of the dove ; and after
reading Newman's statements in subsequent years, I have
no doubt that it served to quieten, if not altogether to
silence, his own conscience for the next six years. The
scheme was a subtle one, known in later years by the
designation, " Corporate Reunion with Rome," as distinct
from individual secession. Members of the Church of
England were to " fulfil their duty to her, not by leaving
her, but by promoting her return " to " the centre of
unity " — the Church of Rome. From this year the idea
of Corporate Reunion with Rome seems to have been ever
present to Newman, until he seceded to her in 1845. Of
the year 1840 he writes: — "I wished for union between
the Anglican Church and Rome, if, and when it was
possible ; and I did what I could to gain weekly prayers
for that object." ' In October of this year he frankly
admitted to a friend : — " I fear I must allow that, whether
I will or no, I am disposing them [those he influenced
by his teaching] towards Rome. First, because Rome
is the only representative of the Primitive Church besides
ourselves ; in proportion then as they are loosened from
the one, they will go to the other. Next, because many
doctrines which / have held have far greater, or their only scope,
in the Roman system." J And, therefore, he began to think
of giving up St. Mary's Vicarage, Oxford, which he then
held, and migrating to the Vicarage of Littlemore, where
he might continue to teach, by pen and mouth, those

1 Newman's Letters, vol. ii. p. 288.

2 Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua, p. 222. 3 Ibid. p. 236.

NEWMAN AND THE PROTESTANT PASTOR 117

doctrines which, even at that time, he believed had " a far
greater, or their only scope, in the Roman system." Was
this honest ? After making such an important discovery,
ought he not at once to have given up all Ministerial duty
in the Church of England, and seceded to a Church where
his peculiar doctrines have their only honest " scope " ?
But, if he had at that time done this, what would have
become of his schemes for Corporate Reunion with Rome ?
To a Roman Catholic layman Newman wrote, on Septem
ber 12, 1841 : — "We are keeping people from you [Church
of Rome], by supplying their wants in our own Church.
We are keeping persons from you : do you wish us to
keep them from you for a time or for ever ? It rests with
you to determine. I do not fear that you will succeed
among us ; you will not supplant our Church in the
affections of the English nation ; ONLY THROUGH THE
ENGLISH CHURCH CAN YOU ACT UPON THE ENGLISH
NATION. I wish, of course, our Church should be con
solidated, with and through and in your communion^ for its
sake, and your sake, and for the sake of unity." ]

Only six days before Newman wrote the letter from
which my last extract is given, Baron Bunsen described
to a friend an incident in which Newman had recently
taken part, and in which the Romish sympathies of
Newman and his friends came out in a somewhat start
ling manner : —

"The other day," wrote Baron Bunsen, on Sept. 6, 1841,
"Sporlein, the good Pastor of Antwerp, my fellow-traveller, arrived
on his pilgrimage to seek comfort in the Church and faith of this
country. At Oxford he went to Newman, who invited him to
breakfast for a conference on religious opinions. Sporlein 2 stated
his difficulties, as resulting from the consistorial government being
in the hands of unbelievers, which in the Evangelical Society which
he had been tempted to join, the leading members protested against
every idea of Church membership. The breakfast party consisted
of fifteen young men, whom Newman invited to an expression of
opinion and advice ; and the award (uncontradicted} was that ' Pastor

1 Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua, pp. 312, 313.

2 Sporlein had come over to England with a view to joining the Ministry of
the Church of England.

Il8 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

Sporlein, as a Continental Christian, was subject to the authority of
the Bishop of Antwerp.1 He objected that by that Bishop he would
be excommunicated as a heretic. ' Of course ; but you will conform
to his decision ? ' ' How can I do that,' exclaimed Sporlein, * without
abjuring my faith ? ' ' But your faith is heresy? * How ? Do you
mean that I am to embrace the errors of Rome, and abjure the faith
of the Gospel ? ' ' There is no faith but that of the Church.' ' But
my faith is in Christ crucified.' * You are mistaken ; you are not
saved by Christ, but in the Church.'

" Sporlein was thunderstruck. He looked around, asked again,
obtained but the same reply, whereupon he burst out again with the
declaration that ' he believed in Christ crucified, by whose merits
alone he could be saved, and that he would not join the Church of
Rome, abhorring her for intruding into the place of Christ.' One
after the other dropped away, and Newman, remaining with him
alone, attempted an explanation which, however, did not alter the
case. I repeated this lamentable story as Sporlein had told it to
Hare and myself, and Pusey said it was like telling a man com
plaining of toothache that the infallible remedy would be cutting off
his head." 2

No wonder that Baron Bunsen exclaimed, after writing
the above pitiful story, " Oh, this is heartrending ! " It
was so indeed. Here was a Protestant Pastor, anxious
to join the Ministry of the Church of England, intro
duced to a party of sixteen members of that Church
(probably all clergymen), including Newman, and they,
instead of smoothing his path, unanimously tell him to
go off to the Church of Rome at once, and submit to
the Popish Bishop of Antwerp ! Such advice was simply
disgraceful to those who gave it. It was the advice of
disloyal traitors within the camp. No wonder, too, that
Sporlein "was thunderstruck." The high personal
character of Baron Bunsen, and his intellectual powers,
prevent us supposing for one moment that he was mis
taken. I am glad, for Pusey's sake, that he did not see
the wisdom of the advice of these thirteen treacherous
Tractarians.

We now return to Dr. Pusey, who had greatly

1 Of course, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Antwerp.

2 Memoir of Baron Bunsen, vol. i. pp. 613, 614, 1st edition.

BISHOP BAGOT AND DR. PUSEY 1 19

troubled the Bishop of Oxford, by finally refusing to
have anything to do with the proposed Martyrs' Memo
rial. His lordship evidently saw the harm that would
be done to the cause of the Tractarians through their
conduct in holding aloof, and that its tendency would be
to confirm the public in their belief that the whole party
hated both the Reformers and the Reformation with all
their hearts. So he wrote, on January 19, 1839, an
earnest appeal on the subject : —

11 Let me then," wrote Dr. Bagot, " entreat you, then, by the love
which (in spite of the assertions of your opposers in these days of
misrepresentation) I am convinced you feel for our Reformed
Church, if you cannot approve the Memorial, to make some declara
tion at a fit time, and in what you may deem the fittest mode — by
letter or by publication of some sort — such as shall stop the accusa
tions of your being in any degree hostile to the Reformation, enable
your friends to defend you from such charges, and put to silence
the Romanists who wrongly but boldly claim you as countenancing
them."1

This request led Pusey to write, shortly afterwards, his
Letter to the Bishop of Oxford on the Tendencies to Romanism
Imputed to Doctrines Held of Old, as Now, in the English
Church. Within a few months it ran into its fourth
edition, to which a special preface on " The Doctrine
of Justification " was attached, thus making in all no less
than 322 pages, including twenty pages of extracts from
the Tracts for the Times, the Lyra Apostolica, and other
publications of the Tractarians, and all with a view to
"showing that to oppose Ultra-Protestantism is not to
favour Popery." Here I may remark that what the Trac
tarians, and their successors the Ritualists generally, mean
by " Ultra- Protestantism" is Protestantism of the type mani
fested by such men as Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and Jewel ;
that is, Protestantism without compromise ; but with
abundance of courage to attack unscriptural doctrines.
It must be here admitted that in theory Dr. Pusey always
put himself forward as a friend of the Reformation, though

1 Life of Pusey, vol. ii. p. 72.

120 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

he refused to be called a disciple of those Reformers who,
under God, were the means of bringing about the Re
formation. And he certainly was, down to the day of his
death, the warmest friend of Corporate Reunion with
Rome to be found in the Church of England. Through
out his Letter there appears that mourning over our un
happy divisions, and that cry for peace in the Church,
which comes with such a bad grace from the men who,
alone, are responsible for the existence of our divisions,
and are the real cause of banishing peace from the Church.
There is nothing the Ritualists more desire than to be left
alone in peace to do their work, and for this purpose they
are ever pleading for a liberal and tolerant spirit in their
opponents. What Dr. M'Crie says of the enemies of the
Church of Scotland at the commencement of the seven
teenth century, may be applied to these modern disturbers
of the peace of the Church of England. " We can con
ceive nothing," he writes, " more impertinent and dis
gusting than the cant of liberality, when assumed by men
who, in the act of robbing the Church of her dearest
privileges, affect to mourn over the contentions which are
the fruits of their own selfish policy." l

In his Letter to the Bishop of Oxford Pusey states that : —
{t The charges against us are heavy ; disaffection to our
own Church, unfaithfulness to her teaching, a desire to
bring in new doctrines, and to conform our Church more
to the Church of Rome, to bring back either entire or
' modified Popery. ' ' He expresses the regret of himself
and his friends that the Church of England had not " re
tained more of what was ancient in the Breviary and the
Missal, without approximating in any way to the corrup
tions of modern Rome " ; 3 and he expresses the opinion
that "the revisers of our Liturgy did unadvisedly in
yielding some more explicit statements of doctrine to the
suggestions of foreign Reformers, whose tone of mind was
different from that of our Church." 4 Incidentally he

1 Sketches of Scottish Church History. By the Rev. Thomas M'Crie, p. 156,
edition 1841.

2 Pusey's Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, 4th edition, p. 10. 1840.

3 Ibid. p. 15. 4 Ibid. p. 20.

PUSEY AND PRIVATE JUDGMENT 121

mentions that : — " We feel no desire for the meeting of
Convocation ; we are not even earnest in behalf of a
repeal of the Statute of Praemunire, though it would cer
tainly be becoming and just." l He claims that the position
of the Tractarians is that of the " via media," " in contrast
with Romanism on the one hand, and Ultra-Protestantism
on the other " ; 2 and then he proceeds to state what he
and his friends did hold. His first point is sufficiently
startling to a Protestant Churchman. After stating that
as to "the first five Articles" of the Church of England
" the Church of Rome is allowed to have transmitted
faithfully the doctrine of the Primitive Church/' Pusey
proceeds : — " Would, my Lord, that there were no signs of
unsoundness on any other side ! But whereas a tradi
tionary faith would be safe with regard to these essential
Articles, in that it would depart neither to the right nor to
the left from that which the Universal Church had attested to
be the Apostolic and Scriptural Creed, the greater, because
unsuspected, danger will beset those who profess to draw
their faith, unaided, from Holy Scripture." 3 This, of
course, was equivalent to saying that those Protestants who
draw their faith direct from the Scriptures are in " greater "
danger than those who, like the Tractarians, draw it
through the muddy channels of the Church's traditions.
We must ever claim our right to draw our faith direct
from the fountain head, the Written Word of God ; but it
is not true to assume that any Protestant does so " un
aided." There is the aid of the Holy Spirit of God
Himself, given in answer to prayer, and also the im
portant aid obtained by comparing Scripture with Scrip
ture. Pusey warns his readers against " the danger of an
over anxiety to recede from Rome," 4 an offence of which,
it must be admitted, neither Dr. Pusey nor his followers
have ever been guilty. He declares that "it is probable
that our Church means that things may be required to be
believed (provided it be not upon peril of salvation) which
are not proved by Holy Scripture ; but certain that,

1 Pusey's Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, p. 21.

2 Ibid. p. 22. 3 Ibid. pp. 22, 23. 4 Ibid. p. 25.

122 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

according to her, things not in Holy Scripture may be
subjects of belief"1 — thus opening a door which may
lead the unwary to a belief in many of the worst errors
of Popery, and all this in a subtle and Jesuitical explana
tion of Article VI. Pusey was terribly afraid of Private
Judgment, and therefore he cautions his readers on this
point by assuring them that the tl children " of the Church
"are not the arbiters, whether she pronounce rightly or
no " 2 in expounding Holy Scripture. Apparently they
are expected to shut their eyes and open their mouths and
take without enquiry what "the Church "- —which, to the
individual, practically means his own clergyman — may
choose to give him. " Prove all things " seems to be no
part of the Puseyite creed in the Scriptural sense. Ap
parently they would have been horrified at the conduct of
the Bereans of old who, in the exercise of their private
judgment, would not believe even what St. Paul taught,
until they proved his doctrine to be true out of the Old
Testament Scriptures : " These were more noble than
those in Thessalonica, in that they received the Word
with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures
daily, whether those things were so" (Acts xvii. n). At
page 44 Pusey boldly declares that " no real (Ecumenical
Council ever did " err, and that notwithstanding the clear
statement of Article XXI. to the contrary, wherein we
read that " General Councils . . . may err, and sometimes
have erred, even in things pertaining unto God." He
further quotes, with approval, a sermon of Newman in
favour of the doctrine of the Infallibility of the whole
Catholic Church. " Both we and Romanists," said
Newman, "hold that the Church Catholic is unerring in
its declarations of faith for saving doctrine ; but we differ
from each other as to what is the faith, and what is the
Church Catholic " 3 ; and : — " We are at peace with Rome
as regards the essentials of faith."4 Pusey slanders
decided Protestants when he most untruly declares that

1 Pusey's Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, p. 28. a Ibid. p. 30.

8 Ibid. p. 50. * Ibid. p. 51.

PUSEY ON JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 123

" Ultra-Protestants " " prefer what is modern to what is
ancient/' and " disparage Christian antiquity " 1 ; since, as
is well known, instead of disparaging it, they are always
appealing to Apostolic antiquity, as recorded in the Bible,
and, as has been well said, tf prefer the Grandfathers [the
Apostles] to the Fathers." Pusey then makes an attack
on the Protestant doctrine of Justification by Faith only,
assuring his readers that Lutherans, Wesleyans, "and a
section of our own Church " — by which he meant
Evangelical Churchmen — "have been taught that Justi
fication is not the gift of God through His Sacraments, but
the result of a certain frame of mind, of a going forth of
themselves, and resting themselves upon their Saviour; this is
the act whereby they think themselves to have been justified." 2
This doctrine Pusey hated with all his heart, and thought
it a greater evil than the Roman Catholic system of
Justification. That system, he affirmed, had its " corrup
tions " ; but " it bore witness to the holiness of God." 3
The Evangelical system, however, is, he affirms, " altogether
a spurious system, misapplying the promises of the Gospel,
usurping the privileges of Baptism, which it has not to
bestow." 4

In this Letter Pusey professes his faith in the doctrine
of the Real Presence, while repudiating the doctrine of
Transubstantiation. He says that he believes in " the
spiritual unseen Presence of that Blessed Body and Blood,
conveyed to us through the unchanged though consecrated ele
ments, unchanged in material substance, changed in their
use, their efficacy, their dignity, mystically and spiritually.
We see not why we need avoid language used by the
Fathers . . . that ' the bread and wine is made the
Body and Blood of Christ.' " 5 But on this subject, evil
as Pusey thinks the doctrine of Rome, he considers the
doctrine of Calvin and Zwingle a greater evil : — " For," he
says, " deeply as Rome has erred, and much error as she
has thereby given occasion to in others, we fear that others
have erred still more deeply. Not Zwingli alone, but Calvin,

1 Pusey's Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, p. 58. 2 Ibid. p. 72.

8 Ibid. p. 87. • Ibid. p. 88. 6 Ibid. p. 131.

124 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

have, in their way, so explainedthe mode of Christ's presence,
as virtually to explain it away." l He asserts that Rome
is " presumptuous " in teaching that " Christ is wholly
contained under each species " ; and he rejects Rome's
doctrine that " in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist,
Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, is to be adored
with the outward adoration of Divine worship." ' As to
the Sacrament, as a whole, he writes : — " Rome, in this
respect, has the truth, though mingled with error, and
clouded and injured by it ; the Zwingli-Calvinist school
have forfeited it." 3 It is evident that much as Dr. Pusey
might dislike certain portions of the Roman Catholic
religion, he would — even as far back as 1840 — greatly
prefer being a Romanist to being an " Ultra- Protestant."
As to Prayers for the Dead, he considers it "a solemn
privilege to the mourner ; but not, after that (in con
sequence of abuses connected with it in the Romish
system) it had been withdrawn from our Church, to
be rashly and indiscriminately revived " ; 4 and yet al
though the Church, "for the safety of her children, has
relinquished the practice, her doctrine is in accordance
with it." 6

Now it must be said of this Letter of Dr. Pusey that it
exactly proves what it was ostensibly written to disprove,
viz., that he and his party were labouring to bring back
into the Church of England a certain amount of Popery,
though not, of course, all of it. Pusey's views, as herein
expressed, of private judgment in the interpretation of
Scripture, of Tradition, of the infallibility of the Church
and of General Councils, of Justification by faith only,
of Baptismal Regeneration, the Real Presence, and Prayers
for the Dead, were, and are, in the estimation of ninety-
nine out of every hundred Protestant Churchmen, distinctly
Romish, and tend to Romanism by creating a thirst for
that sacerdotal form of religion \vhich the Church of
Rome alone can fully satisfy. The set of quotations from
Tractarian writings, published at the end of Pusey's pamph-

1 Pusey's Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, p. 132. 2 Ibid. p. 134.

3 Ibid. p. 144. 4 Ibid. p. 187. 5 Ibid. p. 189.

PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD 125

let, only proved — what at that time nobody denied — that
there were certain portions of the Roman system which
they rejected. Protestant Churchmen could not see that
Tractarians were justified in introducing many Roman
Catholic doctrines, merely on the ground that they pro
tested against other Roman doctrines.

In this Letter Pusey referred to a judgment of Sir
Herbert Jenner Fust, in the case of Breeks v. Woolfrey,
delivered in 1839, in the Court of Arches. The question
before the Court was not whether Prayers for the Dead
could be lawfully and publicly used in a parish church,
but whether it were lawful to inscribe on a tombstone in a
parish churchyard the following words : — " Pray for the
soul of ]. Woolfrey;" and "It is- a holy and wholesome
thought to pray for the dead. — 2 Mac. xii. 46." The
tombstone containing these words had actually been set
up in Carisbrooke Churchyard, Isle of Wight, by a Roman
Catholic lady, Mrs. Woolfrey, widow of the person there
buried. The Rev. J. Breeks, vicar of Carisbrooke, entered
an action against Mrs. Woolfrey, praying the Court of
Arches to compel her to remove the stone. The judge
held that if " prayers for the dead necessarily constitute a
part of the doctrine of Purgatory, as held by the Romish
Church," then " the Court would be bound to monish the
party to remove the stone, and to punish her with ecclesi
astical censure and with costs." He said that the authori
ties cited in the case " seem to go no further than this —
to show that the Church discouraged prayers for the dead, but
did not prohibit them ; and that the Twenty-second Article
is not violated by the use of such prayers." Here I may
remark that it seems incredible that the Church should
" discourage " such prayers if she thought them good
and holy. The learned judge quoted the Homilies of
the Church of England on prayers for the dead, and
said that they " contained the same disapproval of the
practice, but no positive prohibition of it." The ques
tion may here be asked, how can that Church be sup
posed to tolerate a practice of which she has expressed
her "disapproval " ? The passages in the Homilies to which

126 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

the judge referred are found in the Homily Concerning Prayer,
Part III.:—

" Now," says the Homily^ " to entreat of that question, whether
we ought to pray for them that are departed out of this world, or no.
Wherein, if we cleave only unto the Word of God, then must we
needs grant, that we have no commandment so to do. For the Scrip
ture doth acknowledge but two places after this life ; the one proper
to the elect and blessed of God, the other to the reprobate and
damned souls ; as may be well gathered by the parable of Lazarus
and the rich man. , . . These words, as they confound the opinion of
helping the dead by prayer, so do they clean confute and take away
the vain error of Purgatory."

" Let these and such other places be sufficient to take away the
gross error of Purgatory out of our heads ; neither let us dream any
more, that the souls of the dead are anything at all holpen by our
prayers ; but, as the Scripture teacheth us, let us think that the soul
of man, passing out of the body, goeth straightways either to heaven,
or else to hell, whereof the one needeth no prayer, the other is without
redemption."

No one can read this Homily without perceiving that
the Church of England is most anxious that her children
should not pray for the dead. The judge could not quote
even one statement of the Church positively in favour of
such prayers, and yet he concluded his judgment in these
words : —

"I am, then, of opinion, on the whole of the case, that the
offence imputed by the articles has not been sustained ; that no
authority or canon has been pointed out by which the practice of
praying for the dead has been expressly prohibited ; and I am
accordingly of opinion, that, if the articles were proved, the facts
would not subject the party to ecclesiastical censure, as far as regards
the illegality of the inscription on the tombstone." 1

In connection with this tombstone case it is well to
remember that the judgment was that of an inferior court,
and that it has never been appealed against. Had there
then been an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy

1 Judgments of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Ecclesiastical
Cases. Edited by the Hon. George C. Brodrick, and the Rev. William H.
Freemantle, pp. 354-360. London : 1865.

PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD 127

Council, I have no doubt that the judgment of Sir Herbert
Jenner Fust would have been reversed. As it is, however,
it must be accepted as an exposition of the law until it has
been reversed by the Highest Court of Appeal. But let
it not be forgotten that it sanctions only a request for
prayer for the dead when inscribed on a tombstone, in a
churchyard, and not on a tombstone set up within a parish
church. It does not sanction public prayers for the dead
in a parish church : these are manifestly illegal, since
there are no such prayers provided in the Book of Common
Prayer, and the clergy are pledged to use only in public
prayer and administration of the Sacraments, " the form
in the said Book prescribed, and none other, except so far
as shall be ordered by lawful authority." ] I regret the
judgment, but it is well to point out that its powers for
evil are not so great as is generally supposed.

On this subject there is this further fact, which is worthy
of consideration. It has been decided that prayers for the
dead are, according to the law of England, superstitious in
their character, and that it is unlawful to leave money by
will to priests, for the purpose of obtaining their prayers
for the dead. In 1835, Sir Charles Pepys gave judgment
in the case of West v. Shuttleworth. In this case the will
of a lady was considered, by which she left .£10 each to
several Roman Catholic priests, for the benefit of their
prayers for the repose of her soul, and that of her deceased
husband. The judge said : —

" Taking the first gift to priests and chapels in connection with
the letter, there can be no doubt that the sums given to the priests
and chapels were not intended for the benefit of the priests per
sonally, or for the support of the chapels for general purposes, but
that they were given, as expressed in the letter, for the benefit of their
prayers for the repose of the testatrix's soul and that of her deceased
husband; and the question is, whether such legacies can be sup
ported. It is truly observed by Sir William Grant, in Gary v. Abbot
(7 Ves. 490) that there was no statute, making superstitious uses
void generally, and that the statute of Edward VI. related only to

1 The Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England. By Sir Robert Phillimore,
p. 4/0, edition 1873.

128 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

superstitious uses of a particular description then existing ; and it is
to be observed, that that statute does not declare such gifts to be
unlawful, but avoids certain superstitious gifts previously created.
The legacies in question, therefore, are not within the terms of the
statute of Edward VI., but that statute has been considered as estab
lishing the illegality of certain gifts, and amongst others the giving
legacies to priests to pray for the soul of the donor has, in many cases
collected in Duke (p. 466) been decided to be within the supersti
tious uses intended to be suppressed by that statute. / am, therefore,
of opinion that these legacies to priests and chapels are void.'1'' :

The question of the lawfulness of Prayers for the
Dead, as affected by the case of Breeks v. Woolfrey, was
discussed by the Solicitors Journal of January 16, 1875.
Its opinion is worth citing here. It said : —

" Canon Liddon stated last week, in a letter to the Times, that
prayers for the dead have been expressly declared legal in the
Church of England. We presume that this assertion is founded
upon Sir H. Jenner Fust's decision in Breeks v. Woolfrey ; but that
case certainly does not settle the law upon the question. It was
there held that an inscription on a tombstone in Carisbrooke church
yard begging for prayers for the soul of the deceased was lawful ;
but, as Dr. Liddon would find if the experiment were tried, it is one
thing to allow such an inscription to be placed on a monument in a
churchyard, and quite another to allow prayers for the dead to be
used during the services of the Church. To the latter case the now
firmly-established and well-known principle that no omission from
or addition to the prescribed form can be permitted is applicable
(see Westerton v. Liddell, 'Moore's Report'). Moreover, prayers
for the dead were, it must be remembered, included in the First
Prayer Book of Edward VI., and are excluded from the present
book, and would, therefore, now be illegal upon the principle on
which the mixed chalice, which was ordered by the former Prayer
Book, and not ordered in the latter, has already been pronounced
illegal. The mistake into which Dr. Liddon has fallen is a very
natural one for a writer unacquainted with the legal effect of the
more recent decisions in our Ecclesiastical Courts. But any
advocate who should attempt to justify prayers for the dead in the
Church service on the authority of Breeks v. Woolfrey would find
he had undertaken a hopeless task."

1 The Statutes Relating to Ecclesiastical Institutions. By Archibald John
Stephens, vol. ii. p. 1508, 2nd edition.

PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD 1 29

The case of Egerton v. All of Rode has an important
bearing on the question of Prayers for the Dead. In the
Consistory Court of Chester, October 26, 1893, before
Chancellor Espin, a faculty was applied for by the Rev.
John M. Egerton, Rector of Old Rode, to erect in the
Parish Church a stained glass window, with the following
inscription on a brass plate beneath it : — " De caritate tua
ora pro anima Henriettas Franciscae viduae Georgii Ha-
merton Crump de Chorlton Hall in hoc comitatu mortua
die xxiii. Augusti A.D. MDCCCXCII. aetatis suae LXXV.
Et pro anima Johannis Hamerton Crump supradictorum
filii majoris mortui die H. Martii A.D. MDCCCLXXXVII.
aetatis suae xxxm." In giving judgment the Chancellor
said : —

"When the proposed inscription was brought before the Court
on September 28 last, I referred to the well-known case of The
Office of the Judge Promoted by B reeks v. Woolfrey, and did so on
the spur of the moment, not having seen the proposed inscription
until just before the Court opened. But on consideration it may be
doubted whether that case and the judgment in it would have
warranted the Court in sanctioning the proposed inscription being
placed in the Church of All Saints at Old Rode. The case of Breeks
v. Woolfrey is a leading case, and the judgment in it is a considered
judgment delivered by Sir Herbert Jenner Fust. But then he did
not directly sanction the inscription before him, he only refused to order
the tombstone which bore it to be removed. It does not appear that he
would himself have authorised the inscription if he had been asked to
do so.

" Then again it might be argued that the proposed Latin inscrip
tion in this case, the translation of the portion of which material to
the present question is as follows : — { Of your charity pray for the

soul of H F , widow of George Hamerton Crump, of

Chorlton Hall, in this county, deceased . . . and for the soul of
John Hamerton Crump, . . . son of the above, deceased . . . ' goes
somewhat beyond the inscription placed on the tomb of Mr. Woolfrey
in the Churchyard of Carisbrooke. So far as material the latter ran
thus : — * Spes mea Christus. Pray for the soul of J. Woolfrey. It
is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead. — 2 Macabees,
xii. 46.'

" It might reasonably be said perhaps that in principle the pro
posed inscription in this case does not differ from the inscription in

130 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

Breeks v. Woolfrey. Still the one submitted to this Court does
seem to go beyond the one which in Breeks v. Woolfrey the Dean
of Arches refused to displace, and this Court ought in my opinion to
govern itself in such a matter somewhat strictly by the decisions and
precedents furnished by the Court of Arches. . . .

" Prayers for the Dead are unquestionably associated in the
popular mind with the later exaggerations referred to in that [22nd]
Article, and it may be added that a bequest made for such prayers
being offered up would be void by the common law of the realm as
superstitious. And, therefore, though in private such prayers may
be offered, as conformable to the ways of the Primitive Church, cer
tainly from the second century and downwards ; and however deeply
we may sympathise with sentiments of affectionate respect in the
bereaved, fired as they often are by strong realising of the Com
munion of Saints, it does not seem to belong to a Court of first
instance to do what the formularies of the Church have abstained
from doing ; it is not for me here to authorise directly the setting up
in a place of public worship of an inscription demanding the prayers
of the worshippers for the souls of certain persons who have departed
this life.

" In the result I must decline to sanction the inscription brought
in on September 28 last, being placed in the Church, and accord
ingly so much of the application before me as prays that a faculty
might be granted for placing such inscription beneath the proposed
window must be rejected."1

Another faculty case, in which the question of Prayers
for the Dead was involved, was decided just as I was about
to finish the writing of this book. At a sitting of the
Consistory Court of the Diocese of Carlisle, on August 29,
1900, before Chancellor Prescott, D.D., the Vicar and
Churchwardens of Moresby applied for leave to affix on
the north wall of the said church an ancient memorial
brass taken from the north wall of the chancel of the old
church, where it had been placed by Thomas Fletcher in
memory of his father, Sir William Fletcher, who died in
1703. The brass tablet was said to have been lost in
1840, but was recovered by the late Mr. W. Fletcher from
Distington Museum. It bears the following inscription :
" Depositum hie jacet in spe futurae resurrectionis corpus
Gulielmi Fletcher ar : Nuper Dom. hujus mannerii qui

1 The Law Reports. Probate Division, 1894, pp. 16, 17, 22.

PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD 131

obiit 2do die Martii, Anno Domini, 1703, aetatis suae 58.
Cujus animae propitietur Deus. Requiem aeternam dona
ei Domine et lux perpetua luceat ei. Requiescat in pace.
Amen. Thomas Fletcher, ar. filius ejus hoc fieri fecit."
The Chancellor, in delivering judgment, said : —

"There could be no possible objection to a faculty issuing as desired,
all the regulations having been observed, and it being the wish of the
parishioners that it should be done. The memorial tablet which it was
proposed to put up raised a very important question. When he came
to look at it he found that this tablet was on what was called the old
church, and had been apparently lost and then found in a museum, and
it was now proposed to put it into the new church, it being a memorial
tablet to one of the Fletcher family. The inscription on the tablet
was in Latin, and there were two expressions in it which called for
some remark. One of them was 'Requiem aeternam dona ei
Domine et lux perpetua luceat,' and the other was * Requiescat in
pace. Amen.' Some persons would call these expressions prayers
for the dead ; other persons might call them simply the expressions
of a pious wish on the part of the friends of the deceased. In any
case, these two expressions occurred in the old service-books of the
Church of England, the old Sarum books, in the obsequies for the
dead. There the first of the expressions was the verse or refrain
which occurred over and over again, and the other expression was
the final words of the Service for the Burial of the Dead. If this
were an application for a faculty for a new memorial tablet, or new
monument to be put up in this church, there might be circumstances
which would lead the Court to pause a good deal before granting
the faculty. ... If there was anything in this inscription contrary
to the doctrine or the laws of the Church, this Court would be bound
not to grant the faculty ; but he did not think there was anything
here contrary to the doctrine or the laws of the Church of England.
Whether in later days people were more afraid of superstition with
regard to these prayers for the dead than they were about that period
at the end of the seventeenth century he was not prepared to say,
but, at all events, this proposition was simply to take a memorial
tablet which had been in a sacred place, and to place it, not in a
secular place like a museum, but in a sacred position in the church.
He understood that it was the wish of the family of Fletcher, as
well as the expressed wish of the parishioners in Vestry, that this
tablet should be placed in the new church. He saw no objection to
it, and though it was undoubtedly an important question, and, as he
had said, one which if it came before the Court in a different form

132 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

and under different circumstances might call for a different decision,
he had no hesitation in decreeing that the faculty shall issue for the
memorial tablet to be placed in the position as requested in the
petition."1

In his Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, first issued in 1839,
Dr. Pusey dealt with the subject of sins committed after
Baptism, but never recommended Auricular Confession as
a remedy. This silence, no doubt, was in accordance with
the Tractarian doctrine of " Reserve in Communicating
Religious Knowledge." 5 At that early period it would
never have done to have recommended Auricular Confes
sion publicly, above all in a pamphlet written to refute the
charge of Romanising tendencies. Yet, from statements
subsequently made by Pusey himself, we learn that he
commenced the practice of hearing Confessions in i838.3
From that date down to the time of his death he was one
of the most active of his party in labours as a Father
Confessor. Yet, strange as it may seem to many, although
one of the foremost in urging others to practise Auricular
Confession, he never went to Confession himself until
about eight years after he commenced to practise as a
Father Confessor. In 1844 he wrote to Keble : — " I am so
shocked at myself, that I dare not lay my wounds bare to
any one ; since I have seen the benefit of Confession to
others, I have looked round whether I could unburthen
myself to any one, but there is a reason against every one.
I dare not so shock people ; and so I go on, having no
such comfort as in good Bp. Andrewes' words, to confess
myself < an unclean worm, a dead dog, a putrid corpse.' "
He waited for more than two years after writing this

1 Record, September 7> 1900, p. 856.

z The Rev. John Thomas, writing to the future* Lord Selborne, in 1843, after
mentioning that he had met the Rev. Frederick Faber at Rome, proceeds: —
" This reminds me of the Tract theology. I think you draw too much distinction
between the views of the outposts of that school and those of its leaders. I appre
hend the only difference to be, that the leaders have the prudence to defer the down
right avowal of extreme opinions until things are better prepared for their reception.
I never read a writing of Newman in the Tracts, in which he did not appear to
me to insinuate, ' I could carry the principle much further, but you cannot bear
it now.' " — Memorials , Family and Personal, 1766-1865, vol. i. p. 387.

3 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. pp. 269, 335. Times, November 29, 1866.

4 Ibid. p. 96.

PUSEY MAKES HIS FIRST CONFESSION 133

before he could muster up courage to go to Confession ;
at last, on December i, 1846, he made his first Confession
to Keble at Hursley.1

And here comes in a strange fact. Four years after
Pusey had commenced to hear Confessions, he wrote a
learned treatise, in the form of a lengthy note to the
works of Tertullian, in the Library of the Fathers, to prove
that in the early history of the Christian Church there is
not to be found the slightest trace of private Confession
to priests, and that " if a Church have laid it aside, there
is no ground for misgiving, as though it had parted with
anything essential to the benefits of absolution." 2 But
he adds that " it does not follow that because it was not
practised in the early Church, it may not be a salutary check
in the degraded state in which the Church now is " ; thus
giving to Auricular Confession a purely ecclesiastical and
human origin and not any divine authority. It was of
man, not of God. From what Pusey has to say about
the early Church and Confession of sin to God only, I take
the following extracts which, though lengthy, are well
worthy of careful study, as proving conclusively that the
Primitive Church was thoroughly Protestant on this great
and most important subject :—

11 S. Chrysostome also in the passages cited [by Romanists] to prove
private Confession, sheivs that the sins of the people were unknown to the
priests. But besides these, there is other distinct evidence that Con
fession was not regarded as essential to remission. This is chiefly
furnished by S. Chrysostome, who yet, as alleged by Bellarmine,
recommends public penitence, and himself enforced it ; still he most
distinctly alleges that Confession to God suffices for forgiveness, and
this so repeatedly, and so strongly, as to leave no question as to his
meaning. Certainly no words could be used, which should exclude
any other meaning, if his do not. Thus he says : — . . . ' Confess
to God alone thy sins ; " against Thee only have I sinned, and done
evil before Thee," and thy sin is forgiven.' . . . This language he
uses in other places as even with reference to grievous sins,
fornication or adultery, ' if he [the sinner] will converse alone with
Him, no one knowing, and will utter everything accurately, he shall

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 103.

2 Library of the Fathers: Tertullian, p. 407. Oxford : 1842.

134 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

soon repair his offences ' ; and putting the words in the very mouth
of God, ' I compel thee not, He saith, to come into the midst of a
theatre, surrounded by many witnesses. Tell Me alone thy sin apart,
that I may heal the sore, and free from the pain.' Again, in a
passage remarkable for acknowledging what Romanists seem to
forget, that there is shame in confessing sin at all, even though man
be not by, if any but realise what his defilements are, and how holy
God is : * But thou art ashamed and blushest to utter thy sins, nay,
but even were it necessary to utter these things before men and
display them, not even thus shouldst thou be ashamed (for sin, not
to confess sin, is shame), but now it is not even necessary to confess
before witnesses. Be the examination of transgressions in the
thoughts of conscience. Be the judgment seat unwitnessed. Let
God alone see thee confessing'' . . . Again, in the same contrast with
'a theatre' and 'witnesses,' he says: 'Within, in the conscience, none
being present except the All-seeing God, enter into judgment and
examination of sins' . . . 'For why art thou ashamed and
blushest to tell thy sins ? Tellest thou them to man, that he may
reproach thee? Confessest thou to thy fellow-servant, that he may
make a show of thee ? Thou showest the ivound to the Lord, who
careth for thee, The Friend, The Physician ' . . . ' I do not bring
thee into any theatre of thy fellow-servants, nor compel thee to
reveal thy sins to men ; unfold thy conscience to God, and of Him ask
the remedies. . . .'

"There could," continues Dr. Pusey, "if Romanists would fairly
consider this, be no way in which Confession to God alone, exclusive
of man, could be expressed, if not here. S. Chrysostome says, ' to
God alone,' ' apart in private,7 ' to Him who knoweth beforehand,'
' no one knowing,' ' no one present save Him who knoweth,' ' God
alone seeing,' 'unwitnessed,' 'not to man,' 'not to a fellow-servant/
'within,' 'in the conscience,' 'in the memory,' 'judging thyself
(in lieu of the priest being the judge)." J

"The instances, then, being in each case very numerous, the
absence of any mention of Confession in the early Church under the
following circumstances does, when contrasted with the uniform
mention of it in the later, put beyond question that at the earlier period
it was not the received practice. The evidence is given at great length
by Daille. (i) 'Secret confession has, among the modern Latins, a
chief place in the religious acts of all the faithful; clergy, monks,
lay ; princes, private persons ; nobles, people ; men and women ;
but nowhere in the Ancient Church'' (D. iv. 3); 'especially at the
close of life, as a bounden duty, it is universal among the moderns,

1 Library of the Fathers : Tertullian, pp. 398-401.

NO AURICULAR CONFESSION IN THE EARLY CHURCH 135

unknown among the ancient sy (ibid. c. 5) . . . and certainly the
details are given so fully, that it is inconceivable that the practice
of Confession should have been so uniformly mentioned with
praise in the later, and WHOLLY OMITTED in the earlier Church,
had the practice of the earlier been the same as that of the later." x

Now, I may well ask here, could any one who first
read this splendid defence of the Protestant position with
reference to Auricular Confession, have imagined that its
author was at the very period when he wrote hearing
Confessions himself ? Pusey's treatise, no doubt, tended
to blind the eyes of Protestant Churchmen as to what was
going on, and to put them off their guard. Who could
then have thought it possible that, within a very few years
after writing this, Pusey would himself have adopted the
full Roman Catholic theory and practice of the Sacrament
of Penance ? In later life, Pusey never attempted, so far
as I am aware, to refute the splendid Protestant arguments
against Auricular Confession which he brought forward
in his notes to the works of Tertullian.

The Tractarian Movement continued to make rapid
progress, greater indeed than its founders had ever anti
cipated. Young clergymen, filled with High Church
ideas, went down from Oxford to their various curacies
throughout the length and breadth of the land, and helped
to propagate Tractarian views by preaching and private
conversation, and especially by assisting in the circulation
of each new number of the Tracts for the Times as it came
out. These were read, not only in Rectories and Vicar
ages, but also in the Halls of county noblemen and squires.
There was a delightful novelty about this new system of
religion which pleased and attracted the young, and need
less to add, it was very dear to the hearts of the priest
hood. It was found peculiarly suited to the spiritual
tastes of those who wished to have a high opinion of
human merit in the sight of God ; and it was soon found,
by experience, that it was not inconsistent with a con
siderable amount of worldliness. Before long the news
papers began to discuss the work going on in Oxford, and

1 Library of the Fathers: Tertullian^ pp. 405, 406.

136 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

it was even mentioned in Parliament. Publicity is every
thing for a new cause, and this the Tractarians soon got
in abundance. It was not long before they became
famous in the United States, and in several of our
Colonies. I believe that this success was mainly due
to the Tracts for the Times, though I do not by any means
undervalue the effect of the personal influence of the
leaders at Oxford. As years passed on these Tracts became
more and more Romish in their character, and filled the
hearts of the rulers of the Church of Rome with joy and
hope. Wiseman was by no means slow to realise that,
to a considerable extent, the Tractarians were doing his
work, and doing it better than he could ever hope to do
it. In the Dublin Review for April 1838, he reviewed the
first three volumes of the Tracts for the Times, of whose
authors he asked, " Will they succeed in their work ? "
To which his answer was : " We firmly believe they
will ; nay, strange to say, we hope so." ] lt The spiritual
and devotional character of the Catholic worship and
religion is," wrote Wiseman,2 "openly avowed" in the
Tracts for the Times; and in proof of this he cites the
following statement to be found at page 4 of Tract LXXL,
written by Newman, and published January i, 1836.

" The same feelings which carry men now to Dissent will carry
them to Romanism — novelty being an essential stimulant of popular
devotion ; and the Roman system, to say nothing of the intrinsic
majesty and truth which remain in it amid its corruptions, abound
ing in this and other stimulants of a most potent and effective
character. And further, there will ever be a number of refined and
affectionate minds, who, disappointed in finding full matter for their
devotional feelings in the English system, as at present conducted,
betake themselves, through human frailty, to Rome."

On this statement of Newman's, Wiseman's comment
was logical and just. " We have here," he said (including
in his remarks the other Tracts for the Times), " a clear
confession that, upon a dozen points, affecting nothing

1 Wiseman's Essays on Various Subjects, vol. ii. p. 29.

2 Ibid. p. 56.

EXTRACTS FROM " TRACTS FOR THE TIMES" 137

less than the constitution of the Church, and the autho
rity of its hierarchy, the grounds upon which the most
solemn dogmas rest, the public offices of the Church,
the frequent use of the Eucharistic sacrament, the per
formance of daily service, the observance of fasting, and
other great moral precepts, the Anglican Church, under
the mask of a Reformation, contrived to place things in a
worse state than they were before, and than they now exist in the
Catholic Church." ] And here it may be useful to give some
other quotations from the Tracts for the Times which
manifest their Romeward tendencies, omitting for the
present any reference to Tract XC. to be dealt with later
on : —

"With these [Foreign Reformers] and the like men Cranmer
was surrounded, and paid much deference to them, as a man of no
decision is wont to do to those who are bent upon carrying a point.
It was probably a fruit of this influence, that there came out from
the Council in 1550 an ill-omened letter ; signed by seven laymen,
but by one Bishop only (Ely) besides the Archbishop, commanding
the attars to be taken down, and tables to be placed in their room." 2

" Again, from the Prayer ' for the Church militant ' we have
excluded the more solemn commendation to God, and Prayer for
the Dead ; this is a moving thought, for may we not venture to
consider it in this light, that we are by this exclusion, as it were, in
some degree disunited from the purer communion of those departed
Saints who are now with Christ, as if scarce worthy to profess
ourselves one with them.' " 3

" In speaking of the Rubric, the substitution of the term ' Table,'
'Holy Table,' and in the Scotch of l God's Board,' for that of 'Altar,'
which is in Edward's First Book (as well as * God's Board'), is a
strong instance of this our judicial humiliation." 4

"There is another circumstance now to be observed, of more
importance than any which have been hitherto considered, the
entire omission of the use of oil at Baptism and Confirmation. . . .
When we consider these things, surely no one can say [sic. ? deny]
the greatness of the gifts which are here withdrawn ; how much we
have thereby fallen from the high appellations of ' a royal priesthood,

1 Wiseman's Essays on Various Subjects, vol. ii. pp. 56, 57.

2 Tract LXXXL p. 16. By Dr. Pusey.

3 Tract LXXXVI. p. 21. By the Rev. Isaac Williams. 4 Ibid. p. 26.

138 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

a holy nation, a peculiar people ' : and we have together with it lost
the white robe of Baptism." l

" In all these things,2 we have no reason surely to complain of
the judicial withholding of privileges, but to lament our unfitness to
receive them ; the fact is our * iniquities have separated between us
and our God.' 'Our sins have withholden good things from us.'
The essentials of a Church we have by many merciful interpositions
still preserved to us ; they are only matters denoting the highest
privileges ; royal gifts, that are withdrawn" 3

No one who reads these last quotations can fail to see
how dissatisfied the early Tractarians were with the Prayer
Book as it is, and how heartily they would have welcomed
Prayer Book Revision, provided it were on Tractarian
lines. The only Revision to which the Ritualists now
object is one on Protestant lines.

In the year 1839 an attempt was commenced to
influence the wealthy residents of the West End of
London in favour of Tractarianism. The Rev. Frederick
Oakeley, one of the most zealous and extreme of his
party, was in that year appointed to the charge of
Margaret Chapel, near Cavendish Square, in which, as
he subsequently said, he sought " an opportunity of trying
the effect of Tractarian principles upon a practical scale."
In a lecture delivered in London in 1855, when he had
become a Roman Catholic priest, Mr. Oakeley told his
hearers how he began his work in Margaret Chapel : —

"Pulpit and reading desk," he said, "were moved from their
former position ; and the poor clerk reluctantly took his place in
the body of the chapel, although he never succeeded to the last in
bringing his 'Amen' into proper tone of subordination. The
communion table, now dignified with the name of an altar, exhibited
its crimson frontal, its cross, and its candlesticks, whose unlighted
candles were standing memorials of Episcopal inflexibility, and
emblems of patient hope. Not indeed that they were always un
lighted ; for there came periodically the succession of night to day,

1 Tract LXXXVL pp. 27, 29.

2 That is, in the removal from the Prayer Book of Prayers for the Dead, and
the word "altar"; in the omission from it also of the anointing in Baptism
and Confirmation, and the removal of the " anointing of the sick."

3 Tract LXXXVL pp. 30, 31.

MARGARET STREET CHAPEL 139

and at times the elements favoured us with a propitious fog. All
this, my friends, must sound to you as something inexpressibly absurd.
Well, I cannot justify the unlighted candles, and still less, the inor
dinate attachment to fogs. But, with the exception of a few such
trifling extravagances, the whole thing, I assure you, had an earnest
ness and reality about it ; as has been proved, I think you will admit,
by its (then most unthought of) results. Margaret Chapel has yielded
some scores of converts to the Catholic Church, including four of
its successive Ministers; and this, although it never aimed at
anything but to promote the cause of the Church of England. It
continued to do its work long after I quitted it, and has now merged
into one of the most magnificent Churches in England,1 which I
have no doubt will do its work also."2

From the biography of Mr. Serjeant Bellasis, who
was from the first one of Mr. Oakeley's warmest supporters
at Margaret Chapel (and who subsequently seceded to
Rome) we learn that " the altar was raised " by the new
Incumbent, who at once " commenced intoning parts of
the service more after Cathedral fashion." 3 All through
Oakeley's troubles while at Margaret Chapel, Serjeant
Bellasis was his warmest friend and disciple. How far
the Serjeant had gone towards Popery, even seven years
before he actually joined the Church of Rome, may be
seen in the following extract from a letter he wrote to a
friend on March 31, 1843: — "You know my opinion
about the Pope. I think he is the Head of the Christian
Church, and that Henry VIII. committed a great sin in
throwing off the Pope's authority and assuming it himself,
and I wish that authority were restored." 4 Six months
later Bellasis visited Oxford, and there, amongst the
Tractarians (as he wrote from there on September 25,
1843): — "I find a universal acquiescence in the Council of
Trent, as being the only basis upon which an ultimate
reunion will be effected, and a universal admission that the
notion of independent national Churches is absurd, and that the
authority of a Supreme Patriarch is far, very far prefer-

1 All Saints, Margaret Street, W.

2 Personal Reminiscences of the Oxford Movement. A Lecture by Frederick
Oakeley, M.A., p. I r. London: 1855.

3 Memorials of Mr. Serjeant Bellasis, p. 35.

4 Ibid. p. 39.

140 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

able, to the slavery of the Church to an almost heathen
state." 1

Mr. Oakeley's labours at the Margaret Chapel were
soon rewarded with a considerable measure of success.
He gathered round him an influential congregation, in
cluding many members of the aristocracy, and not a few
of those who held high official positions, amongst the
latter being Mr. Gladstone, the future Prime Minister,2
who remained an intimate friend of Mr. Oakeley's until
his death. Of Margaret Chapel Mr. Gladstone once
said : — " The whole place was so filled by the reverence
of Oakeley's ministrations and manner, that its bareness
and poverty passed unnoticed. His sermons were always
most admirable ; they never exceeded twenty minutes." J
The result was the accession to the ranks of the Tractarians
of many perverts of considerable influence in the upper
ranks of society. The affairs of the Chapel, under
Oakeley's ministrations, appear to have gone on pros
perously for several years. Complaints from Protestant
Churchmen were heard from time to time, but nothing
in the nature of really serious opposition was met with
until early in the year 1845. On February i4th of that
year the Rev. W. G. Ward was deprived of his degrees by
the Convocation of the University of Oxford for having,
amongst other offences, affirmed in his book, The Ideal of
a Christian Church, that, in subscribing the Thirty-Nine
Articles, he " renounced no one Roman doctrine." On
the very day that Ward was thus degraded, Oakeley wrote
a letter to the Vice-Chancellor calling his attention to the
fact that, six weeks previously, he had sent to him a copy
of a pamphlet which he (Oakeley) had written, and in
which occurred the following passage : — " I claim the
right, which has been already asserted in another quarter,
of holding (as distinct from teaching) all Roman doctrine,
and that notwithstanding my subscription to the Thirty-
Nine Articles." 4

1 Memorials of Mr. Serjeant Bellasis, p. 66, note.

2 Purcell's Life of Cardinal Manning, vol. i. p. 314. 3 Ibid. p. 314.

4 The Subject of Tract XC. Historically Examined. By Frederick Oakeley,
Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, 2nd edition, p. xiii. Oakeley's pamphlet was

PROSECUTION OF MR. OAKELEY 141

Mr. Oakeley proceeded to state to the Vice-Chan
cellor : — " If I am allowed, after this plain and public
declaration of my sentiments, to retain my place in the
University, I shall regard such acquiescence as equivalent
to an admission, on the part of the Academical authorities,
that my own subscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles is
not at variance with good faith.' " The fact that Oakeley
had written this letter came to the knowledge of the
Bishop of London (Dr. Blomfield), who was so much put
out about it that he immediately requested Oakeley to
resign his Incumbency of Margaret Chapel. Oakeley's
friends wrote to the Bishop in his favour, amongst them
being Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Justice Coleridge.2 While
the decision was pending Oakeley wrote and published a
letter to the Bishop of London, in the form of a pamph
let,3 which led his lordship to the decision to prosecute
the offender in the Court of Arches. It was open to the
Bishop to have withdrawn Oakeley's licence at once, but
he thought it would seem fairer to proceed against him
by a prosecution. This was the first prosecution brought
against a member of the party to which Oakeley belonged,
and it is not a little interesting to note that it was initiated
by a Bishop, his secretary, Mr. Christopher Hodgson,
being the nominal prosecutor. The case came on for
hearing in the Arches Court, on June 9, 1845, before Sir
Herbert Jenner Fust.4 The portions of Oakeley's Letter
to the Bishop of London objected against in the articles
included the following passages : —

" I do not deny that it may naturally strike your lordship, as a
gratuitous and disturbing movement. Nor, again, could I be sur-

ably answered by the Rev. William Goode (afterwards Dean of Ripon) under the
title of Tract XC. Historically Refuted, 2nd edition, pp. 191. London : Hatchard.
1866.

1 Mr. Oakeley's letter to the Vice-Chancellor appears in full in the English
Churchman, February 20, 1845, p. 121.

2 Memorials of Mr. Serjeant Bellasis, p. 41.

3 A Letter to the Bishop of London on a Subject Connected with the Recent
Proceedings at Oxford. By the Rev. Frederick Oakeley, pp. 39. London :
Toovey.

4 A verbatim copy of the articles brought against the defendant, together
with a report of the trial, appears in the English Churchman, June 12, 1845,
PP- 374-376.

142 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

prised to hear that your lordship had been seriously startled by my
further declaration of an opinion, that the Articles are subscribable in
what may be called an ultra-Catholic sense, so as to involve no
necessary renunciation on the subscriber's part, of any formal de
cision of the Western Church, and that I myself, actually so
subscribed them/3 1

" And now I wish to draw your lordship's attention to the follow
ing point. The distinction in question is, as I contend, wholly
irrelevant to my question with the University, for, in the University,
it is not the practice of teaching certain doctrines which is even
apparently impugned, but the claim to hold them. Mr. Ward him
self never claimed to teach Roman doctrine ; on the contrary, he urges
over and over again that such a procedure would be highly wrong
under our circumstances. What he maintains, and what the vote
of Thursday seems to deny, is the honesty of subscribing the Articles
in a certain sense. The University, then, cannot pretend to let me
off on the ground of the above distinction ; for with respect to it I
differ in no way from Mr. Ward, whom it has, by hypothesis, con
demned. Mr. Ward does not claim to teach, /claim to hold.

" But, with your lordship, I contend this distinction ought to,
and will, receive consideration. Were I to be found teaching Roman
doctrine in my public ministrations in your lordship's diocese, I
should, as I feel, most deservedly expose myself to your lordship's
censure. It is plain that your lordship, as a Bishop of our Church,
could not, and would not, suffer it." 2

At the hearing of the case in the Court of Arches
Mr. Oakeley was undefended, but that, of course, was his
own fault, since he does not seem to have pleaded any
conscientious objections to recognising the Court of
Arches. Sir Herbert Jenner Fust delivered his judgment
in the case, on June 30, 1845 : —

" The learned judge had no doubt that the promoters of the
office had sufficiently proved the articles, and that Mr. Oakeley had
advisedly maintained and affirmed doctrines directly contrary and
repugnant to those of the Church of England, so as to render him
self liable to ecclesiastical censure. If the proceeding had been
under the statute of Elizabeth, he must, in the first instance, have
been called upon to retract his error, and if he refused, be deprived
of his preferment; but, as the proceeding was under the general

1 Oakeley's Letter to the Bishop of London > p. n.

2 Ibid. pp. 12, 13.

JUDGMENT AGAINST MR. OAKELEY 143

law, the punishment was left to the discretion of the Court, accord
ing to the exigency of the offence.

"What the amount of that punishment should be he had now
to consider, and in that consideration he must bear in mind the
necessity of inflicting such a punishment as would prevent others
from falling into those errors of which Mr. Oakeley was guilty. He
believed that the Court would not go beyon4 the justice of the case
if it revoked the licence of Mr. Oakeley to officiate in Margaret
Chapel, or elsewhere in the Diocese of London, and if it prohibited
him from performing any ministerial offices within the Province of
Canterbury until he retracted his errors. He should also condemn
Mr. Oakeley in the cost of these proceedings.1

The Church of England is much indebted to Bishop
Blomfield for the courageous and faithful attitude he
assumed towards Mr. Oakeley. The Bishop was not an
Evangelical, but rather an old-fashioned High Churchman,
yet he could not fail to see a grave danger to the Church
in allowing a man like Oakeley to flaunt his defiant
Popery in the face of her rulers. The punishment in
flicted upon the Minister of Margaret Chapel was severe,
but it was thoroughly deserved, and it was effectual in
preventing a repetition of the offence. Why is it, we may
well ask, that the Bishops of the present generation have
not the courage to imitate Bishop Blomfield's example ?
What an unhappy exhibition of unfaithfulness on their
part is revealed in the Archbishop of York's Advent Pas
toral, issued in 1899. " It has been widely stated," said
the Archbishop, " in various quarters, that the Bishops
have determined to prosecute the nonconforming clergy.
Such rumours are circulated, from whatever motive, with
out the slightest authority. I do not believe that there is a
single Bishop who would think of taking such a step, although,
unquestionably, this lies within our power."

Dr. Pusey was made very angry by Sir Herbert Jenner
Fust's judgment. He wrote two long letters to the English
Churchman finding fault with it, and urging that, because
Mr. Oakeley was undefended, the judgment " has morally
no force upon the conscience, as legally, none as a prece-

1 English Churchman, July 3, 1845, p. 422.

144 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

dent in law." 1 But here it may be asked what ecclesi
astical judgment delivered since 1845 nas been considered
by Pusey's followers to have any moral " force upon the
conscience/' when it conflicted with their teaching and
conduct ? In the very first case of a prosecution against
a member of their party, this plea was set up, and against
a Spiritual Court too ; and it has been set up in every
other case tried since then. The plea set up by Dr. Pusey
that a judgment has "morally no force upon the con
science/' when the prosecuted one wilfully and inexcusably
chooses not to defend himself, is simply absurd. If this
plea were permitted in criminal courts every prisoner at
the bar would escape punishment. And in this Margaret
Chapel case Pusey set another bad example to his fol
lowers which they were not slow to imitate. He imputed
bad motives to the prosecution. He wrote : — " When he
(Oakeley) thought it right to give up his cause, he knew
that he must be condemned ; and whether without any
alleged grounds, simply by default, or in other courts, or
upon wrong grounds, or on the real grounds, mattered not
to him personally. In any case, he must be crushed, and then
it matters not much to a person, why." : In defending
Oakeley, Pusey was at the same time defending others
who held the same ground. He was anxious to keep men
holding this disloyal position within the English Church,
and prevent them going over to Rome, their natural home.
A few months later, Pusey wrote to Dr. Wilberforce, then
Bishop- Elect of Oxford : —

" I did not mean to state anything definitely as to myself, but
only to maintain, in the abstract, the tenability of a certain position, in
which VERY MANY are, of not holding themselves obliged to renounce
any doctrine, formally decreed by the Roman Church. And this
I knew would satisfy many minds, who do not wish to form any
definite opinion on those doctrines, yet still wish not to be obliged
to commit themselves against them. But in this I was not speaking
of what is commonly meant by ' Popery/ which is a large practical
system, going beyond their formularies, varying, perhaps, indefinitely

1 English Churchman, October 2, 1845, P- 627-
8 Ibid. p. 627.

FAITH IN PURGATORY 145

in different minds. I mean simply ' the letter of what has been
decreed by the Roman Church ' ; and this I have, for years, hoped
might ultimately become the basis of union between us." x

In this same letter Pusey showed to Wilberforce what
some of these Romish doctrines were which English
Churchmen might lawfully hold, and at the same time he
revealed most clearly his intense longing for Corporate
Reunion with Rome. " Practically/' he wrote, " when
people come to me for guidance, I endeavour to withhold
them from what lies beyond our Church, although, if asked
on the other side, I could not deny that such and such
things seem to me admissible. If I may explain my
meaning, the remarkable Acts of S. Perpetua and Felicitas,
which was beyond question genuine, contain a very solemn
vision, which involves the doctrine of a process of purifica
tion after death by suffering, to shorten which prayer was
available . . . solemn as it was, I could not, taking all
together, refuse my belief to an intermediate state of
cleansing, in some cases through pain. . . . The effect has
been that / have since been wholly silent about Purgatory (before
I used to speak against it). I have not said as much as
this except to two or three friends. Some of my nearest
friends do not know of it." ' Here was undoubtedly a
case in which Pusey acted on the doctrine of " Reserve in
Communicating Religious Knowledge." And what are we
to think of the tactics revealed in the following paragraph
of the same letter ? " Practically then," said Pusey, " I
dissuade or forbid (when I have authority) Invocation of
Saints ; abstractedly, I see no reason why our Church
might not eventually allow it, in the sense of asking for
their prayers." To " dissuade or forbid " people practising
that which he thought might be helpful, if introduced into
the English Church, was not a consistent attitude for any
Christian minister to assume. It was very much like
double-faced conduct. And all this belief in Popery was
to be tolerated in the English Church with a view to
assisting its Reunion with Rome. " I cannot but think,"

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 303.
8 Ibid. pp. 304, 305.

146 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

wrote Pusey, in the same letter to Wilberforce, " that
Rome and we are not irreconcilably at variance, but that,
in the impending contest with unbelief, we shall be on the
same side, and in God's time, and in His way, one."

A few months after the judgment of Sir Herbert Jenner
Fust, Mr. Oakeley seceded to the Church of Rome. Shortly
before that event he wrote from Littlemore,on October 23rd,
a letter for publication — just a fortnight after Newman had
announced his own secession in the same village — in which
he stated that he was about to join the Church of Rome,
and in which he revealed the object he had in view while
labouring as a clergyman in the Church of England : —
" To bring my own Church]' he wrote, ll into the utmost pos
sible sympathy and harmony with the Roman, while at the same
time scrupulously observant of her own express directions,
and of the injunctions of authority (as far as I could collect
them), this, as you well know, was my idea of the truest loyalty
towards the Church of England."

1 A Letter On Submitting to the Catholic Church. By Frederick Oakeley,
M.A., 2nd edition, p. 34. London : James Toovey. 1845.

CHAPTER VI

Tract XC.— List of pamphlets on Tract XC.— Newman's object in
writing the Tract— Extracts from it— Rejoicings at Oscott— The letter
of the Four Tutors — Dr. Arnold's opinion of the Tract — Declaration
by the Heads of Houses— Interesting letter from one of the Four
Tutors — Newman's Letter to Dr. Jelf — Wiseman's attitude towards
the advanced Tractarians — Ward's traitorous letter to the Univers
—An English Catholic's letter to Newman— Wiseman's reply to
Newman — Mr. Ambrose Lisle Phillipps' letter — The Bishop of Ox
ford's difficulties — His correspondence with Pusey and Newman —
The Tracts for the Times discontinued — Newman's Letter to the
Bishop of Oxford — Newman withdraws his "dirty words" against
Rome — His reasons for doing so — The Rev. William George Ward
—Thinks the Reformers guilty of rebellion and perjury — Mr.
Percival's defence of the Tracts for the Times — Keble's defence of
Tract XC. — His opinion on Canonical Obedience to the Bishops —
Pusey's defence of Tract XC.— Manning's dislike for Tract XC.—
BricknelFs Judgment of the Bishops upon Tractarian Theology —
What the Bishops said against Tract XC.

PROBABLY Newman never created a greater sensation in
his life — his secession to Rome excepted — than when he
wrote Tract XC. The number of pamphlets written on
this one Tract alone, by friend and foe, was very large. I
have not seen them all, but for the purpose of reference
my readers may find useful the subjoined list of those in
my possession. 1

1 I. Trad XC. " Remarks on Certain Passages in the Thirty-Nine Articles,"
pp.83. London: Rivington. 1841. Reprinted, "With a Historical Preface
by the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D." London : Parker. 1865.

2. A Letter to the Rev. R. W.Jelf, D.D., In Explanation of No. 90. By the
Author, pp. 31. Oxford: Parker. 1841.

3. A Letter to the Bishop of Oxford On Occasion of Tract XC. By John
Henry Newman, pp. 47. Oxford : Parker. 1841.

4. The Articles Treated on in Tract XC. Reconsidered and their Interpretation
Vindicated. In a Letter to the Rev. R. W. Jelf, D.D. By the Rev. E. B. Pusey,
D.D., pp. 217. Oxford : Parker. 1841.

5. A Letter to the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D., On the Piiblication of No. 90 of the
Tracts for the Times. By William Sewell, M.A., Professor of Moral Philosophy,
pp. 13. Oxford : Parker. 1841.

6. Some Remarks on A Letter Addressed to the Rev. R. W.Jelf, D.D., in Ex-

147

148 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

It was no new idea of Newman's to write a book about
the Thirty-Nine Articles. He had considered the subject
more than two years before the start of the Oxford Move
ment. " I had," he wrote to the Rev. H. ]. Rose, on
March 28, 1831, " considered a work on the Articles
might be useful on the following plan : First, a defence of
Articles ; then the history of our own. Then an explanation

planation of No. 90. By Ambrose Lisle Phillipps, Esq., pp. 24. London : Charles
Dolman. 1841.

7. A Letter Respectfully Addressed to the Rev. J. H. Newman Upon Some
Passages in his Letter to the Rev. Dr. Jelf. By N. Wiseman, D.D., Bishop of
Melipotamus, pp. 32. London : Charles Dolman. 1841.

8. A Letter to N. Wiseman, D.D., containing Remarks On his Letter to Mr.
Newman. By the Rev. William Palmer, M.A., Worcester College, Oxford,
pp. 49. Oxford : Parker. 1841.

9. Strictures on No. 90 of the Tracts for the Times. By a Member of the
University of Oxford. Part I. pp. 76. Oxford : J. Vincent.

10. Strictures on A'o. 90 of the Tracts for the Times. By a Member of the
University of Oxford. Part II. pp. 95. Oxford : J. Vincent. 1841.

11. Two Letters Concerning No. 90 in the Series called Tracts for the Times.
Printed for Private Distribution Only, pp. 31. Oxford: Printed by W. Baxter.
1841.

12. The Controversy between Tract XC. and the Oxford Tutors, pp. 32.
London: How & Parsons. 1841.

13. Brief Remarks upon No. 90, Second Edition, and some Subsequent Pub
lications in Defence oj it. By the Rev. C. P. Golightly, M.A., pp. 19. Oxford :
William Graham. 1841.

14. The Case of Catholic Subscription to the Thirty -Nine Articles. By the
Rev. John Keble, M.A., pp. 38. "London: 1841. Not Published." Reprinted
by Dr. Pusey, in 1865, with Tract XC.

15. A Vindication of the Principles of the Authors of the Tracts for the Times.
By the Hon. and Rev. A. P. Percival, B.C.L., pp. 33. London: Rivington.
1841.

1 6. Certain Documents, &°£., <£rv., Connected with the Tracts for the Times
No. 90, pp. 18. Oxford : Printed by W. Baxter. 1841.

17. Some Documents, 6-v., &>c., Connected with the Tracts for the Times,
3rd edition, pp. 15. Oxford : W. Graham. 1841.

1 8. Oxford or Rome? A Letter to the Rev. J. H. Newman On No. 90 of
the Tracts for the Times. By an English Catholic, pp. 32. London : James
Ridgway. 1841.

19. A Letter to the Rev. T. T. Churton, M.A. By the Rev. H. B. Wilson,
St. John's College, Oxford, 2nd edition, pp. 31. Oxford : W. Graham. 1841.

20. A Few Words in Support of No. 90, partly with Reference to Mr.
Wilson's Letter. By the Rev. William George Ward, M.A., pp. 48. London :
Parker. 1841.

21. A Few More Words in Support of No. 90. By the Rev. William George
Ward, M.A., pp. 91. Oxford : Parker. 1841.

22. Observations Suggested by a Few More Words in Support of No. 90. By
Robert Lowe, Esq., Magdalen College (afterwards Lord Sherbrooke), pp. 24.
Oxford: W. Baxter. 1841.

23. The Thirty -Nine Articles Considered Chiefly with Reference to the Views
of Tract No. 90. A Lecture by Godfrey Faussett, D.D., Lady Margaret Professor
of Divinity, pp. 44. Oxford : Parker. 1841.

24. The Subject of Tract XC. Examined. By the Rev. Frederick Oakeley,
M. A., pp. 84. London: Rivington. 1841.

WHY NEWMAN WROTE TRACT XC. 149

of them founded on the historical view." 1 He was evidently
acquainted at least with the existence of Santa Clara's book
(on whose lines Tract XC. was written) as early as i835.2
Newman says that one motive which he had in view when
writing this Tract " was the desire to ascertain the ultimate
points of contrariety between the Roman and Anglican
Creeds, and to make them as few as possible'' 3 And then he
had a difficulty : — " I was embarrassed in consequence of
my wish to go as far as was possible in interpreting the
Articles in the direction of Roman dogma, without disclosing
what I was doing to the parties whose doubts I was meet
ing." 4 Many of his followers could not see how, with the
views they held, they could consistently sign the Articles,
and consequently they were tempted, for the sake of being
honest and consistent, to go over to Rome. Tract XC. was
written to keep them in the Church of England, so as to
further Newman's great scheme of Corporate Reunion with
Rome. The italics in the next quotation are Newman's : —

" It was thrown in our teeth," says Newman, " ' How can you
manage to sign the Articles? they are directly against Rome.'
' Against Rome ? ' I made answer ; ' what do you mean by ' ' Rome " ' ?
and then 1 proceeded to make distinctions, of which I shall now give
an account.

"By 'Roman doctrine' might be meant one of three things: i,
the Catholic teaching of the early centuries ; or 2, the formal dogmas
of Rome as contained in the later Councils, especially the Council of
Trent, and as condensed in the Creed of Pope Pius IV. ; 3, the
actual popular beliefs and usages sanctioned by Rome in the countries
in communion with it, over and above the dogmas ; and these I
called 'dominant errors.' Now Protestants commonly thought that
in all three senses ' Roman doctrine ' was condemned in the

25. The Subject of Tract XC. Historically Considered. By the Rev. Frederick
Oakeley, M.A., 2nd edition, revised, pp. xvi. 87. London : James Toovey.
1845.

26. Tract XC. Historically Refuted. A Reply to the Rev. F. Oakeley. By
William Goode, M.A., Dean of Ripon, 2nd edition, pp. iv. 191. London:
Hatchard. 1866.

27. Oxford: Tract No. 90 and Warcfs Ideal of a Christian Church. By
the Rev. W. Simcox Bricknell, M.A., 3rd edition, pp. 69. Oxford : J. Vincent.
1844.

1 Newman's Letters^ vol. i. p. 239.

2 Ibid. vol. ii, p. 147.

8 Apologia Pro Vita Sua, p. 160.
4 Ibid. p. 162.

150 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

Articles : I thought that the Catholic teaching was not condemned ;
that the dominant errors were ; and as to the formal dogmas^ that
some were, some were not, and that the line had to be drawn
between them. Thus, i, the use of Prayers for the dead was a
Catholic doctrine, not condemned ; 2, the prison of Purgatory was
a Roman dogma, — which was condemned ; but the infallibility of
Ecumenical Councils was a Roman dogma — not condemned; and 3,
the fire of Purgatory was an authorised and popular error, not a
dogma — which was condemned."1

This explanation, given by Newman himself twenty-
three years after Tract XC. was written, may be supple
mented by a few extracts from the document itself. In
the Introduction the author was not ashamed to speak of
the Church of England in terms almost of contempt.
" Till/' he said, " her members are stirred up to this
religious course, let the Church sit still ; let her be content
to be in bondage; let her work in chains; let her submit to
her imperfections as a punishment ; let her go on teach
ing with the stammering lips of ambiguous formularies and
inconsistent precedents." '" He boldly maintained that
(t the Articles are not written against the Creed of the Roman
Church, but against actual existing errors in it, whether
taken into its system or not." ;

" These extracts show not only what the Anglican doctrine is,
but, in particular, that the phrase { Rule of Faith ' is no symbolical
expression with us, appropriated to some one sense ; certainly not as
a definition or attribute of Holy Scripture. And it is important to
insist upon this, from the very great misconceptions to which the
phrase gives rise. Perhaps its use had better be avoided altogether.
In the sense in which it is commonly understood at this day,

1 Apologia Pro Vita Sua, p. 159.

2 Tract XC., ist edition, p. 4. In the 2nd edition this passage was altered
to read as follows: — "Till we are stirred up to this religious course, let the
Church, our Mother, sit still ; let her children be content to be in bondage ; let us
work in chains ; let us submit to our imperfections as a punishment ; let us go on
teaching through the meaning of indeterminate statements and inconsistent prece
dents." The passage was toned down because the author felt he had acted
unwisely in going so far ; but he expressed no regret for his first version, which, I
believe, more accurately expressed his real sentiments all through the controversy
which it produced.

3 Ibid. p. 59.

EXTRACTS FROM TRACT XC. 151

Scripture^ it is plain^ is not, on Anglican principles -, the Rule of
Faith."*

"Now the first remark that occurs on perusing this Article
[XXII.] is that the doctrine objected to is ' the Romish doctrine.' For
instance, no one would suppose that the Calvinistic doctrine, con
cerning Purgatory, Pardons, and Image Worship, is spoken against.
Not every doctrine on these matters is a fond thing, but the Romish
doctrine. Accordingly the Primitive doctrine is not condemned in
it, unless, indeed, the Primitive doctrine be the Romish, which must
not be supposed." 2

"And further by 'the Romish doctrine' [Article XXIL] is not
meant the Tridentine doctrine, because this Article was drawn up
before the decree of the Council of Trent.3 What is opposed is the
received doctrine of the day, and unhappily of this day too, or the
doctrine of the Roman schools ; a conclusion which is still more
clear by considering that there are portions of the Tridentine doc
trine on these subjects, which the Article, far from condemning,
by anticipation approves." 4

"The pardons, then, spoken of in the Article [XXIL], are large
and reckless indulgences from the penalties of sin obtained on
money payments." 5

"This Article [XXV.] does not deny the five rites in question to
be Sacraments, but to be Sacraments in the sense in which Baptism
and the Lord's Supper are Sacraments."6

" Here [Article XXXL] the Sacrifice of the Mass is not spoken

i Tract XC. p. II. 2 Ibid. p. 23.

3 This assertion is ably and conclusively refuted by Dean Goode, in his reply
to a similar assertion made by the Rev. F. Oakeley. " It is quite true," he writes,
"that the session of the Council of Trent, in which its decrees respecting Purga
tory, Indulgences, Worship of Relics and Images, and Invocation of Saints were
laid down, was posterior to the revision of the Articles ; the latter being in
January 1562-3, and the former in December 1563. But not only was there
sufficient evidence what the doctrine of the Church of Rome was upon those
subjects from other sources, but in fact as to Purgatory (Sess. vi. can. 30 ; Sess.
xxii. c. 2.), Indulgences (Sess. xxi. c. 9), and Invocation of Saints (Sess. xxii.
c. 3), these doctrines had been distinctly recognised in various sessions of the
Council that had preceded the revision of the Articles. Indeed, out of the
twenty-five sessions of the Council, the Decrees of sixteen (including the doctrines
of Scripture and Tradition, Original Sin, Justification, and Good Works, the
Sacraments, Baptism, the Lord's Supper, &c.) were well known here before the
Articles were originally drawn up in 1552 ; and the Decrees of twenty-two must
have been well known here before the revision in January 1562-3, the twenty-
second session having taken place in September 1562, four months previous.
And the only matters connected with our present subject discussed in the remain
ing three sessions were, the Sacraments of Order and Matrimony, and the points
above mentioned. So utterly incorrect is the assertion that ' the Decrees of
Trent were drawn up after the Articles ' " ( Tract XC. Historically Refitted. By
William Goode, Dean of Ripon, 2nd edition, 1866, p. 77).

4 Tract XC. p. 24. 5 Ibid. p. 31. 6 Ibid. p. 43.

152 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

of, in which the special question of doctrine would be introduced ;
but the ' Sacrifice of Masses.' " l

" Bishop is superior to Bishop only in rank, not in real power ;
and the Bishop of Rome, the head of the Catholic world, is not the
centre of unity, except as having a primacy of order" 2

When Tract XC. reached the Roman Catholic College
at Oscott, the Romanists were delighted. The biographer
of Cardinal Wiseman tells us : — " Oscott, as might be
expected, rejoiced. At last it seemed that the Tractarians
' meant business.' " Newman wrote the Tract to keep
his followers contented in the Church of England. It
had, as we are told by one of them, who subsequently
became a Roman priest [the Rev. W. Lockhart] a directly
opposite effect. Lockhart says : — " On us young men
Tract XC. had the effect of strengthening greatly our
growing convictions that Rome was right and the Church
of England wrong."4

Neither Newman himself, nor Keble, to whom he
showed the Tract before publication, seem to have anti
cipated that it would cause any special sensation. It was
published on Saturday, February 27, 1841, and at once
created a public excitement. As early as the 8th of
March, four Tutors of Oxford Colleges addressed an
important letter on the subject addressed," To the Editor
of the Tracts for the Times." It was as follows : —

" SIR, — Our attention having been called to No. 90 in the series
of Tracts for the Times, by ' Members of the University of Oxford/
of which you are the editor, the impression produced upon our
minds by its contents is of so painful a character, that we feel it our
duty to intrude ourselves briefly on your notice. This publication is
entitled, ' Remarks on Certain Passages in the Thirty-Nine Articles,'
and, as these Articles are appointed by the Statutes of the Univer
sity to be the text-book for Tutors in their theological teaching, we
hope that the situations we hold in our respective Colleges will

1 Tract XC. p. 59. 2 Ibid. p. 78.

3 Life and Times, of Cardinal Wiseman, vol. i. p. 373.

4 Article by the Rev. W. Lockhart, on "Cardinal Newman," in the Pater
noster Review ', October 1890, p. 28.

PROTESTS OF THE FOUR TUTORS 153

secure us from the charge of presumption in thus coming forward to
address you.

" The Tract has, in our apprehension, a highly dangerous tendency,
from its suggesting that certain very important errors of the Church
of Rome are not condemned by the Articles of the Church of
England. For instance, that those Articles do not contain any
condemnation of the doctrines —

" i. Of Purgatory,

2. Of Pardons,

3. Of the Worshipping and Adoration of Images and

Relics,

4. Of the Invocation of Saints,

5. Of the Mass,

"as they are taught authoritatively by the Church of Rome, but only
of certain absurd practices and opinions which intelligent Roman
ists repudiate as much as we do. It is intimated, moreover, that
the Declaration prefixed to the Articles, so far as it has any weight
at all, sanctions this mode of interpreting them, as it is one which
takes them in their ' literal and grammatical sense,' and does
not ' affix any new sense ' to them. The Tract would thus appear
to us to have a tendency to mitigate, beyond what charity requires,
and to the prejudice of the pure truth of the Gospel, the very serious
differences which separate the Church of Rome from our own, and
to shake the confidence of the less learned members of the Church
of England in the Scriptural character of her formularies and
teaching.

"We readily admit the necessity of allowing that liberty in
interpreting the formularies of our Church, which has been advo
cated by many of its most learned Bishops and other eminent
divines ; but this Tract puts forward new and startling views as to
the extent to which that liberty may be carried. For if we are
right in our apprehension of the author's meaning, we are at a loss
to see what security would remain, were his principles generally
recognised, that the most plainly erroneous doctrines and practices
of the Church of Rome might not be inculcated in the lecture rooms
of the University and from the pulpits of our Churches.

"In conclusion, we venture to call your attention to the im
propriety of such questions being treated in an anonymous pub
lication, and to express an earnest hope that you may be authorised
to make known the writer's name. Considering how very grave and
solemn the whole subject is, we cannot help thinking, that both the
Church and the University are entitled to ask that some person,

154 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

besides the printer and publisher of the Tract, should acknowledge
himself responsible for its contents. — We are, sir, your obedient
humble servants,

"T. T. CHURTON, M.A., Vice-Principal and Tutor of

Brasenose College.
H. B. WILSON, B.D., Fellow and Senior Tutor of St. John's

College.
JOHN GRIFFITHS, M.A., Sub-Warden and Tutor of Wadham

College.

A. C. TAIT, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College.
"OXFORD, March 8, 1841."

The last to sign this important document, the Rev.
A. C. Tait, afterwards became Archbishop of Canterbury.
He never repented of the part he then took, Broad
Churchman though he was. " Were it all to happen
again/' he said in 1880, "I think I should, in the same
position, do exactly as I did then." ]

Mr. Tait sent a copy of the Address of the four Tutors
to Dr. Arnold, Head Master of Rugby, who, in his reply,
wrote strongly, yet justly, in the following terms : —

" I am extremely glad that the Tract has been so noticed ; yet it
is to me far more objectionable morally than theologically; and
especially the comment on the 2ist Article, to which you have not
alluded, is of such a character, that if subscription to the aist
Article, justified by such rules of interpretation, may be honestly
practised, I do not see why an Unitarian may not subscribe the
first Article or the second. The comparative importance of the
truths subscribed to does not affect the question; I am merely
speaking of the utter perversion of language shown in the Tract,
according to which a man may subscribe to an article when he
holds the very opposite opinions — believing what it denies, and
denying what it affirms." 2

The letter of the four Tutors, which Newman formally
acknowledged (but to whom he did not reveal his name),
was speedily followed by the action of the Heads of
Houses, at, it is said, the instigation of the Rev. C. P.
Golightly of Oriel College. Mr. Golightly was one of the
earliest subscribers to the Tracts for the Times, and for
some years he was considered as one of the Tractarian

1 Life of Archbishop Tait, vol. i. p. 87, ist edition. 2 Ibid. p. 86.

OPINION OF THE HEADS OF HOUSES 155

party, being on terms of intimate friendship with all the
leaders. But, like others, when he discovered whither
they were moving, he severed his connection with them.
From the publication of Tract XC. he became one of the
most zealous opponents of the Tractarians, and living to
old age, in his later years also he took an active part in op
posing the Romanising practices carried on in the Diocese
of Oxford. We shall hear of him again later on.

The Heads of Houses held several meetings to con
sider their action. It is stated by Canon Liddon that
Newman privately informed them that he was bringing
out in pamphlet form a defence, or apology, for Tract XC.,
and that he asked them to postpone their decision for one
day only until they had had an opportunity of reading his
defence. They refused to do so. So far as I can judge
they seem to have acted very unadvisedly in this. A
day's delay would have done them no harm, and it would
certainly have prevented the cry of unfairness which was
raised against them. Yet, even if they had waited, I do
not think that Newman's pamphlet would have altered
their opinion of his Tract, which opinion was dated March
1 5th, and issued on the morning of March i6th. The
resolution was in the following terms : —

"At a Meeting of the Vice-Chancellor, Heads of Houses, and
Proctors, in the Delegates' Room, March 15, 1841 :

" Considering that it is enjoined in the Statutes of this University
(Tit. iii. Sect. 2, Tit. ix. Sect, n § 3, Sect. v. § 3) that every
student shall be instructed and examined in the Thirty-Nine Articles,
and shall subscribe to them ; considering also that a Tract has
recently appeared, dated from Oxford, and entitled 'Remarks on
Certain Passages in the Thirty-Nine Articles,' being No. 90 of the
Tracts for the Times, a series of anonymous publications purporting
to be written by Members of the University, but which are in
no way sanctioned by the University itself;

" Resolved, That modes of interpretation such as are suggested
in the said Tract, evading rather than explaining the sense of the
Thirty-Nine Articles, and reconciling subscription to them with the
adoption of errors which they were designed to counteract, defeat
the object, and are inconsistent with the due observance of the
above-mentioned Statutes.

"P. WYNTER, Vice-Chancellor."

156 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

Now with regard to the above resolution of the
Hebdomadal Board there is an interesting statement by
Mr. Griffiths, one of the four Tutors, in a privately
printed letter, which has not hitherto been published,
and which I may cite here. He writes on April 5, 1841,
to a friend : —

"Now the facts are these. On Friday, March 12, the Board
resolved that they ought to censure the Tract in some public and
official way ; and this resolution was carried by nineteen against
two. The two were . . . One of these two said, that there were
certain parts of the Tract upon which he did not feel competent to
pass an opinion, and therefore he voted against the censure. The
other said, that probably no person present could feel more strongly
than he did the mischievous tendency of this particular Tract, but
he thought the Tracts as a whole had done good, and he judged the
censure inexpedient. Every other person who spoke condemned
the Tract most strongly. No one, however, spoke as if he was moved
to condemn it in consequence of our Letter [i.e. of the four Tutors].

"But there were only twenty-one persons then present out of
the twenty-six. Three were absent from infirmity or illness, and
two by accident. Of the three, one is known to have expressed his
opinion that the proceedings taken against the Tract were inex
pedient, but I also know that he has expressed his opinion that the
Tract itself was likely to be mischievous : the other two would
certainly have been in the majority. Of the two who were absent
by accident, one afterwards voted against the proceedings of the
Board, alleging as his reason, that he should be as much ashamed of
formally disavowing his concurrence with the principles of interpre
tation suggested in the Tract as of formally disavowing his disagree
ment with any person who might chance to deny that two and two
make four : the other afterwards took occasion to express his deep
sense of the dangerous tendency of the Tract, and his regret that
from not knowing the course of the business of the Board he had
not been present to give his vote on Friday.

"On that Friday a Committee was appointed to shape the
censure, .and they reported to the Board on Monday the i5th.
Several questions then arose upon details, and divisions were had
with various majorities. The first was about an adjournment, for
Mr. Newman had informed the Provost of Oriel that the author of
the Tract, still not named, would publish an explanation of it in two
or three days. The minority on this consisted of either three or
four ; but even he who on Friday opposed the measure as inexpedient,
maintained that the Board ought to do whatever it did at once. On

NEWMAN'S LETTER TO JELF 157

the subsequent questions, which related chiefly or entirely to the
wording of their resolution, I believe that both the members, who
formed the minority on Friday, declined to vote. No other division
touched the main question.

"All this I state confidently on the direct authority of ear
witnesses."1

On the same day that the resolution of the Heads of
Houses was made public, Newman wrote to the Vice-
Chancellor, acknowledging himself the author of the cen
sured Tract, and stating that he had not given his " name
hitherto, under the belief that it was desired that I should
not," and that his opinion remained "unchanged of the
truth and honesty of the principle maintained in the Tract,
and of the necessity of putting it forth." On the same
evening Newman's promised explanation was published,
but without his name. The title-page stated that it was
" By the Author " of the Tract, and at the end he placed
his initials. In this pamphlet Newman declares that he
does consider that the Thirty-Nine Articles " contain a
condemnation of the authoritative teaching of the Church of
Rome " on Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adora
tion of Images and Relics, the Invocation of Saints, and
the Mass ; 2 but he is careful to explain what he means
by the expression " authoritative teaching." " I conceive,"
he writes, " that what < all the best writers ' say is authori
tative teaching, and a sufficient object for the censures con
veyed in the Articles, though the decrees of Trent, taken
by themselves, remain untouched." 3 Even in this ex
planation, therefore, he admits that he had not anything
to say against what had been defined officially by the
Church of Rome, but only against what some of her
writers had taught. He knew very well that Rome is not
bound by what her " best writers " teach, and that she is
free to reject their teaching whenever she likes. He
admits that any one who believed that the Church of
Rome is infallible ought to join her ; but he is careful to

1 Two Letters Concerning No. 90 in the Series called the Tracts for the Times.
Printed, for Private Distribution Only, by W. Baxter, Oxford, 1841, pp. 13-15.

2 A Letter to the Rev. R. W. Jelf, D.D., In Explanation of No. 90. By the
Author, 2nd edition, p. 4. 3 Ibid. p. 10.

158 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

assure his readers : " I am not aware that this doctrine is
anywhere embodied in her formal decrees." He has
strong things to say against this teaching of the " best
divines." " As to the present authoritative teaching of
the Church of Rome," he writes, "to judge by what we see of
it in public, I think it goes very far indeed to substitute
another Gospel for the true one. Instead of setting before
the soul the Holy Trinity, and Heaven and Hell ; it does
seem to me, as a popular system, to preach the Blessed
Virgin and the Saints, and Purgatory. If ever there was
a system which required reformation, it is that of Rome at
this day, or in other words (as I should call it) Romanism
or Popery." 1 As to what the Council of Trent teaches
concerning the Veneration of Images, he sees nothing to
object against ; but he declares that it is better than the
popular system of Rome in actual operation : — " The
Divines at Trent," he writes, " say that ' to images are to
be paid due honour and veneration ; ' and to those who
honour the sacred volume, pictures of friends, and the
like, as we all do, / do not see that these very words of them
selves can be the subject of objection. Far otherwise when we
see the comment which the Church of Rome has put on
them in teaching and practice. I consider its existing
creed and popular worship to be as near idolatry as any
portion of that Church can be."2 Bad as all he objects to
is, Newman tries to save the character of the Church of
Rome at the expense of her children, for as to the prac
tical abuses condemned in Tract XC. he points out that
Romanists have protested against them as much as he
had: — "At the Council of Trent such protests," he writes,
" as are quoted in the Tract, were entered against so many
of the very errors and corruptions which our Articles and
Homilies also condemn." 3 He assures Dr. Jelf that this,
his explanation, is not to be taken as withdrawing any
opinion he had expressed in Tract XC. On the contrary,
he tells him : — " Nor can I repent of what I have pub
lished." 4 " Nor is this Letter a retractation." 5

1 A Letter to the Rev. R. W.Jelf^ D.D., In Explanation of No. 90, p. 5.

2 Ibid. pp. 6, 7. 3 Ibid. p. 15. 4 Ibid. p. 27. 6 Ibid. p. 29.

WISEMAN'S SYMPATHY WITH THE TRACTARIANS 159

All through this pamphlet it seems to me that New
man is in reality censuring the Romanists for not being
as good as their Church, while he holds that Church re
sponsible for their misconduct. He threatens that if he
and his friends are not allowed to have their own way,
there will be a " risk of a schism " ; l and he holds up the
Church of Rome to the admiration of English Churchmen
as having many spiritual blessings of which, in the Church
of England, they were deprived.

" The age," he writes, " is moving towards something, and most
unhappily the one religious communion among us which has of late
years been practically in possession of this something, is the Church
of Rome. She a/one, amid all the errors and evils of her practical
system, has given free scope to the feelings of awe, mystery, tender
ness, reverence, devotedness, and other feelings which may specially
be called Catholic. The question then is, whether we shall give
them up to the Roman Church or claim them for ourselves. . . .
But if we do give them up, then we must give up the men who
cherish them. We must consent either to give up the men, or to
admit their principles." 2

In this way Newman glorified the Church of Rome,
and tried to frighten the Church of England into admitting
the principles of the Tractarians, under the threat that if
they were not tolerated the men who held them would go to
Rome. Not that Rome was, just at that time, over anxious
to hurry them over the border. It suited her schemes that
they should for a time remain in the Church of England.
Cardinal Wiseman's biographer very frankly admits that :—
"Wiseman's attitude, however, as a whole, was deeply
sympathetic towards the spirit and intentions of the
Tractarians. ... He acquiesced in the view that while
Newman was satisfied with remaining in the English
Church in the hope of ultimately bringing many to unity,
he might do so without being urged to cut short his time of waiting." '
This policy had been adopted before Tract ^fC.was published.
Of the previous year Mr. Wilfred Ward writes: — "Corporate
Reunion with Rome was more and more explicitly spoken

1 A Letter to the Rev. R. W.Jelf, D.D., In Explanation of No. 90, p. 27.

2 Ibid. pp. 25, 26. * Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, vol. i. p. 381.

l6o HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

of by them [advanced Tractarians] as a practicable pros
pect, though its nature and extent were somewhat un
defined. The pressing of individual conversions was deprecated,
even by the most advanced of the party, as likely to prevent
the realisation of any such hope. The Corporate Movement
contemplated soon became limited, however, to a large
accession of Tractarians to Rome. The events of 1841
negatived the idea of any action on the part of the National
Church ; and Newman, Ward, and Oakeley very soon came
to see that what was spoken of as < Reunion ' must amount
to nothing less than submission to Rome." x

To the Roman Catholics on the Continent these subtle
plans of the Tractarians were made known by a letter,
written soon after the publication of Tract XC., to the
Editor of the Paris Universy in which it appeared on April
1 3th. The letter was written by the Rev. W. G. Ward,
and was translated into French by Mr J. D. Dalgairns,
of Exeter College, Oxford. Mr. Ward wrote : —

"The charity which you have always shown towards the Anglican
Church makes me think you will not refuse to find room in your
Catholic journal lor the letter of one of the children of that afflicted
Church which has drunk to the dregs the bitter cup which is now
the lot of all the Churches of Christ. The eyes of all Christendom
are at this moment turned to England, so long separated from the
rest of Catholic Europe ; everywhere a presentiment has gone forth
that the hour of her reunion is at hand, and that this island, of old
so fruitful in saints, is once more about to put forth new fruits worthy
of the martyrs who have watered it with their blood. And, truly,
this presentiment is not ungrounded, as I shall prove to you by a
detail of what is now passing in the University of Oxford. This
detail is the more important, inasmuch as the University is indeed
the heart of the Anglican Church, the beatings of which make the
remotest members of this great body quiver. The only end I pro
pose to myself is to give you a just idea of the present position of
the Anglican Church, so that the French Catholics may share the
emotions of our souls. And I do not believe that it is possible to
give you an idea of them otherwise than by an exposition of a small
treatise which has lately appeared. I do not flatter myself that you
will approve of all the opinions which I am about to mention. I do
not defend them. I am their historian — not their author.

1 Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, vol. i. pp. 371, 372.

WARD'S TRAITOROUS LETTER 161

" Mr. Newman, one of our theologians, published, a few days
since, the ninetieth number of the Tracts for the Times, in which he
designs to demonstrate that the Church of Rome has fallen into no
formal error in the Council of Trent, that the Invocations of the
Saints (the Ora pro nobis, for example), Purgatory, and the Supre
macy of the Holy See of Rome, are in no way contrary to the Catholic
traditions, or even to our authorised formularies ; in fine, that the
dogma of Transubstantiation should be no obstacle to the union of
the Churches, as in this article there is only a verbal difference
between them. At the same time he is but little satisfied with our
Thirty-Nine Articles, although he maintains throughout that the pro
vidence of God hindered the Reformers from openly inserting in
them the Protestant dogmas to which they were but too much
attached. You will perceive, sir, all the importance of those
opinions, and the more so as they are not the opinions of an isolated
theologian. I can assure you, that at the same time that an opposi
tion was raised by the elder members of the University (as might be
expected, seeing that they lived under the system of the eighteenth
century), that very opposition gave me an opportunity of observing
that even the most moderate of the Catholic party at Oxford were
ready to sustain the author of the Tract.

"You see then, sir, that humility, the first condition of every
sound reform, is not wanting in us. We are little satisfied with our
position. We groan at the sins committed by our ancestors in
separating from the Catholic world. We experience a burning desire
to be reunited to our brethren. We love with an unfeigned affection
the Apostolic See, which we acknowledge to be the head of Christendom,
and the more because the Church of Rome is our mother, which
sent from her bosom the blessed St. Augustine to bring us her immov
able faith. We admit also that it is not our formularies, nor even
the Council of Trent, which prevent our union. After all these
concessions, you may ask me, Why, then, do you not rejoin us ? What
is it that prevents you ? Is it your formularies ? But, according to
yourself, you do not look upon them with a very favourable eye. Is
it ours ? — But, in your opinion, they do not contain any error. My
reply to this question will develop to you still more clearly our
present position. In the first place, while Mr. Newman expresses
himself thus clearly on the purity of the formularies authorised by
the Church of Rome, he always makes a distinction between the
system of the Council of Trent and another system which exists in
that Church. While he returns thanks to God for having preserved
that Council from all formal error in matters of faith, he, at the same
time, maintains that in practice there are corruptions in the Church

1 62 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

against which the Council itself raises its voice, but which neverthe
less still exist, and call loudly for reform. Thus he says that ' not
withstanding the errors in practical system, there is no Church but
that of Rome which has given a free course to the emotions of
adoration, of mystery, of tenderness, of reverence, devotion, and to
the other sentiments of that kind, which may so entirely be called
Catholic.' He maintains that the theory of the Church is pure ;
but that, according to certain books of piety which are too widely
spread, according to the statements of enlightened travellers, free
from all the prejudices of vulgar Protestantism, he fears that there is
a system authorised which, practically, * instead of presenting to the
soul of the sinner the Holy Trinity, Heaven, and Hell, substitutes
for that the Holy Virgin, the Saints, and Purgatory.' It is true that
all that does not form an essential part of the faith of the Church,
but he avows that the system loudly calls for reform, and that it
would be impossible for the Anglican Church yet to cast itself into
the arms of that of Rome.

" In the second place, we have a sacred duty to discharge towards
the members of our Church. We cannot yet bring ourselves to
believe that our dear England is in the same position as the heretics
who boast in the names of Luther and Calvin. Of a truth, sir, is not
the Episcopal order still worth something ? A sacrilegious king may
indeed have stolen from the altars of Canterbury the sacred bones of
St. Thomas, but, think you he had the power to drive away the
great soul who, from his throne in the skies, ever watches over the
See which he has illustrated by his life, and consecrated by his blood ?
God forbid that the august line of Lanfranc and of Anselm should
ever cease. If we have not preserved it, it is no more ; for, of a
truth, you will not say that its succession has been kept up by you.
There is no Archbishop in partibus of Canterbury or York, as there
is of Cambysopolis or of Siga. But perhaps you may say that the
moment an Archbishop ceases to be in communion with Rome, he
also ceases to exist. But permit me here to become a little scholastic,
and to borrow the terms with which the schools supply me, in order
to give precision to my ideas.

" The Papacy, according to us, is rather the accidental than the
essential form of the Church. It resembles rather the vital heat than
the life of the Church. The absence of heat is a mark of sickness.
Without it the limbs, powerless, are dragged sorrowfully about, and
the functions of life languish ; but life may still be there. Thus,
union with the Pope is a necessary result of the perfect health of the
Church. The retrenching of this union is a proof that all does not
go well. It is a symptom of the presence of a malady which gnaws

WARD'S TRAITOROUS LETTER 163

the entrails of the Church. Her priesthood is, perhaps, deprived of
some of its functions, or, as, alas ! is too certainly the case with us, the
episcopacy is subject to the powers of this world. But life — that is
to say, the essence — of the Church is not yet extinct. We have,
then, still a duty to perform towards our brethren.

" There are at this moment in the Anglican Church a crowd of
persons who balance between Protestantism and Catholicism, and
who, nevertheless, would reject with horror the idea of a union with
Rome. The Protestant prejudices, which for three hundred years
have infected our Church, are unhappily too deeply rooted there to
be extirpated without a great deal of address. We must then offer in
sacrifice to God this ardent desire which devours us of seeing once
more the perfect unity of the Church of Christ. We must still bear
the terrible void which the isolation of our Church creates in our
hearts, and remain still till it pleases God to convert the hearts of
our Anglican confreres, especially of our holy fathers the Bishops.
We are destined, I am persuaded, to bring back many wandering
sheep to the knowledge of the truth. In fact, the progress of
Catholic opinions in England for the last seven years is so inconceiv
able, that no hope should appear extravagant. Let us, then, remain
quiet for some years, till, by God's blessing, the ears of Englishmen are
accustomed to hear the name of Rome pronounced with reverence. At
the end of this term you will soon see the fruits of our patience.

" But, moreover, I venture to say, that we have besides a sacred
duty to fulfil towards Rome. Far from us be that vulgar Protes
tantism which dares to open its profane mouth, and utter its calum
nies against the See of St. Peter. Yes, if I could once be convinced
that the Spirit of God had quitted the Church of Rome, I should
think at the same time that Christianity was about to be extinguished
all over the world. . . .

"And this great heart [of England] once so Catholic, this
poor heart, so long torn by the vigour of its own life, exhausted
in vain efforts to fill up the frightful void which reigns there, does
it not merit some sacrifices on your part, that it may find consolation
and healing? Oh, how sweet it was to hear that our Catholic
brethren prayed for us. The triumphant army in heaven prays
also for us. It has prayed, I am sure, from the beginning of
these three centuries of schism and heresy. Why have not the prayers
of St. Gregory, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas been heard ? Be
cause of our sins \ the sins not only of England, but of Rome. Let
us go and do penance together and we shall be heard. During this
holy time, in which the Church retires to the depths of the solitude
of her soul, following the bleeding feet of her Divine Master, driven by

164 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

the Spirit into the desert^ know that many of us stretch out our hands
day and night before the Lord, and beg of Him, with sighs and
groans, to reunite them to our Catholic brethren. Frenchmen ! fail
not to aid us in this holy exercise ; and I am persuaded that many
Lents will not have passed before we shall chaunt together our
Paschal hymns, in those sublime accents which have been used by
the Divine Spouse of Christ for so many ages." l

Roman Catholics as well as Protestants and Tract-
arians entered zealously into the controversy started by
Tract XC. Of course it gave them intense joy to witness
Newman's gradual advance Romeward, while they held in
contempt the logic by which he maintained his position
in the Church of England. One who signed himself " An
English Catholic " wrote to Newman a stinging letter, in
which he said : — " That you should deem it consistent
with your station in the Church of England to sanction
by your writings a belief in some of the most unpopular
doctrines of the Catholic Church is, no doubt, a subject
of some surprise to the members of our [Roman Catholic]
communion. But however we might wonder, we, at least,
should have no right to reproach you ; nor could your
equivocal position afford us any ground of complaint, had
the question rested here. But, sir, we have a right to com
plain, and we do complain, that in order to screen yourself
in the adoption of our tenets from the obloquy and ruin that
your profession of them, as ours, would undoubtedly entail
upon you, you deliberately distort and misrepresent our faith
and practice — that in order to avert the impending storm
of Protestant ire from your own devoted head, you erect
a counterfeit image of ' Romanism ' to serve as an eccle
siastical lightning conductor." ' As to Newman's attempt,
in Tract XC., to reconcile the Council of Trent with the
Thirty-Nine Articles, this Roman Catholic writer forcibly
remarks : — " If you can only establish the fact that the
acceptance of the Decrees of Trent is consistent with a
belief in the Thirty-Nine Articles, there is not a Roman

1 Catholic Magazine, vol. for 1841, pp. 310-313.

2 Oxford or Rome? A Letter to the Rev. J. H. Newman on No. 90. By
An English Catholic, p. 3.

ROMAN CATHOLIC OPINION OF TRACT XC. 165

Catholic in England, Ireland, or Scotland, from his Grace
of Norfolk down to your humble correspondent, who
may not subscribe these Articles with a safe and easy
conscience ! " l

Dr. Wiseman could not remain an idle spectator of
the controversy in which he took the deepest interest.
Directly after Newman had published his Letter to Dr. Jetf,
Wiseman wrote to him about it, and published his letter
as a pamphlet. He distinctly repudiated the theory
Newman had put forth. "The existence," wrote Wise
man, " of any such authoritative teaching at variance with
the doctrines of the Tridentine Synod is, to me, a novel
idea ; and I think it will prove so to all Catholics." ' But
though he criticised, Wiseman had a great deal more to
be thankful for than to find fault with, and therefore, at
the end of his letter, he expresses his gratitude to Newman
in the warmest terms. " In conclusion," he wrote, " I
thank you, Rev. Sir, from my heart, for the welcome in
formation which your letter contains, that men, whom
you so highly value, should be opening their eyes to the
beauties and perfections of our Church, and require such
efforts, as your interpretation of the Articles, to keep them
from ' straggling in the direction of Rome.' "

Yet one more Roman Catholic pamphlet on Tract XC.
I must quote before I pass on. It was written by a
gentleman who, as we shall see more fully presently, gave
the chief energies of his life, from 1841 until his death, to
help on the Oxford Movement, because he saw clearly
that the fruits of that Movement would be reaped by the
Church of Rome. I refer to Mr. Ambrose Lisle Phillipps,
who afterwards adopted the name of Ambrose Phillipps
de Lisle. Tract XC. filled his heart with joy and glad
ness : —

"It is impossible," he wrote, "to do sufficient justice to the
firmness and courage which Mr. Newman has evinced in acknow-

1 Oxford or Rome ? p. 5.

3 A Letter to the Rev. J. H. Newman On Some Passages in his Letter to the
Rev. Dr. Jelf. By N. Wiseman, p. 5.
3 Ibid. p. 31.

1 66 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

ledging the authorship of Tract No. 90. I rejoice also to see that,
in his subsequent Letter to Dr. Jelf, he persists in his noble declara
tion in favour of so many Catholic truths, no less than in his
generous attempt to soften down the differences between the Church
of England and the Catholic Church, which to me at least appears
a most important step towards the reunion and the peace of dis
tracted Christendom. Above all I hail, with inexpressible joy, and
the deepest gratitude towards Him who holds in His hands the
hearts of men, and who for the love of mankind turns every event
to the good of His Church, the glorious admissions which, both in
the Tract and the Letter^ are so fearlessly proclaimed in behalf of
that holy Council of Trent, against which for three centuries such
absurd and irrational prejudices had taken root in the minds of our
separated brethren."1

But while Newman and his friends were, on the
whole, pleased with Tract XC., the Bishop of Oxford was
placed by it in a very uncomfortable position. With the
general principles of the Tracts for the Times he agreed, but
this latest of the series seemed to him to go too far for
him to follow. His first step seems to have been that of
opening a private correspondence with Pusey, Newman,
and the Archbishop of Canterbury on the subject. To
Pusey, on March i yth, the Bishop wrote : — " I feel safe in
declaring to you more fully the fears which I entertain as
to the possible consequences of the recent publication ;
and you will understand me when I say that I look with
anxiety to its effects, not only within the limits of my
diocese, but throughout the Church of which I am a
Bishop, and in the purity and tranquillity of which I am
deeply interested. ... If he [Newman] could also adopt
respectful language (and the more cordial the better) in
speaking of the formularies of the Church, he would do
much to relieve the minds of many (myself among others)
who, with a sincere reverence and desire for Catholic
truth, have an unfeigned attachment to the principles of
the Church of England." 2 To Newman himself the
Bishop wrote on the same day : — " I do feel it my duty

1 Some Remarks on a Letter to Dr. Jelf. By Ambrose Lisle Phillipps, Esq.,
p. 4.

2 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 184.

NEWMAN'S LETTER TO THE BISHOP OF OXFORD 167

to express my regret at its publication, and to state to
you plainly, though generally, my honest conviction of
its containing much which I am sure is directly the
reverse of what the writer would wish or expect from it,
but what would, in my opinion, tend both to disunite and
endanger the Church." 1 The Archbishop of Canterbury
expressed the opinion that there were passages in Tract
XC. which were "very objectionable," and that it seemed
to him ''most desirable that the publication of the Tracts
should be discontinued for ever." 2 The Bishop of Oxford
agreed with the desire of the Archbishop for the suppression
of the Tracts, and suggested that Newman should write
and publish a letter of explanation to his Diocesan. New
man consented to both requests. The result of the dis
continuance of the Tracts was, in the opinion of Canon
Liddon, not altogether satisfactory to High Churchmen.
" Looked at from a distance," he remarks, " and taken
together, the censure of the Heads of Houses and the
discontinuance of the Tracts at the request of the Bishop,
produced a widespread feeling of discouragement among
High Churchmen." 3 Newman's Letter to the Bishop is
dated March 2Qth, and filled a pamphlet of forty-seven
pages. It could not be termed satisfactory to Protestant
Churchmen, and was in no way calculated to remove
their reasonable objections. He expressed a sense of
" the inestimable privileges " of being a member of that
Church over which his lordship presided ; that that
Church " was a Divinely ordained channel of supernatural
grace to the souls of her members " ; and that it was
"the Catholic Church in this country."4 But on the
other hand, while he had some things to censure in the
Church of Rome, he had words of praise for her, and
expressed a desire for reunion with that communion.
Both criticisms and praise are found in one paragraph.

"They find," he explained, "in what I have written, no abuse,
at least I trust not, of the individual Roman Catholic, nor of the

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 185. 2 Ibid. p. 190. 3 Ibid. p. 204.

4 A Letter to the Bishop of Oxford On Occasion of No. 90. By J. H. New
man, B.D., pp. 33, 34.

1 68 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

Church of Rome, viewed abstractedly as a Church. / cannot speak
against the Church of Rome> viewed in her formal character, as a
true Church, since she is ' built upon the foundation of the Apostles
and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the Chief Corner Stone.'
Nor can I speak against her private members, numbers of whom, I
trust, are God's people, in the way to Heaven, and one with us in
heart, though not in profession. But what I have spoken, and do
strongly speak against, is that energetic system and engrossing
influence in the Church by which it acts towards us, and meets our
eyes, like a cloud filling it, to the eclipse of all that is holy, whether
in its ordinances or its members. This system I have called, in
what I have written, Romanism or Popery ; and by Romanists and
Papists, I mean all its members, as far as they are under the
power of these principles ; and while, and so far as this system
exists^ and it does exist now as fully as heretofore, / say that we can
have no peace with that Church, however we may secretly love its
particular members. I cannot speak against its private members ;
I should be doing violence to every feeling of my nature if I did,
and your lordship would not require it of me. I wish from my heart
we and they were one ; but we cannot, without a sin, sacrifice truth
to peace; and, in the words of Archbishop Laud, 'till Rome be
other than it is,' we must be estranged from her." l

Newman herein affirmed that there could be " no
peace " with the Church of Rome, not because of any of
her actual doctrines, but because of " this system " within
her ; but as to the Church of Rome herself, apart from
" this system/' he declared : — " I wish from my heart we
and they were one." In proof of his dislike of " this
system," Newman quoted several utterances of his which
he had made from time to time, more especially in the
Tracts for the Times, and his Lectures on Romanism and
Popular Protestantism. The value of these utterances
against the practical evils of Rome and her system may
be judged by the reasons he gave, less than two years later,
for making them, at the time he withdrew them as " dirty
words of mine." ' " If," wrote Newman to the Oxford
Conservative Journal, " you ask me how an individual could
venture not simply to hold, but to publish such views of a

1 A Letter to the Bishop of Oxford On Occasion of No. 90, pp. 20, 21.

2 Memoirs of James Hope- Scott, vol. ii. p. 19.

NEWMAN'S APOLOGY FOR "DIRTY WORDS" 169

communion [Church of Rome] so ancient, so wide-spread
ing, so fruitful of saints, I answer that I said to myself, ' 7
am not speaking my own words,1 I am but following almost a
consensus of the divines of my Church. They have ever
used the strongest language against Rome, even the most
able and learned of them. I wish to throw myself into
their system. While I say what they say, I am safe. Such
views, too, are necessary to our position! Yet I have reason
to fear still that such language is to be ascribed, in no
small measure, to an impetuous temper, a hope of approv
ing myself to persons I respect, and a wish to repel the charge
of Romanism." 2 A week or two later Newman explained
more fully to his friend, Mr. ]. R. Hope-Scott, his reasons
for withdrawing all that he had said against the Church of
Rome. Due allowance must be made for any advance of
Newman in a Romeward direction between the date when
he wrote his published Letter to the Bishop of Oxford on
March 29, 1841, and February 3, 1843, when he wrote
to Mr. Hope-Scott as follows : —

"My reason for the thing\t\\&t is, for withdrawing his words against
Rome] was my long-continued feeling of the great inconsistency I was
in of letting things stand in print against me which I did not hold,
and which I could not but be contradicting by my acting every day
of my life. And more especially (i.e. it came home to me most
vividly in that particular way) I felt that I was taking people in ; that
they thought me what I was not, and were trusting me when they
should not, and this has been at times a very painful feeling indeed.
I don't want to be trusted (perhaps you may think my fear, even
before this affair, somewhat amusing), but so it was and is ; people
won't believe I go as far as I do — they will cling to their hopes. And
then, again, intimate friends have almost reproached me with 'paltering
with them in a double sense, keeping the word of promise to their ear,
to break it to their hope.' They have said that my words against
Rome often, when narrowly examined, were only what /meant, but
that the effect of them was what others meant." 3

Though foes many attacked Tract XC.y it must not be
supposed that Newman was without friends to defend it

1 Yet he published them as his own words /

2 Newman's Via Media, vol. ii. pp. 432, 433, edition 1891.
8 Memoirs of James Hope-Scott, vol. ii. pp. 20, 21.

1 70 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

and him. One of the earliest of these to enter the field
was the Rev. William George Ward, who himself was,
three years later, the object of a successful attack from the
Protestant side. I should imagine that Ward's pamphlet,
A Feiv Words in Support of No. 90, must have done Newman
more harm than good, for it set before the public his real
views in altogether too clear a light, Newman's object being
to cover his real meaning as far as possible by subtle argu
ments. The Protestant opposition to Tract XC. was cer
tainly not lessened by Ward's explanations, especially as
given in his second pamphlet, A Few More Words in Support
of No. 90. This latter pamphlet dealt at some length with
the arguments put forth in an anonymous pamphlet,
entitled, The Articles Construed by Themselves, the authorship
of which is now attributed by his biographer to Mr.
Robert Lowe, of Magdalen College, Oxford, since widely
known as Lord Sherbrooke.1 In his Few More Words Mr.
Ward admitted that it was "a most bitter thought, that
the principal advocates of what we are well convinced is
God's holy truth, should be really imagined by serious men
to advocate a Jesuitical (in the popular sense of that word)
and disingenuous principle, by which any thing may mean
any thing, and forms may be subscribed at the most
solemn period of our life, only to be dishonestly explained
away." 2 While criticising an article which had appeared
in the Edinburgh Review, Ward remarked : —

" 2. If we suppose the English Reformation to have severed us
from the ancient body of the English Church, we shall be bound in
consistency to leave our own communion and join the Church of
Rome. The latter of these alternatives the Reviewer urges that we
are thus bound to adopt : on our principles, he says, 'the Church of
England is the offspring of an unjustifiable schism and revolution.'
Alter the wording of this a little, and Mr. Newman, at least, would
appear not unwilling to admit it. He intimates, not very obscurely
(Tract, p. 79), that in releasing her from the Roman Supremacy, her
then governors were guilty of rebellion ; and considering that they
had also sworn obedience to the Pope, for my own part I see not

1 Life and Letters of Viscount Sherbrooke. By A. P. Martin, vol. i. p. 123.

2 A Few More Words. By the Rev. W. G. Ward, p. 5. Oxford : Parker.
1841.

DEFENDERS OF TRACT XC. 171

how we can avoid adding, of perjury. The point on which Mr.
Newman would take his stand is this ; that, estimating the sin at the
highest, it was not ' that special sin which cuts off from the fountains
of grace, and is called schism/ . . . Let him prove to us that the
Church of England is a Protestant community ; that it was founded
on the denial of Catholic doctrines ; that it seceded from the Ancient
English Church which witnessed these doctrines ; let him prove this ;
and, though the Articles were as obviously on our side as he con
siders them overwhelmingly against us, our consciences could not
allow us to remain one moment in a communion which had thus
forfeited the gifts of grace." 1

Ward referred to " those whom we revere as eminent
Saints, the Popes and others of the Middle Ages " ; 2 but
clearly as he showed in this pamphlet his own Romish
sympathies, and the contemptible position he considered
the English Church to be in, as compared with the Roman
Church, he did not in it tell the public all that he thought
on the subject he was discussing. His full views were
revealed to the Paris Roman Catholic Univers, at about
the same time, as quoted above at pp. 160—164. But in
his letter to that paper he was careful not to reveal his
name. It was not known that he was the writer of that
traitorous letter until after his death, when the fact was
revealed in his biography.3 Mr. Robert Lowe replied to
Ward's Few More Words by a pamphlet of twenty-four
pages, in which he exposed the Jesuitry of what he termed
a "dark and thorny labyrinth."

The Rev. and Hon. A. P. Percival, one of the founders
of the Tractarian Movement, also came to the aid of
Newman, in a pamphlet of thirty-three pages, bearing the
title of A Vindication of the Principles of the Authors of " The
Tracts for the Times." It was dated March 28th. He com
menced by giving a wholly inadequate description of the
principles held by the writers of the Tracts (of whom he
was one), and then asked, " Are these principles, or are
they not, contrary to the principles of the Reformers, or
in any respect forbidden by the Church of England ? " 4

1 Ward's Few More Words, pp. 17, 19. 2 Jbid. p. 33.

8 William George Ward and the Oxford Movement, p. 187.
4 A Vindication, p. 8.

172 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

As explained economically by Mr. Percival, I have no doubt
there were at the time many loyal Churchmen who would
have answered they were not contrary to either the one or
the other ; but who would at the same time have indig
nantly repudiated many of the doctrines taught in the
Tracts for the Times, and especially in Tract XC. " With re
spect to the Tract XC.," said Mr. Percival, " I must confess
that I do not see how any member of the Church of
England can be blamed for doing what Mr, Newman has
there attempted to do, namely, to give to the Articles
of the Church of England that interpretation which shall
render them most in accordance with that principle of
deference to the Primitive Church of the first seven centuries" *
In this, Percival gave an inadequate and misleading repre
sentation of Newman's action. What Newman wished
was, not so much to prove that the Articles were not in
opposition to " the first seven centuries" as that they were
not opposed to the official teaching of the Church of Rome
in the nineteenth century. Yet Percival was constrained to
admit of Tract XC., that " There are many things in it
which I do not understand, some which I disapprove,
perhaps from not understanding them : some statements
advanced which I think cannot be maintained : some
conclusions drawn, which seem unwarranted by the pre
mises." 2 But " as to the main object aimed at by the
Tract" he thought it deserved " the commendation of
every member of the Church of England." Yet he cannot
conclude without expressing, in a postscript, against pro
testing the language of Newman (in his Letter to Dr. Jelf)
in praise of the Church of Rome.

Only five days after Mr. Percival's pamphlet was issued,
another champion of Newman's appeared in the field, whose
aid he valued more than that of all who had gone before
him. This was the Rev. John Keble, who Newman always
considered as the real founder of the Oxford Movement.
In a privately printed Letter to Mr. Justice Coleridge, Keble
discussed several important cases of conscience relating to
subscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles, which are of as

1 A Vindication, p. 16. * Ibid. p. 18.

KEBLE ON CATHOLIC SUBSCRIPTION 173

great an interest to us in the present day as when they
were first written, whatever view we may take of Keble's
opinions on the subject. I must say that, in this Letter,
Keble, on the whole, advocated a course in relation to
University and Episcopal authority the honesty of which
might well be imitated by the Ritualists of the present day.
If Keble's advice were adopted it would lead, in Dioceses
under Protestant Bishops, to a wholesale resignation of
livings by the Romanising clergy. At the same time there
was in Keble's letter a defence of Tract XC. open to very
grave objection. He frankly admitted, at the outset, that
he was " himself responsible, as far as any one besides
the actual writer can be, for the Tract on which so severe
a condemnation has lately been pronounced by the Heads
of Houses at Oxford ; having seen it in proof, and strongly
recommended its publication." l He even goes so far as
to defend that part of Tract XC. which was generally
considered one of its most offensive portions, and which
the author withdrew in the second edition. He thought it
quite right to speak of the Church of England as being
" in bondage," working " in chains," and " teaching with
the stammering lips of ambiguous formularies " ; and he
actually affirmed that " until English Churchmen generally
sympathise " with Newman in such language, " I see no
chance of our Church assuming her true position in
Christendom, or of the mitigation of our present ' unhappy
divisions.' " li There appears," said Keble, " to be some
chance of an authoritative prohibition of the view [of in
terpreting the Articles], which not this Tract only, but a
whole army of writers, new and old, recommend : and
it becomes a serious question, what ought to be the line
of conduct adopted in such case by persons holding that
view, and concerned in any way with subscription to the
Articles." 5 This important question Keble discusses at
considerable length.

"Suppose, i.e." he asks, "that not the Heads of Houses, but the

1 The Case of Catholic Subscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles Considered.
By the Rev. John Keble. " London : 1841. Not Published," p. 6.

2 Ibid. p. 10. 3 Ibid. p. 12.

174 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

Academical Body in Convocation assembled, had determined that
interpretations such as have been now (not for the first time), sug
gested, evade rather than explain the Articles, and are inconsistent
with the duty of receiving and teaching them in good faith, to which
the University, by express statute, binds her Tutors and other
members ; how would a College Tutor (to take the simplest case first)
have to act under such circumstances, supposing him convinced that
the condemned view is the right one? Would it not be a plain
breach of a human trust, if he used the authority committed to him
for the purpose of teaching that view ? and of a still higher trust, if, in
compliance with the academical law, he forbore to inculcate it ? " l

To this question Keble's very proper answer was : —
" Such persons would have been met at every turn by the
recorded sentence of the University against them : in them
it would have been no contumacy, but plain conscientious
ness, to withdraw from an engagement which they could
not religiously fulfil." 2 Passing from the Tutors to ordi
nary members of the University, Keble affirmed that " it
would be matter of grave inquiry, whether any person,
adhering to the Articles in the sense pointed out by the
Trad, could with an unblemished conscience become a
member of the University, or even, without dispensation,
continue such. This doubt arises from the acknowledged
rule of the best casuists, that all oaths and covenants
imposed by a superior, and especially subscriptions re
quired to Articles of religion, are to be interpreted by the mind
and purpose of the parties imposing, and in the sense which
they intended" £ According to this important principle,
issued with the sanction of the leader of the Oxford Move
ment, no candidate for Ordination could sign the Thirty-
Nine Articles, when imposed by the Bishop about to ordain
him, except in the sense held by that Bishop. If this rule
were adopted by modern Ritualists, many Romanising
wolves would be kept out of the sheepfold of the Church
of England.

Keble proceeded to discuss Clerical subscription to the
Articles. On this he affirms that " The general principles

1 The Case of Catholic Stibscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles Considered,

P- 13-

- Ibid. p. 1 6. s Ibid. p. 17.

KEBLE ON CATHOLIC SUBSCRIPTION 175

which regulate Academical subscription must of course be
applicable to Clerical subscription likewise ; only that all
cases of conscience assume a deeper and more awful
interest as they come nearer and nearer to the Most Holy
Things "i1-

" If a candidate for Holy Orders, or a clerk nominated to any
dignity or cure, were distinctly warned, by the same authority which
calls on him to subscribe the Articles, that the Catholic mode of
interpreting them would be considered as ' evading their sense,' and
' defeating their object ' j the act of signature would evidently amount
to a pledge on his part against that mode of interpretation. If, in
virtue of a preceding signature, he were already exercising his
ministry, his going on, without protest, to do so, after such warning,
would virtually come to the same thing : it would be equivalent, as
I said before, to a continued signature; unless, indeed, he could
obtain from the imposers express or implied dispensation for his
own case, which would remove the sin, and, if made public, would
remove the scandal also.

" But Clerical Subscription differs from Academical in this im
portant respect : that it is not quite so easy to determine who are
the real imposers of it, and what kind of declaration on their part is
to be regarded as authoritative. Thus far, however, all Catholics
will be agreed : that a Synodical determination of the Bishops of
the Church of England, with or without the superadded warrant of
the State (on whose prerogative in such cases I would refrain from
here expressing any opinion) would be endued with unquestionable
authority." 2

Keble next proceeds to discuss the subject of Canonical
Obedience to the Bishops ; and here his views, I think,
would certainly not, as a whole, be acceptable to his
Ritualistic successors of the present day. If Keble could
not conscientiously obey his Bishop, he would resign his
preferments in the Church, and retire into lay communion,
though he would not secede from the Church of England.
His words are remarkable, and well worth quoting : —

" Next," he writes, " let it be well weighed how much the Oath
of Canonical Obedience imports. No pledge can be more solemn
or direct, than that under which we stand bound ' reverently to obey

1 The Case of Catholic Subscription to the Thirty -Nine Articles Considered^
p. 25. 2 Ibid. pp. 26, 27.

176 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

our Ordinary, and other chief Ministers, unto whom is committed
the charge and government over us; following with a glad mind
and will their godly admonitions, and submitting ourselves to their
godly judgments' This latter clause appears to refer, more espe
cially, to doctrinal decisions ; and if to any, surely most especially
to their explanation of the terms of the engagement, to which they
themselves admitted us : as the Church's agents, it is true, and not
in any wise by their own independent authority ; yet as deliberative,
responsible, highly trusted agents, endowed severally with powers
of more than human origin, to enforce their 'godly judgments.' So
that it would be a very strong step indeed, and one hardly conceiv
able, but in a case where the very foundation of the faith was un
equivocally assailed, for a Catholic priest to go on ministering, when
he knew that he was violating the conditions on which his Bishop
would allow him to minister. It would be far different from in
subordinate conduct here and there, in points of detail : rather his
whole clerical life would be one continued act of disobedience. Who
could endure such a burthen? What labour could prosper •, what
blessing be looked for ; under it ? " J

Keble, of course, was afraid lest the Convocation of
the University and the Bishops should censure the line of
argument adopted by Newman in Tract XC., and, therefore,
in writing his pamphlet he had the possibility of such a
censure in view. Unfortunately for the cause of Reforma
tion principles, his fears were groundless. Convocation had
before it, on February 13, 1845, a proposition to adopt
substantially the vote of censure passed by the Heads of
Houses on March 1 6, 1841. It would, in all probability,
have been carried, were it not that the Proctors (of whom
the late Dean Church was one), vetoed it. Although most
of the Bishops in their charges censured Tract XC., no united
declaration against its mischievous principles was issued by
the Episcopal Bench. Dr. Pusey issued a bulky pamphlet
of 217 pages in defence of Tract XC., in which he strongly
advocated the Reunion of Christendom, both East and
West. "Who knows," he asked, "but that He who raises us
up, may purify Rome too, and St. Peter be the type of the
Church of St. Peter, and her Lord yet cast His gracious look

1 The Case of Catholic Siibscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles Considered,
pp. 28, 29.

MANNING'S DISLIKE OF TRACT xc. 177

upon her, and she weep bitterly her fall; and she, being 'con
verted/ ' strengthen ' her < brethren/ and deserve to be restored
to the pre-eminence, which, while she deserved, she had." ]
Pusey, in this pamphlet, censured many of the corruptions
of Rome, more especially her worship of the Virgin, and
the Indulgences granted by the Papal Court. But, as to
the Tract itself, he declares : — " I have felt no doubt, care
fully and conscientiously examining both editions of the
Tract, that the meaning in which our friend would have
them [Thirty-Nine Articles] construed, in conformity and
subordination to the teaching of the Catholic Church, is
not only an admissible, but the most legitimate interpreta
tion of them." 2

Later on in the year, the Rev. C. P. Golightly, of Oriel
College, who had been one of the most active workers in
getting up the agitation against Tract XC., issued a short
pamphlet of nineteen pages on the subject, in which he
ably exposed some of Newman's misquotations in the Tract,
as also the alterations made by him in the second edition.
It is remarkable that Manning (afterwards Cardinal), who
had become a High Churchman before Tract XC. was issued,
never approved of its leading principles. Mr. A. W. Hutton,
M.A., in his biography of Cardinal Manning, tells us that
" Manning never got over the dislike he entertained for
Tract XC. It always seemed to him of doubtful honesty.
When, in the autumn of 1845, after his return from his
first visit to Dollinger at Munich, Mr. Gladstone, much
perturbed by the grave series of secessions from the Church
of England, asked Manning if any one principle could be
found that would explain them, the latter said, after reflec
tion : — ' Yes ; want of truth.' At a much later time he said
that he thought he must have had in his mind the impres
sion of dishonesty produced by the shifty arguments of
the last Tract." 3

In 1845, the Rev. W. Simcox Bricknell, M.A., Incum-

1 The Articles Treated on in Tract XC. Reconsidered, and their Interpretation
Vindicated. By the Rev, E. B. Pusey, D.D., p. 183.

2 Ibid. p. 148.

8 Cardinal Manning. By Arthur W. Hutton, M.A., p. 252. London: 1894.

178 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

bent of Grove, published a thick volume of 753 pages,
with the title of The Judgment of the Bishops upon Tractarian
Theology. It consisted mainly of lengthy extracts from the
Charges of the Bishops from 1837 to 1842 inclusive, and
was enriched by many useful notes from the pen of Mr.
Bricknell himself. From this volume I give the following
expressions of Episcopal opinion on Tract XC. : —

BISHOP OF HEREFORD (Dr. Musgrave): — " Nothing better, in
fact, as all such persons must well know, than sophistry and evasion,
could be brought in support of such a thesis. And certainly both
are employed in the Tract, in as ample measure as any one could be
disposed to anticipate." *

" In fact, throughout the whole Tract, but more especially upon
this point [the { attempt to distinguish between the Romish doctrine,
as established by the Decrees of the Council of Trent, and " the
authoritative teaching" of the Church of Rome at the time'], the
dishonest casuistry to which the Jesuits have given a name, is
employed upon a scale to which it would be hard to find a parallel,
except in the more notorious of their own writings." 2

BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL (Dr. Monk) : — "The per
usal of the Remarks upon the Thirty-Nine Articles has filled me with
astonishment and concern. The ostensible object of this Tract is
to show that a person adopting the doctrines of the Council of Trent,
with the single exception of the Pope's Supremacy, might sincerely
and conscientiously sign the Articles of the Church of England.
But the real object at which the writer seems to be labouring, is to
prove that the differences in doctrine which separate the Churches of
England and Rome will, upon examination, vanish. Upon this
point much ingenuity, and, I am forced to add, much sophistry is
exerted, and I think exerted in vain." 8

BISHOP OF EXETER (Dr. Phillpotts) : — "The tone of the Tract,*.*
it respects our own Church, is offensive and indecent ; as it regards the
Reformation and our Reformers, absurd, as well as incongruous and
unjust. Its principles of interpreting our Articles I cannot but
deem most unsound ; the reasoning with which it supports its prin
ciples, sophistical ; the averments on which it founds its reasoning,
at variance with recorded facts."4

Bishops} p. 81.
& Ibid. p. 85.
» Ibid p. 537.
4 Ibid. p. 547.

EPISCOPAL OPINION OF TRACT XC. 179

"This is by far the most daring attempt ever yet made by a
Minister of the Church of England to neutralise the distinctive
doctrines of our Church, and to make us symbolise with Rome." 1

BISHOP OF LLANDAFF (Dr. Copleston) : — " To speak of the
language of the Articles as being capable of two or more senses, and
to teach that the subscriber may therefore take them in his own
sense, knowing at the same time that the authority which requires
his assent understands them in another, is surely a dishonest course,
tending to corrupt the conscience, and to destroy all confidence
between man and man." 2

BISHOP OF LONDON (Dr. Blomfield) : — " The endeavour to give a
Tridentine colouring to the Articles of Religion agreed upon by the
Council of London in 1562, and to extenuate the essential differences
between the two Churches, is a ground of no unreasonable alarm to
those whose bounden duty it is to ' banish and drive away all erro
neous and strange doctrines,' and therefore to guard against the
insinuation into our Church of any one of those false opinions which
she has once solemnly repudiated. It is one of the methods by
which the Court of Rome has before sought to beguile the people of
this country of their common sense. Bishop Stillingfleet quotes a
letter of advice given to a Romish agent, as to the best way of
managing the Papal interest in England upon the King's restoration :
the third head of which is :—

" ' To make it appear, underhand, how near the doctrine, worship,
and discipline of the Church of England comes to us (of Rome) ;
at how little distance her Common Prayer is from our Mass ; and
that the wisest and ablest men of that way (the Anglican) are so
moderate, that they would willingly come over to us, or at least meet
us half way. Hereby the more staid men will become more odious,
and others will run out of all religion for fear of Popery.' " 3

1 Bricknell's Judgment of the Bishops, p. 550.

a Ibid. p. 559.

8 Ibid. pp. 563, 564.

CHAPTER VII

Mr. Golightly's letters to the Standard — His serious charges against
Ward and Bloxam — Palmer of Magdalen anathematises Protes
tantism — Startling revelations— Mr. Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle —
A secret Papal emissary to the Oxford Romanisers — De Lisle inti
mate with and trusted by the Oxford leaders — Newman's Corre
spondence with De Lisle — De Lisle hopes to introduce some foreign
Theologians to his Oxford friends — He promises to be "prudent
and reserved" — Bloxam's fear of publicity — De Lisle's extraordi
nary letter to his wife — The Oxford men wish " to come to an under
standing with the Pope at once" — Their proposals to be sent to the
Pope — The Fathers of Charity — A startling suggestion — Cordial
meetings at Oxford between the Tractarians and Romanists — Nego
tiations with Wiseman and Rome — Wiseman visits Oxford— Has an
interview with Newman — Wiseman writes to Rome for secret in
struction and guidance — He desires to become "the organ of inter
course" between Rome and Oxford — A secret conspiracy — De Lisle's
letter to Lord Shrewsbury — It is necessary "to blind" the Low
Church party — "Throwing dust in the eyes of Low Churchmen" —
"Unpleasant disclosures" in the papers — " A holy reserve " — Ward's
double dealing — Remains in the Church of England " to bring many
towards Rome " — The ultimate aim " submission to Rome."

EVENTS of great interest were taking place while the con
troversy as to Tract XC. was at its height, of which the
English public knew at the time but little or nothing. It
is true the veil was partly lifted by the Rev. C. P.
Golightly, in the columns of the Standard, but his revela
tions were laughed to scorn by his opponents, as utterly
unworthy of credit. Time, however, has served to prove
that Mr. Golightly was a truthful witness, for the accuracy
of his exposure of Tractarian tactics and underground
proceedings, has been amply proved by the biographies
of Cardinal Wiseman, Mr. Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, the
Rev. W. G. Ward, and others. In a letter to the Standard,
dated November 12, 1841, over the signature of "A
Master of Arts," Mr. Golightly brought charges of Roman-

180

MR. GOLIGHTLY EXPOSES THE ROMANISERS l8l

ising against certain members of the University, whose
names he did not give ; thereupon he was challenged by
a " D.D. of the University of Oxford/' and by the Rev.
George Stanley Faber, Master of Sherburn Hospital, and
himself a decided Protestant, to give his own name to the
public, and also the names of those against whom he had
brought such serious charges. In reply to these chal
lenges, Mr. Golightly, over his own proper signature, wrote
another letter to the Standard, dated November 26th, in
which, after thanking those who had challenged him for
doing so, he continued : —

" My statement, in allusion to a paragraph which had appeared in
the Morning Post^ was as follows : —

" * I do not insinuate, but I assert, that there is good reason for
supposing that there are about ten Members of this University, who,
instead of fighting "under their proper banner," have hoisted the
flag of Anglicanism, and, under those false colours, are taking advan
tage of their respective positions, as Fellows of Colleges and Clergy
men of the Established Church, to propagate " Romanism," and
oppose "primitive views."'

" I likewise made a statement respecting the conduct of a Fellow
of Balliol, and a Fellow of Magdalen, which I shall repeat in the
course of my letter. . . .

" The first witness that I shall cite is the Rev. W. Ward, Fellow
of Balliol College, and an intimate friend of Mr. Newman's, who, in
the course of the present month, told a friend of mine, opposed to
him in opinions, and not in confidential conversation, that a certain
party in this place [Oxford University] might now be considered to
be divided into disciples of Mr. Newman and disciples of Dr. Pusey
— the latter opposed, the former no longer opposed to Rome. . . .

" I now repeat the assertion in my former letter, that the Rev.
W. Ward, Fellow of Balliol, was a visitor of Dr. Wiseman's, at
Oscott, during the last long vacation (I do not determine the length
of his visit), and that the Rev. J. Bloxam, Fellow of Magdalen,
was the individual who introduced Mr. Sibthorp to Dr. Wiseman.
Previously to his visit to Oscott, Mr. Ward had expressed opinions
which induced the Master of Balliol to deprive him of his Mathe
matical Lectureship, and the Bishop of London to forbid his offici
ating in his diocese.

"I have also to inform the public, that a Roman Catholic
Bishop has been staying at the Mitre Inn, at Oxford, and receiving

1 82 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

visits from several Members of the University. Upon communi
cating this fact to an individual in authority, I found that he had
already learned, from other sources of information, that one cer
tainly, perhaps two Romish Bishops had been returning the visits
of their friend or friends. . . .

" After what I have written, your readers will not be surprised
at the following sayings and doings of some of the more extravagant
of the party. A Fellow of Exeter has expressed his belief, that seven
years hence the Churches of England and Rome will be reunited ;
some cross themselves in public worship, others make genuflections,
others openly praise the Jesuits, talk of Saint Ignatius Loyola, have
plans for taming refractory Bishops, and talk over what they shall
do, in their day of triumph, with the clergy who reject their views."1

The only members of the Romanising party who re
plied to Mr. Golightly's charges were Ward himself, one
of the accused parties, and the Rev. William Palmer of
Magdalen College, who must not be confounded with
the Rev. William Palmer of Worcester College. Ward
frankly admitted that he had paid a visit to Oscott, but
he did not add that it was his second visit2 — Golightly
apparently did not know that there had been a previous
visit. Ward challenged the accuracy of two or three
of Golightly's statements, yet substantially he admitted
that they were correct. In acknowledging that he had
paid a visit to the Roman Catholic College at Oscott, he
explained that he " carefully abstained from taking part
in any of their services " ; 3 yet at the same time he
admitted " the very favourable impression produced on
my mind by all that I saw there." 4

Mr. Palmer, who, after several years spent in vain
efforts to promote Reunion with the Eastern Churches,
afterwards became a Roman Catholic, replied to Mr.
Golightly in a published Letter, which contained some
statements which created quite a sensation : — " I trust,"
said Mr. Palmer, "others have still stronger grounds for

1 Correspondence Illustrative of the Actual State of Oxford with Reference to
Tractarianism, pp. 8-13. Oxford : 1842.

2 William George Ward and the Oxford Movement ', p. 191.

3 Correspondence Illustrative of the Actual State of Oxford, p. 20.

4 Ibid. p. 19.

ANATHEMA TO PROTESTANTISM 183

viewing and representing it [the Church of England] as a
branch of the One Catholic and Apostolic Church, essen
tially opposed to the principle of general Protestantism,
and essentially one with all other Churches of kindred
origin, both Greek and Latin." l

"Certainly I am for no middle ways," continued Mr. Palmer,
" as you will understand when I tell you plainly, that for myself, I
utterly reject and anathematise the principle of Protestantism as a
heresy, with all its forms, sects, or denominations. And if the
Church of England should ever unhappily profess herself to be a
form of Protestantism (which may God of His infinite mercy forbid !)
then I would reject and anathematise the Church of England, and
would separate myself from her immediately as from a human sect,
without giving Protestants any unnecessary trouble to procure my
expulsion." 2

" If to desire the restoration of unity with those Churches, and
above ail with the Church of Rome itself, be Popery, then I for one
am a Papist from the very bottom of my soul ; but I beg you to
take notice at the same time that my Popery is of a kind which
takes in not only the Churches now in actual communion with
Rome, but also the Eastern Catholic Churches, and the British, if
their Protestant members will allow me still to call them Catholic.
In conclusion, I once more publicly profess myself a Catholic and
a member of the Catholic Church, and say anathema to the prin
ciples of Protestantism (which I regard as identical with the principle
of Dissent), and to all its forms, sects, and denominations, especially
to those of the Lutherans and Calvinists, and British and American
Dissenters. Likewise to all persons, who knowingly and willingly,
and understanding what they do> shall assert either for themselves or
for the Church of England the principle of Protestantism, or maintain
the Church of England to have one and the same common religion
with any or all of the various forms and sects of Protestantism, or
shall communicate themselves in the temples of the Protestant sects,
or give the communion to their members, or go about to establish
any intercommunion between our Church and them, otherwise than
by bringing them, in the first instance, to renounce their errors and
promise a true obedience for the future to the entire faith and
discipline of the Catholic and Apostolical Episcopate — to all such I
say, Anathema ! " 3

1 A Letter to the Rev. C. P. Golightly. By William Palmer, M.A., Fellow
and Tutor of Magdalen College, p. 7. Oxford : Parker. 1842.

2 Ibid. pp. 9, 10. 3 2 bid. pp. 12, 13.

184 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

I may here be permitted to point out that the argu
ment against the Protestantism of the Church of England,
based on the omission of the word " Protestant " from her
formularies, is valueless to the Ritualists. The word on
which they pride themselves is "Catholic," which of course
is also claimed by all true Protestants. Yet this much-
prized word " Catholic" is never found in the New Testament.
Would the Ritualists, I may ask, think me justified in
asserting that the " Catholic " religion is not to be found
in the New Testament, because the word "Catholic" is not
found there ? I am sure they would never allow that my
argument was valid. They would reply that, if the word
" Catholic " was not there, the thing itself was there from
beginning to end, and that therefore the New Testament
teaches the Catholic religion. But, surely, the argument
which the Ritualist would think good for himself, is equally
valid for the Protestant Churchman ? We argue that if
the word " Protestant " is not to be found in the Book of
Common Prayer, the thing itself is there in abundance
from cover to cover. In their assertions of Protestant
doctrines, and in their protests against Rome and Roman
ism, the Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-Nine
Articles are amongst the most strongly Protestant docu
ments in the whole world. The historical argument in
favour of the Protestantism of the Church of England is
ably brought out in a valuable pamphlet by the late Dr.
Fleming, entitled The Church of England is Protestant?

We must go back to the month of March 1841 for the
origin of the Romanising work in part only revealed by Mr.
Golightly. Some startling revelations of what then took
place have recently been published in the Life and Letters of
Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, who in later life changed his name.
In 1841 he was known as Mr. Ambrose Lisle Phillipps.
He was, as already stated, a county squire residing at
Grace Dieu Manor, Leicestershire, of considerable wealth,
who in his boyhood had seceded to the Church of Rome,

1 The Church of England is Protestant : Historical Testimony to Her Pro
testantism. By J. P. Fleming, D.C.L., pp. 26. London : Church Association
Office.

WISEMAN'S SECRET EMISSARY TO OXFORD 185

in 1825, when he was only sixteen years of age. From
the birth of the Oxford Movement young Mr. Phillipps
took the deepest interest in its proceedings, expecting
great things for the Church of Rome from its operations.
To help on the Oxford Movement became the great object
of his life. Early in 1841 he became, in reality, though
not in name, Bishop Wiseman's secret emissary to the
leaders of the Movement residing in the University of
Oxford ; and the medium of communicating their wishes
and hopes, through Wiseman, to the Pope himself. His
biography, written by Mr. E. S. Purcell, author of the Life
of Cardinal Manning, is very open indeed in its surprising
revelations. Mr. Purcell tells us that : —

" The personal influence of so zealous a Catholic as De Lisle, his
sympathy with the Movement and reverence for its leaders, was
recognised and felt at Oxford. He was on intimate terms with
many of them, with whom he corresponded fully and freely; he was
trusted by their illustrious Leader, who in many letters of the highest
interest discussed the points at issue between the Anglican Church
and the Church of Rome. With no other Catholic was Newman
on terms of such intimacy ; to no one else did he open his heart so fully
or explain so candidly the motives which guided his conduct or line
of action as Leader of the Movement. To no one did he disclose
more unreservedly perhaps than to De Lisle the difficulties which
stood in the way of reunion, or of the restoration of unity of faith.
For Newman it ivas easier perhaps to explain to a Catholic than to
his immediate disciples the necessity of restraint or of caution imposed
upon him by external circumstances : by fear, on the one hand, of
exciting in the University Protestant suspicions ; of arousing the
ire of the Bishops ; or, on the other, of giving scandal to the more
timid among his own disciples by too open an avowal of Catholic
principles."^

This statement shows the importance to be attached
to De Lisle's work at Oxford. Newman trusted him
more, and more fully opened up to him his secret plans,
than to either Pusey or Keble, or any other of his friends
in the Church of England. And it is evident to any one
reading De Lisle's biography that he was trusted and
consulted by most of the other more prominent members

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, vol. i. p. 198.

1 86 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

of Newman's followers. One of the chief agents in
preparing the way for De Lisle's early visits to Oxford was
the Rev. J. R. Bloxam, then Newman's Curate, who was
most anxious to promote the Reunion of England and
Rome, but who remained within the Church of England
until his death nearly fifty years later.

De Lisle was first brought into intimate relations with
the leaders of the Oxford Movement early in 1841. On
the first Sunday in Lent of that year he sent word to
Bloxam that he hoped to visit Oxford in Easter week : —

" I hope," he told Bloxam, " to be the means of introducing to
Oxford some foreign Theologians who, I assure you, thoroughly
appreciate the Catholic Movement there, who admire your admir
able treatises, who fully understand the difficulty of your position,
who see that humanly speaking the great result to which we look
must be distant, the fruit of much labour, much patience, much
tribulation, but who feel that God holds in his hands the hearts of
men, and that to humble, earnest, believing prayer he will refuse
nothing. In working out our grand object you will find me, and
those whom I hope in a second visit to present to the acquaintance
both of yourself and your friends, prudent and reserved ; in fact we
shall put ourselves unreservedly in your hands — our only object is to
serve you for the love of Jesus Christ, and for the love of our Catholic
Mother." *

Newman at this time entered into confidential corre
spondence with De Lisle, and also with the Rev. Dr.
Russell, of Maynooth College. The latter correspondence
was first published in the Irish Monthly for September
1892. Of Dr. Russell, Newman says, " He had, perhaps,
more to do with my conversion than any one else." '
Newman saw great difficulties in the way of Reunion.
The lack of personal holiness in the Roman Church was
one difficulty ; the existence of Protestantism in the Angli
can Church was another. "This I feel," he wrote on
February 25, 1841, " most strongly and cannot conceal it,
viz., that while Rome is what she is union is impossible.
That we too must change I cannot deny." 3 Mr. Bloxam

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, vol. i. pp. 203, 204.

2 Newman's Apologia, p. 317.

3 Life and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, vol. i. p. 205.

A SCANDALOUS PROPOSAL 187

was fearful lest the public should learn what was going
on, and therefore he wrote to De Lisle, shortly before
the latter gentleman's visit to Oxford : — " Let me beg
of you to consider as most confidential and private
whatever may have passed between us. Much mischief
has been done by the mention of names." ] Mr. Purcell
says that " Bloxam was the most cautious and timid of
men, unwilling to commit himself, a living and moving
secret." 2

At length De Lisle paid his long expected visit to
Oxford, and was received with open arms by the Roman-
isers. To his wife, on May 5th, he related with great joy
what up to that date he had seen and heard : — •

"You can have no idea," wrote De Lisle, "to what an extent
the Catholic Movement in this University has gone ; it is impossible
to judge of it by printed publications. One thing astonished and
delighted me. They have lately printed (but not published} a beauti
ful translation of the Roman Breviary in English, with everything pre
cisely as it is in the Latin. The Hail Mary full length, the Confiteor,
the Salve Regina, Sancta Maria succurre mzseris, &c., with not an
expression changed ! ! ! Is not this wonderful ? Nothing can be
more determined than they are to reunite their Church to the
Catholic ; but they will not hear of individuals joining us from them,
though they wish us to convert as many Dissenters as possible ; and
they are very glad to hear of Dr. Gentili's doings in that way — even
I think they do not object to our converting such of the Church of
England as do not hold Catholic views, but they deprecate any
noise about it, and above all they deprecate anything like warfare
against the Church of England herself. . . . MANY HERE WOULD

LIKE TO COME TO AN UNDERSTANDING WITH THE POPE AT ONCE,
THAT SO THEY MIGHT BE IN ACTIVE COMMUNION WITH HIM, AND YET
REMAIN IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND TO LABOUR FOR THE RECON
CILIATION OF THEIR WHOLE CHURCH. This is to be taken into
solemn consideration ; I proposed to them last night that Father
Rosmini should come to England and visit Oxford with me with a
view to conveying their sentiments to the Pope himself. The proposi
tion was well received; but nothing is settled, nor will be yet."3

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, vol. i. p. 216.

2 Ibid. p. 244.

3 Ibid pp. 248, 249.

1 88 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

The startling expression of opinion, which I have
here printed in capitals, seems almost incredible. " It is
difficult to conceive," says Mr. Purcell, in commenting on
it, " that any of his [De Lisle's] friends at Oxford of sober
judgment could have seriously discussed such a plan as
that of being in active communion with the Pope, and at
the same time remaining in the Church of England." 1
But he does not deny that it was seriously discussed ; on
the contrary, he evidently thinks such a discussion really
did take place, for he continues thus : " But we must
remember that the Queen herself is always a member of
the Scotch Kirk when over the Border, and this without
scandal or question of propriety.2 From the standpoint
of the Roman theologian this would, of course, be abso
lutely unwarrantable, but from the English standpoint of
habitual compromise in matters of religion it is not after all
so very startling, once granted the High Church preamble
that the Established Church is essentially Catholic and
only accidentally Protestant. And De Lisle's whole plan
of action was to foster and encourage every Catholic
tendency and move amongst Anglicans, leaving it to the
grace of God to correct and harmonise inconsistencies
and shortcomings."

In accordance with the principle here laid down by
his biographer, De Lisle did " foster and encourage " the
traitorous wishes of these Tractarians. Very naturally
Mr. Purcell tries to whitewash his own communion, by
declaring that " from the standpoint of the Roman theo
logian this would, of course, be absolutely unwarrantable " ;
yet, for all this whitewashing, the startling fact remains
that the proposal was made, first of all, not by the Trac
tarians, but by a Roman Catholic layman, even De Lisle
himself ; and it looks very much as though the Jesuitical
proposal he made was fostered and actively assisted by
no less a " Roman theologian " than Bishop Wiseman !

In proof of this I call attention to the following facts.
Mr. Wilfrid Ward, the Roman Catholic biographer of his

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, vol. i. p. 249.

2 But she is not secretly a member of the Scotch Kirk.

TRAITORS AT WORK 189

father, the Rev. W. G. Ward, after relating how Mr.
Bloxam and De Lisle (or Phillipps) first met by accident,
tells us that thereupon —

"A friendship was struck up, and Mr. Bloxam invited him
[Phillipps] to Oxford. Here he met Mr. Ward. Zeal for the Re
union of Churches was on both sides a bond of sympathy, and the
two men sat up half the night on their first introduction discussing
the prospects of Christendom. Mr. Ward was invited to meet a
party of Catholics at Grace Dieu, to visit Oscott, and to see the
Cistercian Monastery of Mount St. Bernard's. Informal communi
cations were also opened with Bishop Wiseman. The conditions of
reunion were discussed. The schemes proposed were Utopian, and
many who were eager for them have in the event remained staunch
Anglicans. But they were a witness to the irritation caused by the
action of the Heads and Bishops, and to its tendency to drive men
towards Rome. Mr. Ward himself, while deeply interested in the
subject, was persistent in his opposition to any sudden step, and for
a time at least urged that members of both Churches should confine
their energies to the reform of the abuses which disfigured each. . . .
Mr. Phillipps had URGED that the Fathers of Charity, the Order of
the great Italian Reformer Antonio Rosmini, then represented in
England by the excellent and pious Father Gentili, SHOULD OPEN
THEIR ORDER AT ONCE TO THE OXFORD SCHOOL, and adapt its
rules to their position and antecedents"^-

Now this was, no doubt, a very daring proposal of De
Lisle's. It was nothing less than that the Tractarians
should at once become Roman Catholics, and thus, accord
ing to his scheme (to quote again his letter to his wife on
May 5th), they would " come to an understanding with
the Pope at once, that so they might be in active com
munion with him, and yet remain in the Church of England to
labour for the reconciliation of their whole Church." Mr.
Edwin De Lisle, himself a Roman Catholic, who edited
Purcell's Life of his father, says : — " From the high Con
tinuity point of view, however, there does not appear to be
any valid reason why clergymen upon becoming reconciled
to the Holy See should resign their livings. They would
only be reverting to the position of such admired Church-

1 William George Ward and the Oxford Movement, pp. 190, 191.

190 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

men as Archbishop Theodore, Stephen Langton, Grosteste,
Alfred the Great, or Edward the Confessor. It would pro
bably be the duty of their Bishops to deprive them." 1 Mr.
Wilfrid Ward says that the scheme " resulted only in
opportunities for cordial meetings between the Oxonians
and the friends of Mr. Phillipps and Father Gentili. The
idea itself met with no encouragement from Newman or
from the responsible leaders of the party." : It is evident to
any one who reads De Lisle's Life that he, at any rate, was
under the impression that his scheme was approved by
some of the responsible leaders, though not the most pro
minent of them. It will be remembered that, on the first
Sunday of Lent in this year, De Lisle promised Bloxam :
" I hope myself to be the means of introducing to Oxford
some foreign Theologians." This Father Gentili was one
of them. Again, on May 3rd, during his interview with
these Oxford conspirators, De Lisle proposed to them
" that Father Rosmini should come to England and visit
Oxford with me, with a view to conveying their sentiments
to the Pope." Rosmini, it seems, did not go to Oxford at
that time, but the representative of the Order of which he
was head (the Institute of Charity), did go to Oxford, and
Mr. Wilfrid Ward shows him to us as present at " cordial
meetings " between the Tractarian conspirators and De
Lisle. No doubt they discussed together De Lisle's pro
posal that this Roman Catholic Order of Monks should
"open their Order at once to the Oxford School." Ward
seems to have been in no hurry to adopt the scheme,
though he certainly did not object to it, for later on in the
year he wrote to De Lisle, on October 28th : — "All this
being so, your kind communication about the Order of
Charity is of less certain and immediate importance than it
otherwise might be ; though, of course, it might become of the
most pressing interest any single day." £

But, as we have seen, the Oxford Tractarians and Father
Gentili were not the only persons consulted. " Informal

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, vol. i. p. 284, note.
z William George Ward and the Oxford Movement, p. 191.
8 Ibid. p. 195.

WISEMAN'S VISIT TO THE OXFORD LEADERS 191

communications were opened with Bishop Wiseman."
These were no ordinary schemes that were proposed to
him, but were of a most extraordinary kind. " The
schemes proposed," says Mr. W. Ward, " were Utopian."
How did Wiseman treat these " Utopian " schemes ? Did
he reject them as monstrous and impossible, as embodying
proposals the Church of Rome could never assent to ?
There is nothing to show that he acted in this way. On
the contrary, all the evidence tends to prove that he be
came a party to the conspiracy, and gave it his active
assistance. Mr. Purcell states that : —

"In these discussions at Oxford Bishop Wiseman took a lively
interest. But since his conversations with the Oxford men were of a
confidential character, De Lisle took care in his communications with
Bishop Wiseman not to divulge the more intimate facts or names which
had been given to him, but gave a general purport or outline of his inter
views. Mr. Bloxam was especially careful to warn De Lisle against
letting the fact be known that they were holding direct communications ivith
Catholics. Bishop Wiseman was fully alive to the value of personal
influence, from De Lisle's signal success with the Oxford Divines,
and gladly accepted his offer of a personal introduction to some of the
Oxford Leaders. Bishop Wiseman had already expressed his anxious
desire to be in communication with some of the Oxford Divines, but
as he wrote to De Lisle he feared embarrassing them by any inter
course, as, should it be known, it would be immediately thrown in
their faces." *

De Lisle sent word to Bloxam that Wiseman desired
to visit Oxford, but Bloxam was timid about it. He said
that to himself the visit of " so learned and celebrated a
theologian " would be " personally delightful " ; 2 but he
thought, apparently, that it would scarcely be discreet.
Failing to gain Bloxam's consent to the proposed visit,
De Lisle informed Newman of Wiseman's desire to visit
Oxford and to meet him there. But Newman's subtle
mind led him to suggest a way out of the difficulty, which
is thus described by Mr. Purcell : — " Newman having
a grave objection to receiving Catholics in the University,
especially a Catholic of such eminence as Bishop Wise-

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, vol. i. p. 260.

2 Ibid. p. 261.

I Q2 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

man, proposed meeting in the city of Oxford." 1 Accord
ingly it was arranged that Wiseman should visit Oxford,
and there meet Newman ; not, however, in the University,
but in the city! "The meeting of two such men," con
tinues Mr. Purcell, " as the leader of the Oxford Move
ment and the representative champion of the Catholic
cause, was an event which appealed to the hearts of both
men. Each was frank, candid, and outspoken. Without,
however, entering into confidential relations, Wiseman
left a favourable impression on Newman's mind." 2 It
seems that during this visit Wiseman had an interview
with Dr. Pusey. Writing to Lord Shrewsbury, on May
6th, De Lisle remarks : — " I hope Bishop Wiseman was
not rude in his manner towards Dr. Pusey the other day,
—if he was, he will have done more to keep hundreds of
Anglicans (I speak advisedly) back than all my courtesy
and charity towards them has done." 3

But before his visit to Oxford Wiseman had sent to
Rome full particulars of what was going on. Referring
to the end of April 1841, his biographer says that : —
"Wiseman's sanguine temperament was now fired with
hopes which those who knew Newman well would not
have encouraged. His next plan was to communicate
further with the Holy See through his old friend Cardinal
Mai, and obtain instructions with a view to a possibly imme
diate reconciliation of Newman and his friends to Rome" 4
Earlier in the month of April, on Good Friday (the Qth),
Wiseman had announced his intention of writing to Rome
on this subject. There was no need to write to Rome for
" instructions for a possibly immediate reconciliation " of the
Tractarians, if that reconciliation were to be of the ordinary
kind. Wiseman knew very well how to receive perverts
from the Church of England into the Church of Rome, and
required no " instructions " on such a very simple matter.
But we can understand that he would very much need
" instructions " how to act for " an immediate reconcilia-

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, vol. i. p. 262.

2 Ibid. p. 262. 3 Ibid. p. 280.
4 Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, vol. i. p. 391.

SECRET NEGOTIATIONS WITH ROME 193

tion" with Rome on the lines laid down by De Lisle in
his letter to his wife. Only the Pope could grant the
Tractarians permission to be " in active communion with
him, and yet remain in the Church of England to labour
for the reconciliation of their whole Church " ; only the
Pope could facilitate De Lisle's proposal that the " Fathers
of Charity " should " open their Order at once to the Oxford
School, and adapt its rules to their position and ante
cedents." What else could Wiseman have had in view
than some such secret scheme as this, when he wrote as
follows to De Lisle, on Good Friday : —

" I feel that the state of things in England ought to be made
known to the Holy Father. On these grounds I have thought of
writing a full account of all that is going forward, to one of the dis-
creetest members of the S. College, Card. Mai, with a request that
he will show what I write to none but the Pope. I would not men
tion names beyond those publicly known, as Newman's, but would
even suppress his name, when referring to what he has privately
written. But I will not send off anything till I hear from you, and
have your permission thus secretly to apply what I know from you
for the public good in this way. Let me know that the Vicegerent
of Christ approves of my course and understands my motives, and I
shall not care for all the world, nor allow differences of opinion to
check my exertions." 1

On May 7th, only two days after De Lisle's startling
letter to his wife, already quoted, Wiseman wrote again to
him on the same subject, and headed his letter, " Most
Confidential " : —

" Your last letter has indeed rilled me with consolation, and sin
cere joy. I shall not fail in a second letter to communicate its con
tents to the Holy Father through Cardinal Mai. But I foresee that
it will be almost necessary for me during the vacation to run to Rome.
Indeed, I think it probable I shall be desired to do so — AS ANY

COMMUNICATION ON THE SUBJECT IN QUESTION IS TOO DELICATE TO

BE MADE OTHERWISE THAN ORALLY. Moreover, there are too many
other matters on which it would be advisable to have a more intimate
communication with the Holy See, and as for myself I feel the serious

1 Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, vol. i. p. 387.

IQ4 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

responsibility of becoming (as I at the same time earnestly desire to
become) the organ of intercourse between it and our Oxford friends,
without clear and DISTINCT INSTRUCTIONS, such as I feel cannot be
satisfactorily given except on full explanations, and BY WORD OF
MOUTH. Again I should like something to emanate from the Pope
towards encouraging our views — recommending mildness, prayer,
calling on the Bishops for Reforms, &c., and particularly checking all
alliance with Dissenters. All this I could probably get done by
going on the spot, but not otherwise. I have entered on this matter
to ask you what you think of such a plan — no one, of course, must
know of it. I would go to Paris, and so on to Rome — the Bishop
only knowing my plan. He is now in London, so that if you can
come over I could see you alone. I must mention that, though I
have not said anything to him about your last letter, I have found it
necessary to consult one most prudent person under Confessional
secrecy, because I find some advice necessary for my own guidance." 1

Again, we may well ask what could that subject be (if
not secret reception into the Church of Rome) any com
munication as to which to Rome was "too delicate to be
made otherwise than orally " ; and on which " distinct
instructions " could only be given satisfactorily by the
i( Holy See," and " by word of mouth " ? It seems beyond
doubt, too, that Wiseman saw nothing morally wrong in
such an act of deception, for he actively helped the scheme
on which De Lisle had at heart, and even thought it pos
sible that the Pope would grant the permission so earnestly
desired. Who, I may well ask, can reasonably blame
Protestants, now that so much has been revealed by the
Romanists themselves, for taking this view of this secret
Conspiracy to bring back England to Rome by unworthy
and Jesuitical methods ? Of course Wiseman would have
preferred that these Tractarian Divines should publicly join
the Church of Rome there and then ; but if they would
not come over in that open way, then some other course
must be adopted. But whether De Lisle's plans were
actually sanctioned at Rome is more than we can definitely
say. If they were adopted, however, we may be quite sure
that not the slightest trace of it would be permitted to find

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose de Lzsfe, vol. i. p. 255. Life and Times of
Cardinal Wiseman, vol. i. pp. 391, 392.

SECRET NEGOTIATIONS WITH ROME 195

its way into any Roman Catholic biography of the present
time. The marvel is that so much has been allowed to
come out into the light of day ; but I have very little
doubt that the authorities of the Papacy in England are
far from pleased at the revelations made public in the
Life and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle. What has
appeared should certainly open the eyes of Englishmen,
and make them anxious to know what is going on under
neath the surface at the present time. Negotiations with
Rome have been going on, at intervals, ever since 1841,
and for all we know we may, at the present moment, be
sleeping on the brink of a volcano, which may burst forth
at any time, casting spiritual desolation and death around.
There were two other prominent Roman Catholics to
whom the secret proceedings going on at Oxford were
partly revealed by De Lisle, viz., Lord Shrewsbury and
Cardinal Acton. To the former he wrote on May 30,
1841, clearly revealing the Jesuitical cunning of his
Tractarian friends : —

" I have been," wrote De Lisle, " for some time now engaged in
close correspondence with some of the leaders of the Catholic party
at Oxford, to which I can only allude in general terms, as it is
strictly confidential ; it has, however, been communicated by me to
our dear friend Bishop Wiseman (who perfectly concurs with me in
everything) for the purpose of being in the strictest secrecy forwarded
to Cardinal Mai, to be by his Eminence communicated to the Holy
Father, and to no one else upon any account whatever. As I said, I
cannot at present enter into particulars, but of this you may rest
assured, that the reunion of the Churches is certain. Mr. Newman
has lately received the adhesion of several hundreds of the Clergy :
this is publicly known, and therefore I may state it. Meanwhile the
Dissenting party is on the alert, and though they are by no means
aware of the extent to which things have gone, they are apprehensive
of something : and as they are joined, politically at least, by the Low
Church Party, WE FIND IT NECESSARY TO BLIND THEM, the more so
as we are not ready to act yet, and probably shall not be for the
next three years at earliest. This will account for the great stress
still laid by the Oxford men on practical abuses supposed to exist in
the communion of the Catholic Church : not that I mean to say
they do not feel what they state in reference to these (for I know

196 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

that even they are moved by old prejudices), but feeling as they do,
they put it forward more prominently perhaps than they otherwise

WOUld do, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THROWING DUST IN THE EYES OF

THE DISSENTERS AND THE Low CHURCH MEN.

" I am very glad you are coming back to England next year. I
assure you, if things go on as I expect, you will be wanted then.
Meanwhile I beseech you to give us all the assistance you can.
Urge at Rome the necessity of immense prudence and forbearance,
to do everything to encourage, not to damp ; not to call upon these
men to quit their own communion to join ours; but to proceed on
courageously with their holy and glorious intention of reconciling their
Church to ours ; remembering that this involves the reconciliation
of the Kingdom, of the Aristocracy with all its wealth and power, of
the Nation. A false step would spoil all, would produce a Protestant
reaction, and would defeat the hopes of the Holy See for another
century. Any use you like to make of this letter, you are perfectly
welcome to make : I have said nothing that can commit any indi
vidual; and yet I have said what would have weight in preparing
men's minds. If you like to read it to the Father General of the
Jesuits, you can" x

In a very long letter to Cardinal Acton, dated " Feast
of the Conversion, 1842," De Lisle explained all that had
gone on in Oxford down to that time, then over a year
after the appearance of Tract XC. He informs the Cardinal
that " until quite within the last three weeks, owing to the
conversions of Mr. Sibthorp and others, the individuals I
allude to [the ' Leaders ' of the Oxford Movement] felt it
both prudent and right to suspend intercourse for a while
with either myself or any other Catholics, the more so as
many unpleasant disclosures had been made in newspapers?
. . . Now, however, as that intercourse has been renewed
within the last few days, I may have it in my power to
give your Eminence some intelligence of a consoling
nature." ! De Lisle proceeds to relate the steps the
Tractarians had already taken that " so by God's holy
grace, she [Church of England] might regain her ancient
Catholic character," and adds : — " In order to bring this

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose de Lisle, vol. i. pp. 217, 218.

2 No doubt De Lisle here refers to the " disclosures" made by Mr. Golightly
in the Standard and otherwise.

3 Life and Letters of Ambrose de Lisle, vol. i. p. 231.

BLINDING PROTESTANT EYES 197

about they saw that, as an immense amount of anti-
Catholic prejudice still existed in the minds of the gene
rality of Englishmen, it was necessary to bring them on
by degrees, to communicate religious knowledge to them with a
holy reserve; hence they judged that the first step was to
prove that the English Church (however committed to
Protestant heresy in many respects) was not so Protestant
as the popular notion of her implied." J Of some of the
Tractarians, De Lisle said that : — " Many again liked
Catholic ideas, but could not bring themselves to believe
that Rome alone had any true claim to that glorious title,
or that their own Church could only regain the title by
reunion with that Church, which, as the Creed of Pius IV.
declares, is the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches.
Those even who saw this great truth the most clearly, saw
also the danger of proclaiming it too openly as yet, lest the
public mind should recoil and an anti-Catholic reaction
take place. Hence, even some of the most advanced (as
one of them said to me in a letter) thought it right to say
all they honestly could against Rome, IN ORDER TO BLIND

THE EYES OF THOSE WHOM THEY SAW ADVANCING, but

yet in a very weak state ; meaning too, when they spoke
against Rome, not the Church of Rome, not the Council
of Trent, but certain popular notions or opinions existing
within the Church, and dwelt upon more or less even
by her Divines, but yet not vouched for by the Church
as such ; your Eminence may guess what kind of notions
the individuals I allude to implied. Nor indeed did
they even mean to reprobate these popular notions, except
in a certain sense which might be objectionable. At
all events, I know several individuals, who by this gradual
process of the Oxford Divines have been brought to
the very threshold of truth, and have even crossed her
borders." ' In conclusion, De Lisle asserted that: —
11 The devotion of the glorious Mother of God is rapidly
increasing, great numbers of the Anglicans now keep
her blessed picture with extreme reverence, putting
flowers before it, especially on her principal feasts, many

1 Life arid Letters of Ambrose de Lisle, vol. i. p. 232. z Ibid. p. 233.

198 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

recite her Little Office; a Fellow of Exeter College at
Oxford burst into tears when speaking of this Dear
Mother of our Saviour. I am confident that next to
Jesus they love her above all things. Then they fast most
wonderfully, like the Fathers of the Desert ; they take the
Discipline ; lie upon hard boards at night ; rise at midnight
to recite Matins and Lauds ; spend whole hours in mental
prayer ; shed floods of tears over their poor fallen Mother,
the Church of England, earnestly imploring of our Lord
to restore her, and so their country, to Catholic Unity." ]

There can be no doubt that the news conveyed to
Rome by Wiseman and De Lisle filled the Vatican with
joy, and taxed the resources of the Jesuits to the utter
most. It is true that De Lisle was unreasonably hopeful ;
like most enthusiasts he expected great things, and ex
pected them almost at once. Probably he felt disappointed
at first ; yet when, in his old age, he looked at the state
of the Church of England and the progress in it of Roman
ritual and Roman doctrine, he must have felt that he had
not laboured in vain. The wonder is that one who, in
ordinary private life, would scorn to act otherwise than
as a honourable English gentleman, could, when he had
to deal with religion, become a party to such unworthy and
crooked conduct as that exposed in his own biography.
And what must we think of the cause which needed such
assistance ? De Lisle did not act alone. It was his
boast, as we have seen, that " Bishop Wiseman perfectly
concurs with me in everything ; " and there is no evidence
to show that the Pope ever censured either the one or the
other for their double dealing ; and yet the Pope was
made fully acquainted with what they were doing. Later
on, when Newman was a Roman priest, he saw clearly
the advantage to be gained by Rome through the adop
tion of one portion of De Lisle's policy, when, on July
i, 1857, he wrote to De Lisle: "I perfectly agree with
you in thinking that the Movement of 1833 is not over
in the country, whatever be the state of Oxford itself;
also, I think it is for the interest of Catholicism that in-

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose de Lisle, vol. i. p. 237.

A TRAITOR WITHIN THE CAMP 199

dividuals should not join us, but should remain to leaven
the mass — I mean that they will do more for us by remaining
where they are than by coming over" ] At the same time
Newman felt that there was danger to the individual who
adopted such a policy, although the Roman Church would
be a gainer by it ; for he added : " But then, they have
individual souls, and with what heart can I do anything
to induce them to preach to others, if they themselves
thereby become castaways?"

The Rev. W. G. Ward certainly acted for a time on
this policy of aiding the Roman Church by staying
within the Church of England, with a view to bringing
her back to unity with Rome. His son says of him
that, while he was a clergyman of the Church of England :

"He had long held that the Roman Church was the one true
Church. He had gradually come to believe that the English
Church was not strictly a part of the Church at all. He had felt
bound to retain his external communion with her members, because
he believed that he was bringing many of them towards Rome;
and to unite himself to the Church which he loved and trusted,
to enjoy the blessings of external communion for himself, if by so
doing he thwarted this larger and fuller victory of truth, had seemed
a course both indefensible and selfish.

"Still, he had long looked on his present position as only a
time of waiting, as a season of Purgatory, as the painful and
laborious seed-sowing, endured patiently because of the harvest to
come. It was years since he had written that restoration of com
munion with the one Catholic Church and the See of Peter was
'the most enchanting earthly prospect on which his imagination
could dwell.' He had become accustomed to a position similar to
that of the missionary, who foregoes the happiness of living among
his brethren in the faith, often of approaching the Sacraments, of
the sustaining and health-giving presence of Church Liturgy and
ordinances, in order that he may lead strangers to see the truth,
and to enjoy eventually in his company those helps and blessings
which he foregoes for the moment for their sakes." 2

Is it unreasonable to fear that at the present hour
there may be a very large number of Ritualistic clergy in
the Church of England acting on the very same principle

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose de Lisle, vol. i. p. 368.

2 William George Ward and the Oxford Movement, pp. 356, 357.

200 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

which kept Ward for some years within the Church of
England? He was for a time the leader of the- more
advanced Romanisers, and their conduct, it seems, was
quite as bad as his. Of these men Mr. Wilfrid WTard
writes :—

"Roman doctrine was more and more fully accepted, until in
Mr. Ward's work, The Ideal of a Christian Church, Rome was
practically acknowledged as the Divinely appointed guardian and
teacher of religious truth. Finally, the old idea of working towards
the Reunion ot" Churches, and calling for concessions on both sides
with a view to this object, disappeared. The Pope was maintained
to be normally Primate of Christendom, AND THE ULTIMATE AIM

PROPOSED FOR THK ENGLISH CHURCH WAS NOT REUNION WITH BUT
SUBMISSION TO ROME.

"On what ground then did the men who held this theory justify
their remaining in the Church of England? On the ground (i) that
Providence had placed them in it; (2) that its formularies were so
loose as to allow the holding of all Roman doctrine within its pale ;
(3) that the sudden adoption of doctrines new to the moral nature
was difficult and undesirable, and that the English Church afforded
a good position for gradually drawing nearer to Rome, until some
considerable portion of Churchmen should have so far imbibed the
spirit of Roman Catholicism, as to feel conscientiously impelled to
outward conformity to its communion. For an individual to move
prematurely might destroy this prospect ; and, therefore, he was to
be, fir the present, content with uniting himself in spirit to the Roman
Church, without formally joining her. So long as conscience did
not clearly call upon him to take the further step, so long might he
hope that he was not cut oft' from grace by remaining where Pro
vidence had placed him."1

Of course, this advanced section of Romanisers went
beyond Pusey and Keble in a Romeward direction, and
therefore I do not accuse them of complicity with their
work, though I may mention that of Keble it is recorded
by one of his biographers that, on May 14, 1843, he
wrote to Newman : — '• Certainly there is a great yearning
even after Rome in many parts of the Church, which
seems to be accompanied by so much good that one hopes
if it be right it will be allowed to gain strength." *

1 lViLic.ru George Ward and the Oxford Movement t p. 212.
* John Keble. By Walter Lock, M.A., p. 120.

CHAPTER VIII

The Jerusalem Bishopric — Chevalier Bunsen's mission to England —
Puseyite opposition — Hope-Scott's objections — Dr. Hook supports
the Bishopric — His description of the Romanisers — Pusey's Letter
to the Archbishop of Canterbury — Lord Ashley's letter to Pusey —
Mr. Gladstone supports the Bishopric— Newman and the Jerusalem
Bishopric — He thinks it "atrocious" and "hideous" — His Protest —
Contest for Professorship of Poetry — Isaac Williams and Reserve in
Communicating Religious Knowledge — Extracts from his writings —
Mr. Garbett, the Protestant candidate — Samuel Wilberforce on the
contest — He denounces the Romanisers — Success of the Protestant
candidate — Secessions to Rome — The Rev. F. W. Faber — His visit
to the Continent — His Sights and Thoughts in Foreign Churches —
How he deceived the public— The Rev. William Goode — His Pro
testant works — His Case as It Is— His Divine Rule of Faith and
Practice — Bishop Bagot's Visitation Charge — Mr. Goode answers it
— The Parker Society.

ANOTHER heated controversy arose in 1841 in connection
with the establishment of the Jerusalem Bishopric. The
first step towards the formation of this Bishopric was
taken by the King of Prussia, who was sincerely and
earnestly anxious to secure for Protestants of all de
nominations, residing in Palestine, that protection in the
exercise of their religious duties which at that time was
greatly needed. Besides this his Majesty was most
desirous of promoting the unity of true Protestants of
all Evangelical denominations, a unity which he felt would
be greatly promoted by the foundation of an Anglican
Bishopric in Jerusalem. Having carefully considered the
question the King decided on sending Chevalier Bunsen
to London, for the purpose of negotiating with the British
Government, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the
Bishop of London, with a view to the carrying out of his
beneficent plans. Bunsen was instructed by his Royal
Master to ascertain : — " How far the Church of England,

202 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

which is already possessed of a Minister's residence on
Mount Zion, and has begun to build a Church on the
spot, would be inclined to grant the Evangelical National
Church of Prussia rank, as a sister-Church, in the Holy
Land ? " If the request of the King were granted, he
would do all in his power to assist the Bishopric. " Nor
will his Majesty," he said in his " Instructions " to Cheva
lier Bunsen, " impelled by a feeling of Apostolical Catho
licity, and expectant of a reciprocal feeling on the part of
the Church of England, refrain from expressing his readi
ness to allow all the clergy and missionaries of his native
Church, in every land of Missions where the Church of
England has an Episcopate, to unite with it ; even to the
seeking, if needful, of that Episcopal ordination, which
the Church of England requires for admission to the
priestly office. And his Majesty will provide that such
ordination be duly recognised and respected in his own
dominions." ''

On arriving in England, Bunsen found the authorities
in Church and State generally favourable to the King's
proposals, which were heartily approved by the Arch
bishop of Canterbury (Dr. Howley), and the Bishop of
London (Dr. Blomfield). The scheme was taken up very
warmly by Evangelical Churchmen, Lord Ashley (after
wards Earl of Shaftesbury) taking the lead in removing
all difficulties in the way, and furthering the scheme to
the utmost. Within five days of his arrival in London
Bunsen called on Lord Ashley, who thus recorded his
visit in his diary : — " June 24th. My friend Bunsen has
just called, and has brought me a most honourable and
gratifying message from the King of Prussia. May the
blessing of God's saints of old, of David, and of Hezekiah,
be on him and his for ever ! But all things are now won
derful. The mission of Bunsen is a wonder." 3 Lord
Ashley arranged a meeting between Bunsen and Peel.
From Lord Palmerston Bunsen received every encourage-

1 The Jerusalem Bishopric Documents. By the Rev. Professor W. H. Hechler.
London : 1883. Part II. p. 2.

2 Ibid. p. 12.

3 Life of Lord Shaftesbury, popular edition, p. 199.

THE JERUSALEM BISHOPRIC 203

ment. " Palmerston," wrote Lord Ashley, " went forward
with the zeal of an Apostle, did in three weeks what at
another time, or, as it seems, under any influence but
mine, he would not have listened to in twelve months,
fanned the weak embers of willing but timid spirit in the
Bishops, and made that to be necessary and irrevocable
which his successors would have thought the attribute of
a maniac, even in imagination." * Before, however, the
Jerusalem Bishopric could be founded, it was necessary
to pass a special Act of Parliament to legalise it. Special
facilities were offered for this purpose, with the result that
the Bill speedily passed through both Houses of Par
liament, received the Royal assent early in October, and
is now known as the Jerusalem Bishopric Act (5 Vic
toria, chap. vi.), though the word Jerusalem is not once
mentioned in it. One half of the money necessary for
endowing the Bishopric was supplied by the King of
Prussia ; the other half was subscribed in England, the
London Society for Promoting Christianity amongst the
Jews giving ^3000. From a Statement of Proceedings issued
at the end of 1841, and " Published by Authority," we
learn that the Archbishop " first consulted the Bishops "
about the scheme for a Bishopric. " Its ultimate results
cannot be with certainty predicted ; but we may reason
ably hope that, under the Divine blessing, it may lead the
way to an essential unity of discipline, as well as of doc
trine, between our own Church and the less perfectly
constituted of the Protestant Churches of Europe, and
that, too, not by the way of Rome ; while it may be the
means of establishing relations of unity between the
United Church of England and Ireland and the ancient
Churches of the East, strengthening them against the en
croachments of the See of Rome, and preparing the way
for their purification, in some cases from serious errors." 2
The Bishop of Jerusalem, continued the Statement, <( is
specially charged not to entrench upon the spiritual rights

1 Life of Lord Shaftesbury, p. 200.

2 Statement of Proceedings Relating to the Establishment of a Bishopric in
Jerusalem. Published by Authority, p. 5. London : Rivingtons. 1841.

204 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

and liberties of those Churches [of the East] ; but to con
fine himself to the care of those over whom they cannot
rightly claim any jurisdiction. . . . The Bishop of the
United Church of England and Ireland at Jerusalem is to
be nominated alternately by the Crowns of England and
Prussia, the Archbishop having the absolute right of veto,
with respect to those nominated by the Prussian Crown." 1
The Statement continues : —

" Congregations, consisting of Protestants of the German tongue,
residing within the limits of the Bishop's jurisdiction, and willing to
submit to it, will be under the care of German clergymen ordained
by him for that purpose ; who will officiate in the German language,
according to the forms of their National Liturgy, compiled from the
Ancient Liturgies, agreeing in all points of doctrine with the Liturgy
of the English Church, and sanctioned by the Bishop with consent
of the Metropolitan, for the special use of those congregations ; such
Liturgy to be used in the German language only. Germans, intended
for the charge of such congregations, are to be ordained according
to the Ritual of the English Church, and to sign the Articles of that
Church ; and, in order that they may not be disqualified by the laws
of Germany from officiating to German congregations, they are, be
fore ordination, to exhibit to the Bishop a certificate of their having
subscribed, before some competent authority, the Confession of
Augsburg." 2

The clergyman selected to be the first Protestant
Bishop of Jerusalem was the Rev. M. S. Alexander, D.D.
The Queen's mandate for his consecration was dated Nov
ember 6, 1841, and he was consecrated on November 7th
by the Archbishop of Canterbury, assisted by the Bishops
of London, Rochester, and New Zealand.

The Jerusalem Bishopric was thus founded, with the
approbation of the overwhelming majority of English
Churchmen. But some there were who murmured.

"But oh !" wrote Lord Ashley, in his diary for October i2th,
"the monstrosities of Puseyism ! The Bishop of London is beset,
and half brow-beaten, by the clamorous and uncatholic race. He
showed Bunsen to-day a letter from Dr. Pusey beginning : — ' It is

1 Statement of Proceedings Relating to the Establishment of a Bishopric in
Jerusalem^ p. 6.

2 Ibid. p. 8.

TRACTARIAN OPPOSITION TO THE BISHOPRIC 205

now for the first time that the Church of England holds communica
tion with those who are without the Church ! ' This is the holy,
Christian, Catholic way in which he speaks of all the congrega
tions of Protestant Germany. Towards the end he adds : — ' The
Church of England will thus be the protectress of all Protestant
communions.' What can be so dreadful ? The Puseyite object is
this, * to effect reconciliation with Rome ' ; ours, with Protestantism ;
they wish to exalt Apostolical Succession so high as to make it para
mount to all moral purity, and all doctrinal truth ; we, to respect it
so as to shift it from Abiathar to Zadok." l

The Jerusalem Bishopric controversynaturally produced
a pamphlet war. Mr. James R. Hope (afterwards known
as Hope-Scott), Chancellor of the Diocese of Salisbury, a
prominent Tractarian, and an intimate friend of Newman
and Mr. Gladstone, was greatly disturbed by what had
taken place. It shook his faith in the Church of England,
and prepared the way for his secession to Rome a few
years later. He relieved his feelings by private corre
spondence with both Newman and Gladstone, and at last,
at the close of the year, published a pamphlet on the sub
ject in the form of a Letter to a Friend. In this document
Mr. Hope candidly indicated his chief objection to the
Bishopric. " Above all," he said, " we are bound not to
insult those Bishops [in Jerusalem] through whose suffer
ance our Church there is to exist, by pretending to recog
nise and participate in their Catholicity, and at the same
time by professing religious identity with Calvinism or
Lutheranism, both of which they have by name (Synod of
Jerusalem in 1675), condemned and rejected."" His dis
like of the Bishopric was still more clearly revealed in the
following passage : —

" And if, on the other hand, it should be determined in law that
Bishop Alexander is not subject to the English Metropolitan, or
governed in his Diocese by the constitution of the English Church ;
or if, before a legal decision can be obtained, it should be publicly
proclaimed from authority in this country that such is the basis of
the new Bishopric, then it will be at once evident that, whatever

1 Life of Lord Shaftesbury, p. 201.

2 The Bishopric of the United Church of England and Ireland at Jerusalem.
By James R. Hope, B.C.L., ist edition, p. 45.

206 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

title may have been given to Bishop Alexander, he can in no real
sense be a Bishop of our Church, nor can his acts in any way impli
cate us, or affect our credit in the face of Christendom. He must
then be held to be an independent Bishop, not in connection with
any Catholic body — a fragment struck off from the Rock of the
Church. Into the communion of such a Bishop no orthodox
Churchman abroad will enter, no orthodox clergyman will submit to
his jurisdiction; his orders will not be received in England; the
marriages and other rites solemnised by his clergy will be open to
serious doubts in our Ecclesiastical Courts ; and that these things
may not be hid from the world, it will (as I conceive) be the
wisdom, if not the duty, of the sister Churches in England, Ireland,
Scotland, the Colonies, and America, to proclaim at once and aloud
their repudiation of a Prelate, who will have professed openly his
design to reject the order of the Church which gave him mission,
and whose title and privileges he assumes." x

No doubt this is exactly what Mr. Hope and his friends
would have liked to have happened. Yet they dared not
attempt to bring about such a repudiation of Bishop
Alexander by an action in the Courts such as was hinted
at in Mr. Hope's pamphlet. This document was answered
by the well-known Broad Churchman, the Rev. F. D.
Maurice, who declared that : — " It would have been a sin
in the Bishops of our Church to let these canonical obli
gations hinder them from embracing an opportunity, not
sought for by them, but offering itself to them unexpect
edly, of promoting Catholic unity, and advancing Catholic
principles. And that it will be a sin in us, if we allow these
canonical objections, supposing no higher and stronger
reasons can be produced, to hinder us from giving God
thanks for what has been done, and from labouring, so far
as in us lies, that it may not have been done in vain." 2

Several very decided High Churchmen gave their help
to the Jerusalem Bishopric. Dr. Hook, Vicar of Leeds,
actually subscribed to the Bishopric Fund. No modern
Ritualist can point the finger of scorn at Hook, and call
him an ultra-Protestant. It was he who, as far back as

1 Hope's The Bishopric of the United Church of England and Ireland at
Jerusalem, pp. 55, 56.

2 Three Letters to the Rev. W. Palmer. By F. D. Maurice, A.M., Professor
of English Literature at King's College, London, p. 89. London : 1842.

DR. HOOK ON THE ROMANISERS 207

1835, declared that, in his opinion, "the danger now is,
not from Popery, but from that snare of Satan, ultra-
Protestantism " j1 and who, in 1840, writing to a friend,
declared : — " I for one think that a Romanist is far less in
error than Owen and Baxter." 2 Yet even Dr. Hook wrote
a pamphlet defending the Jerusalem Bishopric against the
narrow-minded and bigoted views of his more advanced
friends. In the commencement of this pamphlet Dr,
Hook sorrowfully acknowledged that :—

" There are, certainly ', many such persons among our younger breth
ren at the present time, who are inclined to look upon our Church in
the following light : — they regard the Church of England as a Branch
of the Catholic Church from which, without peril to their souls, they
may not secede j but they look upon it as injured rather than improved
by the Reformation ; they think that if some abuses were corrected,
serious errors were introduced ; they agree with the Romanists in main
taining that the Reformation was unnecessary r, at all events, to the extent
to which it was carried ; and that it was conducted in a manner not to
be defended upon Catholic principles. The conclusion which must
inevitably be deduced from these premises is this, that the Church
of England, as at present constituted, is not the model according to
which other Churches are to be reformed ; and that we have as much
to learn from Rome as Rome has to learn from us. I believe that in
this statement I have clearly asserted an opinion very extensively
held upon this subject. From this opinion I do entirely dissent." 3

No wonder that those, who so " very extensively held "
these unworthy views of the English Church, were bitterly
opposed to any approach on her part towards union with
non-Episcopal Protestant Churches on the Continent. As
to the Jerusalem Bishopric Hook said : —

"The fact of our placing a Bishop of our own Church in
Jerusalem, not as an usurper of another Bishop's jurisdiction, but
as a representative of the English Church, in a land where such
conduct is tolerated with respect to other branches of the Catholic
Church, to discharge the ministerial office for those who cannot be
received into communion with the Oriental Church, and to watch
over the intrigues of the Church of Rome, which certainly can have

1 Life of Dean Hook, vol. i. p. 274.

2 Ibid. vol. ii. p. 59.

3 Reasons for Contributing Towards the Support of an English Bishop at
Jerusalem. By Walter F. Hook, D.D., p. 3. London : 1842.

208 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

no more right to have a representative at Jerusalem than we have ;
all this cannot have a tendency, as you seem to think, to continue
the division which unhappily exists in the Catholic Church." l

Dr. Pusey was at first, through conversations with
Bunsen, favourable to the proposed Bishopric at Jeru
salem. But later on, mainly through the influence of
Newman, he altered his mind, and became an opponent.
At this period he was very much troubled by the contro
versy which had arisen in connection with Tract .XC., the
Episcopal charges against it, and the accusations of a tend
ency to Romanism which had been brought against the
Tractarians. He determined, therefore, to publish a kind
of apology for his friends, in which he tried to minimise
to the utmost the censures of the Bishops, and at the
same time he availed himself of the opportunity to deal
with the Jerusalem Bishopric question. He did this in
the form of A Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, which
filled a pamphlet of 171 pages. With the earlier portion
of this document I have here no special concern, except
to call attention to the following remarkable statement,
which deserves to be more widely known than it is at
the present day :—

" Two schemes of doctrines," wrote Dr. Pusey, " the Genevan
and the Catholic, are, probably for the last time, struggling within
our Church ; the contest, which has been carried on ever since the
Reformation, between the Church and those who parted from her,
has now been permitted to be transferred to the Church herself;
on the issue hangs the destiny of our Church \ if human frailty or
impatience precipitates not that issue, all will be well, and it will
have a peaceful close ; yet a decisive issue it must have ; the one must
in time absorb the other ; or, to speak more plainly, the Catholic, as
the full truth of God, must, unless it be violently cast out> in time
leaven and absorb into itself whatever is partial and defective ; as it
has already very extensively." 2

Translated into plainer language, " Genevan " meant,
in Pusey's mind, decided Protestantism ; while " Catholic "

1 Hook's Reasons for Contributing Towards the Support of an English
Bishop at Jerusalem , p. II.

2 A Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Some Circumstances Con
nected with the Present Crisis in the English Church. By the Rev. E. B.
Pusey, D.D., pp. 84, 85. Oxford: 1842.

THE "DECISIVE ISSUE" 209

meant that imitation of a great deal of Popery with which
his name is associated. It is evident from the above
quotation that he foresaw that " a decisive issue " between
Protestantism and sham Popery must eventually come ;
but he dreaded lest by tl human frailty or impatience "
it should come too soon, for then his party might expect
to " be violently cast out." But one thing he felt was
certain — and in this I agree with him — sooner or later
one or other of the two systems of religion, the Protestant
or the Sacerdotal, must cease to exist in the Church of
England. That is really the issue before the country in
the present Ritual Crisis. Unless the Romanising lion be
" cast out," it will " absorb " the Evangelical lamb, and
that means death to the lamb. We are engaged in a
struggle of life or death. The issue will be, either that
the Protestant Reformation shall be utterly undone, and
the Church go back to her condition in the Dark Ages ;
or we must go forward in Gospel and Protestant light,
until " light shall conquer darkness," and England's
Church shall once more be the greatest bulwark against
Popery to be found in the world. We are looking for
ward to times of war, not of peace. We need brave men
now, men who will love the glorious Gospel brought back
again to life at the Reformation, more than ease, or
friends, or life.

As to the Jerusalem Bishopric Pusey threatened the
Archbishop in these words : — " But any step which has
a tendency to bring her [the Church of England] into
relations with foreign un-Catholic bodies, will be unset
tling. Any advance to Protestantism will produce a
counter-movement towards Romanism." l He expressed
a fear lest attempts should be made to convert people
from the Eastern Church. To act in this way he actually
declared would be " encouraging sin," 2 though he must
have known that that Church was steeped in doctrinal
corruption and superstition. He had no objection to the

1 Pusey's Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Some Circumstances Con
nected with the Present Crisis in the English Church, p. 1 12.
* Ibid. p. 117.

210 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

Lutherans being {t absorbed into our Church, " and he had
at first looked forward to such an absorption with hope ;
but as to this Jerusalem Bishopric : — " Think/' he wrote,
"only of its effect on the Orthodox Greek communion
(apart from the graver and deeper question of the re
sponsibility we should ourselves incur), what suspicion
must needs be cast upon us, that we thus, in their very
presence, sanction bodies whom they have anathematised,
not incorporating them into ourselves nor infusing into
them our principles, but joined in an outward alliance
with them." 1 And all this dread of alliance with Lu
therans was almost solely caused by the fact that they
were not Episcopalians. One cannot wonder at the
language which Pusey's cousin, Lord Ashley, used when
he wrote to him, on January 18, 1842, with reference to
the Jerusalem Bishopric :—

" You talk," wrote Lord Ashley, " in allusion to the Bishopric, of
{ the grave injury of countenancing heresy ' ; this is the necessary
language, the inevitable issue of your principles ; thus you class with
the Gnostics, Cerinthians, &c., of old, with the Munster Anabaptists
and Socinians of modern days, the whole mass of the Protestant
Churches of Europe, except England and Sweden. Every one,
however deep his piety, however holy his belief, however prostrate
his heart in faith and fear before God and his Saviour, however
simple and perfect his reliance on the merits of his Redeemer, is
consigned by you, if he be not Episcopally ruled, to the outward
darkness of the children of the Devil ; while in the same breath you
designate the Church of Rome as the sweet Spouse of Christ, and
hide all her abominable idolatries under the mantle of her Bishops.
This is, to my mind, absolutely dreadful ; and I say of your friends,
as old Jacob said of Simeon and Levi, ' Oh, my soul, come not thou
into their secret."' 2

Mr. Gladstone was invited to become one of the
Trustees of the Jerusalem Bishopric, and he accepted the
post, but subsequently withdrew from it. He was, how
ever, present at a dinner which Bunsen gave on October
15, 1841, at the Star and Garter, Richmond, and at which
the new Bishop of Jerusalem and many other friends

1 Pusey's Letter to the Archbishop of Cauterbtiry on Some Circumstances Con
nected with the Present Crisis in the English Church, p. 115.

2 Life of Lord Shaftesbury, pp. 211, 212.

NEWMAN'S PROTEST 211

were present. Writing to his wife afterwards Bunsen
said : — " Then I arose, and proposed ' The Church of
England, and the venerable Prelates at her Head ' ; and
spoke as I felt. M'Caul returned thanks, speaking of
Jerusalem, which led to Gladstone's toast, ' Prosperity to
the Church of St. James at Jerusalem, and to her first
Bishop.' Never was heard a more exquisite speech — it
flowed like a gentle and translucent stream." l

As to Newman, he took the matter so seriously to
heart that, as he tells us in his Apologia : — " This was the
third blow, which finally shattered my faith in the Angli
can Church. That Church was not only forbidding any
sympathy or concurrence with the Church of Rome, but
it actually was courting an intercommunion with Protes
tant Prussia and the heresy of the Orientals." : To his
friends Newman spoke of the Jerusalem Bishopric in such
terms as these : — "This atrocious Jerusalem Bishop affair"; 3
"This fearful business of the Bishop of Jerusalem" ; 4 "It
is hideous." ' So he got up a " Protest " of his own against
the Bishopric, of which Pusey expressed his approval,6 and
sent it to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of
Oxford, commencing thus : —

" Whereas the Church of England has a claim on the allegiance
of Catholic believers only on the ground of her own claim to be
considered a branch of the Catholic Church :

"And whereas the recognition of heresy, indirect as well as direct,
goes far to destroy such claim in the case of any religious body
advancing it :

"And whereas to admit maintainers of heresy to communion,
without formal renunciation of their errors, goes far towards recog
nising the same :

" And whereas Luther anism and Calvinism are heresies^ repugnant
to Scripture, springing up three centuries since, and anathematised
by East as well as West :

"And whereas it is reported that the Most Reverend Primate
and other Right Reverend Rulers of our Church have consecrated a

1 Memoirs of Baron Bunsen, vol. i. p. 625.

2 Apologia Pro Vita Sua, p. 248.

8 Newman's Letters^ vol. ii. p. 352. 4 Ibid. p. 352. 8 Ibid. p. 353.

6 Memoirs of James Hope- Scott, vol. i. p. 317.

212 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

Bishop with a view to exercising spiritual jurisdiction over Protestant,
that is, Lutheran and Calvinist, congregations in the East . . .

" On these grounds, I in ray place, being a priest of the English
Church and Vicar of St. Mary the Virgin's, Oxford, by way of
relieving my conscience, do hereby solemnly protest against the
measure aforesaid, and disown it, as removing our Church from her
present ground, and tending to her disorganisation." 1

Opposition of this violent kind raised the indignation
of many High Churchmen, including some who approved
of the earlier of the Tracts for the Times, and made
Archdeacon Samuel Wilberforce declare : " I confess I
feel furious at the craving of men for union with idola
trous, material, sensual, domineering Rome, and their
squeamish anathematising hatred of Protestant Reformed
men." 2

Another event occurred towards the close of 1841,
which requires notice in these pages, viz., the contest
for the Professorship of Poetry in Oxford University.
Two candidates applied for the vacant Professorship, the
Rev. Isaac Williams ; and the Rev. James Garbett, late
Fellow of Brasenose College and Bampton Lecturer-
Elect for 1842. The excitement which centred round
the election was intense. It became a great party con
test, in which the question before the electors was only
nominally, which of the two candidates is the best poet ?
The real question for their decision was, which is the
best Churchman ? Mr. Williams was the candidate put
forward by the Tractarians ; Mr. Garbett was the Pro
testant candidate. The great objection to Mr. Williams
was caused by his being the author of two of the Tracts
for the Times which had raised a storm of indignation
throughout the country. Each of these Tracts bore the
same title, " On Reserve in Communicating Religious
Knowledge," the first being No. 80 of the Tracts for the
Times, and the second No. 87 of the series. The follow
ing extracts from these documents contain the passages

1 Newman's Letters, vol. ii. pp. 362, 363. Newman's Apologia, pp. 251, 252.

2 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 213.

THE TRACT ON "RESERVE" 213

which were most objected against by Churchmen. The
italics are mine : —

" The object of the present inquiry is to ascertain, whether there
is not in God's dealings with mankind, a very remarkable holding
back of sacred and important truths, as if the knowledge of them
were injurious to persons unworthy of them." *

"Not only is the exclusive and naked exposure of so very sacred
a truth [as the 'Doctrine of the Atonement'] unscriptural and
dangerous, but, as Bishop Wilson says, the comforts of Religion
ought to be applied with great caution. And moreover to require,
as is sometimes done, from both grown persons and children, an
explicit declaration of a belief in the Atonement, and the full assur
ance of its power, appears equally untenable." 2

"These riches [that is, certain 'sacred truths'] are all secret,
given to certain dispositions — not cast loosely on the world. . . .
The great doctrines which of late years have divided Christians, are
again of this [' secret '] kind very peculiarly, such as the subjects of
Faith and Works, of the free Grace of God, and obedience on the
part of man. . . . They appear to be great secrets, notwithstanding
whatever may be said of them, only revealed to the faithful." 3

"With respect to the Holy Sacraments, it is in these, and by
these chiefly, that the Church of all ages has held the Doctrine of the
Atonement after a certain manner of reserve. . . . Now here it is
very evident at once that the great difference between the two
systems [i.e. what Williams terms the true Catholic, and the
modern Protestant system] consists in this, that the one holds the
doctrine secretly as it were ; and the other in a public and popular

manner." 4

"The same may be shown with respect to the powers of
Priestly Absolution, and the gifts conferred thereby. It is not re
quired for our purpose to show the reality of that power, and the
magnitude of those gifts which are thus dispensed. But a little
consideration will show, that if the Church of all ages is right in
exercising these privileges, the subject is one entirely of this reserved
and mystical character. Its blessings are received in secret, accord
ing to faith : they are such as the world cannot behold, and cannot
receive. The subject is one so profound and mysterious, that it hardly
admits of being put forward in a popular way, and doubtless more
injury than benefit would be done to religion by doing so incon
siderately." 5

1 Tract LXXX. p. 3. 2 Ibid. p. 78. * Ibid. pp. 48, 49.

4 Tract LXXX VII. pp. 88, 89. 6 Ibid. p. 90.

214 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

We cannot be surprised to learn that the Evangelical
and Protestant Churchmen of the day were alarmed at
such teaching as this. They, at any rate, would not be a
party to the teaching that the doctrines of the Atonement,
Faith and Works, the Free Grace of God, and the Sacra
ments were to be treated as secrets to be imparted only
to those who could be trusted. And they had a just
reason to dread that this doctrine of Reserve would be
used — as it actually was — by the Tractarians to hide their
real objects from cautious Protestants. They acted
crookedly, as Mr. De Lisle tells us very truly, "for the
purpose of throwing dust in the eyes of the Dissenters
and the Low Churchmen." l Mr. Williams himself, in his
Autobwgraphy} tells us, when describing the Poetry Pro
fessorship contest : — " That the Low Church party as a
body should oppose me, as Wadham College did, was
all right and natural — my Tract No. 80 was against them
— they rightly understood it, there was no mistake'' : And
again, Mr. Williams writes : — " With regard to the great
obloquy it [Tract No. 80] occasioned from the Low Church
Party, this was to be expected— it was against their
hollow mode of proceeding ; it was understood as it was
meant, and of this I do not complain." 3

I cannot therefore think that it was any great cause
for surprise that, as soon as Mr. Isaac Williams' name was
known as a candidate for the vacant post of Professor of
Poetry, the Evangelical Party made an effort to oppose it.
On November 16, 1841, a circular letter was issued in
Mr. Garbett's favour, in which, after calling attention to
the fact that Mr. Williams was a writer in the Tracts for
the Times , and author of the Tract On Reserve in Communi
cating Religious Knowledge, it continued : — " The election of
Mr. Williams in Mr. Keble's room would undoubtedly be
represented as a decision of Convocation in favour of his
party ; and the resident members of our College are
unanimous in thinking that this would be a serious evil,
as well as highly discreditable to the University." 4 The

1 Life of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, vol. i. p. 217.

2 Autobiography of Isaac Williams, p. 139. 3 Ibid. p. 91.
4 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 262.

THE POETRY PROFESSORSHIP CONTEST 215

very next day after this letter was written, Dr. Pusey sent
out a letter on the same subject to the members of Con
vocation; with whom rested the election, in which he
advocated strongly the candidature of Mr. Williams, and
urged them to vote for him. This letter seems to have
displeased Williams, because it brought out the contro
versial question too prominently. " At first," he said,
" things went on silently and quietly, without any overt
act that stamped it as a religious or party movement.
But this comparative quietude was very soon broken up
by Pusey, unwittingly, and as it was thought most un
wisely, for what he did immediately gave our adversaries
all that they desired. This was the printed circular
which he issued in my praise and in my favour, com
plaining of my being bitterly opposed merely and avow
edly for my Church principles. Upon this, the opposite
party had promises pouring in on all sides, and many,
who had been with us, held aloof, and some withdrew
their promises. . . . The commotion filled the papers and
all parts of the land." * Of Pusey's circular, Dean Church
writes : — " In an unlucky moment for Mr. WTilliams,
Dr. Pusey, not without the knowledge, but without the
assenting judgment of Mr. Newman, thought it well to
send forth a circular, in Christ Church first, but soon
with wider publicity, asking support for Mr. Williams as
a person whose known religious views would ensure his
making his office minister to religious truth. Nothing
could be more innocently meant. It was the highest
purpose to which that office could be devoted. But the
mistake was seen on all sides as soon as made. The
Principal of Mr. Garbett's College, Dr. Gilbert, like a
general jumping on his antagonist whom he had caught
in the act of a false move, put forth a dignified counter-
appeal, alleging that he had not raised this issue, but
adding that as it had been raised and avowed on the other
side, he was quite willing that it should be taken into
account, and the dangers duly considered of that teaching
with which Dr. Pusey's letter had identified Mr. Williams.

1 Autobiography of Isaac Williams, pp. 138, 139.

2l6 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

No one from that moment could prevent the contest from
becoming almost entirely a theological one, which was to
try the strength of the party of the movement." l

The friends of Mr. Williams quite expected that Arch
deacon Samuel Wilberforce would vote for him, and the
Rev. Sir G. Prevost wrote to him for his support. The
Archdeacon's reply is interesting and important, as showing
that he had decided to part company with the Tractarians,
whose Romeward tendencies began to alarm him.

" I had hoped," wrote Wilberforce, " to vote for Isaac Williams ;
and felt sure that I need under no circumstances vote against him ;
for na mere interest of Poetry, even if a fitter man appeared, could
compel me to vote against old friendship. But Pusey's unhappy
letter about it has quite altered the circumstances of the case. He
has made it a distinct question of peculiar tenets, and thus falls in
remarkably with the last British Critic. I cannot hide from myself
that now it must be, whatever one means, simply expressing publicly,
aye or no, one's approbation of, or dissent from, the most peculiar
features of the teaching of the Tract writers. With them, as you well
know, I have never agreed. Their views on many points (specially
the Tract on Reserve) have appeared to me so dangerous, that, at all
costs, I felt I must bear my feeble testimony against them in my
Oxford sermons, &c., &c. Of late, also, they have seemed to me to
advance at immense speed. Newman's view of Justification, the
language of Tract XC., the British Critic, &c., as to Rome; the
craving after unity through some visible centre ; the saying that old
Rome was that centre (whereas I believe that to be the central point
of the old Papal lie, the seed of everything, the truly putting the
Church for Christ, instead of showing it as full of Christ, the root of
their opus operatum in Baptism, Transubstantiation, Tradition, &c.,
&c.) ; the fearful doctrine of sin after Baptism, the whole tone about
the Reformers, &c., &c., all this has pained and grieved me so
entirely, that I have felt daily obliged more and more, from the love
of the truth as I saw it, from love to our Church, whose principles
and very life I believe this teaching threatens, with formality and
Romanism on the one hand, and a cold formality and Dissent (by
its revulsion) on the other, to take on all occasions a position of more
direct opposition to the School than I had of old thought necessary ;
being content before to feel that, whilst I honoured their zeal, and
was abashed by their holiness, and joined heartily in much Church

1 Church's Oxford Movement, p. 274.

THE REV. F. W. FABER'S CONDUCT 217

truth they had brought forward, I myself was of another School of
opinion and feeling ; but now, feeling that one must contend against
what was spreading so widely, and shedding the seeds of Romanism
. . . How can I, at such a moment, vote for Isaac, with the truth
before me that all his voters will be men who wish to bear their testi
mony to their persuasion of the truth of these principles, with which
Dr. Pusey's letter has identified him in this contest ? Can I escape,
at every sacrifice, voting against him ? " 1

It was soon evident that what Mr. F. Rogers (after
wards Lord Blachford, and a warm friend of the Tract
arians), termed the " most outrageously injudicious letter " 2
of Pusey had destroyed any chance of the success of
Williams' candidature. But the contest was carried on
until early in January 1842, when Mr. Gladstone got up a
memorial to the rival committees of Garbett and Williams,
signed by 253 non-resident members of Convocation, and
by the Bishops of Oxford, Exeter, Salisbury, Ripon, and
Sodor and Man, requesting the withdrawal of both candi
dates. Mr. Garbett's committee declined to entertain the
proposal, while Williams' committee suggested a compari
son of promises made to both candidates. This latter pro
posal was accepted by Mr. Garbett's committee, and with
the result that it was found that 92 i members of Convoca
tion had promised to vote for Garbett, while only 623 had
promised to vote for Williams. The result was that Mr.
Williams withdrew from the contest, and Mr. Garbett was
elected as Professor of Poetry in the room of Mr. Keble.

With the year 1842 the tide of secessions to Rome
from the ranks of the Tractarians began to flow rapidly.
In that year several prominent members of the party
seceded. Many of the Tractarians commenced passing
their holidays in visiting Continental churches and holding
conferences with the Roman prelates and priests they met
there. These visits greatly tended to move the more
advanced men towards Rome. One of these travellers,
who subsequently published a volume describing his travels,
was the well-known Rev. Frederick WTilliam Faber, after
wards known as Father Faber, of the Brompton Oratory.

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. pp. 205, 206.

2 Letters of Lord Blachford, p. 106.

2l8 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

I have elsewhere l given ample proof of Mr. Faber's out
rageously Romanising conduct at this period, and therefore
I need not repeat it here ; but I may be permitted to
mention a startling fact concerning his visit to the Con
tinent in 1841, with which I have only recently become
acquainted. Faber published, early in 1842, an account
of this visit to the Continent, under the title of Sights and
Thoughts in Foreign Churches, rilling no less than 645 octavo
pages. In this book, Faber mentions again and again
certain interviews with an imaginary representative of the
Dark Ages whom he met during his travels, and whom he
terms the " Stranger." He reports the many assertions and
arguments which this " Stranger " put forth as a Roman
Catholic, in favour of the Church of Rome in the Dark
Ages ; while, at the same time, he also reports in full the
arguments which he (Mr. Faber) brought forward in favour
of the Church of England against the Papal claims of the
li Stranger." It now appears, on the authority of Faber's
biographer, Father ]. E. Bowden, of the Brompton Ora
tory, that in this matter Faber deliberately and intentionally
deceived the public. The Popish views which he repre
sented as those expressed by the Romish " Stranger " were
in reality those held at the time by Faber himself, and many
of the views expressed in the book as his own were those
to which he was, in reality, strongly opposed. "The
' Stranger,' " writes Father Bowden, " as he is usually
called, personates, in fact, Mr. Faber's own Catholic feel
ings and tendencies, against which he appears to contend." :
And here we may profitably inquire, what were " Mr.
Faber's own Catholic feelings and tendencies " thus deceit
fully put by him into the mouth of the " Stranger " but
which were held by him [Faber], as a clergyman of the
Church of England, four years before he seceded to Rome ?
The " Stranger " is represented as saying : —

"To such of you Englishmen as feel the want of it, does not
celibacy afford to a priest one of the underhand (by which, not

1 Secret History of the Oxford Movement, chapter i.

2 Life and Letters of Frederick William Faber, D.D. By John Edward Bow
den, 2nd edition, p. 75-

EXTRACTS FROM FABER'S BOOKS 2IQ

to be misunderstood, is meant unoffending inwardly realised) ways
in which meek hearts may attain to a stronger feeling of communion
with the rest of Western Christendom ? " 1

" There has seldom been a family on a throne with so few re
spectable qualities as the English Tudors. The bitter and narrow-
minded Mary deserves the most esteem ; for s/ie, through principles in
which she had faith, gave up to the Pope what was nearest and
dearest to a Tudor 's heart, unshared supremacy" 2

"What! does not the majesty of Rome, that awful Church, so
overawe your spirit as to prevent your talking with such curious
ingenuity of Rome's penitence ? " 3

" Yet believe me, Rome will be permitted to lie grievously on
those who will not reverence her. She is marked, not by her own
hand, for reverence."4

" Oh, Rome ! the city of my times, the place of our glad and lowly
pilgrimages, how changed thou art in many things, but still thou art
Rome, and hast Rome's prerogative — a tremendous power to ban or
bless! "s

" The usual Protestant objections to the legends and miracles of
the Middle Ages peril authority of the Holy Scripture itself." 6

" And as to the modification of the Monastic principle embodied
in the Order of the Jesuits, you have only to look on the consistent
encroachment which Rome has made upon the strongholds of Pro-
testamism ever since, in order to understand and estimate the extent
of service performed by that Order for the Holy See. I cannot,
therefore, agree with you, that Religious Orders have been failures.
On the contrary, a revival of the Monastic spirit seems to be
one feature in every crisis of the Church, and to bear fruit abun
dantly."7

"You put forward the highest possible claims for your Church [of
England], often in a tone of pharisaical self-conceit, as though the
usages and beliefs of the greater part of Christendom were of no
account whatever in your eyes ; you repeatedly indulge in a very
offensive sort of commiseration of Rome, forgetting, on the one
hand, that you are very young, and, on the other, that Rome's com
munion is much more extensive than your own, and comprehends
wisdom and holiness which must demand the respect of every
thoughtful and modest man."8

Sights and Thoughts in Foreign Churches. By Frederick William Faber,

p. 130.

2 Ibid. p. 167. 6 Ibid. p. 276.

3 Ibid. p. 170. 7 Ibid.^. 356.

4 Ibid. p. 171. 8 Ibid. p. 362.
6 Ibid. p. 172.

22O HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

" But the temper, which would be called the temper of persecu
tion, might be kindled among you [that is, in the Church of England]
by Monasteries, and would be not the least important BLESSING which
would spring from them" 1

"True, they [Monasteries] have ['ever been nurseries of intoler
ance and persecution '] ; and can any virtue be higher than an intoler
ance of evil, and a hunting it from the earth ? Why be frightened
at words? Persecution belongs not, strictly speaking, to the
Church. Her weapon, and a most dire one, is excommunication,
whereby she cuts off the offender from the fountains of life in this
world, and makes him over from her own judgment to that of
Heaven in the world to come. But surely it is the duty of Christian
States to deprive such an excommunicate person of every social right
and privilege ; to lay on him such pains and penalties as may seem
good to the wisdom of the law; or even, if they so judge^ to sweep him
from the earth. The least which can be done is to make a civil death
to follow an ecclesiastical death; and this must be done where the
Church and State stand in right positions to each other." 2

If conduct like this of Faber's, in passing off as the
opinions of a Romanist what were really his own
opinions ; and representing himself as opposed to most of
them, can be justified, it will follow that we can never
know what an author's opinions really are. To my mind
Faber was guilty of shameful and inexcusable deception,
which reminds me very forcibly of what another Tract-
arian clergyman of the period, the Rev. W. G. Ward,
used to say to his disciples : — " Make yourselves clear
that you are justified in deception, and then lie like a
trooper ! " 3

It was in the year 1842 that the Rev. William Goode
(afterwards Dean of Ripon) came publicly forward as a
learned and able champion of Reformation principles
against the Tractarians. Evangelical Churchmen owe a
lasting debt of gratitude to Mr. Goode for the many pamph
lets and books he wrote against the Romeward Movement.
They are of permanent value, and as much needed at the

1 Sights and Thoughts in Foreign Churches. By Frederick William Faber,
p. 420.

z Ibid. p. 419.

3 William George Ward and the Oxford Movement. By Wilfrid Ward,
P- Si-

MR. GOODE'S PROTESTANT WORKS 221

present time as when they were first issued. It is a pity
that they are not more widely known, for the arguments
they contain are as much needed now as when they were
first published. Mr. Goode's pamphlet, The Case as It Is,
issued in 1842, was an able reply to Dr. Pusey's Letter to
the Archbishop of Canterbury, which I have already noticed.
In this pamphlet Mr. Goode clearly proved that he, at
least, was alive to the serious nature of the issues which
were at stake. His opening sentence shows it. "That
the very existence of the English Church," he wrote, " as
restored by our Reformers, depends upon the issue of the
controversy raised within her by the authors of the Tracts
for the Times, and their adherents, can hardly be now con
sidered a doubtful matter." Mr. Goode exposes the
Romanising character of the doctrines of the Tractarians
(whom he terms " Tractators ") by copious quotations
from their writings ; and at the same time gives a startling
exhibition of the methods of quotation which they adopted,
when citing in their favour the chief writers of the Re
formed Church, whose real principles, as he clearly proves,
were strongly opposed to those held by the Tractarians.
" Isolated sentences from our great divines," wrote Mr.
Goode, " have been paraded before the public eye, as
evidence of their approval of sentiments which their works,
as a whole, show that they abhorred." '

Mr. Goode's great work was The Divine Ride of Faith
and Practice, published this year in two large volumes, of
which a second and enlarged edition was published, in
three volumes, in i853.3 The author showed an exten
sive and intimate acquaintance, not only with the writings
of our great Anglican Divines, but also with those of the
Fathers of the Christian Church. His subject was one
of the highest importance, and he dealt with it in a
masterly manner. It is a pity that the work has never

1 The Case as It Is ; or, a Reply to the Letter of Dr. Pusey, 2nd edition,
p. 5, London : 1842.

2 Ibid. p. 50.

3 The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice ; or, "A Defence of the Catholic
Doctrine that Holy Scripture has been, since the Times of the Apostles, the sole
Divine Rule of Faith and Practice to the Church," 2nd edition. Three vols.
London : 1853.

222 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

been issued in an abridged form. The late Lord Chan
cellor Selborne says, in a passage already cited, that
" When William Goode, afterwards Dean of Ripon, in his
Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, called the Fathers them
selves as witnesses in favour of the direct use of Scripture
for the decision of controversies, some of those who
placed confidence in the Oxford Divines, but were them
selves ignorant of the Fathers, waited anxiously for answers
which never came." ]

In May 1842, Dr. Bagot, Bishop of Oxford, delivered
his fourth Visitation Charge to his clergy, in which at
some length he directed attention to the Tractarian Move
ment. He stated that he saw no reason to alter his senti
ments, as to the Tracts for the Times, which he had expressed
in his third Visitation Charge, in 1838, in which he had
called attention to what he conceived to have been good in
those Tracts, and to " the tendencies in them which " he
" considered dangerous " ; and in which he had stated
that his " fears arose, for the most part, rather from the
disciples than the teachers." 2 He again praised the Tract
writers for their personal character and conduct, though
as to Tract XC. he declared : — " I cannot reconcile myself
to a system of interpretation, which is so subtle, that by
it the Articles may be made to mean anything or no
thing." 3 Nevertheless, he asserted of the Tracts as a
whole, that they " have, from their commencement, ex
erted a beneficial influence amongst us in many respects."4
As to the disciples of the Tract writers, for them he had
words of severe censure. " They are," he said, " doing no
good service to the Church of England, by their recent pub
lications of manuals of private devotion, extracted from
the Breviary and similar sources — by inserting therein no
small portion of highly objectionable matter, and tacitly,
if not openly, encouraging young persons to be dissatisfied
with what God has given them." 5 He thought there was

1 Memorials Family and Personal, 1766-1865. By the Earl of Selborne,
vol. i. p. 210.

2 A Charge Delivered by Richard Bagot, D.D., Bishop of Oxford, p. 16.
Oxford : 1842.

3 Ibid. p. 17. 4 Ibid. p. 19. 5 Ibid. p. 23.

BISHOP BAGOT'S CHARGE CRITICISED 223

a very real danger of secessions to Rome, not, however,
from amongst the clergy, but from the young and rising
generation ; and he urged the clergy to do all in their
power to prevent such secessions.

It was by no means a satisfactory Charge on the
whole, and it seems to have given more pleasure than
annoyance to the leaders of the Tractarian party. New
man wrote to Keble about it, on May 24, 1842 : — " You
will be glad to hear that the Bishop's Charge delivered
yesterday was very favourable to us, or rather to our
cause, for some of us suffered." ] The Evangelical Mr.
Goode was, however, by no means pleased with the
Charge, and, therefore, at once subjected it to a public
criticism, in the form of a Letter to the Bishop, who is
reminded by Mr. Goode that the Romanists had termed
him, as the author of such a Charge, " the apologist of
the Tractarians." ' " Tractarianism," Mr. Goode said to
the Bishop, " has been nursed under your eye. It has
professed a readiness to act according to your bidding.
You have suffered it to spread its principles in all direc
tions throughout the Church. You have permitted it to
proceed in its career unchecked." £ He pointed out the
inconsistencies of the Charge. " One part of the Charge
seems to be answered by another." 4 It is sometimes
supposed that the Tractarians preached the pure Gospel.
Mr. Goode did not think so. " My Lord," he wrote to
Dr. Bagot, " if the Tractarians are preaching the Gospel
of Christ in any degree of purity, their opponents are not
so preaching It ; and if their opponents are so preaching
it, they are not. This they have themselves admitted, nay
urged upon us." 5 In conclusion he said : — " The reflec
tion forces itself upon the most unthinking, How different
would have been the state of things, if four years ago the
admonitions of the Bishop of Oxford had been distinct
and decisive ! God grant that another four years may

1 Newman's Letters, vol. ii. p. 396.

2 Some Difficulties in the late Charge of the Bishop of Oxford. By William
Goode, M.A., p. 3. London: 1842.

3 Ibid. p. 5. 4 Ibid. p. 14. 5 Ibid. p. 29.

224 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

not force upon y.our lordship and the Church reflections
still more painful." :

In this same year the Rev. George Stanley Faber pub
lished his most useful Provincial Letters from the County-
Palatine of Durham, directed against the Tractarians.
Mr. Faber was a learned and prolific writer, and his works
on the Roman controversy are well worthy of study at
the present time.2

It was in the year 1842 that the first annual meeting
of the Parker Society was held. The Society was formed
in 1840, and completed its work in 1855. It was founded
for the purpose of " reprinting, without abridgment, altera
tion, or omission, the best Works of the Fathers and early
Writers of the Reformed English Church, published in the
period between the accession of King Edward VI. and the
death of Queen Elizabeth ; secondly, the printing of such
remains of other Writers of the Sixteenth Century as
may appear desirable (including, under both classes, some
of the early English Translations of the Foreign Re
formers) ; and thirdly, the printing of some manuscripts
of the same authors, hitherto unpublished." * There can
be no doubt that the object of the promoters of the Parker
Society was to counteract, as far as possible, the influence
of certain portions of the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology }
issued by the Tractarians, and including the works of
several Laudian Divines of the seventeenth century, and
the Nonjurors. Lord Ashley became the first President
of the Parker Society, and from the commencement of its
operations it was most successful. Its first annual report
stated that no fewer than upwards of 6000 annual sub
scriptions of one guinea each had been received. Amongst
the subscribers were the Dowager Queen Adelaide, Prince
Albert, the King of Prussia, the Dukes of Kent, Sussex,
Devonshire, and Sutherland, and the Bishops of London,

1 Some Difficulties in the late Charge of the Bishop of Oxford. By William
Goode, M.A., p. 30. London: 1842.

2 Provincial Letters from the County -Palatine of Durham, exhibiting the
Nature and Tendency of the Principles put forth by the Writers of the Tracts for
the Times, and their various Allies and Associates. By the Rev. G. Stanley
Faber. Two vols. 1842.

3 First Annual Report of the Parker Society, 1842, p. 10.

THE PARKER SOCIETY 22§

Durham, Winchester, Lincoln, Rochester, Llandaff, Ches
ter, Worcester, Ripon, Peterborough, Lichfield, Chichester,
Worcester, and Sodor and Man. The second annual
report announced that for 1843 7500 subscriptions had
come in. In 1849 it was reported that the Duchess of
Kent and the Archbishops of Canterbury and York had
become subscribers. In issuing the thirteenth and final
report the Committee of the Parker Society state that
they had published in all fifty-five volumes of the writings
of the Protestant Reformers, including an Index Volume
to the whole of their publications. These volumes con
tain the writings of Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Jewel,
Hooper, Bradford, Nowell, Whitaker, and other promi
nent men of the sixteenth century. Those who wish to
find strong arguments against Ritualistic doctrines, drawn
from the Bible and the writings of the Fathers, cannot
do better than consult the publications of the Parker
Society.

CHAPTER IX

Dr. Pusey's sermon on The Holy Eucharist — Denounced to the Vice-
Chancellor— The Six Doctors — Their opinion of the sermon —
Private negotiations with Pusey — Pusey suspended for two years
— His protest — Dr. Hawkins' explanatory letter — Proposed friendly
prosecution — Lord Camoys on Pusey's sermon — Curious Clerical
Libel Case — An extraordinary Clerical Brawling Case — Protests
against Puseyism — The English Churchman started by the Pusey-
ites — Newman's progress Romeward — He resigns St. Mary's and
retires to Littlemore — Archdeacon Wilberforce on " the insane love
for Rome " — Palmer's Narrative of Events — Pusey issues " adapted "
Roman Catholic books of devotion — Newman tells him they will
"promote the cause of the Church of Rome" — Hook thinks "they
will make men Infidels" — Extracts from these books — What Pius
IX. said about Dr. Pusey — Bishop Blomfield on the effect of adapted
Roman books — Puseyites advocate Ecclesiastical Prosecutions of
Protestant clergy — The Bishop of Exeter and the Surplice in the
Pulpit— Legality of the Black Gown in the Pulpit— Ward's Ideal of
a Christian Church — Puseyite attack on Dr. Symons — Defeated —
Attempt to prosecute the Rev. James Garbett — Failure — Stone
Altars and Credence Tables — Faulkener v. Litchfield — Judgment
of the Court of Arches — The Cambridge Camden Society — De
nounced by the Rev. F. Close.

THE most important ecclesiastical event in the year 1843
was the sermon on The Holy Eucharist a Comfort to the
Penitent, preached by Dr. Pusey before the University on
the fourth Sunday after Easter, which led to his being
suspended from preaching in the University pulpit for two
years. In this sermon he taught, in unmistakable terms, the
doctrine of the Real Presence in the consecrated elements,
and what is termed the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The fol
lowing extracts from the sermon show what his teaching
was on this subject : —

"And we, if we are wise, shall never ask how they can be
elements of this world and yet His very Body and Blood." *

1 The Holy Eucharist a Comfort to the Penitent, p. 7. Oxford : 1843.

226

PUSEY'S SERMON ON THE EUCHARIST 227

"The same reality of the Divine Gift makes It Angels' food to
the Saint, the ransom to the sinner. And both because It is the
Body and Blood of Christ. Were it only a thankful commemoration
of His redeeming love, or only a showing forth of His death, or a
strengthening only and refreshing of the soul, it were indeed a reason
able service, but it would have no direct healing for the sinner. To
him its special joy is that it is his Redeemer's very Broken Body, It
is His Blood, which was shed for the remission of his sins. In the
words of the Ancient Church, he ' drinks his ransom,' he eateth that,
'the very Body and Blood of the Lord, the only Sacrifice for sin,'
God ' poureth out ' for him yet ' the most precious Blood of His
Only Begotten.'"1

"And'this may have been another truth, which our Lord in
tended to convey to us, when He pronounced the words as the form
which consecrates the sacramental elements into His Body and
Blood, that that Precious Blood is still, in continuance and applica
tion of His One Oblation once made upon the Cross, poured out
for us now, conveying to our souls, as being His Blood, with the
other benefits of His Passion, the remission of our sins also. . . .
'That which is in the Cup,' S. Chrysostome paraphrases, 'is that
which flowed from His side, and of that do we partake.' How
should we approach His Sacred Side, and remain leprous still?
Touching with our very lips that cleansing Blood, how may we not,
with the Ancient Church, confess, * Lo, this hath touched my lips,
and shall take away mine iniquities and cleanse my sins ? '" 2

The Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Dr. Faussett,
denounced the sermon at once to the Vice-Chancellor
(Dr. Wynter), and requested him to apply to Pusey for a
copy of his sermon, in order that the soundness of its
doctrine might be tested. In sending this request on to
Pusey the Vice-Chancellor wrote : — " I do not know that
at this period of time it is necessary that I should express
my own opinion upon it [Pusey's sermon, which he had
heard preached]. But in candour and fairness I think it
right to confess that its general scope and certain par
ticular passages have awakened in my mind painful doubts
with regard to its strict conformity to the doctrines of the
Reformed Church of England." 3 After a delay of a few

1 The Holy Eucharist a Comfort to the Penitent, p. 18.

2 Ibid. pp. 22, 23.

3 Life of Dr. Pusey ; vol. ii. p. 311.

228 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

days, and the insertion by him into the manuscript of
certain references to the writings of the Fathers, Pusey
sent his sermon as requested, together with a letter, in
which he said : — " I felt so entirely sure that I heartily
concur with the doctrine of the Church of England, I
have so often and decidedly expressed my rejection of the
doctrine of Transubstantiation, and the Canons of the
Council of Trent upon it, that, neither before nor after
preaching my sermon, had I the slightest thought that
any could arraign it as contrary to the doctrines of our
Church " ; and, he added : — " I believe that after Con
secration the Holy Elements are in their natural sub
stances bread and wine, and yet are also the Body and
Blood of Christ. This I believe is a mystery." 1 He
concluded with a request that the Vice-Chancellor would
t{ choose that course allowed by the Statute which permits
the accused to answer for himself." The Vice-Chancellor
thereupon appointed six Doctors as judges to try the case,
of whom he was himself one. They met for the first time
on May 24th, when the sermon was read to them and
discussed. They met again on May 27th, when the greater
number of them brought with them separate written
opinions on the sermon. One of the number, Dr. Jelf, a
personal friend of Pusey's, who had consented to be one
of his judges " with the hope of benefiting " him,2 said
that he did not think the sermon contrary to the teaching
of the Church of England ; but even he had to acknow
ledge that there was in it " much that is objectionable in
tone, and language, and tendency." 3 Having heard the
opinion of the Court, the Vice-Chancellor declared that he
" considered Dr. Pusey guilty of the charge made against
him — namely, that he had preached certain things which
were either dissonant from or contrary to the doctrine of
the Church of England." 4

Dr. Pusey's request to be heard personally at the trial
was not acceded to. The biographer of Bishop Samuel
Wilberf orce says that, " The Statute under which the Board

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 313. 2 Ibid. p. 315.

8 Ibid. p. 317. 4 Ibid. p. 317.

PUSEY AND THE SIX DOCTORS 229

was appointed gave the accused the right to claim a hearing
in his own defence " ; 1 but this was not the case. One of
the three eminent Counsel, later on employed (by Pusey) to
give a legal opinion on the case (the Solicitor-General), gave
it as his opinion that the Statute " did not necessarily require
a hearing." 2 Canon Liddon says expressly that : — " It was
true that the Statute did not provide in express terms that
the author of a delated sermon should be heard in expla
nation or defence of his language." 3 Nevertheless it seems
that it was open to the Vice-Chancellor to have granted
Pusey's request, and I think it is much to be regretted that
he did not do so. I do not, however, suppose that if
Pusey had thus personally appeared before his judges that
it would have altered their decision ; and I believe that
their judgment when given was a just one. Many a just
judgment has been given even after a faulty trial. Yet,
strictly speaking, Pusey's friends of the present day are not
accurate in saying that he had no "hearing" before judg
ment was published against him ; nor is it correct to state
that his judges did not mention to him particular passages
of his sermon which they considered unsound. It is true
they did not hear his actual voice ; but they had before
them, and seriously considered, a lengthy statement in self-
defence and explanation from \\\s pen ; and in this sense
of the word he was not condemned unheard. And that
written statement of his was based upon particular extracts
from his sermons to which his attention had been called
privately by the Vice-Chancellor, who requested a retracta
tion of some of the specified statements of Pusey. The
two documents forwarded to Pusey from the Vice-Chan-
cellor, containing these extracts, are published in full in
the Life of Dr. Pusey, pages 323, 324; and his reply, de
fending and explaining his position, fill four closely printed
pages of that Life, from page 364 to 368. " On the after
noon of Thursday, June i," says Canon Liddon, "the
Vice-Chancellor and the Six Doctors met for a third time,
and in order to consider Pusey's reply. That it did not

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce> vol. i. p. 228.

2 Life of Dr. Pusey > vol. ii. p. 354. 3 Ibid. p. 317.

230 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

satisfy them goes without saying." l On the following day
the Vice-Chancellor published the sentence of suspension
of Dr. Pusey from preaching in the University pulpit. On
the same day Pusey published and circulated a protest
against the sentence, in which occurs the following startling
statement: — " I have ground to think that, as no propositions
out of my sermon have been exhibited to me as at variance
with the doctrine of our Church, so neither can they."2 The
negotiations which had taken place between the Vice-
Chancellor and Pusey were, by the former's request, treated
as secret and confidential. Were it not for this, I do not
think Pusey could ever have dared to make the untrue
statement contained in the extract from his protest just
given. That Pusey himself thought he had had some
opportunity of defending himself is clear from the private
letter he sent to the Vice-Chancellor on the day of the
sentence and protest : — " It does seem to me," he wrote,
" to be so utterly contrary to all principles of justice and
equity (not to speak of charity) to afford me no further
opportunity of vindication, that I can only say I pray that my
judges may not, in the Great Day, receive the measure
which they have dealt to me."3 He had, therefore, on his
own showing, " some opportunity of vindication " of his
position, as the words " no further opportunity " implies ;
but he thought the opportunity was not sufficient ; and in
this, to a certain extent, I am disposed to agree with him.
But nothing I have been able to discover justifies him in
asserting that no propositions from his sermon had been
exhibited to him. Rumours soon got abroad challenging
the veracity of Pusey. They troubled him exceedingly,
and no wonder. So he thought he would draw a red
herring across the trail of his opponents, by shifting the
controversy, from the truthfulness of his protest and his
own reputation, to the merits of the sermon itself, and this
by publishing the much criticised discourse. So, on June
nth, he wrote to Newman : — "Ward told me yesterday
evening some statements in the Morning Chronicle about
my Protest being ' Jesuitical,' ' every one here being dis-

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 325.

2 Ibid. p. 329. 8 Ibid. p. 330.

DR. HAWKINS' EXPLANATION 23!

gusted at it/ &c., which makes it necessary to determine
how to act. One line to which I have been inclining this
morning, is to let these things die a natural death, commit
my own reputation to God, stop privately the Protest in
London, and bring out my sermon, which will at once shift
the battle from these grounds to the theological questions. . . .
I feared, as soon as I knew it, that they would make out a
plausible case of inaccuracy against me; people will believe
just as they wish, and the whole controversy will be about
my veracity, which will indispose people to the truths of
the sermon when it appears." x Tactics such as these were
worthy of one who had already obtained a character for
Jesuitical conduct. An explanation published by Dr. Haw
kins, one of the Six Doctors, on December 31, 1844, in
the form of a letter to the Bishop of Exeter, may here be
quoted :—

" I will give," wrote Dr. Hawkins, " some account of the pro
ceedings — such as, I hope, may show that, if they were in any way
technically informal, they were substantially correct and just.

" It was, of course, our duty to act under the Statute ; we had
no power to amend it, and having ascertained the sense of the
Statute as correctly as we could, with the aid of those recorded
precedents to which we had access, we were satisfied that our
business in the first instance was exclusively with the written
sermon. If, indeed, the preacher could produce no copy of his
discourse, the Statute expressly provided that he should be called
upon to answer personally concerning the matters of which he was
suspected or accused ; but if (as in this instance) he delivered an
authentic copy of the sermon, there was no room for evidence or cross-
examination, and we had only to consider the sermon itself, not
discussing with the writer the doctrines which it contained, but compar
ing them with the formularies of the Church. This painful duty,
accordingly, we endeavoured to discharge as carefully as we could.

" Yet, in point of fact, we had also before us, at that time, some ex
planation and defence of the sermon from the author. For Dr. Pusey sent
a letter with the sermon, explaining his sentiments at greater length
with reference to the passage which was the most likely to be mis
construed; and he both prefaced his copy of the sermon and
accompanied it throughout with parallel passages from older Divines

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 336.

232 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

and from the Fathers, intended to justify the expressions which he
had used.

" But the judgment upon the sermon was only the first stage of
the proceedings. The Vice-Chancellor, having now to consider the
question as it respected the writer, could not forget that a writer's
meaning might be misapprehended, or his expressions admit of
qualification or correction, and even if in themselves censurable,
might be no proof that the author entertained ' unsound opinions.'
For the purpose of preventing such misapprehensions, therefore, he
entered into communication with Dr. Pusey in the interval between
the delivery of the judgment upon the sermon (May 27) and the
sentence issuing against the preacher (June 2).

"It is true, the Vice-Chancellor, who is as kind as he is
upright, did not desire the writer to wait upon him, nor did he
call upon the writer, nor did he consider it his duty to enter into
controversy with the preacher concerning points of doctrine, and did
not in this sense hear him ; but he sent to Dr. Pusey, by his most
intimate friend, written papers, stating the specific objections taken to
his discourse, and giving him opportunity to disclaim any meaning
improperly attached to his expressions, and to declare his adherence
to those parts of our Articles and formularies with which, under
such imputed meanings, his expressions had appeared to be at vari
ance. Dr. Pusey replied to these communications at some length, but
the papers not having proved satisfactory to him, and his answers
having failed to satisfy the Vice-Chancellor, the result was made
known to the assessors, and the sentence issued." 1

In reply to this letter, Dr. Pusey wrote : — " It is my
duty to state explicitly that the communications made to
me, after my sermon had been condemned, were expressly
declared by the Vice-Chancellor to have been made with
a view to recantation, not to explanation'' 2

Of course the suspension created a great commotion
in the ranks of those who, by this time, had become
popularly known as Puseyites ; and a great sensation was
produced throughout the country. An effort was made
to obtain a reversal of the sentence by an appeal to the
secular Law Courts ; but it fell through. Then a scheme
was planned for a friendly lawsuit, in which one of
Pusey's friends should be prosecutor and he the defend-

1 English Churchman, January 9, 1845, P- I9-

2 Ibid. p. 31.

"CERTAINLY NOT STRAIGHTFORWARD" 233

ant, on a charge of preaching false doctrine in his sermon,
contrary to the teaching of the Church of England. Dr.
Hook was one of the first to suggest this plan. " I should
think," he wrote to Pusey on June 4th, "you ought to
demand of the Bishop an investigation under the Church
Discipline Act." l Consultations with the lawyers took up
a considerable time, but at length, on October 12, 1844,
seventeen months after the sermon was preached, Pusey
wrote to the Bishop of Oxford announcing the proposed
friendly prosecution. "A friend of my own (Mr. Wood-
gate) will apply to your lordship to issue a Commission on
my printing a sermon which had been already condemned
in the University. Had the sermon been rightly con
demned, this would have been a most grave offence, much
graver than preaching it originally. I do then most
earnestly implore your lordship not to refuse the Com
mission. I have no anxiety whatever about the issue if
you grant it." 2 It is, I may here remark, wonderful to
behold the love for ecclesiastical prosecutions early mani
fested by the Puseyites, when they expected results satis
factory to themselves. The Bishop of Oxford, before
giving his decision, sought the advice of the Archbishop
of Canterbury. That prelate was strongly against the issue
of a Commission. He told the Bishop that the Church
Discipline Act gave him the right to veto the proposed
prosecution, and he warned him against being a party to
" a transaction of rather a dubious character, certainly not
straightforward."3 Acting on this advice, the Bishop
wrote to Pusey, on November 5th, declining to grant the
Commission asked for : — " I must distinctly state," wrote
the Bishop, "that I cannot consent to become a party to
what I consider not to be a straightforward proceeding." 4

It was a great blow to the Puseyite party, but it was
nothing more than they deserved. The sermon was dis
tinctly contrary to the teaching of the Church of England,
and it could only rejoice the hearts of her avowed enemies.
Two years later Newman pointed out that in this sermon,
out of 140 texts of the Fathers cited by Pusey, only four

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 349.

2 Ibid. p. 357. 3 Ibid. p. 359. 4 Ibid. p. 360.

234 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

were from the Fathers of the first three centuries.1 These
quotations from the Fathers, together with those from
Anglican Divines cited in the appendix to the sermon, were
exhaustively dealt with, later on, by the Rev. William
Goode, in his work on The Nature of Christ s Presence in
the Eucharist, published in two volumes in 1856. Of course,
Pusey's sermon rejoiced the Romanists. At the annual
meeting of the Roman Catholic Institute of Great Britain,
held on June 12, 1843, the Chairman, Lord Camoys,
said : —

"Look at the controversy now going on in the Established Church,
especially at Oxford. (Cheers.) There was one Regius Professor
(Dr. Pusey) just condemned and suspended for having advocated the
doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. . . . He had heard
at one of the meetings of the Institute a hope expressed that they
(the Catholics) might live to see the day when High Mass would
be celebrated in Westminster Abbey. (Tremendous cheering.) He
knew not how probable such an event might be, but this they knew,
that the doctrine of the Mass had been preached in the Cathedral of
the University of Oxford — (loud cheering) — and it had been autho
ritatively declared, that if Dr. Pusey's sermon had not been con
demned (as we understood the noble lord), six or seven Colleges of
Oxford University were ready to have Mass said directly. (Tre
mendous cheering and applause.) There was, indeed, a very slender
barrier between Puseyism and the Church of Rome." '

A curious clerical libel action was heard this year, on
March 25th, at Cambridge, before Lord Chief Justice
Tindal, in which the Rev. Mr. Belaney sought to recover
damages from the Rev. Mr. Totton, Rector of Debden, in
consequence of a libellous letter written by the defendant
concerning the plaintiff. It appeared that Mr. Belaney had
been employed by Mr. Totton as Curate, and that he had
altered the services in a High Church direction. This
annoyed the Rector very much, and after Mr. Belaney
had ceased to be Curate, he wrote the letter complained
of, in which he said that : " So long as Mr. Belaney, under
the influence of a vile spirit of rancour and revenge, con
tinued to visit the parish, and industriously fomented dis-

1 Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, vol. i. p. 434.
8 Catholic Magazine^ vol. ii. for 1843, pp. 58, 59.

A CURIOUS BRAWLING CASE 235

cord, no harmony could exist ; " and that " he is, how
ever, what I always thought him, a Papist in disguise."
The jury gave a verdict for Mr. Belaney, damages forty
shillings.1

A singular case of clerical brawling, Langley v. Burder,
came before the Judicial Committee of Privy Council this
year. The Rev. William Hawkes Langley, Perpetual Curate
of Wheatley, Oxon., was, in 1841, prosecuted by the Bishop
of Oxford (through his secretary, Mr. Burder), under the
Church Discipline Act, for brawling in his own Parish
Church during Divine Service ! The case was heard in
the Court of Arches, before Sir H. Jenner Fust. It was
alleged that, on Sunday, May 9, 1841, while conducting
Divine Service, and shortly before the conclusion of the
Litany, the defendant, "in a chiding, quarrelsome, and
brawling manner," addressed the congregation, and said
amongst other things : —

"You were, perhaps, surprised at the pause I made at the end of
the prayer, but it reminded me of my enemies. I have this morning
received a letter from the Archdeacon, offering some clergyman to
do duty for me : some one in the congregation has had the audacity
to write to the Archdeacon on the subject. Who has had the audacity
to do this ? Is it a Puseyite, who wants to introduce Popery into
the parish ? I will, however, take care they never shall, as I will do
my duty myself. I have preached the Gospel, and delivered my
own soul, whether the people will hear, or whether they will
forbear."

Mr. Langley then referred, in indignant terms, to certain
charges against his personal character, and denied them
emphatically. It was charged against him that "during the
delivery of this address, he was in a very excited and im
passioned state, and frequently struck the reading desk
and the books thereon, in a very violent manner, with his
clenched fist, and by such improper and incorrect conduct
gave great offence to the congregation then assembled in
the church, and reflected scandal and disgrace on his sacred
profession." One would have thought that such conduct
might easily have been dealt with by the Bishop outside of

1 English Churchman, March 30, 1843, p. 199.

236 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

Court. The fact that Bishop Bagot's opinions were strongly
in favour of the Tractarians, though he did not go with
them in every particular, might have induced him to
abstain from prosecuting a clergyman for a speech in
which he attacked the Puseyites. Of course, it was very
indiscreet on Mr. Langley's part to be so impatient. He
might have waited until he had got into the pulpit,
and then have delivered it in safety from a charge of
brawling. Anyhow, the case was heard in the Court of
Arches — it was the first case under the new Church Dis
cipline Act — and on June 27, 1842, Sir H. Jenner Fust
delivered judgment. The defence had been, he said, that
a conspiracy existed against Mr. Langley amongst the
parishioners, and that the Bishop was the head of the
conspiracy ; but he (the Judge) considered the defence an
aggravation of the offence, and therefore he sentenced
Mr. Langley to be suspended from his living for eight
months, and to pay the costs of the case. It was demanded
by the plaintiff that Mr. Langley should not be readmitted
to his duties until he produced a certificate of good be
haviour ; but this the Judge very properly refused to grant.
Mr. Langley appealed against the judgment to the Judicial
Committee of Privy Council, who, on December 4, 1843,
delivered judgment, confirming the sentence against
him.1

I mention this interesting case here, partly to show that
the High Church party were the first to put the Church
Discipline Act into force, and also because the general
question of brawling has of late become very prominent
amongst us. I have been unable to find any proof against
the personal character of Mr. Langley, though it is evident
that charges had been brought against him. I believe that
if he had been known to be an immoral man, the Bishop
would have gone further, and prosecuted him on that
account. I have no doubt that my Ritualistic readers will
think me uncharitable, yet I cannot help expressing the
opinion that if Mr. Langley had abstained, on that Sunday
morning, from attacking the Puseyites, he would have

1 Brodrick and Freemantle's Jiidgments of the Judicial Committee of Privy
Council, pp. 39-43.

PROTESTS AGAINST PUSEYISM 237

escaped with a private Episcopal censure for his conduct.
Anyhow, the sentence of suspension for eight months for
such an offence was inexcusably severe.

Several public protests against Puseyism were made by
Protestant Churchmen during 1843. One of these was from
the inhabitants of Blackburn and neighbourhood, and was
addressed to the Bishop of Chester (Dr. John Bird). " We
feel," they said, " ourselves bound by the ties both of duty
and of gratitude to acknowledge our lasting obligations to
your lordship for your firm, consistent, and uncompromis
ing resistance to the system of those Tractarian divines,
who, true to their self-assumed title of ' Ecclesiastical
agitators/ declare their determination ' to intrude upon the
peace of the contented, and raise doubts in the minds of the
uncomplaining ; vex the Church with controversy, alarm
serious men, and interrupt the established order of things ;
set the father against the son, and the mother against the
daughter.' " In replying to this address of protest against
Puseyism, the Bishop of Chester wrote : — " I rejoice in the
proof it affords that the principles established by our
Reformers are dear to so many hearts ; that so many in
whose spiritual welfare I am concerned regard with just
horror any departure from the ' truth as it is in Jesus ' ;
whether it be by the way of return to exploded errors, or
under the insidious pretence of development of undis
covered mystery." l An address from the inhabitants of
Bolton was also sent to the Bishop of Chester, protesting
against " the evil spirit and false doctrines " of the Puseyites.
An address to the Vice-Chancellor and Heads of Houses in
Oxford was adopted at a meeting, over which Lord Ashley
presided, and was subsequently signed largely, in which
"an earnest hope" was expressed "that the authorities of
the University will take such steps as are by the constitu
tion of the whole body and of the several Colleges open to
them, for protecting the youth committed to their care
from the dangerous [anti- Protestant] influence to which we
have referred, and for securing to them for the future only
such tuition as is in strict accordance with the prin-

1 English Churchman, October 5, 1843, P- 627.

238 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

ciples of the Protestant Church and Constitution of these
realms." l

In this year protests from parishioners against altera
tions made in the mode of conducting Divine Service by
Puseyite clergymen became somewhat numerous. The
English Churchman newspaper was started by the Puseyites
on January 5, 1843, and soon its columns were filled with
discussions and comments on such subjects as Altar Cover
ings, Alternate Chanting, Black Letter Saints, Christian
Ceremonial, Copes, Crosses on the Altar, Decoration of
Churches, Fast Days, Font Covers, Oblations in the Euch
arist, Position of the Celebrant Priest, Reserve, and Stone
Altars, thus affording to the public a clear proof of the
advance of Puseyism in a Romeward direction. The
English Churchman still continues to be published, but it
no longer advocates the Sacerdotal cause. It has become
the most outspoken of all papers against Ritualism.

During 1843 Newman made rapid strides in the direc
tion of Rome. Early in the year he withdrew whatever he
had written against the Church of Rome, and expressed
his regret for having so written. He told his friend Mr. J.
R. Hope-Scott, as we have already seen, with reference to
this act, that he had "to eat a few dirty words."2 On
August 3oth Newman wrote to a lady : — " We shall not
leave the Church as others may. We have no longings
for Rome." 3 Only two days later he wrote a letter,
marked " Confidential," to the Rev. J. B. Mozley, an
nouncing his forthcoming resignation of the living of St.
Mary's, Oxford, and adding : — " The truth then is, I am not
a good son enough of the Church of England to feel I
can in conscience hold preferment under her. / love the
Church of Rome too well. Now please burn this, there's a
good fellow, for you sometimes let letters lie on your
mantelpiece."4 Four weeks later Newman wrote to his
sister, on September 2Qth : — " I do so despair of the Church
of England, and am so evidently cast off by her, and, on

1 English Churchman, July 27, 1843, p. 467.

2 Memoirs of James Hope-Scottt vol. ii. p. 19.

3 Newman's Letters, vol. ii. p. 42 [.

4 Ibid. p. 423.

"I AM NOT TO BE TRUSTED" 239

the other hand, I am so drawn to the Church of Rome, that
I think it safer, as a matter of honesty, not to keep my
living. This is a very different thing from having any in
tention of joining the Church of Rome."1 With such views
most people would have been of the opinion that the only
" honest " course would have been to have joined the
Church of Rome at once. But he remained in the Church
of England for another two years, " loving the Church of
Rome " all the time, and with " despair " in his heart con
cerning the Church of England. Indeed, as early as
October 25, 1843, he declared :— " I think the Church of
Rome the Catholic Church, and ours not part of the
Catholic Church, because not in communion with Rome." 2
In accordance with this inconsistent position he told the
Rev. J. B. Mozley, on November 24th : — " I am now pub
lishing sermons, which speak more confidently about our
position than I inwardly feel, but I think it right and do
not care for seeming inconsistent." 3 Six weeks later
Newman wrote to the Rev. T. W. Allies : — " I will say to
you, what the occasion makes me say, but which I should
not like repeated as from me, that I am not to be trusted.
Others say this freely ; but I feel it myself too certainly,
though it is not well openly to profess it." 4 Newman re
signed the living of St. Mary's on September i6th, and
removed to Littlemore, the Vicarage of which he retained,
however, only for a short time, and then he retired into lay
communion. On September 25th he preached at Little-
more the sermon on "The Parting of Friends," which has
generally been considered a kind of farewell to the Church
of England. The story of the Littlemore Monastery, which
at this period was in full operation, I have related else
where.5

The opinion which Archdeacon Samuel Wilberforce
had this year formed of Puseyism and the Romeward
Movement, may profitably be quoted here. Writing to his
brother Henry, on August 18, 1843, about a Curate, he

1 Newman's Letters, vol. ii. p. 425.

2 Newman's Apologia, p. 351.

3 Newman' Letters, vol. ii. p. 430.

4 A Life's Decision. By T. W. Allies, 2nd edition, p. 41. London : 1894.
6 Secret History of the Oxford Movement, chap. i.

240 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

said : — " It is so likely that he has been misrepresented, so
likely that preaching, it may be injudiciously, against what
with him I think the perils of our Church from the insane love
of Rome, which has possessed many of the followers of the
Tract Movement." J " For you must," continued the
Archdeacon, "remember, dearest H., that your own feel
ings are here a bad guide. You must remember that men
who, like myself, are not Low Churchmen, that even we
feel in the very centre of our hearts that the greatest veri
ties of the inner Christian life are absolutely perilled by the
Tract system"

The Tractarians were made very uncomfortable this
year by an exposure of their Romanising work by one
who up to that time they had considered as one of their
own leaders — the Rev. William Palmer, of Worcester Col
lege, Oxford. Mr. Palmer was one of the first to join the
Oxford Movement, and therefore the pamphlet he wrote
on the subject naturally created a sensation. It was en
titled: — A Narrative of Events Connected with the Publication
of " The Tracts for the Times" With Reflections on Existing
Tendencies to Romanism? In issuing this pamphlet, Mr.
Palmer withdrew none of the opinions on Church govern
ment and doctrine which he had previously held ; nor did
he in any way censure the Tracts for the Times ; but he saw
clearly that a party had arisen within the Church of Eng
land bent on leading her to Rome, and in his pamphlet he
proved this by numerous quotations from the writings of the
advanced section, more especially from the British Critic ;
and he even went so far as to declare that there were those
amongst them who " look on the Papal Supremacy, the
Invocation of Saints, &c., as Divinely instituted." 3

" The only difficulty," wrote Mr. Palmer, " with which those
who uphold Church principles have had to contend, is the imputa
tion of a tendency to Popery. The continual assertion of our
opponents of all kinds has been, that Romanism is the legitimate

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 288.

2 It was republished by the author in 1883, with a lengthy Introduction and
Supplement. London : Rivingtons.

3 Narrative of Events Connected with the Tracts for the Times, 3rd edition
p. 64. Oxford : Parker. 1843.

PROGRESS OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT 241

conclusion of our principles. Romanists, Dissenters, Latitudin-
arians, and many others have reiterated the assertion, till the world
is nearly persuaded of its truth. But what can we say — what de
fence can be made, when it is undeniable that Romanism, in its very
f idlest extent, has advocates amongst ourselves ; that they have in
fluence in the British Critic; that they are on terms of intimacy
and confidence with leading men ; that no public protest is entered
against their proceedings by the advocates of Church principles ? It
is the conviction of the necessity of making some attempt, however
feeble, to arrest an intolerable evil, which has induced me to publish
this narrative of our proceedings." J

Yet, after all, though Mr. Palmer could not see it, the
Romanising teaching against which he protested, was but the
natural development of the sacerdotal teaching of the Tracts
for the Times. Mr. Palmer's testimony against his former
friends is, however, all the stronger, as coming from one
who himself was a High Churchman of a decided type.
The Oxford Movement made rapid progress towards Rome
in 1843.

But still more rapid was the progress in 1844. It was
in this year that Dr. Pusey commenced the publication of
Roman Catholic books of devotion, "Adapted to the Use of
the English Church." He had an idea of translating the
Breviary, but only a few small portions were circulated.
He asked Newman's advice about it. That astute man at
once saw how it would help the Church of Rome. " I am,"
he wrote to Pusey, " quite of opinion that any Breviary,
however corrected, &c., will tend to prepare minds for the
Church of Rome. I fully think you will be doing so by
your publication ... I do not think our system will bear
it. It is like sewing a new piece of cloth on an old garment.
Did I wish to promote the cause of the Church of Rome,
I should say, Do what you propose to do."2 The Rev.
W. K. Hamilton (afterwards Bishop of Salisbury), High
Churchman though he was, viewed Pusey's adapted books
with alarm, and wrote to tell him that they tended to foster
an unrilial spirit in members of the Church of England.3
Archdeacon Samuel Wilberforce disliked them exceedingly.

1 Palmer's Narrative of Events Connected with the Tracts for the Times, pp.
69, 70.

2 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 390. 3 Ibid. p. 394.

242 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

He wrote on April 4, 1844 : — " I opened yesterday Pusey's
translation (just out) of Avrillon's mode of keeping Lent,
with an introduction by Pusey. I think it fuller of sad and
humiliating bits of superstition than anything of his I have
yet seen." 1 Dr. Hook was indignant, and declared that one
effect of these adapted works would be that they " will make
men decided infidels."5 It may be useful if we here give
extracts from some of these adapted Romish books, and
from the prefaces Pusey wrote to them, as justifying the
dislike to them felt and expressed, not only by Evangelical
Churchmen, but by High Churchmen also : —

" For both the large heads, under which these and the like wants
would fall — contemplation and self-discipline — the spiritual writers
of Foreign Churches have, as yet, some obvious advantages over our
own ; for the discipline and knowledge of self, through that know
ledge of the human heart which results from habitual confession ; for
contemplation, in the Monastic Orders, as joining, in all cases, con
templation and mental prayer with charity and mortification."3

" He who hears the word of God without attention, and without
respect, is not less guilty than he who by carelessness should allow
the Body of Jesus Christ to fall to the ground."4

" The most perfect Christians consecrate themselves to God in a
Religious State only, that they may be the more separated from the
world." 5

" In vain do we strive to obtain heaven, and to expiate, by our
repentance, the sins of which we have been guilty, if we are not
assisted by Thy grace. We acknowledge our weakness ; but we
know also that we can do all in Him who strengtheneth us. It is
Thou alone who canst give to our labours and our fasts the accept-
ableness which they need in order to appease Thy wrath, to efface our
sin, to draw down upon us Thy mercy, and to obtain eternal life,
which we hope for through the merits of Jesus Christ." 6

"The rebellion of the body must be mortified by fasts, Disci
plines, Hair Shirts, vigils, and other similar austerities, as discretion
and obedience may teach."7

" Never resist the will of thy Superiors, but show them a ready
obedience, executing promptly all their commands, and with most

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 236.

2 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 431.

3 Avrillon's Guide to Passing Lent Holily, Pusey's Preface, p. xi.

4 Ibid. p. 270. 5 Ibid. p. 282. 8 Ibid. p. 278.
7 Scupoli's Spiritual Combat, p. 48.

PUSEY'S ADAPTED ROMAN BOOKS 243

willingness such as humble thee, and are most opposed to thy natural
will and inclination." l

" Appearing once in the form of an infant to one of His pure
and devoted creatures, she asked Him [Jesus] with great simplicity to
recite the Angelical Salutation. He readily began : ' Hail Mary, full of
grace, the Lord is with Thee, blessed art thou among women,' and then
stopped, being unwilling to praise Himself, in the words that follow." 2

" Before Communion (whatever be our object in receiving It) we
must cleanse and purify ourselves, if stained with mortal sin, in the
Sacrament of Penance." 8

" Then as the time of Communion approaches, think What it is
thou art about to receive ! The Son of God, of Majesty Incom
prehensible, before Whom the Heavens and all the powers therein
do tremble. The Holy of Holies, the Spotless Mirror, and the
Incomprehensible Purity, beside Whom no creature is clean. . . .
Thou art (I say) about to receive God^ in Whose Hand are the life
and death of the whole Universe." 4

" When, thyself, about to communicate, enliven thy faith to see
under the accidents of the consecrated elements, the true Lamb of
God that taketh away sins." 5

11 By the law of God we mean all that is contained in the Deca
logue, and all ordinances emanating from a legitimate power,
whether written, or authorised and confirmed by custom. We
comprehend also the statutes and general regulations made by prelates
and ecclesiastical superiors" 6

" Happy, at least, is it, if they who think they hold most accu
rately the corruption of nature, can even understand the language of
the self-abhorrence of Saints. Take ... his who ever prayed that
his sins might not bring the vengeance of God on the towns where
he preached [' St. Dominic,' Founder of the Inquisition which slew
the Saints of God\ ; or of those who wept for their sins, until sight
was impaired ['St. Francis of Assisium and St. Ignatius Loyola,'
the latter being the founder of the Jesuits] ; or his, who, having
renounced all the riches and glories of this world, habitually ac
counted his only fit dwelling to be hell, or being spit upon all night,
counted no place fitter than his own face ['St. Francis Borgia,' a
Jesuit.]"7

" And now, in our entire ignorance of its very n-ature, the name
of ' the Rosary ' or 'Beads'* is associated only with ideas of super-

1 Scupoli's Spiritual Combat, p. 47.

2 Ibid. p. 89. 3 Ibid. p. 134.
4 Ibid. p. 141. 5 Ibid. p. 190.

6 The Foundations of the Spiritual Life. By F. Surin, a Jesuit Priest, p. 202.

7 Ibid.% Pusey's Preface^ pp. xix., xx.

244 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

stition, even in minds who, if they knew it, would be shocked at
their own thoughts." l

" It is almost the inevitable consequence of such compendious
or arbitrary selections or substitutions of doctrine, as of 'Justifica
tion by Faith,' or even 'The Atonement' for 'Christ Crucified,'
that in the end they contract men's faith."2

"After the use of the Exercitia Spiritualia of St. Ignatius
[Loyola] had been introduced into Portugal (among other countries)
with a wonderful change of life, it was reported in Coimbra that
those who made these holy retreats had strange visions, which led
them to extraordinary fervour." 3

" The Manuel des Confesseurs, is a most valuable digest of the
judgments of some of the most experienced Confessors of the
Church, and of the greatest use, whether in the receiving of Con
fessions, or the more ordinary spiritual ministrations." 4

"CHRIST — That thou mayest be more fully restored to My
favour after thus confessing thy unrighteousness to Me, go and show
thyself also to the Priest, to whom I have given the power of binding
and of loosing. Whoso hideth his wickednesses shall not be put right,
but he that confesses and forsakes them shall obtain mercy. My
son, be not ashamed to tell the truth for thy soul's sake. There is
a shame that bringeth sin, and there is a shame that bringeth glory.
Open, then, thy conscience frankly and cincerely to him who is in
My Stead, and he shall open Heaven to thee. . . . Master this
preposterous shame ; humble thyself before My Priest, whom I have
appointed in My Place, as My Ambassador, and thy counsellor and
physician. Declare thy wickednesses, that thou mayest be justified." 6

" We pray Thee, also, O Lord, Holy Father, for the souls of the
faithful departed, especially — that this great Sacrament of Thy Love
may be to them salvation, joy, and refreshment.'' 6

I have given a great deal of space to these extracts from
Dr. Pusey's adapted Roman Catholic works, on the title
page of each of which was printed the words : — " Adapted
to the Use of the English Church/' because he who was
responsible for them became, at about this time, and con-

1 The Foundations of the Spiritual Life, Pusey's Preface, p. xxvi.

2 Ibid. p. xxix. 3 Ibid. p. liii. note.

4 Ibid. p. Ivi. note. The book which Pusey thus highly commended, without any
qualification, was one of the most filthy of all the filthy Confessional books pub
lished in the Roman Church. When Pusey translated it in 1878, he left out the
filthy reading as unsuited for English Confessors' circumstances, but he did not
condemn the thing itself.

5 Horst's Paradise for the Christian Soul, vol. i. part iii. pp. 15-17- There
seems something fearfully wicked in placing such words in the Saviour's mouth, as
though Confession to Him were not sufficient. 6 Ibid. vol. ii. part v. p. 126.

WHAT THE POPE SAID ABOUT PUSEY 245

tinued until his death, the acknowledged leader of what I
must term the Romeward Movement in the Church of
England. These citations show most clearly how far Pusey
had already gone in Popery and superstition, and whither
he was leading his deluded disciples. These adapted Popish
works had a very large circulation, and undoubtedly did
much to lead many to Rome. There was much of truth
in what Pope Pius IX. said of Pusey, in an interview with the
Rev. A. P. Stanley (the future Dean of Westminster) in
1866. In relating the interview Dean Stanley says : —

"He [the Pope] finally said, 'You know Pusey. When you
meet him, give him this message from me — that I compare him to a
bell, which always sounds to invite the faithful to Church, and itself
always remains outside.'"1

The High Church Bishop of London (Dr. Blomfield) in
his Charge, delivered in 1846, referred to, amongst others
of the same class, these adapted Roman books of Pusey's —
though he did not mention Pusey by name. He said : —

" I confess that I cannot understand how any person, professing
to be a member of our branch of the Church Catholic, can reconcile
it to his conscience to be in any way accessory to proceedings the
effect of which, upon the minds of those who are imperfectly in
structed, must be to diminish the seeming importance of those
fundamental differences which separate the Churches of England and
Rome ; to make them dissatisfied with the doctrine and discipline of
the one, and to habituate them to regard with complacency, and in
due time with affection, the worst errors of the other. I can under
stand this conduct on the part of one of that Society to whom it is
permitted to disguise their real sentiments, and to assume any
character which best enables them to propagate the errors of Rome;
but I cannot comprehend the self-delusion by which any person
pursuing this course can persuade himself that he is faithful to his
solemn engagements as a clergyman of the English Church. I
cannot but regard such a policy as more to be censured and feared
than open, honest, undisguised hostility."2

During the year 1844 the Puseyites manifested an
intense desire to expel some of their opponents from the
Church of England by means of ecclesiastical prosecutions.

1 Life of Dean Stanley, vol. ii. p. 358.

2 Memoir of Bishop Blomfield, vol. ii. pp. 75, 76.

246 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

Their chief organ, the English Churchman, was very ener
getic in this direction. Some correspondents of that paper
started a discussion on this subject early in the year, in
consequence of a clerical Declaration in favour of Protestant
principles which had just been issued. With reference to
this Declaration one of them wrote : — "It is their [the
Bishops'] business to punish heresy, it is ours [the laity] to
bring it under their notice. Let us, in vindication of our
Mother's honour, now act on this principle. If the ob
noxious document be really published in any official way,
let a fund be immediately raised, and a committee named,
for the purpose of proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Courts
against the principal signer — say the senior D.D. or the first
of that rank on the list — for heresy. I am very ignorant of
ecclesiastical law ; but of course the first step would be to
take counsel's advice as to the proper mode of proceeding."1
A month later another correspondent wrote : — " I am pre
pared to raise contributions, from clerical friends and
others, with a view to share the expense of bringing to
justice, in our Ecclesiastical Courts, those unfaithful
Ministers of the Church who have in their late public
Declaration proclaimed themselves heretics." 2 The De
claration actually contained not a word of heresy from
beginning to end, but a strong affirmation of Protestant
doctrines such as any Evangelical clergyman of the present
day would gladly sign. But it denied the Puseyite theory
of Baptismal Regeneration, Apostolical Succession, and a
Sacerdotal Priesthood, and affirmed the doctrine of Jus
tification by Faith only, and that the Bible alone is the
sole and only Rule of Faith.8 It was very largely signed,
and if the Puseyites could have had their own way those
who signed it would soon have been deprived of their
livings and curacies.

Towards the close of September it was publicly an
nounced in Exeter that two Church of England clergymen,
the Rev. H. Bulteel, formerly Fellow of Exeter College,

1 English Churchman, February I, 1844, p. 74.

2 Ibid. March 7, 1844, p. 153.

3 See the document in full in the English Churchman, January 25, 1844,
pp. 59, 60.

PROPOSED PROSECUTION OF EVANGELICALS 247

Oxford, and the Rev. J. Shore, M.A., would preach at the
opening of the " Episcopal Free Church " in that city.
Thereupon the English Churchman furiously demanded a
prosecution of these clergymen. " The intended schismati-
cal proceedings announced in the following advertisement
show the necessity of formally and ecclesiastically depriving
the rebellious clergy, so that there may no longer be any
doubt as to whether they do or do not belong to us. ...
We trust that the Lord Bishop of Exeter will set an ex
ample to his brethren, and will proceed canonically against
those of his clergy who refuse to conform to the rules of
the Church." : A month later the English Churchman de
voted a whole leading article to this subject, and declared :
— "To speak plainly, we desire, most earnestly and respect
fully, to impress upon their lordships the Bishops, the
important fact, that by allowing palpable heresy to be
publicly preached and published, without public and per
sonal censure of the offender, they are extensively alienating
the confidence and attachment of some most valuable men
in the Church. A jealous vigilance to detect the slightest
appearance of heresy, and the prompt punishment of
heretical teachers, have ever been among the most visible
notes of the Catholic Church." 2 Not a word of denuncia
tion was heard, from these Puseyite lovers of prosecution,
against the " State Courts," or their interference with the
Church, and I am convinced that if they had only consented
to interpret the law as the Puseyites desired, their modern
successors, the Ritualists, would have been, on the whole,
quite content with things as they are. In that case there
would not, by this time, have been left a Protestant clergy
man in the Church of England. They would have been
deprived of their livings long ago as so many heretics.

The High Church Bishop of Exeter was ready enough
to put pressure on the Evangelical clergy of his Diocese.
On November iQth he issued a Pastoral Letter on " Ob
servance of the Rubric in the Book of Common Prayer,"
in which he urged a stricter observance of the Rubrics ;
and ordered all his clergy to wear the surplice in preaching.

1 English Churchman, September 26, 1844, p. 613.

2 Ibid. October 24, 1844, p. 677.

248 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

"The law," said the Bishop, "beyond all question which can
now arise, requires that the surplice be always used in the sermon,
which is part of the Communion Service ; and as to all other times,
whenever a sermon is part of the ministration of the parochial
clergy, there is so little reason for question, that I resolve the
doubt by requiring that the surplice be always used."1

The opposition to the use of the surplice in the pulpit
was, however, too strong for the Bishop, who, within five
weeks from issuing it, had to withdraw his order. He had
issued an illegal order, founded on a mistaken interpreta
tion of the law. The Black Gown in the pulpit is strictly
legal. In the case of Robinson Wright v. Tugwell, judg
ment was given in the Court of Appeal on November 28,
1896, by Lord Justice Smith, who said : —

"The 'warrant in law' for the Black Gown is constant use for
centuries. Inasmuch as no positive law exists, and no objection
against the legality of the Black Gown in the pulpit, which has
ranged over three hundred years, can be found, and there is no
decision that its use is illegal, I agree with what I understand Mr.
Justice North to have held, that its use is not illegal." 2

The principal ecclesiastical event in 1844 was the pub
lication Joy the Rev. W. G. Ward of his Ideal of a Christian
Church, in which he declared that he subscribed the Thirty-
Nine Articles " in a non-natural sense," and that in doing
so he " renounced no one Roman doctrine." " We find,"
he exclaimed, "oh most joyful, most wonderful, most
unexpected sight ! We find the whole cycle of Roman
doctrine gradually possessing numbers of English Church
men." I have given elsewhere3 a brief history of the
controversy which arose out of this publication, and there
fore I need say no more about it here, except to give below
a list of the leading publications relating to it.4

1 English Churchman, December 5, 1844, p. 769.

2 The Lord Chief Justice of England and Lord Justice Lindley agreed in this
judgment, the text of which is printed in the Church Intelligencer, January 1897,
pp. 5, 6.

3 Secret History of the Oxford Movement f, chap. ix.

4 I. The Ideal of a Christian Church. By the Rev. W. G. Ward, M.A., 2nd
edition, pp. xiv., 600. London : James Toovey. 1844.

2. Selections from a Work entitled " The Ideal of a Christian Church" Illus
trative of its Tendency to Promote Dutifulness to the English Church, pp. 24.
London : Toovey. 1844.

PUSEYITE OPPOSITION TO DR. SYMONS 249

At the beginning of the Michaelmas Term, 1844, Dr.
Wynter's term of office as Vice-Chancellor expired The
next in order of succession was Dr. Symons, Warden of
Wadham College. Now Dr. Symons was a very decided
Protestant, whose opposition to the Oxford Movement was
very well known ; and besides all this he was one of the
Six Doctors who had condemned Dr. Pusey, the previous
year, for his sermon on The Holy Eucharist a Comfort to the
Penitent. This last offence could not possibly be forgiven
by Pusey's friends, who determined to show their vindic-
tiveness by opposing the election of Dr. Symons as Vice-
Chancellor. Pusey was very zealous in the new campaign
against Symons. " I use no concealment now," he wrote
to his brother, "if ever I did, that I think Dr. S.[ymons]
ought to be opposed as a protest against heresy and here
tical decisions. If the University accepted him without a
protest, it seemed like making itself a party to it."1 A
prominent member of the Tractarian party wrote to the
English Churchman, over the signature " N. E. S." : — " It
does then seem to me, what I have all along made it, a

3. An Address to Members of Convocation In Protest against the Proposed
Statute. By the Rev. W. G. Ward, M.A., pp. 56. London: Toovey. 1845.

4. A Letter to the Vice-Chancellor In Connection with the Case of the Rev.
W. G. Ward. By A. C. Tait, D.C.L. (afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury),
pp. 22. London : W. Blackwood. 1845.

5. A Letter to the Bishop of London On a Subject Connected with the Recent
Proceedings at Oxford. By the Rev. Frederick Oakeley, M.A., pp. 39. London :
Toovey. 1845.

6. The New Statute and Mr. Ward. A Letter by the Rev. Frederick D.
Maurice, pp. 31.

7. Heads of Consideration On the Case of Mr. Ward. By the Rev. John
Keble, M.A., pp. 15. Oxford : Parker. 1845.

8. The Proposed Degradation and Declaration. By George Moberley, D.C.L.
(afterwards Bishop of Salisbury), pp. 29. Oxford : Parker. 1845.

9. Suggestions On the New Statute. By W. Gresley, M.A., Prebendary of
Lichfield, pp. 13. London : James Burns. 1845.

10. A Letter to the Hebdomadal Board On Air. Ward's Case. By the Rev.
W B. Baxter, 2nd edition, pp. 14. London : James Burns. 1845.

11. MDCCCXLV. The Month of January. Oxford. By W. Winstanley
Hull, M.A., pp. 18. London : Seeley.

12. An Earnest Appeal to the Members of the Oxford Convocation. By Henry
ArthurWoodgate, B.D., pp. 9. London: Burns. 1845.

13. A Defence of Voting against the Propositions to be Submitted to Convocation
on February 13, 1845. B7 w- F. Donkin, M.A., pp. 7. Oxford : Parker. 1845.

14. The Claim to "Hold, as Distinct from Teaching," Explained. By
Frederick Oakeley, M.A., pp. 24. London: Toovey. 1845.

15. Subscription to the Articles. By George Dudley Ryder, M.A., pp. 42.
London : Toovey. 1845.

1 Life of Dr. Puiey^ vol. ii. p. 412.

250 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

main item in the grounds for opposing Dr. Symons, that he
was one of that body who did their best to set the mark of
the beast on the Church of England." 1 Dr. Hook, when
asked to go to Oxford and vote against the election of Dr.
Symons, refused to do so, and gave his reasons in a letter
to a friend : —

" Now, after the publication of Mr. Ward's book, which defends
Popery on ultra-Protestant principles, and is therefore subversive
both of principle and truth ; and after various publications which
have appeared of late with the evident intention of introducing
Mariolatry, in other words idolatry, into our Church, and of defend
ing the very worst abominations of Popery, there are very many
persons who, having devoted all the energies of a lifetime to the
service of their beloved and holy mother, the Church of England,
contending equally against Popery on the one hand, and ultra-
Protestantism on the other, would shrink with abhorrence from any
appearance of sanctioning these heresies. As we cannot take part
against Dr, Symons without seeming to side with the Romanisers,
we must stand aloof from the contest." 2

The efforts of the Puseyites to defeat Dr. Symons were
in vain. The election took place on October 8th, when
882 votes were given for Dr. Symons, and only 183 against
him. Small as the minority was, it afforded to the public
evidence of the growing power of the Puseyites.

In the month of May, the Rev. Charles Marriott, a
prominent leader of the Tractarians, wrote to the Vice-
Chancellor of Oxford, requiring him to summon a Board
of Heresy to examine certain charges which he (Mr. Mar
riott) had to bring against the Rev. James Garbett, Professor
of Poetry, founded on a sermon preached by him before
the University. I have not been able to learn what were
the portions of Mr. Garbett's sermon against which Mr.
Marriott protested as heretical, though I have no doubt it
was some Protestant statement. On May 2Qth the Vice-
Chancellor sent the following reply to Mr. Garbett : —

" The Vice-Chancellor begs to acknowledge the receipt of a
copy of the sermon which, in consequence of a formal allegation of
complaint, he requested Mr. Garbett to deliver to him, under the

1 English Churchman, August 29, 1844, p. 549.

2 Ibid. October 10, 1844, p. 641.

STONE ALTARS AND CREDENCE TABLES 251

provision of the Statute, Tit. xvi. sec. n. The Vice-Chancellor
having had before him, since Friday, the 24th inst., the sermon
which has thus been called in question, and having carefully con
sidered what steps it might be his duty to take on the occasion,
informs Mr. Garbett, without delay, that in the exercise of the
discretion reserved to him by the Statute, he deems it unnecessary
to institute any further proceedings."

For the first time in the history of the Romeward Move
ment, the legality of Stone Altars and Credence Tables was
brought before the Ecclesiastical Courts this year. The
Cambridge Camden Society had restored the Church of
the Holy Sepulchre, Cambridge, commonly known as the
Round Church, and towards the end of the year 1843
handed over the Church thus restored to the Incumbent
and Churchwardens. On February 14, 1844, the Incum
bent, the Rev. R. R. Faulkener, issued a circular in which
he asserted that during the restoration the Cambridge
Camden Society had introduced into the Church " a Stone
Altar, without the knowledge or consent of the Incum
bent"; and also a Credence Table. The Churchwardens
replied to this circular, taking the side of the Society
against the Incumbent. A vestry meeting was next held,
at which it was decided to apply to the Ecclesiastical Court
for a Faculty confirming the restorations which had been
made by the Society. To this Mr. Faulkener replied that
he yielded to none of his parishioners in gratitude to the
Society for what it had done in restoring his Church, the
Stone Altar and Credence Table alone excepted.

"Let these things," said the Incumbent, "be taken away at once.
Harmony, peace, love, and goodwill will quickly follow. And why
not ? What objection can be raised to a plain wooden table, like
that which our fathers and we have been so long accustomed
to use? Christianity by its very nature requires, and in express
words prescribes a Communion Table. And I ask no more. Surely,
as Incumbent of the Church, I ought not to have a Stone Altar
forced into it against my conscience. God forbid ! The Camden
Society may offer me one of their Stone Altars, but they shall not,
while I have a voice to speak, silence me in protesting loudly
against this abomination."1

1 English Churchman, March 7, 1844, p. 144.

252 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

In the Consistory Court of Ely, on July 25, 1844, the
Churchwardens applied for a faculty confirming the erection
of the Stone Altar and Credence Table. The Court gave
judgment in favour of the application. Thereupon there
was great rejoicing in the Puseyite camp, whose members
knew very well the importance to them of the decision,
however much they might, in public, term the dispute an
unimportant and trifling one. But their rejoicings were
shortlived. The Incumbent gave notice of an appeal to the
Court of Arches. This was met by the Puseyites with a
howl of indignation and gross personal insult. The organ
of the Puseyite party had the indecency to comment on the
appeal in the following terms :—

" We might apply to Mr. Faulkener the old alliterative descrip
tion of a bad wife :—

' Weak and wanton,
Wicked and wilful,
Wrangling and wasteful.'

But then he is wasteful of other people's property ; he begs money
that he may spend it upon his own fancies and follies, knowing, as
he does, that every farthing which he compels his opponents to
spend upon him, would, but for him, have been spent to the honour
and glory of Almighty God. Thus he robs God as well as man." l

But for all this insult, abuse, and bluster, the case came
at length into the Court of Arches, and on January 31, 1845,
judgment was given by Sir Herbert Jenner Fust, reversing
the decision of the Ely Consistorial Court, and declaring
Stone Altars and Credence Tables illegal in the Church of
England. In delivering judgment he said : —

" I was asked, why should a Stone Font be directed to be used,
and a Stone Communion Table be proscribed ? To this I answer,
the law has sanctioned the one and excluded the other, and for this
very obvious reason ; to Stone Altars or tables superstitious notions
were attached, which did not belong to Stone Fonts." 2

" After maturely weighing the subject, the conscientious opinion
in my mind is, that a structure like the present [i.e. the Stone
Altar] is not a Communion Table within the meaning of the

1 English Churchman, November 28, 1844, p. 758.
3 Robertson's Ecclesiastical Reports^ vol. i. p. 255.

STONE ALTARS AND CREDENCE TABLES 253

Rubric ; and that the Credence Table, being an adjunct not recog
nised by our Church, cannot be pronounced for. In coming to this
conclusion, I do not go so far as to admonish the Churchwardens to
remove them. All I can do is, to refuse to confirm the sentence of
the Court below. A question here arises, whether I can so alter the
Faculty prayed, as to omit the Stone Altar and Credence Table, and
grant it in other respects, confirming all other things not comprised
within the former Faculty. I see no objection to that, and such must
be the decree of the Court." l

Twelve years later the Judicial Committee of Privy
Council in the case of Liddell v. Westerton, on March 21,
1857, confirmed the decision of the Court of Arches in the
above case (known as Faulkener v. Litchfield) as to Stone
Altars, declaring them illegal in the Church of England,
but reversing the judgment as to Credence Tables. On
this latter point the Judicial Committee of Privy Council
said : —

"The next question is, as to the Credence Tables. Here the
Rubrics of the Prayer Book become important. Their Lordships
entirely agree with the opinions expressed by the learned Judges in
these cases, and in Faulkener v. Litchfield, that in the performance
of the services, Rites, and Ceremonies ordered by the Prayer Book,
the directions contained in it must be strictly observed ; that no
omission and no addition can be permitted ; but they are not pre
pared to hold that the use of all articles not expressly mentioned in
the Rubric, although quite consistent with> and even subsidiary to
the service, is forbidden. Organs are not mentioned, yet because
they are auxiliary to the singing, they are allowed. Pews, cushions
to kneel upon, pulpit cloths, hassocks, seats by the Communion
Table, are in constant use, yet they are not mentioned in the
Rubric.

" Now what is a Credence Table ? It is simply a small side-
table, on which the bread and wine are placed before the consecra
tion, having no connection with any superstitious usage of the
Church of Rome. Their removal has been ordered on the ground
that they are adjuncts to an Altar ; their Lordships cannot but think
that they are more properly to be regarded as adjuncts to a Com
munion Table." 2

The Cambridge Camden Society, which had restored the

1 Robertson's Ecclesiastical Reports, vol. i. pp. 259, 260.

2 Brodrick and Freemantle's Judgments of the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council, p. 153-

254 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

Round Church at Cambridge, was founded in 1839, for the
purpose of promoting the restoration of Churches on the
lines of pre-Reformation times. Perhaps its real object
was never more accurately described than by the Rev.
Francis Close, Rector of Cheltenham, and afterwards Dean
of Carlisle, in a sermon which he preached on November
5, 1844 :-

"During the year now drawing to a close," he said, "my atten
tion has been more particularly directed to the same class of
[Tractarian] errors and false doctrine promulgated in a still more
plausible and attractive form, namely, under the plea of reviving
Church Architecture. It will be my object then, on the present
occasion, to show that as Romanism is taught Analytically at Oxford,
it is taught Artistically at Cambridge — that it is inculcated theo
retically, in Tracts, at one University, and it is sculptured^ painted^
and graven at the other. The Cambridge Camdenians build
Churches and furnish symbolic vessels, by which the Oxford Tract-
arians may carry out their principles." J

Dr. Close proved his indictment of the Cambridge Cam-
den Society (which, however, must not be identified with
the Camden Society recently united to the Royal Historical
Society) by abundant extracts from its publications, show
ing clearly that the design was to restore Churches so as to
make them suited for Popish services and Popish cere
monial. His sermon was subsequently published with the
title of The Restoration of Churches is the Restoration of
Popery. His opponents ridiculed the title, and represented
the preacher as opposed to all Church Restoration. When
reprinting his sermon, in 1863, Dr. Close repudiated such
an idea. "No person," he said, " could honestly raise
such a charge against him — he will not say who had read
the pamphlet — but who had even read the rest of the title-
page, which marks as clearly as can be that his assertion
was limited to a special sort of ' Church Restoration.' " 2
And even in the sermon itself the preacher had explained
himself clearly enough. " I affirm," he said, " that I am
not opposed to the decoration of Churches, but to extrava
gant and gorgeous decoration ; that I am not an enemy to

1 The Footsteps of Error. By Francis Close, D.D., Dean of Carlisle, p. 75.
London : Hatchard & Co. 1863.

2 Ibid. p. 73.

ROMANISING RESTORATION OF CHURCHES 255

anything that is beautiful in architecture, while I am, and
hope ever to be, the implacable enemy of all Popish and medi
aeval restorations. The best evidence I can allege in support
of such assertions are the public buildings in my own
[Cheltenham] parish, whose erection I have been permitted
either to originate or extensively to promote ; they are
silent but not inefficacious witnesses that neither with
respect to Churches or to Colleges do I desire to see them
as ' brick barns.' " 1

This faithful warning of Dr. Close, in 1844, against the
Restoration of Churches on Romish lines, is more needed
now than when first uttered, and, perhaps, by no class of
men more than by Evangelical Incumbents and Church
wardens. Ritualistic Incumbents know what such Restora
tions mean, while Protestant Churchmen are, to an alarming
extent, blind to the evil. All over the land we find new
Churches built, and old ones restored, in a style which can
only delight the hearts of the Romanisers, although those
Churches are frequently in Evangelical and Protestant
hands. Why should Protestant clergymen permit their
Churches to be so arranged as to make them ready for a
Roman Catholic priest to say Mass in ? It would be the
wisdom of Protestants never to build a new Church with
a Chancel.2 And what do they want with Communion
Tables erected on high, like Roman Catholic Altars ? And
why do they permit Chancel gates and screens to be
erected, to separate the supposed Holy of Holies within
from where the common laity sit without? Why allow
Churches to be so arranged as to convey to the people the
idea that the Chancel is holier than any other place ? For
my part, I believe that there is no portion of a Parish
Church which is holier than another part. I am certain
that where the poor man kneels, in his humility, at the
west end of the Church (if he be a true Christian) is in
God's sight quite as holy as where the clergy stand in their
glory in the Chancel. We sadly need a wholesale Reform
in Church Building and Church Restoration.

1 Close's Footsteps of Error, p. 83.

2 The majority of Wren's Churches in the City of London were built without
chancels.

CHAPTER X

Pusey thinks that God is lt drawing " Newman to Rome — Pusey refuses
to write against the Church of Rome — Newman secedes to Rome-
Father Dominic's narrative of Newman's reception — Pusey on the
secession — Newman goes to see the Pope — When and where was
Newman ordained a Roman Catholic? Some noteworthy circum
stances — St. Saviour's, Leeds — Founded by Dr. Pusey — He insists
on an Altar — The distinction between an Altar and a Table — Dr.
Hook's anxiety — Dr. Wilberforce appointed Bishop of Oxford —
Pusey tries to secure his goodwill for Pusey ism — He fails — Pusey's
desire for Union with Rome — His subtle tactics with his penitents —
Hook believes Pusey is under the influence of the Jesuits — The Exeter
Surplice Riots — Debate in the House of Lords — More Puseyite
exhortations to prosecute Evangelical clergy — An extraordinary case
in Salisbury Diocese — Extempore prayers in a Schoolroom "a gross
scandal"— The case of the Rev. James Shore — Pusey's Sermon on
The Entire Absolution of the Penitent — Extracts from the Sermon —
Pusey goes to Confession for the first time — The effect of Pusey's
Confessional work on his penitents — Testimony of Dean Boyle —
Clerical Retreats.

THE year 1845 will ever be memorable in the annals of the
Romeward Movement, as the year in which the Rev. ]. H.
Newman seceded to Rome. The event had long been
expected, yet when it came it caused almost as great a
sensation as if it had been quite unexpected. In the month
of July Pusey seems to have made up his mind that Newman
would go over to Rome, but he actually said that he thought
that perhaps God was " drawing him " thither ! " I have,"
he wrote to Keble, on July 8th, " looked upon this [expected
secession] of dear Newman as a mysterious dispensation,
as though (if it be indeed so) Almighty God was drawing
him, as a chosen instrument, for some office in the Roman
Church (although he himself goes, of course, not as a Re
former, but as a simple act of faith), and so I thought that
He might be pleased to give him convictions (if it be so)

which He does not give to others. At least I have come

256

THE STORY OF NEWMAN'S RECEPTION 257

into this way of thinking." 1 In the prospect of Newman's
Secession Pusey's friends urged him to take up his pen and
write against the Church of Rome ; but he refused to
do so. "I cannot any more," he said, "take the negative
ground against Rome ; I can only remain neutral. I have
indeed for some time left off alleging grounds against
Rome." 2 In the same month of July Pusey wrote to
Newman himself with reference to his expected secession :
— " I suppose, of course, that, if it is so, Almighty God is
pleased to draw you for some office which He has for you." 3
On October 9, 1845, Newman was received into the
Church of Rome, in his Littlemore Monastery, by Father
Dominic, a Passionist. Three weeks later this gentleman
sent to the Tablet an account of Newman's reception. He
had, he said, previously, on Michaelmas Day, received the
Rev. ]. D. Dalgairns into the Church of Rome, at Aston
Hall:-

" I was," wrote Father Dominic, "on the point of setting out for
Belgium, when I received a note from him [Dalgairns], inviting me
to pass through Oxford on my way ; for, he said, I might perhaps
find something to do there. I accordingly set out from here on the
8th of October, and reached Oxford about ten o'clock the evening
of the same day. I there found Mr. Dalgairns and Mr. St. John,
who had made his profession of Faith at Prior Park on the 2nd of
October, awaiting my arrival. They told me that I was to receive
Mr. Newman into the Church. This news filled me with joy, and
made me soon forget the rain that had been pelting upon me for the
last five hours.

"From Oxford we drove in a chaise to Littlemore, where we
arrived about eleven o'clock. I immediately sat down near a fire to
dry my clothes, when Mr. Newman entered the room, and, throwing
himself at my feet, asked my blessing, and begged me to hear his
confession, and receive him into the Church. He made his confes
sion that same night, and on the following morning the Reverend
Messrs. Bowles and Staunton did the same : in the evening of the
same day these three made their profession of Faith in the usual
form in their private Oratory, one after another, with such fervour
and piety that I was almost out of myself for joy. I afterwards gave
them all canonical absolution, and administered to them the Sacra-

1 Life of Dr. Pusey ; vol. ii. p. 453.

z Ibi'.L p. 456. 3 Ibidm p. 4Sgt

258 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

ment of Baptism sub conditiom. On the following morning I said
Mass in their Oratory, and gave Communion to Messrs. Newman,
St. John, Bowles, Staunton, and Dalgairns." l

A correspondent of the English Churchman declared,
commenting on Newman's secession : — " It has happened
that in heart and intention, Mr. Newman, while nominally
with us, has during the last four years been a member of
the Roman Communion." ' Pusey wrote a letter, which
appeared in the same issue of the English Churchman, on
Newman's secession, in which he stated that, having heard
that the Romanists on the Continent had long been praying
to God for Newman's conversion to Rome, he had then
begun to fear that " God will give them whom they pray
for ; " and that, as to Newman himself : — " He seems then,
to me, not so much gone from us, as transplanted into
another part of the Vineyard, where the full energies of
his powerful mind can be employed, which here they
were not."

Puseyites and Ritualists have never ceased to mourn for
the loss of Newman, as though it were some great evil in
flicted on the English Church. It was, in reality, nothing
of the kind, but a great blessing. A year before it took
place, Archdeacon Samuel Wilberforce declared : — " If
Newman is to go, the sooner he goes the better, because in
going he will lose his power of leading others over with
him." 3 The sooner an enemy is removed from the camp,
the better it will be for the camp itself, though the enemy
personally may be the loser by the change. There are men
in the present day who think that if all the Ritualistic clerical
rebels against the law of the Church were ejected, the
Church of England would suffer loss. Never was there a
greater delusion. As well might we argue that a house
would become more healthy by retaining in it all who are
suffering from fever, and that the epidemic would increase
in the house if those who are stricken with it should leave it.

Newman's perversion led to a very large secession to
Rome of his followers. He continued to live at Littlemore

1 English Churchman, November 27, 1845, p. 761.

2 Ibid. October 16, 1845, p. 662.

3 Life of Bishop Wilberforce^ vol. i. p. 258.

WHEN WAS NEWMAN ORDAINED A PRIEST? 259

for several months after his reception. On November ist
he was confirmed by Bishop Wiseman. On February 23,
1846, he removed to Oscott College. While he was there,
Wiseman wrote to Dr. Russell of Maynooth : — "While I am
writing this, Mr. Newman is under examination for Minor
Orders." 1 The Univers, of September 20, 1846, published
a letter from Langres, stating that Newman was in that city
on his way to Rome. " Mr. Newman/' says the writer,
"was accompanied by the Rev. Ambrose St. John, who also
has been admitted to Minor Orders, and repairs to Rome to
receive the priesthood." 2 On October 28th Newman arrived
in the City of Rome. The Rome correspondent of the Daily
News, " Father Prout," in announcing his arrival, added : —
" In a few days Mr. Newman, late of Oxford, and his com
panions, will take possession of chambers in the College of
Propaganda, and enter on a preparatory course previous to
re-ordination in the Church of Rome."

The question here arises, on what date, and in what build
ing, was Newman ordained a priest of the Church of Rome ?
The answer to this question must be — at least until more
light is thrown on that mysterious event — no one knows,
except the authorities of the Church of Rome, and they have
never given the public any information on the subject ! We
have seen, on Roman Catholic authority, that he went to
Rome expressly for the purpose of being there ordained a
priest. There was no necessity for him to go there ; he
could have been ordained a priest in England by Bishop
Wiseman, and have thus saved himself the trouble of the
journey. When he died, as Cardinal Newman, in 1890,
numerous biographies were published by the Roman Catho
lic papers, but I have not seen in either of them any informa
tion on the point in question. Why this strange and
mysterious silence ? The event was an important one, such
as one would naturally expect to find recorded in any
account of Newman's life. But not a line on the subject
has, so far as I am aware, been yet written by any Roman
Catholic to throw any light on this subject. In 1897, The

1 Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, vol. i. p. 450.

2 Cardinal Newman : A Monograph. By John Oldcastle, p. 34. London :
Burns & Gates.

260 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman was published in two
volumes, written by Mr. Wilfrid Ward. The first of these
volumes contains several lengthy letters, written from Rome
by Newman and his friend Mr. Ambrose St. John, during
their residence there (which lasted until towards the end of
the year 1847), and addressed to Bishop Wiseman. In these
letters they give very full and detailed accounts of their
daily life, of their interviews with the Pope and other pro
minent personages, with ample particulars of all their plans
for future work when they returned to England ; but not
one word about an event which would have been the most impor
tant in Newman s life — his ordination as a priest in the Church
of Rome ! Soon after Newman's death, a brief biography
was published by a Roman Catholic, "John Oldcastle,"
under the title of Cardinal Newman : A Monograph. In it
we read : — " Newman received Holy Orders at the hands of
Cardinal Franzoni, and, in 1847, he announced, in a letter
from Rome to Mr. Hope-Scott, the important plans already
made." x Then follows an extract from the letter alluded to.
It was evidently the intention of " John Oldcastle " to con
vey the impression to his readers that this letter to Mr.
Hope-Scott was written after Newman's ordination as a
priest by Cardinal Franzoni. On turning to the Memoirs
of James Hope-Scott, where the letter is printed in full, we
find that it was dated " Feb. 23, '47 ; " 2 but in the English
Churchman for April i, 1847, page 234, I find an extract
published from the Roman Catholic Tablet, of apparently the
previous week, and therefore a full month after Newman's
letter to Mr. Hope-Scott. And this is what the Tablet
said : —

" We hear with great pleasure that Mr. Newman is to return to
England as a Brother of the Oratory. . . . The story that there has
been any difficulty about Mr. Newman's ordination is of course a
mere fable. His ordination, and that of his companions, may pro
bably be delayed a little by the noviciate requisite for members of
the Oratory, but it will follow, under the direction of the proper
authorities, as a matter of course."

It is therefore certain that up to about the middle of

1 Cardinal Newman : A Monograph. By John Oldcastle, p. 35.

2 Memoirs of James Hope-Scott, vol. ii. p. 73.

STARTLING ASSERTIONS CONCERNING NEWMAN 261

March 1847 — five months after his arrival in Rome —
Newman had not, so far as the public were aware, been
ordained a priest. In the year 1866 Newman's Apologia
Pro Vita Sua was replied to by Mr. Charles Hastings Col-
lette, in a volume of 200 p^iges, entitled Dr. Newman and
His Religious Opinions. In it the author made some start
ling statements about Newman's ordination, which, so far
as I can ascertain, have never been answered. Certainly
they were not replied to by Newman himself, though it
would undoubtedly have been worth his while to have
done so. It is simply in the hope of forcing, if that be
possible, the hands of the Papal authorities into producing
the official record of Newman's ordination, together with
the date and place where it occurred, that I here repro
duce Mr. Collette's statement. Speaking of Newman and
Froude's secret interview with Wiseman in Rome, in 1833,
to which I have already referred, Mr. Collette writes : —

" Now it is a fact that it was considered at the time, and has
been often publicly repeated, that Dr. Newman was at this inter
view with Dr. Wiseman, in company with Froude, formally ordained
a priest of the Roman Church, being then, in fact, a member of that
communion. Dr. Newman again visited Rome under the advice of
Dr. Wiseman in 1845 ;x after he had publicly renounced the com
munion of the Church of England. He went ostensibly to be
inducted into the priesthood, a ceremony that could have been
equally well performed in England. It has been confidently asserted
that Dr. Newman was not then (i 845)2 ordained a priest of Rome;
that his journey was a make-believe. Holy Orders in the Roman
Church are accounted a Sacrament, which cannot be repeated
without sacrilege. Anglican Orders are void, in the estimation of
the Roman Church. If Dr. Newman was secretly ordained in 1833,
the ceremony could not be repeated in i845,3 and it was publicly
alleged at the time that he was not ordained in 1845 [1846], nor
ever since. . . . When Dr. Newman publicly declared himself a
Romanist, and went to Rome ostensibly for his ordination, a day
was proposed for the performance of that ceremony. Great curiosity
was excited at the time among the English at Rome, to witness
the ceremony. Those who were there at the time well remember
the circumstance. But for one reason or another it was deferred,
until general interest died away, and no ordination, so far as the

1 A misprint for 1846. 2 1846. 3 1846.

262 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

public cire aware, took place. One only conclusion was come to ;
namely, that Dr. Newman had been already ordained a priest of
Rome, and was actually a priest while officiating in the Anglican
Church. This challenge was, at the time, publicly made, and has
never been denied. . . .

" Dr. Newman is now openly an officiating priest in the Roman
Church. It was therefore with more than ordinary curiosity that
we anxiously awaited the announcement by Dr. Newman, in his
biography [the Apologia Pro Vita Sua\ as to the exact time when,
in fact, he had formally taken the vows of the Roman Church as a
priest. One would have supposed that the precise date when this
important occurrence took place, and the circumstances attending
it, and by whom the ceremony was performed, would be duly
notified. But we look in vain for this information ; all we are
told is, that in 1845 he was 'received' into the Church of Rome;
and he says 'for a while after my reception I proposed to betake
myself to some secular calling'; but he nowhere mentions his re-
ordination." 1

Now I know very well that it is quite easy to pooh-
pooh Mr. Collette's assertions, and to say that they are not
worth a moment's thought. But this is not to answer the
question, When and where was Dr. Newman ordained a
priest of the Church of Rome ?

The consecration of the new Church of St. Saviour's,
Leeds, on October 28, 1845, was an event of more than
ordinary interest to the Puseyites. The Church was built
for the purpose of carrying the principles of the Oxford
Movement into practical operation in a poor parish. Its
real founder was Dr. Pusey himself, and up to a certain
point he had worked most cordially with Dr. Hook, Vicar
of Leeds, in making all necessary arrangements for the
new Church. As far back as 1839 Pusey had corresponded
with Hook about it, mentioning that a friend (who we now
know was Pusey himself) was willing to give ^1500 to build
at Leeds an " Oratorium," but that he must make it a con
dition that when erected it should have an inscription with
the words : " Ye who enter this holy place, pray for the
sinner who built it." The Bishop of Ripon was con
sulted about tbe proposed inscription, and he said that on

1 Dr. Newman and His Religious Opinions. By Charles Hastings Collette,
pp. 47-49. London : J. F. Shaw & Co. 1866.

ST. SAVIOUR'S, LEEDS 263

receiving an assurance that the person referred to was then
alive, he would not object to it. Of course, I need hardly
point out that as soon as the donor was dead the inscrip
tion would then become an invitation to pray for the dead.
No doubt this is what Pusey had in his mind when he first
proposed its erection. Eventually the foundation-stone
was laid on September 14, 1842 ; but no great publicity
was given to the event, through fear of arousing the oppo
sition of the Protestant Churchmen of Leeds. As the
building of the Church progressed, it gave rise to a consider
able amount of local discussion, so that in November, 1843,
Hook told Pusey: "I really dread the consecration."1
Some members of the Cambridge Camden Society wished
that the Ten Commandments, Creed, and Lord's Prayer
should not be set up near the Communion Table ; but
Pusey, to his credit be it said, refused. He thought there
was " much good " in having them in such a position. " I
cannot but think," he said, "that the Ten Commandments,
with their strict warning voice, are far more valuable to us,
as attendants on the altar, than images or pictures or
tapestry would be ; " 2 but he was unwilling, he added, to
give up the proposed Altar Cross. As to the material of
which the " altar " was to be made, Pusey was very emphatic.
He would rather have the consecration of the Church
suspended than erect in it a Communion Table. He
would have an " altar." " I could not myself," he wrote
to a correspondent, "put up what should seem to be a
mere table. When truth was not denied, tables were
altars, as well as altars holy tables ; now they seem to me
to involve at least a withdrawal of the truth ; and if insisted
upon, a denial of it. I dare not myself be any party to put
ting up a table. I would sooner have the consecration of
a Church suspended. I would spare any needless offence ;
but, if this be one, it seems to me unavoidable. But I hope
with a few years it will much diminish, and every altar is
a gain."3 No doubt every "altar" erected in a parish
Church is a gain to the Romeward Movement ; but at the
same time it is a loss to Scriptural truth. The New Testa-

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 475.

2 Ibid. p. 477. 3 Ibid. p. 478.

264 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

merit knows nothing of an " altar " on which to celebrate
the Lord's Supper ; and the Church of England orders
only a table ; but that which she has ordered was not
sufficient for Dr. Pusey. On this point the judgment of the
Judicial Committee of Privy Council in the case of Liddell
v. Westerton may be usefully cited. Their lordships said : —

" The distinction between an ' Altar ' and a ' Communion Table '
is in itself essential and deeply founded in the most important
difference in matters of faith between Protestants and Romanists,
namely, in the different notions of the nature of the Lord's Supper
which prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church at the time of the
Reformation, and those which were introduced by the Reformers.
By the former it was considered as a Sacrifice of the Body and
Blood of the Saviour. The Altar was the place on which the
Sacrifice was to be made ; the elements were to be consecrated,
and, being so consecrated, were treated as the actual Body and
Blood of the Victim. The Reformers, on the other hand, con
sidered the Holy Communion not as a Sacrifice, but as a Feast,
to be celebrated at the Lord's Table."1

Pusey wished the new Church to be known as " Holy
Cross Church/' but the Bishop of Ripon objected to this,
and therefore " St. Saviour's Church " was selected instead.
The Bishop refused to consecrate the Church unless a
wooden Communion Table were erected, and not either a
stone altar or a stone slab resting on a wooden frame.
The Rev. Richard Ward was appointed the first Incum
bent. He afterwards seceded to Rome. When the selec
tion of special preachers at the Consecration services had
to be made, Hook became very anxious. Newman had
only just seceded to Rome, and the Vicar of Leeds was
naturally fearful lest special preachers should be selected,
who might soon after go over to Rome. " If," Hook wrote
to Pusey, " any of the preachers fall away into the fearful
schism of Rome, against which I am accustomed to preach
so very strongly (I am this very day about to denounce the
heresy of Rome in praying to Saints), more mischief will be
done than I can calculate." 2 At last the consecration took

1 Brodrick and Freemantle's Judgments of the Judicial Committee of Privy
Council, p. 144.

2 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 487.

BISHOP WILBERFORCE AND PUSEY 265

place, and soon St. Saviour's, Leeds, became notorious
throughout the country as a hotbed of Popery, and a
nursery of clerical and lay perverts to Rome.

Another event of considerable importance occurred this
year, in the appointment of Dean Samuel Wilberforce as
Bishop of Oxford, in the room of Dr. Bagot, who had been
transferred to Bath and Wells. Churchmen everywhere
wondered what would come from such an appointment.
Evangelical Churchmen had reason to expect fair play at
his hands, though he had refused to be recognised as a
member of their party. The Puseyites hoped for the best,
yet with fear and trembling. As soon as Dr. Wilberforce's
nomination was made public, Dr. Pusey wrote to him,
evidently anxious to secure his goodwill for himself and his
friends. Wilberforce was elected as Bishop by the Dean
and Chapter of Christ Church, on November i5th, and on
the same day Pusey opened a correspondence with the
Bishop-Elect, in which he explained his own position and
work to his future Diocesan. " For myself/' Pusey said,
" I can too readily think that any apparent connection
with myself would rather embarrass you with many ; else it
would have given me much pleasure if, in the retired way
in which I live, my house could be of any service to you
at any time that your duties shall call you into Oxford." l
But Wilberforce was not to be caught in this way. He
replied, thanking Pusey for the kind tone of his letter
towards himself ; but ending with what must have been a
bitter pill for Pusey to swallow. " I could not then," wrote
Wilberforce, " but say, how very deeply (to go no further
back) the letters to which you allude had pained me ; and
that I cannot feel that the language therein held as to the
errors of the Church of Rome is, to my apprehension, to
be reconciled with the doctrinal formularies of our own
Reformed Church."2 "It was," says Canon Liddon, "a
disagreeable surprise to one in Pusey's anxious position,
entertaining, as he had done, such hopeful expectations, to
receive thus early a plain intimation that the attitude of his
future Bishop was so different from all that he had antici
pated, as well as from that of the previous occupant of the

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 302. Ibid. p. 302.

266 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

See." l I have already quoted a portion of this correspond
ence. Pusey's answer to this letter of the Bishop-Elect
shows clearly how very far he had gone in helping on the
Romeward Movement :—

"I did not," he said, "mean to say anything definitely as to
myself, but only to maintain, in the abstract, the tenability of a certain
position, in which very many are, of not holding themselves obliged to
renounce any doctrine, formally decreed by the Roman Church. And
this I knew would satisfy many minds, who do not wish to form
any definite opinion on those doctrines, yet still wish not to be
obliged to commit themselves against them. But in this I was not
speaking of what is commonly meant by 'Popery,' which is a large
practical system, going beyond their formularies, varying perhaps
indefinitely in different minds. I meant simply 'the letter of what
has been decreed by the Roman Church ' ; and this I have, for
years, hoped might ultimately become the basis of union between us."2

Here Pusey's anxious desire for the Union of the
Church of England with the corrupt Church of Rome
comes out most clearly, as does also his remarkable ac
knowledgment that he had " for years " previously hoped
for such an unholy union. " I cannot but think," he said,
in this same letter, " that Rome and we are not irre
concilably at variance, but that, in the great impending
contest with unbelief, we shall be on the same side, and in
God's time, and in His way, one." I am not exaggerating
when I assert that from this period Reunion with Rome
became the absorbing passion of Pusey's life. Certainly
the "very many," who, in 1845, considered that, although
in the Church of England, they were not " obliged to re
nounce any doctrine formally decreed by the Roman
Church," would not have felt much pressure on their
conscience in accepting Union with Rome on Rome's
terms. And even as to Pusey himself there were but
few, if any, of the "formal" doctrines of Rome which
he would, previous to the Vatican Council, insist on that
Church renouncing as a condition of Reunion with the
Church of England. He wrote, it is true, strongly against
Mariolatry in the Church of Rome, as a part of her
" large practical system, going beyond their formularies "

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 42.

2 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. pp. 303, 304.

PUSEY'S DOUBLE DEALING 267

(and subsequently he wrote against Papal Infallibility) ; but
in this letter of his to Dr. Wilberforce, he showed his faith,
even at that early period, in Purgatory and some Invoca
tion of Saints. In what he said on these doctrines his
double dealing and Jesuitism are also clearly revealed : —

" Practically," Pusey wrote to Wilberforce, " when people come
to me for guidance, / endeavour to withhold them from what lies
beyond our Church, although, if asked on the other side, I could not
deny that such and such things seem to me admissible.

" If I may explain my meaning, the remarkable Acts of S.
Perpetua and Felicitas, which was beyond question genuine, con
tain a very solemn vision,1 which involves the doctrine of a process
of purification after death by suffering, to shorten which prayer was
available. ... I had interpreted passages (as of S. Basil), as I saw,
wrongly, under a bias the other way ; solemn as it was, I could not,
taking all together, refuse my belief to an intermediate state of cleans
ing^ in some cases through pain. . . . The effect has been that I have
since been ivholly silent about Purgatory (before I used to speak against
it). I have not said so much as this except to two or three friends.
Some of my nearest friends do not know if.2

" In like manner, I found that some Invocation of Saints was
much more frequent in the early Church than I had been taught to
think, that it has very high authority, and is nowhere blamed. This
is wholly distinct from the whole system as to S. Mary, as what I said
before is from the popular system as to Purgatory. In this way, then,
and partly from the internal structure of the Article, I came to think
that our Article did not condemn all 'doctrine of Purgatory7 or
' Invocation of Saints,' but only a certain practical system which the
Reformers had before their eyes ; and then I came afterwards to see
that the actual Roman formularies did not assert more on these subjects
(as apart from the popular system or ' Popery ') than was in the
ancient Church.

"Practically, then, I dissuade or forbid (when I have authority)
Invocation of Saints ; abstractedly I see no reason why our Church
might not eventually alloiv it, in the sense of asking for their
prayers." 3

Double dealing of this kind, on Pusey's part, in relation
to St. Saviour's, Leeds, led even that pronounced Tractarian,

1 Fancy a man like Pusey basing his faith in the existence of a Purgatory on
"a very solemn vision 1 " There was no basis for it in the Bible.

2 In this Pusey acted on the doctrine of "Reserve in Communicating Religious
Knowledge."

3 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. pp. 304, 305.

268 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

Dr. Hook, to write to him, on December 19, 1846 : — " Is
this conduct that can be justified by any but a Jesuit ? Do
not mistake me — I do not think you are a Jesuit ; but I be
lieve you to be under the influence of Jesuits. Your own
representatives here say as much ; they seem to admit that
you were only the puppet while others pulled the strings." 1

Of Pusey's correspondence with Wilberforce Canon
Liddon writes : — " Anything more unhappy than such a
correspondence as this cannot well be imagined " ; and he
acknowledges that " there was sufficient in Pusey's letter to
excite suspicion in the mind of one who had no closer
sympathies with the Tractarian Movement than had Dr.
Wilberforce at that moment." 2

The question of the Surplice or Black Gown in the pulpit
came again prominently before the public in 1845. The
Bishop of Exeter having withdrawn his order to all his clergy
to preach in the surplice only, it was felt by those who used
the surplice that this order was not one commanding them
to give it up. Amongst those who continued it were the
Rev. Francis Courtenay, Vicar of St. Sidwell's, Exeter ; and
the Rev. Philip Carlyon, Vicar of St. James', in the same
city. On January loth both parishes held a united meeting
" to consider the course to be adopted respecting the con
tinued use of the surplice" by the Incumbents of both
parishes. Several resolutions were passed (in one of which
it was acknowledged that " the use of the surplice in the
pulpit was introduced before the present Ministers were ap
pointed ") and the Ministers were requested to discontinue
the use of the surplice. In reply the Vicar of St. Sidwell's
positively refused to grant the request ; while the Vicar
of St. James' promised to do what the meeting asked for.
One result of the refusal by the Vicar of St. Sidwell's
was a decision to build a u Free Church " in the district ;
and the next was that on the following Sunday after his
refusal Mr. Courtenay saw, on entering the pulpit in his
surplice, two-thirds of the congregation arise and leave
the Church in a body. When he left the Church he
was hissed and hooted in the streets on his way to his

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 126.

2 Ibid. pp. 48, 49.

THE SURPLICE QUESTION AT EXETER 269

residence. The Archbishop of Canterbury tried to allay the
public excitement on this and a few other minor matters,
which had spread throughout the country, by means of
a Pastoral Letter. But inasmuch as his advice was that
each side should, for the time being, tolerate the other side,
no peaceful results followed from his exhortation. The
Vicar of St. Sidwell's, Exeter, continued to preach in the
surplice, and this led on several Sundays to riotous pro
ceedings in the Church. The principal inhabitants of the
city became alarmed, with the result that a requisition was
addressed by the Mayor of Exeter and the Magistrates
to the Bishop of Exeter, to use his influence with Mr.
Courtenay in the interests of peace. The Bishop thereupon
wrote to Mr. Courtenay : — " I advise you to give way, at
the request of the civil authorities of Exeter, and not to
persist in wearing the surplice in the pulpit, unless con
scientiously, and on full inquiry, you have satisfied yourself
that your engagements to the Church require you to wear
the surplice when you preach." l On this Mr. Courtenay
very properly gave way, and promised to preach no longer
in the surplice. But this concession did not satisfy his
parishioners, who, on the day after it was made, held a
meeting at which a resolution was unanimously passed,
asking Mr. Courtenay to resign the living, and declaring
that he " having signified his consent to withdraw the sur
plice," " any concession now is insufficient to restore him
to that position which a Pastor should hold among his
parishioners." One result of the agitation at Exeter was a
petition to the House of Lords from 3200 adult members
of the Church of England residing at or near Exeter, com
plaining of alterations which had been made by the clergy
in the mode of conducting the services of the Church,
which had " endangered the peace, union, and stability
of the Established Church." It was presented by Earl
Fortescue, Lord Lieutenant of Devon, on February 23rd,
and led to an important debate, in the course of which the
Bishop of Exeter defended his conduct as well as he could,
and in which the Bishop of Norwich used these words : —

English Churchman^ January 30, 1845, P- 63.

270 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

" My Lords, as this question refers to one particular
diocese, ... I forbear from entering into the discussion ;
but from the general feeling of the country, and particu
larly from that in my own diocese, I can venture to say that
there is a determination to adhere to our Protestant faith,
and to resist any innovation, or any approach, in reality or
even in imagination, to anything of a Roman Catholic
feeling, and I rejoice that these petitions have been for
warded." l

All through this year the Puseyites continued to repeat
their demand for the prosecution of Protestant clergymen
who, in their opinion, had broken the law. I may here
remark that there is no reason why Evangelical clergymen
should be exempt from prosecution should they break the
law of the Church ; but at this period it was quite expected
that in this way they would be able to suppress those
peculiar doctrines of the Evangelicals opposed to the
Romeward Movement. In this the Puseyites and their
successors, the Ritualists, have been greatly disappointed.
A very few of the Evangelical clergy may, here and there,
have offended against the law on some minor point of no
importance ; but these are mere trifles when compared
with the serious breaches of the law, in the interests of
Sacerdotalism, now constantly perpetrated by the Ritual
ists, and it is well, in this connection, to remember that
Evangelicals should not be held responsible for what Broad
Churchmen do. One grave cause of offence to their op
ponents the Protestant clergy gave at this time, by mixing
more freely amongst orthodox Nonconformists, and even
giving addresses at public meetings in aid of religious work
conducted by Churchmen and Dissenters combined. This
exhibition of Protestant unity was peculiarly distasteful to
men who were sighing for unity with Rome. The English
Churchman, of March 13, 1845, expressed great satisfaction
at hearing that the Bishop of London had prevented three
London Incumbents from speaking at a meeting of the Welsh
Calvinistic Methodist Foreign Missionary Society ; and then
it continued its comment in the following style : — " So far so

1 English Churchman, March 6, 1845, P- :45-

PRAYING IN UNCONSECRATED PLACES 271

good, as a beginning, and we trust it is only a beginning,
on the part of the Lord Bishop of the Diocese. We trust
that the meetings of the London City Mission, the Religious
Tract Society, and other Dissenting schemes for promoting
schism in the Church, will no longer be allowed to boast of
the advocacy of the clergy." But there was no praise from
the Puseyites for the same Bishop of London (Dr. Blom
field) when, only two years before, he refused to allow a
clergyman to officiate in a parish, on the ground that in
a sermon he had insisted upon the necessity of Auricular
Confession. After quoting passages from the sermon
Bishop Blomfield wrote to the preacher : — " I wish to
give you an opportunity of retracting or explaining these
erroneous positions ; but I really do not see how I can
safely entrust the care of a large body of poor ignorant
people to a teacher who either holds these opinions, or
asserts them so broadly and offensively, without a clear
understanding of what he says." l Would that our Bishops
were now as faithful in this gravely important matter as
Bishop Blomfield was in 1843. And why should they not
be as faithful ?

In its issue for September 4, 1845, the English Church
man again expressed its delight on hearing that the Bishop
of Salisbury had threatened to prosecute two of his Evan
gelical clergy for what it termed the " gross scandal to the
Church " which they had given by actually preaching in an
unlicensed building ! It seems that during the previous
month a Commission appointed by the Bishop of Salisbury,
under the Church Discipline Act, met at Upway, for the
purpose of making enquiry whether there were prima facie
grounds for prosecuting the Rev. Samuel Starky, Rector of
Charlinch, " in that he has lately, at divers times, committed
the canonical offence of preaching and publicly praying, in
unconsecrated places, without the license of the Ordinary
thereof ; " and for prosecuting the Rev. Octavius Piers,
Vicar of Preston, in Dorset, for " having been present at,
and aided and abetted the meetings and assemblies lately,
and at divers times, held in unconsecrated places within his

1 Memoir of Bishop Blomfield^ vol. ii. p. 84.

272 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

said parish of Preston, and at which meetings the Rev.
Samuel Starky and other persons had, as alleged, in the
presence of the said Octavius Piers, publicly preached, prayed,
&c." * The Commission reported, after hearing evidence,
that there was a prima facie case for proceeding against the
two Evangelical Incumbents.

It makes one justly indignant at the narrow-minded
bigotry which would actually prosecute a man, with the
hope of his being deprived of his living, or at least
suspended for a time, for the sole offence of " publicly
preaching and praying " in an unconsecrated building, and
that within his own parish ! And be it noted that, although
Mr. Starky preached in Mr. Piers' parish, he did so with
the latter gentleman's full knowledge and consent. This
is a chapter in the History of the Romeward Movement of
which the Ritualists ought to be heartily ashamed, though
I sincerely believe that if they had the opportunity they
would even now imitate the disgraceful conduct of the
Puseyites of 1845. And this is what the Puseyite organ
said about the case, when the good news came to its
office : —

" The Commission issued by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury, to
enquire whether there are grounds for proceeding against Mr.
Starky, and the notorious Mr. Octavius Piers, for preaching in
unconsecrated places, without the license of the Ordinary. The
latter-named clergyman has, for a long time, caused, in various
ways, gross scandal to the Church.2 But the question at issue is of
great importance, and an ecclesiastical decision upon it will have
a most extensive influence, especially in this diocese, where the
practice of extemporary prayer and preaching ' Cottage Lectures ' in
schoolrooms, hard by the Church, is of common occurrence."3

Of course these two excellent Evangelical clergymen
had committed no offence against the law whatever. Appa
rently it was deemed unadvisable to bring the case into
Court, for I can find no record of it going any further.

A lawsuit which created a great deal of public interest

1 English Churchman, August 28, 1845, p. 544.

2 I suppose the "gross scandal" was caused by such conduct as preaching
and praying in unconsecrated buildings.

3 English Churchman, September 4, 1845, p. 564.

THE CASE OF THE REV. JAMES SHORE 273

came this year before Sir Herbert Jenner Fust, in the
Court of Arches. The real prosecutor was the High
Church Bishop of Exeter, who seems to have had a
far greater dislike to decidedly Evangelical and Protestant
truth, than to any imitations of Popery in his diocese.
He prosecuted through his Secretary, Mr. Ralph Barnes.
The defendant was the Rev. James Shore, who, until
about a year before the commencement of the proceed
ings, had acted for nearly eleven years as a Minister of
Bridgetown Chapel, in the parish of Bury Pomeroy, with
the licence of the Bishop who was now his prosecutor.
From a correspondence on the case which Mr. Shore
published in 1849, while he was in Exeter Gaol through
the action of his theological opponents, and from The
Case of Mr. Shore, written by the Bishop of Exeter, I find
that in 1843 the late Incumbent resigned the living, and
a Rev. W. B. Cosens was appointed in his room. The
Bishop of Exeter sent for Mr. Cosens a few days after his
institution, and — to quote the Bishop's own words, given
by him on oath at the Exeter Assizes, March 1848 — said to
him : — " I apprehend you will find a very important part of
your parish, or of those souls committed to your charge, to
be in such a state that you ought to take especial care
whom you appoint as your Assistant Curate at Bridge
town " l — of which down to that period Mr. Shore had been
for nearly eleven years Curate. Mr. Shore still retained
the licence given him by the Bishop when he first entered
on the Curacy. There had been a change in the Incum
bency meantime, before the arrival of Mr. Cosens, but the
licence had not been formally renewed, and legally did not
require renewal. The Bishop revoked Mr. Shore's licence,
and then demanded that he should obtain a new nomina
tion to the Curacy from Mr. Cosens, or cease to officiate in
Bridgetown. Of course, after such a hint from his new
Diocesan, Mr. Cosens refused to nominate Mr. Shore. The
Bishop had for a long time disliked Mr. Shore's decided
Protestantism, and was heartily glad to get rid of him/
" Doubtless," writes Mr. Shore, " my views of doctrine,

1 The Case of the Rev. James Shore, M.A. By Himself. In Reply to the
Bishop, p. 1 6. London : Partridge & Oakey. 1849.

274 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

being so opposed to Tractarianism, might have excited a
prejudice against me ; but there is something further and
still deeper. It is evident, from the principal part of the
Bishop's pamphlet now before me, that he was very anxious
to get the Chapel endowed and consecrated, and thus more
certainly under his own control." l Had the Bishop suc
ceeded in his ambition, and secured Bridgetown Chapel by
having it consecrated — which it had not been — he would
very soon have sent Mr. Shore about his business, as
a known opponent of the Tractarianism which he (the
Bishop) loved so dearly. Mr. Shore tells us, and I see no
reason to doubt the statement : — "As showing the Bishop's
determination to silence all who oppose the Tractarian
Movement, I may here mention that he withdrew his licence
from a friend of mine, on account of his having written a
note condemning Puseyism. This clergyman waited three
years in silence, in the hope of again being able to exercise
his ministry in the Establishment, but finding every door
shut against him, he built a chapel for himself, in which he
is now preaching as a Dissenting Minister."2 The fact
is that the Bishop's nature was tyrannical : he could not
endure contradiction or opposition, least of all from the
Protestant Churchmen of his diocese.

Mr. Shore, having failed in getting a new nomination
from Mr. Cosens, as Curate of Bridgetown Chapel, and
having gathered around him a large and deeply attached
congregation, had now to face a great difficulty. He was
certain that the Bishop would eventually refuse to licence
him to any other Curacy in the Diocese of Exeter, and
would refuse to sign his testimonials for work in any other
diocese, thus shutting him out of any future work in the
Church of England, and reducing his victim, together
with his wife and family, to a state of abject poverty, if not
starvation. What was he to do under such painful circum
stances ? The Duke of Somerset, who owned Bridgetown
Chapel, at this juncture offered him permission to continue
the use of the chapel, apart from the jurisdiction of the
Church of England, and at the same time secured for him

1 The Case of the Rev. James Shore t M.A. By Himself, p. 18.

2 Ibid. p. 1 8, note.

THE CASE OF THE REV. JAMES SHORE 275

an adequate income as its minister. Mr. Shore decided
that he would accept this generous offer, and in order that
he might remove, as he thought, every legal difficulty in
the way, he had the chapel registered as a Dissenting
Chapel, and himself took the necessary oaths declaring
himself a Dissenting minister, as required by the Toleration
Acts, after which he officiated in Bridgetown Chapel, using
the Liturgy of the Church of England. He now thought
himself safe from any further interference from the Bishop
of Exeter; but in this he was mistaken. The Bishop de
cided on prosecuting him in the Arches Court, for the
offence that he, being still legally a clergyman of the
Church of England, had unlawfully officiated in Bridge
town Chapel without the authority, and contrary to the
monition of his Diocesan. Of course the Bishop might
have left Mr. Shore alone, unmolested by the law, with its
pains and penalties. In his pamphlet, Mr. Shore forcibly
pointed out that :— "The late Rev. John Hawker, of Ply
mouth, was not proceeded against by the Bishop. After
withdrawing from his lordship's jurisdiction, Mr. Hawker
continued, for about fifteen years, to use the services as I
use them at Bridgetown — in a chapel, too, which was
designed, when erected, for the Establishment ; and yet
he was left entirely unmolested. I believe, also, that Mr.
Hawker did not qualify under the Toleration Act, as I did.
Indeed, I have not been able to find one single seceding
clergyman who has so qualified except myself ; and yet, in
every other diocese throughout the land, numbers of seced
ing clergymen are preaching without let or hindrance,
whilst I for doing so am in gaol." l It was, therefore, not
without reason that Mr. Shore complained of the Bishop's
action towards him as " an undue and oppressive exercise
of the law."

Greatly to the delight of the Puseyites the action against
Mr. Shore was pushed forward, and at length, on June 20,
1846, Sir Herbert Jenner Fust delivered judgment in the
Court of Arches. He said : —

" I am of opinion that the proctor for the promoter has proved
the articles charging Mr. Shore with having been guilty of publicly

1 The Case of the Rev. James Shore, M.A. By Himself, pp. 22, 23.

276 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

reading prayers, according to the form prescribed by the Book of
Common Prayer, and of preaching in an unconsecrated chapel
without a licence ; that he has thereby incurred Ecclesiastical cen
sure; and that he must be admonished to refrain from offending
in like manner in future. Should he be guilty of a repetition of
this offence, it will be not only against his Diocesan, but against
the authority of this Court. Though this gentleman is at this
moment a minister of the Established Church of this land, from
which office he cannot of his own authority relieve himself, still I
do not think I am entitled to depose him from the ministry. I
content myself by pronouncing that the articles have been suffi
ciently proved. I admonish Mr. Shore to abstain from offending
in like manner in future, in the parish of Bury Pomeroy, and in the
Diocese of Exeter, and elsewhere in the Province of Canterbury;
and I condemn him in the costs." 1

Mr. Shore appealed from this sentence to the Judicial
Committee of Privy Council. Their lordships gave judg
ment on February 14, 1848, confirming the sentence of the
Court of Arches. Early the next year the Rev. James
Shore, still owing to the Bishop of Exeter the sum of
.£115, 33. 5d., being a portion of his lordship's costs in
prosecuting Mr. Shore, that prelate caused the unhappy
defendant to be arrested, on March 31, 1849, and com
mitted to Exeter Gaol, there to remain until he had paid
the money. And there he might have remained for all the
High Church Bishop cared, were it not that some friends
of Mr. Shore subscribed the money needed, and then he
was released from prison.

It was not until 1870 that the law was altered under
which Mr. Shore suffered. By the Clerical Disabilities
Act, 33 and 34 Victoria, c. 91, provision is made by which
a clergyman can resign his Orders in the Church of
England, free from any penalty. But if he resigns his
Orders he can never again, however anxious he may be
to do so, officiate in the Church of England. 2

1 Robertson's Ecclesiastical Reports, vol. i. p. 399.

2 For further particulars of Mr. Shore's case, see The Case of the Rev. fames
Shore, in Reply to the Rev. W. B. Cosens. By the Rev. James Shore, pp. 25.
London: Partridge & Oakey. 1849. Aft, Appeal to My Fellow-Townsmen on
Behalf of the Rev. James Shore. By Sir Culling E. Eardley, Bart., pp. 24.
Torquay : Elliott & Wreyford. 1849.

"ENTIRE ABSOLUTION OF THE PENITENT" 277

Dr. Pusey's suspension for two years from preaching
in the University pulpit ended in June 1845. Although he
did not expect to preach again until the following February,
Pusey early began to prepare for it. He sought the advice
of friends, some of whom were anxious that he should preach
again the sermon for which he had been condemned by
the Six Doctors. Pusey's opponents were not idle. On
January 5, 1846, the Rev. Charles P. Golightly, of Oriel
College, addressed a letter to the Vice-Chancellor, quoting
some passages from a letter written by Dr. Pusey, in the
previous October, to the English Churchman, and demand
ing that before he preached his forthcoming sermon Pusey
should be required to subscribe again to Article XXII.
The Vice-Chancellor, however, while disapproving of several
of Pusey's statements, did not think there was any necessity
to grant that which Mr. Golightly had requested.

The sermon was preached on February i, 1846, and
Pusey took for his subject, Entire Absolution of the Peni
tent. Of course the Cathedral was crowded in every part.
" Every inch on the floor of the Church," writes a friendly
eye-witness, "was occupied. Dr. Pusey had to move
slowly through the dense mass on his way to the corner
of the Cathedral where the Vice-Chancellor and Doctors
assemble, visible to nobody but those immediately along
the line he had to pass ; his perfectly pallid, furrowed,
mortified face looking almost like jagged marble." 1 He
took for his text John xx. 21-23, and in his first sentence
referred to the sermon for which he had been suspended :
" It will," he said, " be in the memory of some that when,
nearly three years past, Almighty God (for ' secret faults '
which he knoweth, and from which, I trust, He willed to
' cleanse ' me), allowed me to be deprived for a time of this
my office among you, I was endeavouring to mitigate the
stern doctrine of the heavy character of a Christian's sins."
He then proceeded to preach his first sermon advocating
Auricular Confession and priestly absolution. He had
already taught it in his adapted Roman books : now he
preached it from the University pulpit. The time had not

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 59.

278 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

yet come for himself to practise what he had so long urged
on others. Throughout the sermon it is assumed that
Confession to a priest, and priestly absolution, are God's
ordinary method of pardoning sin; and cleansing the soul
from its stains. It is admitted, in one passage, that those
who have perfect contrition, provided they long for absolu
tion, are absolved directly by God without priestly absolu
tion ; but this is also the teaching of Rome. All through
the discourse Pusey assumes that hardly any such perfectly
contrite sinners are to be found on earth. A few extracts
from the sermon itself may here serve to give my readers
an idea of the thoroughly Popish teaching given in it : —

" And now, brethren, I would proceed to speak of that great
authoritative act [of priestly absolution], whereby God in the Church
still forgives the sins of the penitent."1

"The one object, as I have explained, of this series of sermons,
is to minister to one class of souls, those whose consciences being
oppressed by the memory of past sin, more or less grievous, long to
know how they may be replaced in that condition in which God
once placed them ; and now, too, my object is, not to speak of
discipline in general, or what were best for the Church or for her
members generally, but of that mercy which, by the power of the
Keys, God pours out upon the penitent. This, then, is probably
one ground why so little needed to be said in the New Testament,
as to the forgiveness of sins of a Christian very grievously fallen,
that our Lord had left a living provision in His Church, whereby [i.e.
through Auricular Confession and priestly absolution] all penitents,
however fallen, should be restored." 5

" Those who form to themselves theories of remission of sin
distinct from the provision laid up by God in the Church, do 'for
sake the Fountain of living waters, and hew them out cisterns,
broken cisterns, which hold no water.'"3

" Grievous sins after Baptism are remitted by Absolution ; and
the judgment, if the penitent be sincere, is an earnest of the judg
ment of Christ, and is confirmed by Him." 4

" So now, as soon as His Priest has, in His Name, pronounced
His forgiveness on earth, the sins of the true penitent are forgiven
in Heaven."5

1 Entire Absolution of the Penitent. By the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D., p. 4.
Oxford : Parker. 1846.

z Ibid. pp. 14, 15. 3 Ibid. p. 24. 4 Ibid. p. 26.

5 Ibid. p. 39.

PUSEY ON ENFORCED CONFESSION 279

" He hath not left us comfortless, but hath left others with His
authority, to convey to sinners in His Name the forgiveness of their
sins." !

" It may be one of the fruits of the Incarnation, and a part of
the dignity thereby conferred upon our nature, that God would
rather work His miracles of grace through man, than immediately
by Himself."2

When the sermon was published, a preface of seventeen
pages was printed with it, in which Pusey said that the
benefits of Auricular Confession and priestly absolution
were not for grievous sinners only ; but also " for all who
can, through its ministry, approach with lightened, more
kindled hearts, to the Holy Communion." 3 He even went
so far as to assert that it was open to the Church, even
now, to " enforce " private Confession to priests, should she
desire to do so. "It is," he wrote, "a matter of discipline,
open to the Church, to enforce public penance, as in the
Ancient Church, or private Confession, as now in the Roman
Church ; or to leave the exercise of it to the consciences of
individuals." 4 Who, after such a statement as this, can
assert that Pusey thought enforced Confession wrong in
principle ?

In this sermon Pusey insisted most of all on the benefits
of priestly absolution. On the first Sunday in Advent (Nov
ember 29th) of the same year he preached again before the
University, and this time he emphasised, most of all, the
supposed advantages of secret Confession to priests. But
who, on this occasion, listening to his pressing exhortations
to Confession, could ever have dreamed that Pusey — though
he had then been hearing Confessions for eight years — had
never been to Confession himself ? He had urged others to
wash and be clean, but he had never washed himself ! He
was, in this matter, like the Pharisees of old, of whom it is
recorded, " they say, and do not." Apparently he lacked
the courage which he required of other people. Not the
least remarkable portion of Pusey's biography is the story
of how he came to go to Confession for the first time, soon

1 Pusey's Entire Absolution of the Penitent, p. 39.

2 Ibid. p. 45. 3 Ibid. p. viii. 4 Ibid. p. xv.

280 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

after his second sermon on Confession. On September 26,
1844, Pusey wrote to Keble : —

11 1 am so shocked at myself that I dare not lay my wounds bare
to any one : since I have seen the benefit of Confession to others, I
have looked round whether I could unburthen myself to any one,
but there is a reason against every one. I dare not so shock people :
and so I go on, having no such comfort as in good Bishop Andrewes'
words, to confess myself 'an unclean worm, a dead dog, a putrid
carcase,' and pray Him to heal my leprosy as He did on earth, and
to raise me from the dead : to give me sight, and to forgive me the
10,000 talents ; and I must guide myself as best I can, because, as
things are, I dare not seek it elsewhere." 1

This is indeed sad and pitiful language coming from one
so intensely in earnest about his own soul's salvation, yet,
apparently, thinking that he could not with any certainty
obtain the pardon he longed for, direct from the Saviour
Himself! He was, truly, a "blind leader of the blind."
Later on he wrote a pitiful letter to Keble, which shows how
far he had gone wrong, not merely in Popish error, but in
Popish superstition also. He said that " by God's mercy " —
it ought to have been " through my own folly " — he was
wearing "haircloth " again, but he would like to wear " some
sharper sort" ; and he should " like to be bid to use the
Discipline " — a lash of hard knotted cords, with which to
whip his bare back ! 2 Two days after he preached the
University sermon last alluded to, viz., on December ist,
Pusey went down to Hursley and made \\isfirst Confession
to Keble, whom he ever after, until Keble's death, took for
his Father Confessor.

The effect of Pusey's Confessional work on his penitents
is thus described by Dean Boyle, of Salisbury, who was at
Oxford at this time : — " I have, unfortunately, had many
friends who submitted themselves to Pusey as a spiritual
guide, and fully adopted his theory of Confession and direc
tion, and in nearly every case I have seen traces of enfeebled
intellect, and what I must call loss of real moral perception.
If the system so zealously advocated by Pusey were ever to

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 96. 2 Ibid. pp. 100, 101.

TWO BOOKS ON AURICULAR CONFESSION 281

be generally adopted, a bad time would come to English
homes." l

Hundreds of volumes have been written on the subject
of Auricular Confession, for and against it. It is manifestly
impossible in a work like this to deal adequately with it.
Besides, this book is written, primarily, for the use of those
whose minds are already made up on this great question on
Protestant lines. But I cannot pass away from it without
urging my readers to study carefully an invaluable work,
reprinted in the Library of Anglo- Catholic Theology, and
issued under the superintendence of a committee, of which
Dr. Pusey himself was a member. It is entitled The Peniten
tial Discipline of the Primitive Church. By Nathaniel Marshall,
D.D. I know no book which so thoroughly upsets the
claims of priestly absolution put forth by Dr. Pusey and the
modern Ritualists. There is another work on the subject
by an old-fashioned High Churchman, published in 1875,
treating the question in a masterly manner, historically and
doctrinally, which I cannot too highly commend. It is
entitled An Examination into the Doctrine and Practice of Con
fession, and was written by the Rev. William Edward Jelf,
B.D. It seems hard to understand how any thoughtful
person, with an open mind, can study these two books
without rejecting the whole sacerdotal claim of Auricular
Confession and Priestly Absolution.

The Bishop of Winchester (Dr. Sumner) had this year
to deal with a remarkable application made to him by a
clergyman who had seceded to the Church of Rome, but
was now anxious to be permitted by his lordship to officiate
once more in the Church of England. Since leaving the
Church of Rome this clergyman had lived in retirement for
three years before making his application. The Bishop
replied that he had received his application " with emotions
of thankfulness to God," but before granting his request he
wished for fuller satisfaction as to the " entire accordance
of his present opinions with the doctrines set forth in the
Articles and formularies," and " especially in regard to the
principal points of difference between our own Church and

1 Recollections of the Very Rev. G. D. Boyle> Dean of Salisbury, p. 115.
London : 1895.

282 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

that of Rome." Before receiving the clergyman's reply a
remarkable circumstance was made known to the Bishop,
which is thus described by his biographer : —

"Meanwhile, trustworthy information had reached the Bishop
that the clergyman in question had been in the habit, within the last
few months, of attending a Roman Catholic place of worship. He
accordingly wrote to him as follows : — ' I think it necessary to
acquaint you, that since I last wrote, a statement has been made to
me to which I am desirous of calling your attention in the first
instance. It is asserted to me, on the authority of a Roman Catholic

priest at , that so recently as the beginning of the present year,

you have attended at the celebration of the Romish service in the
chapel of . It becomes necessary for me to put to you the ex
plicit question, whether this allegation is true, either in respect of the
chapel mentioned, or of any other place of worship of the Romish
communion, since the period when you received the Sacrament of
the Lord's Supper in — — Church, as a declaration of your desire
to return into the communion of the Church of England.'

" In reply, the clergyman, without referring at all to the charge
brought against him, begged leave to withdraw his application for
permission to minister again in the Church of England." l

Conduct like that of this clergyman naturally raises the
question, was he simply a Jesuit in disguise ?

In this year the Puseyites began to discuss the wisdom of
introducing Retreats into the Church of England. Keble
wrote on Ash Wednesday about it to the Rev. W. J. Butler,
Vicar of Wantage (afterwards Dean of Lincoln): — " Marriott
wrote me word that he thought something in the nature of
a Retreat might be managed at Leeds, under the clergy of
St. Saviour's. But failing that he seemed to say it was
not impossible that he might be able to do something
towards such a plan, especially if a negotiation succeeded
which he was then engaged in with Newman for the loan
of the house at Littlemore." 2 Butler hailed the scheme
with delight, as a means of propagating the Confessional
amongst the clergy. He wrote to Keble, on March 5,
1846 :—

" I was in Oxford for but one day, and that was spent entirely in
one place. Indeed, I went there merely to see Dr. Pusey, and to

1 Life of Bishop Stunner, pp. 303-305.

2 Life and Letters of Dean Butler, p. 34.

RETREATS AND THE CONFESSIONAL 283

be away from every one ; I don't know why I should hesitate to
mention it to you ; to make a general Confession to him. Of course
my thoughts were on this one subject, and though I said something
to him some days before in London about the Retreat, yet we did
not recur to it. I can only say that I feel more than ever anxious
to see something of the kind established. ... As far as I know,
though many are desirous to make a Confession, and to continue it
as a habit through life, the thing is all but impossible. Those few
who are in the habit of taking general Confessions are fully occupied
without the addition of having to act as constant spiritual guides.
But men might go to a Retreat periodically, and there receive the
advantage of regular Confession, and the continual preparation
for it."1

1 Life and Letters of Dean Butler, p. 35.

CHAPTER XI

Trouble at St. Saviour's, Leeds — Secessions to Rome — Hook's vigorous
attack on Pusey — " It is mere Jesuitism" — "A semi-Papal colony"
— Hook hopes all the Romanisers will go to Rome — Bishop Phill-
potts prosecutes a Puseyite clergyman — The Cross on a Communion
Table — The present state of the law on this point — Reducing the
distance to Rome — Sackville College, East Grinstead — The Rev.
J. M. Neale inhibited — Freeland v. Neale — The Gorham Case —
Judgment of the Court of Arches — Judgment of the Judicial Com
mittee of Privy Council — Puseyite Protest against the Judgment —
Dr. Pusey and Keble wish to prosecute Gorham for heresy — Bishop
Phillpotts threatens to excommunicate the Archbishop of Canter
bury—The Exeter Synod— The case of the Rev. T. W. Allies— His
extraordinary and disloyal conduct — His visit to Rome — The Pope
tells him that Pusey has "prepared the way for Catholicism" — •
What Mr. Allies told the Pope — Allies secedes to Rome— Corre
spondence with Pusey on Auricular Confession — Startling charges
against Pusey — " In fear and trembling on their knees before you"
— "The rules of the Church of Rome are your rules" — How the
Oxford Movement helped Rome — Wilberforce calls Pusey "a decoy
bird" for the Papal net — He says that he is "doing the work of a
Roman Confessor" — The Papal Aggression — Lord John Russell's
Durham Letter — Bishop Blomfield on the Romeward Movement —
St. Paul's, Knightsbridge — St. Barnabas, Pimlico — Riots in St.
Barnabas' Church — Resignation of the Rev. W. J. E. Bennett — St.
Saviour's, Leeds — Traitorous resolutions of twelve clergymen — A
Confessional inquiry by the Bishop — The Clergy defend questioning
women on the Seventh Commandment.

THE opening of the year 1847 brought with it worry and
trouble for Dr. Pusey, and for his friend, Dr. Hook, Vicar
of Leeds. On New Year's Day, one of the Curates of St.
Saviour's, Leeds, the Rev. R. G. Macmullen, with two lay
men from the same parish, seceded to the Church of Rome.
It was the same Mr. Macmullen, whose Jesuitical conduct
with regard to his Degree at Oxford, has already been
described. Pusey had sent him to St. Saviour's, and this
was the result. Hook was indignant. He wrote to Pusey

two days before the actual reception of Macmullen into

284

"MERE JESUITISM" 285

the Roman Communion : — " You are aware by this time
that Macmullen and his dupes have gone over to the
Mother of Abominations, guilty of the deadly sins of
heresy and schism. Ward [Vicar of St. Saviour's] and
Case remain, I suppose to make more dupes ; though
strong measures must be taken on my part. I cannot
permit a Church and establishment to remain in Leeds
for the destruction of souls without seeking to abate the
nuisance." 1 Things must have gone very far wrong indeed
before such a pronounced High Churchman as Hook
could seek to put down as a "nuisance" the first attempt
to illustrate Tractarian principles in practice. The Rev.
Richard Ward, mentioned by Hook, was the first Vicar of
St. Saviour's, and was appointed by Dr. Pusey. He had
not been long at Leeds before trouble arose. As late as
November 14, 1846, Pusey sent word to Hook: — " I have
entire confidence in Ward, as a loyal son of the Church of
England ; " 2 to which assertion Hook replied most em
phatically : — "Ward is not loyal to the Church of England.
He has himself told me and written to me that to the
Church of England he could not defer."3 In this letter
Hook complained bitterly of Pusey's conduct : —

"And what do I complain of?" he asks. "I complain of your
building a Church and getting a foot in my parish to propagate
principles which I detest — having come under the plea of assisting
me to propagate the principles I uphold. I complain of your
having selected one to oppose me and my principles who approached
me as a friend, and who now admits that in so doing he did wrong,
and that before he undertook to oppose me by causing a division in
Leeds, he ought to have reflected that he was not the proper person
to be your agent. I have said to him, and he has wept — Et tu,
Brute! It is really cruel, mere Jesuitism, thus to misrepresent the
injured party — the party injured through an excess of charity, as the
persecuting party. It is wicked." 4

Pusey answered by telling Hook : — "You are no more
responsible for St. Saviour's than for London " ; which was
almost equivalent to telling him to mind his own business.
But Hook was not the sort of man to be sat upon, or to be

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 128.

2 Ibid. p. 119. 8 Ibid. p. 120. 4 Ibid. p. 120.

286 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

moved from his purpose by the sickening appeals for peace
from the chief cause of the disturbance : — " You tell me,"
he rejoined, " I have no more to do with St. Saviour's
than with London. Be it so. But if my neighbour has a
hornet's nest close to my garden gates, and my children
are likely to be stung by them, I must ask him to remove
the nest, or I send to the constable. And if there be
Romanising at St. Saviour's, I shall send to the Right
Reverend Constable, come what will." l After some
further correspondence, in the course of which Hook
termed St. Saviour's Church " a semi-Papal colony," whose
clergy " proclaim that it is sinful to speak against the
Church of Rome " ; the Vicar of Leeds again demanded,
on December 30, 1846, that Pusey should induce Ward
to resign the Vicarage of St. Saviour's : —

" I called upon you most solemnly in the name of the Great
God," wrote Hook, " to persuade Ward to resign, and to withdraw
your other people. It is now too late to do this entirely, but if you
have any sense of honour or of justice, you should withdraw Ward
and give the presentation to the Bishop. I must take steps to
denounce you and your followers as being in my opinion heretics.
I regard you as such from your last letter. If your view of the
Eucharist be not that taken by the Church of England, instead of
bending your own spirit to the Church, you must, as you say, leave
the Church." 2

The result was that Ward resigned. Pusey asked Arch
deacon Manning to suggest a new Incumbent in his room.
He does not seem to have nominated anybody, but he
expressed in very plain language (on January 23, 1847) t°
Pusey what was the real tendency of Puseyism. "You
know," he said, " how long I have to you openly expressed
my conviction that a false position has been taken up in
the Church of England. The direct and certain tendency,
I believe, of what remains of the original Movement is to
the Roman Church. You know the minds of men about
us better than I do, and will therefore know both how
strong an impression the claims of Rome have made upon
them, and how feeble and fragmentary are the reasons on

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 122. 3 Ibid. p. 128.

PUSEY REFUSES TO DENOUNCE ROME 287

which they have made a sudden stand or halt in the line
on which they have been, perhaps insensibly, moving for
years." 1

There were those who thought the secession of the Rev.
R. G. Macmullen a thing to be deplored by members of
the Church of England. Dr. Hook was not one of this
class. "To true-hearted members of the Church of
England," said Hook, "the departure of Mr. Macmullen
and his disciples is a satisfaction and relief ; we may hope that
all Romanisers will follow his example. I have no sympathy
with the cant of those who urge us to retain such persons
in the Church, by permitting them to revile at will the prin
ciples of the English Reformation. I am told that Mr. Mac
mullen would have laboured in the Church if he had been
permitted to act thus. I rejoice to think that he is gone." 2

Mr. Gladstone urged Pusey, in view of the secessions
to Rome from St. Saviour's, Leeds, to set himself right with
public opinion by some explicit and public statement
against the Church of Rome. But he refused to do so.
On February 8, 1847, ne wrote to Mr. Gladstone : — " If I
did say anything publicly about the Church of Rome, it
would be that no good can come of this general declama
tion against it, without owning what is good and great
in it. Many feel this, who love the Church of England
deeply." 3 Pusey's kindly feeling towards Roman Catholics
was shown the previous year, in the statement he made to
his brother on the question of the endowment of Roman
Catholicism : — " For myself, I hope that everything done
for the Roman Catholics will work to good, both in doing
away irritation at present, and tending ultimately to bring
us together. I do not see anything to object to in giving
seats to Irish Roman Catholic Bishops, or endowing Col
leges for them, or paying their clergy if they would receive
it. I do not see anything amiss, or any principle violated,
in doing any thing positively for the Roman Catholics." 4 In
this respect Pusey was, beyond doubt, a very true friend to
the Church of Rome.

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 135.

2 Life and Letters of Dean Hook, vol. ii. p. 2OO.

8 Life of Dr. Piisey, vol. iii. p. 146. 4 Ibid. p. 171.

288 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

In the month of May 1847, the Bishop of Exeter pro
secuted one of his Puseyite clergy, the Rev. W. G. Parks
Smith, Incumbent of St. George's Chapel, Torquay, for a
breach of the law in setting on the Communion Table two
Vases of Flowers, and a Cross two feet high, wreathed with
flowers. The Bishop had for several years attended and
taken part in the services in this Chapel, and had again and
again entreated, and even enjoined Mr. Smith to abstain from
all changes in matters not required by the Rubric or other
law of the Church ; but Mr. Smith had paid no attention to
his Bishop's wishes. The result was that his lordship issued
a Commission, under the Church Discipline Act, to inquire
into the charges brought against Mr. Smith. The Com
mission met in the Chapter House of Exeter Cathedral,
and after hearing evidence, and counsel for the defence,
decided that -&prima facie case had been made out against
the defendant. Thereupon, it was announced, on behalf
of Mr. Smith, that to prevent further legal action he would
consent that the Bishop should pronounce sentence. This
his lordship did, on May 28th. He declared that Mr.
Smith had acted contrary to the law of the Church, ad
monished him not to offend again in like manner, and
ordered him to pay the costs of the proceedings. The
following brief extracts from the judgment are interest
ing :—

" If one person may at his pleasure decorate the Lord's Table
with a Cross, another may equally claim to set a Crucifix upon it
— whilst a third might think it necessary to erect some symbol of
Puritan doctrine or feeling — to mark his reprobation of his Roman
ising neighbour."

"The only direction in the Rubric is, 'that the Table at the
Communion time have a fair white linen cloth upon it ; ' and the
82nd Canon 'appoints, that the Communion Table shall be covered
in time of Divine Service, with a carpet of silk, or other decent stuff,
and with a fair linen cloth at the time of ministration.' This must
be holden virtually to exclude all else, except what is used, or may
be used, in the service itself. If any one ventures to go further — to
add anything which he may deem an ornament — he does it at his
peril."

" Such a thing [as the use of the material Cross on the Lord's

REDUCING THE DISTANCE TO ROME 289

Table] was never heard of, during more than the first three centuries
of the Christian era ; and Durandas, the authority relied on by the
defendant's advocate, for saying, that ' the proper place for the Cross
is the Lord's Table,' was a Bishop and Canonist of the thirteenth
century ; therefore very little entitled to our attention on a question
respecting the present law of our Church, even if the reasons stated
by him were as solid as they are, in truth, shadowy and contra
dictory." 1

The part taken by the Bishop of Exeter in this case
shows that, however domineering his nature might be, he
was prepared to prosecute those he thought law-breakers,
quite apart from their ordinary theological views. The
present state of the law as to the use of the Cross on the
Communion Table is thus explained by Mr. Whitehead :—
" It must not, however, be attached to the Communion
Table or placed upon a ledge immediately over the Table,
so as to appear to form one structure with it, and it makes
no difference whether it is fixed or moveable. It may, how
ever, be placed on the sill of the eastern window, five feet
above the Communion Table, or it may surmount a Chancel
screen. Of course, in no case may it be an object of super
stitious reverence, or carried in processions, or otherwise
used ceremonially." 2 The Bishop's judgment as to the use
of Vases of Flowers on the Communion Table was over
ruled in the Court of Arches, by the judgment of Sir Robert
Phillimore, in the case of Elphinstone v. Purchas, delivered
on February 3, 1870. 3

The leading Puseyite newspaper, the English Churchman,
in a leading article, very clearly revealed the real object of
the Puseyite party. It said : — " With those who seek to
reduce the distance which separates us from Rome, to the
narrowest limits which a due regard to Catholic faith and
practice will admit of, we readily and heartily avow our
sympathy." 4

1 English Churchman, June 3, 1847, where a verbatim report of the judgment
is printed.

2 Whitehead's Church Law, p. 103, 2nd edition. London : Stevens & Sons.
1899.

3 Phillimore's Ecclesiastical Judgments, pp. 191, 192.

4 English Churchman, October 7, 1847, p. 745.

290 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

The Bishop of Chichester (Dr. Gilbert) felt it necessary
to take notice of the affairs of Sackville College, East
Grinstead, an institution founded early in the seventeenth
century as a kind of almshouses, consisting of a Warden,
two Assistant Wardens, five brethren, six sisters, and four
teen probationers. In the month of May 1846, the Rev.
J. M. Neale, M.A., was appointed Warden, and as such con
ducted Divine Service, and administered Holy Communion
to the inmates in the College Chapel. Early in 1847 a
complaint was made to the Bishop of Chichester as to the
proceedings in the Chapel, which stated that a Vulgate
Bible and a copy of the Roman Breviary were seen there,
that there was a " suspicion " that the English Bible in the
Chapel was the Douay, and that a large Cross was erected
on the Chancel screen. Mr. Neale, in reply, proved that the
English Bible was the authorised edition with notes ; and
asserted that there could be no valid objection to having a
Latin Vulgate Bible for his own private use ; and that as to
the Roman Breviary, he was engaged at the time in Liturgi
cal studies which required the use of the Breviary, and that
it had been accidentally left in the Chapel by mistake. On
April 12, 1847, the Bishop wrote to Mr. Neale requesting
him to have the goodness to communicate with him before
he officiated " in any Church or Chapel " in the Diocese. Mr.
Neale thereupon informed the Bishop that Sackville College
was outside his jurisdiction, and therefore no licence was
needed to officiate in it, since he was only doing so as the
head of a private family. On May 7th the Bishop had an
interview with Mr. Neale in the vestry of East Grinstead
Church, of which the latter gentleman subsequently pub
lished a report. Mr. Neale informed him that he person
ally would prefer to have his lordship's licence to officiate,
but his wishes had been overruled by the authorities of the
College ; on which the Bishop remarked : — " I ought to
say that I probably might not have been disposed to grant
the licence. I could not, if the reports which I have heard of
Romanistic proceedings in the College be true." Later on
in the day the Bishop went with Mr. Neale and a " Mr. H."
— who had first called the Bishop's attention to what was

THE EAST GRINSTEAD CASE 291

going on — to the College Chapel. What took place therein
is thus reported by Mr. Neale : —

" BISHOP — ' I am not here with visitatorial authority ; if I were,
I should sweep away all that ' — (pointing to the altar).

" Mr. H.— ' Flowers and all, my Lord ? '

" I SAID—' The Altar, my Lord ? '

" BISHOP — ' I know nothing of Altars ; the Church of England
knows nothing of Altars or sacrifices. I would retain a decent low
Table. I would not feed Christ's little ones with the wood of the
Cross.'"1

On the very next day the Bishop sent Mr. Neale a
formal Inhibition " from celebrating Divine Worship, and
from the exercise of clerical functions in my Diocese."
With the Inhibition he sent the following letter : — " I can
not transmit to you the following Inhibition without adding
a fervent prayer that God may be pleased to open your
eyes to the dishonour done to Him by supposing that His
spiritual service can be promoted by presenting to the eyes
and thoughts of worshippers the frippery with which you
have transformed the simplicity of the Chapel at Sackville
College into an imitation of the degrading superstitions of
an erroneous Church." 2

Mr. Neale simply ignored the Inhibition, and went on
conducting the services in the Chapel as though nothing
had happened. The Bishop seems to have left him alone
for five months, but then, finding him still rebellious, he
sent the case on for trial in the Court of Arches. On June
3, 1848, the case — Freeland v. Neale — was heard by Sir H.
Jenner Fust, who delivered judgment the same day. He
said : —

" I should like to have heard some authority for the statement
that a number of persons constituting a corporation, as the inhabit
ants of Sackville College are said to be, is a private family. It is
possible that the inmates of the College may be under one continu
ous roof, that they have one common table, but those circum
stances will not render them a private family or household; each
member has, I presume, his separate apartments allotted. ... It is
impossible then to say that this was an assemblage of a private

1 A Statement of Proceedings against the Warden of Sackvillt College, p. 9.
London : Joseph Masters. 1853.

2 Ibid. p. 9.

292 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

family. In Barnes v. Shore I said, what I now repeat, that where
two or three are gathered together, who do not strictly form a part
of a family, there is a congregation, and the reading to them the
service of the Church is a reading in public. I am of opinion that
Mr. Neale is proved guilty of an ecclesiastical offence." J

The Judge thereupon admonished Mr. Neale not to
offend any more, and condemned him to pay the costs of
the proceedings. It was remarkable that the very law
which the Puseyites had put into operation against the
Rev. James Shore, should now be used against one of their
own party. Both were charged with and condemned for
the same offence ; the only difference being that Mr.
Shore admitted that he officiated in public, which Mr. Neale
denied, though his denial had no effect upon his Judge.
When the Protestant Mr. Shore was condemned, the Pusey
ites shouted for joy ; but when Mr. Neale was condemned,
they howled with indignation.

I respectfully suggest that the case of Mr. Neale has its
lesson for our own day and generation. In almost every
Diocese private Chapels and Oratories are set up in
Convents and Monasteries, where lawless and thoroughly
Romanising services are performed. All such services are,
as we have seen, illegal without the consent and licence of
the Bishop of the Diocese. But what do we find ? Instead
of Inhibiting the clergy who officiate in these Oratories, the
Bishops actually grant them their licences to officiate. It
is within their power to put a stop, with a stroke of their
pen, to all the Romanising extravagances which take place
in these buildings ; but they do nothing at all, unless it be
to grant the law-breakers their Episcopal permission to
officiate. After which they have the daring to go into the
House of Lords, and tell the country that the Bishops are
doing everything in their power to put down lawlessness !

The commencement of the celebrated Gorham Case
dates from the month of August 1847, when the Lord
Chancellor Cottenham nominated the Rev. George Cor
nelius Gorham to the living of Brampford Speke, in the
Diocese of Exeter. Mr. Gorham was a scholar of repute,

1 Robertson's Ecclesiastical Reports, vol. i. pp. 650, 651.

THE GORHAM CASE 293

having been formerly a Fellow of Queen's College, Cam
bridge. He had been in Holy Orders thirty-six years at the
time of his nomination, had served in six dioceses, and bore
an unblemished character and a high reputation. In 1846
he had been presented by Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst to the
living of St. Just-in-Penwith, at that time in the Diocese of
Exeter, and while there had incurred the wrathful indigna
tion of his Diocesan, Bishop Phillpotts, by advertising for
a Curate "free from Tractarian error." When, in the
following year, Mr. Gorham was presented to Brampford
Speke, his Bishop had neither forgotten nor forgiven his
alleged offence ; and showed his displeasure by refusing to
institute him, until after he had examined him as to his
soundness in the faith. The Bishop's doubts centred round
one point of doctrine only. He believed that Mr. Gorham
held Evangelical views as to Baptismal Regeneration, and
he considered that any one holding such views had no
right to minister in the Church of England. Hence arose
one of the most important theological contests which the
Church of England had witnessed since the Protestant
Reformation. On its issue depended the question whether
Evangelical clergymen should be banished from the Church
of England. It could not be disputed that men holding
their views as to Baptismal Regeneration had officiated in
our Reformed Church since the Reformation, nor that the
overwhelming majority of the Reformers held their views.
What the Puseyites aimed at was the capture of the Church
of England for themselves, and to banish for ever decided
Protestantism from its fold. I have no doubt that these
results would have followed the victory of their cause in
the Gorham Case. But, thank God, they failed, and vic
tory remained on the side of God's truth and Evangelical
principles.

Mr. Gorham humbly submitted to the Bishop of Exe
ter's examination, though he might, considering his learning
and past career, have justly objected to being treated as
though he were some ignorant young curate just fresh
from College. When Mr. Gorham had thus placed himself
in the Bishop's hands, he found it no easy task to get out

294 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

again. The examination was inquisitorial and prolonged.
It began on December lyth, and was continued at intervals
until the loth of March, 1848, during which time Mr.
Gorham had to write answers to no fewer than 149 questions
on the single subject of Baptismal Efficacy ! It looked as
though the Bishop wanted to worry his victim to the utmost
of his power. The day after the examination ended, the
Bishop signified his decision to refuse to institute Mr.
Gorham to the living of Brampford Speke, on the ground
of unsoundness of doctrine, as revealed by him in the
examination.

As quickly as possible after the Bishop's refusal to insti
tute, the case was brought into the Court of Arches. The
Dean of Arches (Sir H. Jenner Fust) thereupon issued a
monition to the Bishop of Exeter to show cause why he
should not institute Mr. Gorham within fifteen days — failing
which the Dean would himself proceed to institute him.
The case did not come before the Court on its merits until
February 17, 1849. On August 2, 1849, Sir H. Jenner Fust
delivered a lengthy judgment, concluding as follows : —

" Therefore I say, that as the doctrine of the Church of England
undoubtedly is, that children baptized are regenerated at Baptism,
and are undoubtedly saved if they die without committing actual
sin, Mr. Gorham has maintained and does maintain opinions
opposed to that Church of which he professes himself a member
and Minister. The only remaining question is, has the Bishop
shown sufficient cause why he should not institute Mr. Gorham
to the Vicarage of Brampford Speke? I am clearly of opinion
that the Bishop has, by reason of the premises, shown sufficient
cause; that consequently he is entitled to be dismissed, and must
be dismissed, according to the usual course, with costs." 1

Of course Mr. Gorham appealed against this judgment
to the Judicial Committee of Privy Council, and it was
well for the Evangelical cause that he did so. The case
was heard before the Judicial Committee on December IT,
1849. The proceedings lasted four days. The case of the
Bishop of Exeter rested on a book which Mr. Gorham
had published, containing the replies he had given in the

1 Robertson's Ecclesiastical Reports^ vol. ii. pp. 103, 104.

MR. GORHAM'S DOCTRINE 295

Bishop's examination.1 It is impossible, nor is it necessary,
to find room here for the very lengthy passages in this
book relied on by the Bishop to prove that Mr. Gorham
held unsound doctrine as to Baptismal Regeneration. A
summary of Mr. Gorham's views on this important subject
was given by the Judicial Committee in their judgment on
March 8, 1850, which will serve to supply my readers with
an idea of what he held, and for holding which he was
acquitted by the Court. I know the Bishop of Exeter sub
sequently denied its accuracy, but in this I venture to differ
from him. Anyhow, it is the teaching which the judgment
declared was not contrary to the Church of England : —

"The doctrine held by Mr. Gorham," said the Judicial Com
mittee, "appears to be this — that Baptism is a Sacrament generally
necessary to salvation, but that the grace of regeneration does not
so necessarily accompany the act of Baptism, that regeneration
invariably takes place in Baptism; that the grace may be given
before, in, or after Baptism; that Baptism is an effectual sign of
grace, by which God works invisibly in us, but only in such as
worthily receive it — in them alone it has a wholesome effect; and
that, without reference to the qualification of the recipient, it is not
in itself an effectual sign of grace. That infants baptized, and
dying before actual sin, are certainly saved ; but that in no case is
regeneration in Baptism unconditional.

" These being," continued their lordships, " as we collect them,
the opinions of Mr. Gorham, the question which we have to decide
is, not whether they are theologically sound or unsound — not whether
upon some of the doctrines comprised in the opinions, other opinions
opposite to them may or may not be held with equal or even greater
reason by other learned and pious Ministers of the Church ; but
whether these opinions now under our consideration are contrary or
repugnant to the doctrines which the Church of England, by its
Articles, Formularies, and Rubrics, requires to be held by its Mini
sters, so that upon the ground of those opinions the appellant can
lawfully be excluded from the benefice to which he has been pre
sented." 2

The judgment entered at great length into the argu-

1 Examination before Admission to a Benefice by the Bishop of Exeter. By
the Clerk Examined, George Cornelius Gorham, B.D., pp. xlvii., 230. London:
Hatchard & Son. 1848.

2 Brodrick and Freemantle's/wrt^w<?«/j of the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council, p. 89.

296 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

ments which had been brought forward in the case both
for and against Mr. Gorham. It will be sufficient for my
purpose to give from it the following extracts : —

"The Services abound with expressions- which must be construed
in a charitable and qualified sense, and cannot with any appearance
of reason be taken as proofs of doctrine. Our principal attention
has been given to the Baptismal Services ; and those who are strongly
impressed with the earnest prayers which are offered for the Divine
blessing, and the grace of God, may not unreasonably suppose that
the grace is not necessarily tied to the rite ; but that it ought to be
earnestly and devoutly prayed for, in order that it may then, or when
God pleases, be present to make the rite beneficial." l

"This Court, constituted for the purpose of advising her Majesty
in matters which come within its competency, has no jurisdiction
or authority to settle matters of faith, or to determine what ought in
any particular to be the doctrine of the Church of England. Its
duty extends only to the consideration of that which is by law estab
lished to be the doctrine of the Church of England, upon the true
and legal construction of her Articles and Formularies ; and we con
sider that it is not the duty of any Court to be minute and rigid in
cases of this sort. We agree with Sir William Scott in the opinion
which he expressed in Stone's case, in the Consistory Court of
London — 'That if any Article is really a subject of dubious inter
pretation, it would be highly improper that this Court should fix on
one meaning, and prosecute all those who hold a contrary opinion
regarding its interpretation.'

" In the examination of this case, we have not relied on the
doctrinal opinions of any of the eminent writers, by whose piety,
learning, and ability the Church of England has been distinguished;
but it appears that opinions, which we cannot in any important
particular distinguish from those entertained by Mr. Gorham, have
been propounded and maintained, without censure or reproach, by
many eminent and illustrious prelates and divines who have adorned
the Church from the time when the Articles were first established.
We do not affirm that the doctrines and opinions of Jewel, Hooker,
Usher, Jeremy Taylor, Whitgift, Pearson, Carlton, Prideaux, and
many others, can be received as evidence of the doctrine of the
Church of England ; but their conduct, unblamed and unquestioned
as it was, proves, at least, the liberty which has been allowed of
maintaining such doctrine." 2

1 Brodrick and Freem&nile'sjttdgments of the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council, p. 101. 2 Ibid. pp. 102, 103.

THE GORHAM JUDGMENT 297

" His Honour the Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, dissents from
our judgment, but all the other members of the Judicial Committee,
who were present at the hearing of the case (those who are now
present, and Baron Parke, who is unavoidably absent on circuit), are
unanimously agreed in opinion; and the judgment of their lordships
is, that the doctrine held by Mr. Gorham is not contrary, or repug
nant to the declared doctrine of the Church of England as by law
established, and that Mr. Gorham ought not, by reason of the
doctrine held by him, to have been refused admission to the Vicar
age of Brampford Speke." 1

Of the three Episcopal Assessors in the case, two agreed
with the judgment (the Archbishops of Canterbury and
York), and one dissented from it — the Bishop of London.
Amongst those who were in Court during the delivery
of this important judgment were Baron Bunsen and
Cardinal Wiseman. The former sent his son, on the
same day, an account of the proceedings, from which
I take the following interesting extract : — "I am this
moment come from the Privy Council, and have heard
the most remarkable judgment pronounced, which since
the Reformation and the Civil Wars has ever been given
in this country on a great point of faith. ... I sat on
the Privy Council seats, behind the right hand side of the
judges, along with Dr. Wiseman ! Going out I met W.
Goode (the protagonist of the Evangelicals), with whom
I shook hands, and who was blissful ; then my way was
stopped in the lobby by two persons — and who were they ?
Archdeacon Wilberforce and Hope. They drooped their
heads, and after some silence, going on and I following
them, Archdeacon W. said, ' Well, at least, there is no
mistake about it.' In which I heartily concur." 2

The immediate effect of the judgment on Archdeacon
Manning and his friends was related by him many years
later, when he was a Roman Cardinal : —

" I remember well," he said, " I was in London when it was
given. I went at once to Gladstone, who then lived in Carlton
Terrace. He was ill with influenza and in bed ; I sat down by
his bedside and told him of the judgment. Starting up and

1 Brodrick and Freemantle's /wd^v;? <?«/.$• of the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council, p. 105. 2 Memoirs of Baron Bunsen, vol. ii. pp. 245, 246.

298 HISTORY OF THE ROME WARD MOVEMENT

throwing out his arms, he exclaimed : — ' The Church of England
has gone unless it releases itself by some authoritative act.' We
then agreed to draw up a Declaration and get it signed. For this
purpose we met in the vestry of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge. There
were present Bennett, Hope, Richard Cavendish, Gladstone, and Dr.
Mill, I think, and some others. They made me preside. We agreed
to a string of propositions, deducing that, by the Gorham judgment,
the Church of England had forfeited its authority as a divine
teacher. The next time we met, Pusey and Keble, I think, were
there. They refused this, and got it changed to ' If the Church of
England shall accept this judgment it would forfeit its authority as a
divine teacher.' This amendment was accepted because it did not
say whether the Church of England had or had not de facto accepted
the judgment. Hope said : — * I suppose we are all agreed that if
the Church of England does not undo this we must join the Church
of Rome.' This made an outcry; and I think it was then that
Keble said : — { If the Church of England were to fail, it should be
found in my parish.'"1

The Declaration to which Cardinal Manning refers was,
of course, a strong protest against the judgment. It con
sisted of nine clauses, of which the fifth, sixth, and seventh
were as follows : —

"5. That, inasmuch as the faith is one, and rests upon one principle
of authority, the conscious, deliberate, and wilful abandonment of
the essential meaning of an article of the Creed destroys the Divine
foundation upon which alone the entire faith is propounded by the
Church.

" 6. That any portion of the Church which does so abandon the
essential meaning of an article, forfeits, not only the Catholic
doctrine in that article, but also the office and authority to witness
and teach as a member of the Universal Church.

" 7. That by such conscious, wilful, and deliberate act such
portion of the Church becomes formally separated from the Catholic
body, and can no longer assure to its members the grace of the
Sacraments and the remission of sins." 2

Those who signed this Declaration had not long to wait
before they discovered that the Church of England tacitly
accepted a judgment which, according to the Declaration,

1 Life of Cardinal Manning^ vol. i. p. 52^-

* Ibid. p. 532. Life of Dr. Pusey^ vol. iii. pp. 240, 241.

PUSEY WISHES TO PROSECUTE GORHAM 299

" formally separated her from the Catholic body/' and made
her no longer able "to assure to its members the grace of
the Sacraments and the remission of sins." Of course there
were protests against the judgment in abundance, but, in
her official character, who can doubt that the Church of
England has practically accepted the Gorham judgment ?
Has any Bishop since its delivery dared to refuse institution
to a clergyman on the ground that he held Mr. Gorham's
views as to Baptismal Regeneration ? To be consistent,
every one of the fourteen gentlemen who signed the Declara
tion ought, after a reasonable interval, to have seceded to
Rome. Six of the number certainly saw the inconsistency
of their position, after signing such a document, in remain
ing in the Church of England for any lengthy period, and
therefore they seceded to the Church of Rome. Those who
seceded were, Archdeacon Manning, Archdeacon Robert ].
Wilberforce, the Rev. W. Dodsworth, the Rev. Henry Wil
liam Wilberforce, Mr. Edward Badeley, and Mr. James Hope
(afterwards Hope-Scott). Those who signed, but remained
in the Church of England, were, Archdeacon Thomas Thorp,
Dr. Pusey, Dr. Mill, the Rev. John Keble, the Rev. William
J. E. Bennett, Mr. John C. Talbot, Mr. Richard Cavendish,
and the Rev. (afterwards Archdeacon) George Anthony
Denison.

There had been a steady stream of secessions to Rome
from the ranks of the Puseyites ever since 1841, but after
the delivery of the Gorham judgment the stream became
for a time something like a flood. A list of the names of the
seceders may be read in Browne's Annals of the Tractarian
Movement, and in Gorman's Converts to Rome.

Of course, before the delivery of the judgment, there had
been many anxious discussions amongst the Puseyites as to
what they should do when it was delivered. One proposal
found great favour, and was warmly welcomed by Pusey
and Keble. It was nothing less than to prosecute Mr. Gor
ham for heresy ! On February 19, 1850, Keble wrote to
Pusey : — " I still find myself driven back to the notion of
prosecuting him \_Gorham~\forheresy ; which, however, I fear
is not practical, as you say no more of it, and Coleridge

300 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

does not answer my questions about it." 1 Canon Liddon
tells us that : — " Pusey acquiesced in Keble's proposal for a
prosecution of Mr. Gorham for heresy, and suggested this
course to the Bishop." 2 On February 23, 1850, Keble again
wrote to Pusey on the subject : — " I am ashamed to say
nothing has been done yet about the prosecution for heresy.
I will try and write to Badeley by next post. I did not
know till last night that you consented to that step." 3 No
member of the Church Association has ever been more
anxious to prosecute law-breakers than Pusey and Keble
were, at this time, to prosecute the Evangelical Mr. Gorham.
But, alas for their hopes ! " Mr. Badeley," says Canon
Liddon, " thought it impossible at the time to prosecute
Mr. Gorham for heresy."4 No doubt, if it had been pos
sible, poor Mr. Gorham would have been prosecuted, and
the Evangelicals, as a consequence, would have been ban
ished from the Church of England. Had such a result
followed such a prosecution, we should never have heard
one word from modern Ritualists about the supposed
wickedness of ecclesiastical prosecutions.

And what effect had the Gorham judgment on the Bishop
of Exeter ? The Judicial Committee of Privy Council did
not order him to institute Mr. Gorham, or, possibly, he
might have been sent to prison for contempt. It remitted
the case to the Court of Arches, and the Dean of Arches,
acting for the Archbishop of Canterbury, instituted Mr.
Gorham to the Rectory of Brampford Speke, notwithstand
ing the opposition of the Bishop of Exeter. It was a sore
point with the Bishop that the Dean should act, in this
capacity, as the representative of the Archbishop of Canter
bury. So, before the actual institution took place, Dr.
Phillpotts wrote, and published as a pamphlet, a not very
respectful Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, concluding
with the following strong protest : —

" I have one most painful duty to perform. I have to protest
not only against the judgment pronounced in the recent cause, but
also against the regular consequences of that judgment. I have to

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 223. 2 Ibid. p. 223.

8 Ibid. p. 226. 4 Ibid. p. 227.

AN ARCHBISHOP EXCOMMUNICATED 301

protest against your Grace's doing what you will be speedily called
to do, either in person, or by some other exercising your authority.
I have to protest, and I do hereby solemnly protest, before the
Church of England, before the Holy Catholic Church, before Him
who is its Divine Head, against your giving mission to exercise cure
of souls, within my diocese, to a clergyman who proclaims him
self to hold the heresies which Mr. Gorham holds. I protest that
any one who gives mission to him till he retract, is a favourer and
supporter of these heresies. I protest, in conclusion, that I cannot
without sin — and by God's grace I will not — hold communion with
him, be he who he may, who shall so abuse the high commission
which he bears." l

The Rev. William Goode replied to the Bishop of Exeter
in a forcible and well-written pamphlet of 107 pages. On
the passage from that prelate's letter which I have just cited,
Mr. Goode remarked : —

" My Lord, if by these words you mean that you are about to
retire to a more suitable communion than the Church of England,
be it so. You will not ask us to lament your departure. Nor shall
you hear from me words of exultation or insult. Or if you mean
that you will withdraw from the Primate the light of your presence,
and the blessing of your communion and * affectionate friendship/
why then, my Lord, — if you have really made up your mind — so it
must be. And I will only hope that his Grace may be enabled to
bear the deprivation with equanimity.

" But if you mean, what your words appear to mean, that, re
taining your position in this Church and country as the Bishop of
Exeter, you will set at defiance your Primate and your Sovereign;
that you will place yourself in a state of open rebellion against the
laws of your country ; then, my Lord, I leave you, without fear, to
reap the due reward of broken vows and violated oaths ; feeling well
assured that the majesty of the law will obtain as easy a triumph
over Devonshire and Cornish rebels now, as it did three centuries
ago."2

Any one reading the pamphlet of the Bishop of Exeter
must admit that he had the courage of his convictions. It
was, indeed, a daring thing to do — to practically excom-

1 A Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury. By the Bishop of Exeter, p. 90.
London : John Murray. 1850.

2 A Letter to the Bishop of Exeter. By William Goode, M.A., p. 97, 3rd
edition. London : Hatchard & Son. 1850.

302 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

municate his own Primate. But he went further, and tried
to blacken Mr. Gorham's theological character in the eyes
of his new parishioners at Brampford Speke, by a published
letter to the Churchwardens of that parish. In this docu
ment Dr. Phillpotts most unjustly affirmed that "truths on
which the whole teaching of the Church rests" "were
directly contradicted by your new Vicar in his examination
before me, his Bishop." l The Churchwardens were assured
that : — " You have already too strong reason to apprehend
that your new Vicar may endeavour to spread the poison of
heresy among his people";2 and that Mr. Gorham was
" one who himself believes not the saving truths which he
has undertaken to teach."3 The Churchwardens were
exhorted to act as spies on their Vicar's preaching, and if
he taught from the pulpit anything contrary to the Bishop's
view of Baptismal Regeneration, they were to make a note
of his words, and send them to the Archdeacon, in order that
they might be dealt with by the Bishop. In that case the
Bishop promised to prosecute Mr. Gorham for heresy.

Now there can be no question that a letter like this was
well calculated to stir up the parishioners of Brampford
Speke against their new Vicar. It certainly was not a case
of trying to pour oil on the troubled waters. And, more
over, it was in defiance of the law. The next step taken by
the Bishop was to convoke what he termed a "Synod" of
his clergy, mainly to consider this question of Baptismal
Regeneration. His lordship, however, did not invite all of
the clergy to take part in it ; had he done so the proceedings
would not have passed off as smoothly as he desired. So
he invited the clergy of every Rural Deanery to elect two
only of their Deanery as their representatives ; and to these
were added the Dean of Exeter and the Greater Chapter,
the Bishop's Chaplains, and the officials of the Archdeacons.4
The laity were left out altogether. Had they been admitted
the Bishop knew very well that he would have had a very
disagreeable time in the Synod. The Synod met on June

1 A Letter to the Churchwardens of Brampford Speke. By the Bishop of
Exeter, p. 10, 2nd edition. London : John Murray. 1850.

2 Ibid. p. 14. 8 Ibid. p. 15.

4 Acts of the Synod of Exeter, p. I. London : John Murray. 1851.

TWO BOOKS ON THE GORHAM CASE 303

25, 1851, and the proceedings lasted three days ; but a por
tion of the second day only was devoted to the real object for
which it was convened. Now there was not a man at that
Synod who did not know very well that, were he to get up
and speak against the Declaration on Baptism submitted to
it, he would be a marked man by the Bishop from that day
out. The names of those who were present were not printed
in the official report of the proceedings subsequently issued
" By Authority," and therefore I cannot tell whether there
were any Evangelical clergymen in the Synod. If they
were there they ought to have spoken out, and voted against
the Declaration, which was so strongly on the side of the
Bishop's views as to Baptismal Regeneration that, when it
was declared carried unanimously, the Bishop exclaimed : —
"Thank God for this : let His Holy Name be praised." l

One result of the Gorham Case was the publication of
two important books on Baptismal Regeneration. One,
published in 1862, was entitled, A Review of the Baptismal
Controversy, and was written by the Rev. ]. B. Mozley, a
High Churchman, and subsequently Regius Professor of
Divinity in the University of Oxford. The object of this
work is thus explained by its learned author in his preface:
— " I have, however, in the present treatise, confined myself
to two positions : one, that the doctrine of the regeneration
of all infants in Baptism is not an article of the faith ; the
other, that the formularies of our Church do not impose it."
The other work, published in 1849, while the Gorham Case
was still undecided, was written by the Rev. William Goode,
and bore the title of The Doctrine of the Church of England
as to the Effects of Baptism. I would strongly recommend
both of these valuable and important works to the Evan
gelical clergy and laity, and also to those who wish to know
what can be said in support of the Gorham judgment. The
Baptismal Regeneration controversy is not studied now as
much as in former years, and yet it is needed now more
than ever. Its importance for Evangelical Churchmen
cannot be over-estimated.

Coming back to the year 1849 we Bnd the Bishop of

1 Acts of the Synod of Exeter > p. 57.

304 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

Oxford endeavouring to exercise Episcopal discipline over
one of his Romanising clergymen — the Rev. T. W. Allies,
Rector of Launton, Oxon. This case shows how audacious
some of the clergy had already become in their march to
Rome. Several years before this, while officiating for the
Rev. W. ]. Bennett, that gentleman had given Mr. Allies a
copy of the Roman Missal, and ever since his Romeward
sympathies had developed rapidly. In 1840 Mr. Allies was
appointed Chaplain to Dr. Blomfield, Bishop of London,
an office which he held until June 1842. Soon after he
became Rector of Launton. We learn from Mr. Allies'
autobiography that early in 1844 he had come to the con
clusion " that post-Baptismal sin required Sacramental Con
fession and Absolution." l He fitted up his Church with
open oak pews. It was reopened on September i, 1844.
"Before that time," says Mr. Allies, "all my trust in Angli
canism was gone" 2 And yet he remained officiating within
the Anglican Church, as one of her clergy, for seven years
and a half afterwards ! How he could do it with a comfort
able conscience is indeed a mystery. On February 12, 1845,
he wrote in his diary : — " Since my last birthday one very
important change of view has developed itself — a secret
and yet undefined dread that we are in a state of schism." 3
He wrote a book in 1846 entitled The Church of England
Cleared from the Charge of Schism, of which he brought out
a second edition in February, 1848 ; and this is how he
describes its publication: — "I had become, both practically
and theoretically, more and more disgusted with the Angli
can Church, more and more struck with what I saw of the
action and conduct of the Catholic Church abroad. And
so it came to pass, that I was publishing the second edition
of a book, written in the utmost good faith, with daily
prayers for enlightenment, in ostensible defence of a com
munion which I thoroughly hated'.' 4 It must have required an
immense quantity of Jesuitical casuistry to have enabled
him to continue ministering for two and a half years more

1 A Life's Decision. By T. W. Allies, p. 50, 2nd edition. London : Burns
and Oates. 1894.

2 Ibid. p. 51. 3 Ibid. p. 53.
4 Ibid. p. 115.

"A SACRED DEBT TO THE ROMAN CHURCH" 305

in a communion which he "thoroughly hated." What
part had any sense of truth and honour in such conduct ?
Early in 1849 Mr. Allies published his Journal in France!
On February i9th he wrote in his diary : — " Received to-day
the first copies of my Journal in France. I went into the
garden and read the whole conclusion. The publishing
this book gave me great gratification. It so exactly sets forth
my mind ; it pays a debt which I seemed to owe to the Roman
Church ; " and again, on the following day, he wrote in the
same diary, with reference to this book : — " I seem to have
discharged a sacred debt to the Roman Church."2 The
Rev. Charles Marriott, writing from Oriel College, on Easter
Monday 1849, to thank. Allies for a copy of the book, said
that, in what he had written about Invocation of Saints,
" so far you have exercised a laudable subtlety." 3 There
can be no doubt about the " subtlety," but I do not believe
that it was " laudable" Almost everything in Romanism
was held up by Mr. Allies to admiration in this book. The
following extracts from it will give some idea of how far
its author had gone towards Rome :—

"Most intimately connected with the dogma of the Incar
nation, and its symbol, the Real Presence, is that of the Inter
cession of all Saints, especially of the Blessed Mother of God ; nay,
this may be said to be the continuation and carrying out of the Real
Presence, so that wherever that is truly and heartfully believed, this
will be, within due bounds, cherished and practised."4

"And may not we ask you, who dwell in sight of the Eternal
Throne, but who once, like ourselves, bore the burden and heat of the
day in this earthly wilderness, may we not ask you to turn your
regards on us, to intercede for us before Him, whose members ye
are in glory, and we in trial ? " 5

" Christ is present in His Church, for the Priest in the tribunal
of penitence is as God himself." 6

" Among minor things, which yet we have suffered loss and harm

1 Journal in France in 1845 an(l 1848. By Thomas William Allies, M.A.,
Rector of Launton, pp. xii. 388.
'~ A Life's Decision, p. 125.

3 Ibid. p. 148.

4 Allies' Journal in France, p. 334.

6 Ibid. p. 335. 6 Ibid, p, 338.

306 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

in giving up, may be reckoned the custom of crossing with Holy
Water on entering a Church." l

" A still more to be regretted omission is that of the Crucifix,
which might, with much edification, appear prominently at least in
one part of the Church, over the Rood Screen or over the altar." 2

" If the Anglo-German race be ever restored to the communion
of the Latin Church, as I fervently pray that mercy may be reserved
for them by God." 8

The Bishop of Oxford read the book soon after its
publication, and gave his opinion of it in the most em
phatic terms on March 8th. "It is," he declared, "the
most undisguised, unblushing preference for Rome I
almost ever read." 4 Nine days later he wrote to the
author of the book, calling his attention to the variance
which existed " between its language and the dogmatic
teachings of the Church of England ; " and adding that
no particular extracts could " fully exhibit this contra
diction, because the general tone " of the book was " more
at variance with the teaching of our Church " than any
particular extracts. His language concerning the Mass
contradicted the explicit teaching of Article XXVIII. The
tone of the book towards the Church of England was
" deprecating, and even insulting/' while it contained
" unbounded eulogies of the Papal system." The Bishop
enclosed a set of extracts from the book, and called on
Mr. Allies for an explanation or an unqualified retractation. 5
The author's reply was not considered satisfactory, and
therefore the Bishop wrote to him again on March 24th,
pointing out that he had not replied to his chief objections
against the book : — " The part of my communication,"
wrote Dr. Wilberforce, "which needed the most direct
reply you have left almost untouched, under the allegation
that my letter closes with a threat. I think that if you
look again at it, you will perceive that it contains nothing
but a declaration that if you cannot show that your state
ments do not contradict the Articles, and will not retract
them, I shall appeal to your own conscience as to whether

1 Allies' Journal in France, p. 340. 2 Ibid. p. 340.

8 Ibid. p. 344.

4 Life of 'Bishop Wilberforce, vol. ii. p. 17. 6 Ibid. pp. 17, 18.

THE CASE OF MR. ALLIES 307

it is honest to maintain your position as a paid teacher of
doctrines you formally deny." l

The case of Mr. Allies worried the Bishop not a little.
" I have great trouble with Mr. Allies," he wrote to his
sister-in-law ; " he has given me most evasive answers to
the questions I have been obliged to put to him. He
wishes to make out that he may hold all Roman doctrine,
except the Pope's Supremacy, and remain with us. I am
now taking an opinion whether his words make his meaning
plain enough for me to proceed in the Courts against
him."2 The legal opinion referred to in this letter was
given to the Bishop a week later by the well-known
ecclesiastical lawyer, Dr. Lushington. He said that he
was satisfied that " a prosecution would be attended with
success." There were evils in such prosecutions, but it
would in this case be a greater evil not to prosecute. The
Bishop decided to send the case to the Court of Arches,
but at the last moment Baron Alderson persuaded him
not to do so, on the ground that a lawsuit would tend
to a schism in the Church, while the tendencies of the
Romanisers would " die out if judiciously left alone " —
an opinion which the results have not justified. The
Baron's appeal was backed up by a letter from his friend,
Mr. Allies, addressed to the Bishop, in which he expressed
regret that anything in his book " should appear to my
Diocesan to be contrary to the Articles of the Church of
England, or calculated to depreciate that Church in com
parison with the Church of Rome ; and I undertake not to
publish a second edition of the work. I declare my ad
herence to the Articles in their plain, literal, and gram
matical sense, and will not preach or teach anything
contrary to such Articles in their plain, literal, and gram
matical sense." 8 This, be it observed, was not an acknow
ledgment that he had written anything in his book
contrary to the Articles, but that he was sorry the
Bishop should think so. It was very wrong of Bishop
Wilberforce to yield to the advice of Allies' friends in
withdrawing the prosecution, and it was not long before

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, p, 19.

* Ibid. p. 20. *Ibid. p. 26.

308 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

he had cause to regret his decision. In his old age,
writing as a Roman Catholic, Mr. Allies frankly acknow
ledges : — " Simply taking the passages in my Journal
quoted by the Bishop, they certainly appear to me irrecon
cilable with the letter, and still more with the spirit, of
the Anglican Articles ; " 1 and, he adds, that he has " no
doubt whatever that he [the Bishop] would have got a
judgment against me." 2

On July 26, 1849, Mr. Allies, accompanied by a friend,
started on a journey to Rome. Writing as a Roman
Catholic he says : — " It was quite necessary for my health
and spirits to seek for a time a total change of scene, and I
could think of nothing so attractive as a visit to Rome, and
especially to the Pope. ... I felt that I had not a shred to
love in Anglicanism, yet all the while the speculative diffi
culty on the side of the Roman Supremacy remained."3
Of course while at Rome he had an interview with Pope
Pius IX., who seems to have had a great admiration for Dr.
Pusey. His opinion of that divine, as given by Mr. Allies
in his report of this interview, is very interesting : —

" Then he asked after Dr. Pusey. ' He has done] said the Pope,
'•much good; HE HAS OPENED THE DOOR; he has set before his
countrymen the principle of authority, which is the first thing in
religion ; he has prepared the way for Catholicism?"^

So much for Dr. Pusey. And this is what Mr. Allies
told the Pope about himself, and some of his Puseyite
friends he had left behind in England : — " I consider it a
blessing to have the opportunity of expressing personally to
your Holiness, that some ecclesiastics at least amongst us —
I may say, several — deeply feel how great a calamity it has
been to England, and to the whole British realm, that sJie has
been separated from the Holy See. They ardently desire her
reunion with it." Mr. Allies adds that the Pope " expressed
his joy at this. I asked if he would give us his blessing,
' That I will do with all my heart,' he replied, ' and I will
pray for you, and for your friends, and for all England.'
He also, at our request, blessed two Crucifixes which I held

1 A Life's Decision, p. 197. 2 Ibid. p. 198.

3 Ibid. p. 199. 4 Ibid. p. 203.

UNPLEASANT QUESTIONS FOR PUSEY 309

in my hand, and also those in Wynne s ; he seemed merely
to touch them. We then knelt, and he pronounced the
blessing." 1 And all the while this man, thus kneeling before
the Pope, humbly seeking his blessing for himself and his
crucifixes, was professedly a clergyman of the Church of
England, receiving her pay, and bound to her by oaths of
allegiance ! Truly there are many crooked things in the
History of the Homeward Movement ! " I then," writes
Mr. Allies, " returned by sea to Marseilles, leaving Wynne
at Genoa, and on Thursday, September i3th, was again in
England, and carrying about with me the Popes present as a
safeguard against all evil." 2 He must, indeed, have fallen
deep into the mire of superstition ere he could have believed
that the Pope's present would defend him " against all
evil ! " A year later, on September 8, 1850, Allies announced
his resignation of the living of Launton, and the day after
he was received into the Church of Rome by Newman.

A few weeks before his secession, Mr. Allies joined two
of his friends, the Revs. W. Dodsworth and W. Maskell, in
sending to Dr. Pusey a joint letter on the subject of Auri
cular Confession, which greatly disturbed the latter gentle
man : —

"We wish," these gentlemen wrote to Pusey, "to put you a
question on a point nearly concerning our own peace of mind, and
that of others. It is this — What authority is there for supposing
that the acts of a priest are valid who hears Confessions, and gives
Absolution, in mere virtue of his orders, without ordinary or delegated
jurisdiction from his Bishop ? We believe it to be the undisputed law
of the Church that acts flowing from Order, though done wrongly
and illicitly, are yet, when done, valid ; the reason of which is, that
the power of Order, being given by consecration and indelible, can
not be taken away : but that acts flowing from Jurisdiction, if done
upon those over whom the doer has no Jurisdiction, are absolutely
invalid and null" 3

" But what we wish to know is, whether there be any authority
for considering valid the Absolution of a priest, who has neither

1 A Life's Decision, p. 203. 2 Ibid. p. 206.

3 A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Pusey On His Practice of Receiving Persons in
Auricular Confessions. By William Maskell, M.A., pp.8, 9. London : William
Pickering. 1850.

310 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

received such ordinary Jurisdiction in the cure of souls, nor such
delegated Jurisdiction, or, again, who, having the cure of souls, ab
solves not only his own parishioners, but others also, without licence
from their own parish priest or Bishop." 1

" It would certainly follow from all this, as it seems to us, that the
authority which for some time past has been exercised by some among
us, and especially by yourself, not only in our own dioceses, but in
other dioceses — often without the knowledge, and probably (were it
known) it would be against the consent, of both the parish priest and
Bishop — has not been based upon true and sufficient foundation :
nay more, has been (however ignorantly) in opposition to Catholic
rules from the first ages to the present time. And further — a point
to which we allude with reluctance and sorrow — it would follow like
wise that the vast majority of those persons, to whom you and others
have given Absolution in this manner, are still, so far as the effect
of any such Absolutions is concerned, under the chain of their sins,
because they have not made Confession to priests who had duly
received power to absolve them. Hence, we cannot suppose that
you will be surprised that we should earnestly desire from you an
elucidation of this matter." 2

This letter seems to have disturbed Pusey very much.
He complained of its tone, and especially of its refer
ence to his own practice — a very delicate point — and he
asked the writers to alter, before publication, the wording
of their letter. This, however, they declined to do, and
pressed for an answer. Of course they had put to him a
very difficult and awkward question. He had been wander
ing about the country — especially in Devonshire — hearing
Confessions on the sly, as Mr. Maskell pointed out to him
later on. If he could have produced Episcopal leave for
hearing these Confessions, and also the leave of the In
cumbents of those parishes where he had heard them, he
would have had an answer at hand, which must have satis
fied Messrs. Maskell, Allies, and Dodsworth, so far, at least,
as his own practice was concerned. But as he could not
do this, he wrote and published a large volume of 312
pages, the title of which really was his answer to the

1 Maskell's Letter to the Rev. Dr. Pusey On His Practice of Receiving Persons
in Auricular Confessions, p. 10.

2 Ibid. pp. 13, 14.

PUSEY'S CONFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXPOSED 311

questions put to him : The Church of England Leaves
Her Children Free to W/iom to Open Their Griefs. Ever
since then the Ritualistic Father Confessors seem to have
acted on the principle laid down by Dr. Pusey in justifica
tion of his own practice. The controversy over Jurisdiction
has very little, if any, practical interest to Protestant
Churchmen, who never need to practise Auricular Con
fession to human priests, having a much better Confessional
to resort to, in which the Great High Priest sits to hear
Confessions and give His all-satisfying Absolution ; but
this correspondence is important to them for this reason.
The controversy led to an exposure of Pusey's practice,
which was most useful in opening the eyes of Englishmen
to the thoroughly Romish character of Auricular Con
fession, as conducted by the leader of the Puseyites. I
quote these exposures with confidence, since Pusey was
unable to contradict any one of the charges brought
against him, excepting only that which affirmed that he
had "enjoined" Confession on his penitents. I should
here mention that Messrs. Maskell, Allies, and Dods-
worth seceded to Rome soon after their united letter to
Pusey. As to Pusey's denial of having "enjoined" Auri
cular Confession, Mr. Maskell wrote to him : —

" In p. 6 of your letter to Mr. Richards, you blame Mr. Dods-
worth for having said in his published letter to you, that you have
* enjoined' Auricular Confession; and you say that you could not
enjoin Auricular Confession. Suffer me to say, that, in connection
with the other words of the same sentence, Mr. Dodsworth's use of
the word enjoin was just and reasonable. He does not use it simply,
and without limitation ; he says that you have ' encouraged, if not
enjoined,' Auricular Confession : by which it is evident that, in the
sense of compulsion, he knew, as well as yourself, you could not
possibly enjoin Auricular Confession. And he knew also, as I
know, that to say merely that you have encouraged it, would fall as
far short of what your actual practice is, as the word enjoin, in the
sense of compelling, would exceed it. He knew that you had done
more than encouraged Confession in very many cases ; that you have
warned people of the danger of deferring it, have insisted on if as
the only remedy, have pointed out the inevitable dangers of the
neglect of it, and have promised the highest blessings in the

312 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

observance, until you had brought penitents in fear and trembling
upon their knees before you" J

"To conclude, in hearing Auricular Confessions, in giving
Absolution, and in assuring those who come to you that the grace
which they so receive by your ministry is Sacramental, and effective
of the removal of the guilt of mortal sin — in thus speaking and thus
acting, you cannot have any other guide, or authority, or teacher,
than the [Roman] Catholic Church. To her documents, canons, and
decisions, and to the voice of her theologians in their books upon
the subject, you must and do refer. Whatsoever you hold upon this
great Christian Sacrament is derived from that source, and from
that source alone; and if this be so, as regards your theory of
Absolution, much more is it as regards your practice in hearing
Auricular Confessions. I shall not enter into this last point. It
would give you as well as myself sorrow to be obliged to do so.
All that need be said is that THE RULES OF THE CHURCH OF

ROME, AND NO OTHER, ARE YOUR RULES." 2

In the following year Mr. Dodsworth published two or
three more controversial pamphlets. In one of these he
said : —

" I knew, what was also known to hundreds of other persons, that
clergymen of the Established Church (I myself was one) were in
the habit of doing what is here described ; that is, of receiving Con
fessions, both from men and women, of their whole lives, in details
as minute as any that Ian possibly be made to a Catholic Priest ; of
enjoining penance, and giving Priestly Absolution. Dr. Pusey (I
mention it to his honour), was one of the foremost to commend the
restoration of this salutary practice, both by precept and example.
He was the first Anglican clergyman who spoke to me of its revival
in the Established Church, and I know of many persons whom he
has led into the practice. With regard to what English Protestants
most object to — the minute details of sins in Confession — it is only
right to say, so far as I know, that Confession is required to be at
least quite as minute, where observed in the Established Church, as
it is in the Catholic Church."3

The Revs. W. Maskell, W. Dodsworth, and T. W. Allies
had been for years the friends of Dr. Pusey, and were
intimately acquainted with the inner working of the Rome-

1 Maskell's Letter to the Rev. Dr. Pusey On His Practice of Receiving Persons
in Auricular Confessions, pp. 17, 18. 2 Ibid. p. 50.

2 A Few Comments on Dr. Pusey's Letter to the Bishop of London. By
William Dodsworth, M.A., pp. 5, 6. London: William Pickering. 1851.

"A WITNESS IN FAVOUR OF ROME" 313

ward Movement in the Church of England. They testified
to that which they knew, and therefore their testimony — not
having been since contradicted on any material point — is of
great importance, as proving, beyond the possibility of a
doubt, the thoroughly Romish character of the Confessional
as worked by Dr. Pusey. It was to them, as it has always
been, a great instrument of priestly power ; and as we have
seen, it " brought penitents in fear and trembling upon
their knees " before their spiritual lords and masters. Mr.
Dodsworth had been Perpetual Curate of Christ Church, St.
Pancras, and soon after his secession to Rome he addressed
a published letter to his late congregation, explaining why
he had left them. In this document he frankly acknowledged
the great assistance the Oxford Movement had already been
to the Church of Rome. What would he have said of these
services, had he lived to the year 1900 ? Of "the Oxford
Movement of 1833 " Mr. Dodsworth said : —

" I think its tendency towards Rome has been very decisive and
very extensive. Look at the Church of England as it was fifty years
ago, or even thirty. At that time it would have been thought Popish
to speak of the Real Presence; the doctrine of the Eucharistic
Sacrifice was scarcely known in the teaching of the Church.
Auricular Confession, counsels of perfection, the Conventual Life,
as well as less important matters, such as the use of the Crucifix,
&c., were all identified with Popery. But now these doctrines and
usages are quite current amongst Anglicans. May we not appeal
to the common-sense of men to say whether these things are not
a decisive approximation to Romel Nay, more, are not Anglicans
indebted to Rome for them ? . . . And then, if it be admitted, as
it must be, that they enter vitally into the truth of our holy religion,
and have a most decisive influence upon religious practice, must it
not also be admitted that the revival of these things amongst Angli
cans is so far a witness in favour of Rome ? " l

Mr. Dodsworth's exposures of Dr. Pusey's Confessional
practices brought the latter gentleman into trouble with
his Diocesan. But it was not his work as a Father Con
fessor only which brought down on Pusey the censures of
Bishop Wilberforce. His adapted Roman books, and his
teaching concerning the Lord's Supper, seemed to the

1 Anglicanism Considered in Us Results. By William Dodsworth, M.A.,
pp. 91, 92. London: William Pickering. 1851.

314 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

Bishop of Oxford to have a distinct tendency Romeward.
There was a lengthy correspondence between the Bishop,
Pusey, and Keble on the subject, which may be read in the
Life of Bishop Wilberforce, and in the Life of Dr. Pusey.
Wilberforce considered that Pusey was a "decoy bird"
who led people into the Papal net, which he had no inten
tion of entering himself. " I do not mean that he intends
any such thing ; I am quite sure that he does not." * Still,
however good Pusey's intentions may have been, the result
was, in the Bishop's opinion, the same. So at last he had
to privately inhibit him from officiating in the Diocese of
Oxford, except in the parish of Pusey, for two years.
"You seem to me," the Bishop wrote to Pusey, "to be
habitually assuming the place and doing the work of a
Roman Confessor, and not that of an English clergyman.
Now I so firmly believe that of all the curses of Popery this
is the crowning curse, that I cannot allow voluntarily
within my charge the continuance of any ministry which
is infected by it."2

The great public excitement connected with the Papal
Aggression commenced towards the close of 1850, by the
publication of the Papal Bull dividing England into Dioceses
to be filled by Bishops of his own choosing. The Pro
testant opposition to the Pope's action found but little
support from the Puseyites : several of them, in fact,
actively opposed it. This attitude is partly accounted for
by the action of Lord John Russell, the Prime Minister,
who, in his famous Durham Letter, attacked, not only the
Pope, but also his imitators in the Church of England. His
lordship's opinion of the Oxford Movement is thus explained
by his biographer, Mr. Spencer Walpole : — " Lord John
had always regarded with deep distrust the progress of the
great religious Movement which is associated with the
names of Cardinal Newman and Mr. Pusey. Its votaries,
he thought, were not merely traitors to the Church, but
guilty of 'shocking profanation.' They were, consciously
or unconsciously, initiating a Movement which was leading
to Rome, and they were simultaneously turning a service

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. ii. p. 86. a Ibid. p. 90.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL'S DURHAM LETTER 315

of remembrance into an offensive spectacle." 1 It is evident
from this that Lord John Russell ever looked upon Trac-
tarianism as a Romeward Movement. He feared that
"nothing but the erection of a priestly supremacy over
the Crown and people would satisfy the party in the Church
who now take the lead in agitation."2 In his letter to the
Bishop of Durham his lordship said : —

" There is a danger, however, which alarms me much more than
any aggression of a foreign Sovereign. Clergymen of our own
Church, who have subscribed the Thirty-Nine Articles and acknow
ledged in explicit terms the Queen's supremacy, have been most
forward in leading their flocks ' step by step to the very verge of the
precipice.' The honour paid to Saints, the claim of Infallibility for
the Church, the superstitious use of the sign of the Cross, the mut
tering of the Liturgy so as to disguise the language in which it is
written, the recommendation of Auricular Confession, and the
administration of penance and absolution — all these things are
pointed out by clergymen of the Church of England as worthy of
adoption, and are now openly reprehended by the Bishop of London
in his Charge to the clergy of his diocese.

"What then is the danger to be apprehended from a foreign
prince of no great power, compared to the danger within the gates
from the unworthy sons of the Church of England herself?

" I have little hope that the propounders and framers of these
innovations will desist from their insidious course. But I rely
with confidence on the people of England ; and I will not bate a jot
of heart or hope, so long as the glorious principles and the immortal
Martyrs of the Reformation shall be held in reverence by the great
mass of a nation which looks with contempt on the mummeries of
superstition, and with scorn at the laborious endeavours which are
now making to confine the intellect and enslave the soul." 8

The words cited in this letter, " step by step to the very
verge of the precipice/' were a quotation from the Charge
of the Bishop of London, delivered on November 2nd. In
that Charge Dr. Blomfield, as a High Churchman, expressed
his strong disapproval of the Gorham judgment, and ad
vocated the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. He then
went on to make a strong attack on the Puseyite party, who

1 Life of Lord John Russell. By Spencer Walpole, vol. ii. p. 115.

2 Ibid. p. 117. 8 Ibid. p. 120.

316 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

he held responsible mainly for the many secessions to
Rome which had recently taken place : —

"But," said the Bishop, "there is another very important con
sideration suggested to us by the recent lamentable secessions from
our Church. It may well occur to us to enquire how far the way
may have been paved for them, in some instances at least, by the
growth of opinions and practices in our own Reformed Church, at
variance, if not with the letter, yet with the spirit, of its teaching
and ordinances. I am unwilling to condemn, without reserve, the
motives of those among the clergy who have thought themselves at
liberty to imitate, as nearly as it is possible to imitate, without a
positive infringement of the law, the forms and ceremonies of u.e
Church of Rome. . . . Concessions to error can never really serve
the cause of truth. If some few have been thus retained within the
pale of our Church, many others have been gradually trained for
secession from it. A taste has been excited in them for forms and
observances which has stimulated without satisfying their appetite,
and they have naturally sought for fuller gratification in the Church
of Rome. They have been led, step by step, to the very verge of
the precipice, and then, to the surprise and disappointment of their
guides, have fallen over. I know that this has happened in some
instances. I have no doubt of its having happened in many.

"Then, with respect to doctrine, what can be better calculated
to lead the less learned, or the less thoughtful, members of our
Protestant Church to look with complacency upon the errors which
their Church has renounced, and at length to embrace them, than
to have books of devotion put into their hands by their own clergy
men, in which all but Divine honour is paid to the Virgin Mary ? A
propitiatory virtue is attributed to the Eucharist — the mediation of
the Saints is spoken of as a probable doctrine — Prayer for the Dead
urged as a positive duty — and a superstitious use of the sign of the
Cross is recommended as profitable : add to this the secret practice
of Auricular Confession, the use of Crucifixes and Rosaries, the
administration of what is termed the Sacrament of Penance, and it
is manifest that they who are taught to believe that such things are
compatible with the principles of the English Church, must also
believe it to be separated from that of Rome by a faint and almost
imperceptible line, and be prepared to pass that line without much
fear of incurring the guilt of schism.

" Then with regard to the mode of celebrating Divine worship,
it has been a subject of great uneasiness to me to see the changes
which have been introduced by a few of the clergy, at variance, as

ST. PAUL'S, KNIGHTSBRIDGE 317

I think, with the spirit of the Church's directions, and, in some
instances, with the letter. . . . These innovations have, in some
instances, been carried to such a length as to render the Church
service almost histrionic. I really cannot characterise by a gentler
term the continual changes of posture, the frequent genuflexions, the
crossings, the peculiarities of dress, and some of the decorations of
Churches to which I allude. They are, after all, a poor imitation of
the Roman ceremonial, and furnish, I have no doubt, to the obser
vant members of that Church, a subject, on the one hand, of ridicule,
as being a faint and meagre copy of their own gaudy ritual ; and, on
the other hand, of exultation, as preparing those who take delight
in them to seek a fuller gratification of their taste in the Roman
communion."

In all this the Bishop had only stated the truth. There
was nothing of exaggeration in his description of what
was taking place. No doubt he had specially in his mind
what was going on at the moment in St. Barnabas' Church,
Pimlico, under the Rev. W. J. E. Bennett, Vicar of St. Paul's,
Knightsbridge, of which St. Barnabas' was then a District
Chapel-of-Ease. From a Farewell Letter to his Parish
ioners, issued by Mr. Bennett after his resignation of
St. Paul's, I learn that he was appointed to work in
the parish in 1840, that he assisted in building the new
Church of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, and that not very
long after complaints as to his mode of conducting
Divine Service were frequently forwarded to the Bishop
of London, and many more were made directly to himself.
" On one occasion," said Mr. Bennett, " a person coming
from abroad informed me that, for all the world, the
Church of St. Paul's was nothing more than he had just
seen at Paris and at Rome. To which I replied, How
happy it was that members of the Church of England
could be in any way like the great bulk of Christendom,
for it seemed like the beginning of unity." J In the year
1849, during a pestilence in London, Mr. Bennett printed
and circulated a Form of Prayer, to be used privately,
containing Prayers for the Dead. The Bishop of London
wrote to him about it, and strongly objected to such

1 A Farewell Letter to his Parishioners. By the Rev. W. J. E. Bennett, p. 24.
London : Cleaver. 1851.

318 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

prayers. A lengthy correspondence followed ; 1 but Mr.
Bennett, notwithstanding his oath of obedience to his
Bishop, refused to yield to his clearly expressed wishes.
On June 10, 1850, the new Chapel-of-Ease, afterwards
known as St. Barnabas' Church, Pimlico, was consecrated
by the Bishop of London. It was not long before Ritual
istic practices, which were then thought very advanced,
were observed in the new Church. One of the Curates,
finding things going so far wrong, could endure it no
longer, and went to the Bishop of London with a view
to his resignation, not to complain of Mr. Bennett, who
alone was responsible for what went on at St. Barnabas'.
The Bishop, of course, questioned him as to the matters
he objected to, and having thus learnt what was going
on, he wrote on July ist to Mr. Bennett, stating that he
had been informed upon authority he could not doubt,
that in St. Barnabas' Church (i) at Holy Communion he
celebrated standing in the centre of the west side of the
table, with his back to the congregation ; (2) that he did
not give the cup into the hands of the communicants,
but put it to their lips ; (3) that in some instances he
had not given the bread into the hands of the communi
cants, but had put it into their mouths ; (4) that he
prefaced the sermon with an invocation of the Trinity ;
(5) that at this invocation before the sermon the clergy
rose up and crossed themselves ; and (6) that he had
administered Extreme Unction to a young lady. To
this letter Mr. Bennett replied on July I5th, denying
absolutely the last charge, and admitting the truth of
all the other charges, except that as to not putting the
elements into the hands of the communicants ; this was,
he explained, true only of six communicants, and that
by their special request, but that since receiving his lord
ship's letter he had spoken to the six, who had agreed
to give up the practice complained of. Mr. Bennett, at
some length, defended these practices, but did not promise
to give up more than the last named, and he said to the
Bishop : — " If you think, upon reading what I have said,

1 Bennett's Farewell Letter to his Parishioners, pp. 44-61.

RIOTS AT ST. BARNABAS', PIMLICO 319

that the picture of my mind is not that which could justify
my remaining in the cure of souls in your lordship's
diocese, I am ready and willing to depart." l After writing
this letter Mr. Bennett says that three months elapsed
before he received any reply, during which "all the
practices complained of were continued without varia
tion." 2 On October i8th the Bishop wrote again, ex
pressing himself as not at all satisfied with Mr. Bennett's
explanations and defence, and requiring him to give up
the practices to which he objected. To this Mr. Bennett
replied on October 3oth : — " It grieves me to say that,
after having conscientiously considered all the bearings
of the matter, I find that I am unable to withdraw or
alter anything that I have said or done," and he offered
to resign his living if the Bishop called on him to do
so. 3 Soon after Mr. Bennett presented a young gentle
man to the Bishop to be ordained to the Curacy of St.
Barnabas', but his lordship refused to ordain him on Mr.
Bennett's nomination. The Bishop of London's Charge
was delivered, as already stated, on November 2nd, con
demning the Puseyites in strong terms. On November
5th, Lord John Russell's letter to the Bishop of Durham,
dated November 4th, was published in the daily papers.
On Sunday, November loth, riots broke out in St.
Barnabas' Church, which were renewed on the following
Sunday — a method of protest with which, I may be per
mitted to state, I have no sympathy whatever. It has
ever been injurious to the Protestant cause, and can only
benefit the Romanisers. Here were a number of, I sup
pose, Protestant people, going to Church to protest
against lawlessness by committing acts of violent lawless
ness themselves. The principle of taking the law into our
own hands, as separate individuals, seems to me to be the
root evil of Anarchy.

On December 4th, Mr. Bennett sent in his resignation, by
demand of the Bishop, of his living. A few days before this
Mr. Bennett published A First Letter to Lord John Russell,
which is remarkable for its unsparing and just exposure of

1 Bennett's Farewell Letter to his Parishioners, p. 84.

2 Ibid. p. 86. 3 Ibid. pp. 91, 92.

320 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

the way in which his lordship had been supporting Popery
for many years, and for its acknowledgment that Auricular
Confession, as practised by the Puseyite clergy, was in itself
identical with that of the Church of Rome. On this latter
point, Mr. Bennett's words are : — " Sufficient it is to me to
call your attention to the fact, that Confession to a priest
(commonly called Auricular Confession), is advocated and
pronounced useful by the English Church. The only differ
ence you will observe between the Church of Rome and
ourselves being this, that Rome makes such Confession
absolutely necessary for salvation ; the other leaves it as a
voluntary act, to be used or not used, according to the
spiritual needs of the penitent." * A few weeks later Dr.
Pusey had the audacity to say that : — " I am not aware that
any Divine or Bishop in our Church, since the Reformation,
has excepted against anything, except making Confession
compulsory." 2 The truth is, that almost all our Divines and
Bishops since the Reformation, down to the commencement
of the Oxford Movement, were deadly enemies of the Con
fessional itself, as conducted by Pusey, excepting only the
Laudian Divines. A large number of Mr. Bennett's congre
gation took his part in his controversy with the Bishop, and
an effort was made to keep him in the living by an appeal
to a Court of law. A legal opinion was taken on this ques
tion, but as it was decidedly adverse to any appeal to a
Court, the proposed proceedings were necessarily dropped.
Towards the end of 1850, another fierce controversy
arose at St. Saviour's, Leeds. The Bishop of Ripon had
had painful experience of the evasive and Romanising con
duct of the clergy of that church. In June 1850, his lord
ship informed one of its clergy that " the proceedings of the
clergy of St. Saviour's were of such a character as to destroy
all my confidence in them ; and that their study seemed to
be how far they could evade their Bishop's known wishes,
without violating the letter of the law." 3 In the month of

1 A First Letter to Lord John Russell. By the Rev. W. J. E. Bennett, p. 43.
London : Cleaver. 1850.

2 A Letter to the Bishop of London. By the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D., p. 3.
Oxford : 1851.

3 A Letter to the Parishioners of St. Saviour's, Leeds. By the Bishop of
Ripon, p. 29. London : Rivington. 1851.

TWO TRAITOROUS RESOLUTIONS 32!

October 1850, a meeting of twelve clergymen was held at
St. Saviour's, at which the two following resolutions, which
clearly show the traitorous spirit of those who passed them,
were carried unanimously :—

" That the very existence of the English Church involves the
principle of her submission, in matters of faith, to the Church
Catholic."

" That her national history, previous to the Reformation, indi
cates that such submission can only be made through the medium of the
Papal Seer *

Of course these were thoroughly dishonest resolutions,
which reflected the utmost disgrace on the clergy of the
Church of England who passed them, and fully justified the
strong remarks of the Bishop of Ripon about the clergy of
St. Saviour's, in his letter to the parishioners : — *' For my
own part," said the Bishop, " I shall refrain from saying
more than that their conduct has verified, in a remarkable
and very painful manner, the statement which I had made
in my Episcopal Charge three months only previous, that
1 the nearer persons approach to the Roman system, the
more will their powers of judgment be perverted, their moral
sense blunted, and an obliquity of moral vision superinduced,
blinding them more and more to the simplicity of Christian
truth, and estranging them more and more from the sincerity
of Christian practice." 2

The Rev. J. H. Pollen, who for a time was one of the
Curates of St. Saviour's, frankly admits that this meeting
was held, and he says that the clergy present "came to
resolutions to the effect that the English Church was sub
ject to the Catholic Church as regards the faith. That now
was a time when she needed to refer to that tribunal for
support and guidance — that the Apostolic See had hitherto
been the only access to that voice." 3

Early in December a majority of the clergy of Leeds
requested the Bishop of Ripon to hold a commission for
the purpose of investigating certain charges to be brought
against the clergy of St. Saviour's. Dr. Hook, Vicar of

1 A Letter to the Parishioners of St. Saviour1 s, Leeds. By the Bishop of
Ripon, p. 29. 2 Ibid. p. 15.

3 Narrative of Five Years at St. Saviour's, Leeds. By the Rev. J. H. Pollen,
p. 166. Oxford: J. Vincent. 1851.

322 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

Leeds, shortly before had publicly separated himself from
the advanced section of his party. In a preface to two
sermons he had preached, the Vicar of Leeds said : — " I
take leave to make a wide distinction between a Romaniser
and a High Churchman."

" But when," wrote Dr. Hook, " I now find them [the Roman-
isers] calumniators of the Church of England, and vindicators of the
Church of Rome; palliating the vices of the Romish system, and
magnifying the deficiencies of the Church of England ; sneering at
everything Anglican, and admiring everything Romish; students of
the Breviary and Missal, disciples of the Schoolmen, converts to
medisevalism, insinuating Romish sentiments, circulating and re-
publishing Romish works; introducing Romish practices in their
private, and infusing a Romish tone into their public devotions ;
introducing the Romish Confessional, enjoining Romish penances,
adopting Romish prostrations, recommending Romish Litanies ; mut
tering the Romish shibboleth, and rejoicing in the cant of Romish
fanaticism, assuming sometimes the garb of the Romish priesthood,
and venerating without imitating their celibacy ; defending Romish
miracles, and receiving as true the lying legends of Rome; almost
adoring Romish saints, and complaining that we have had no saints in
England since we purified our Church ; explaining away the idolatry,
and pining for the Mariolatry of the Church of Rome ; vituperating
the English Reformation, and receiving for truth the false doctrines
of the Council of Trent ; when I hear them whispering in the ears
of credulous ignorance, in high places as well as low, that the two
Churches are in principle the same ; when they who were once in
the pit on the one side of the wall, have now tumbled over on the
other side, and have fallen into ' a lower deep still gaping to devour
them ' ; I conceive that I am bound as a High Churchman to re
main stationary, and not to follow them in their downfalling. I
believe it to be incumbent upon every High Churchman to declare
plainly that it is not merely in detail, that it is not merely in the
application of our principles themselves, that we differ from the
Church of Rome; and that no man can secede to Rome, the system
of which is opposed to the truth as it is in Jesus, without placing
his soul in peril, and risking his salvation. ... It is not against
Romanists but against Romanisers that we write ; against those who
are doing the work of the Church of Rome while eating the bread
of the Church of England." l

1 Life of Dean Hook, vol. ii. pp. 278, 279.

THE LEEDS CONFESSIONAL CASE 323

The Bishop of Ripon held his inquiry concerning St.
Saviour's Church in the vestry of Leeds Parish Church, on
December 14 and 15, 1850. Dr. Hook was present, and
the inquiry extended itself into all the Romanising practices
and doctrines of the accused clergy. But the chief subject
considered was a charge against the Rev. H. F. Beckett,
one of the Curates, of hearing the confession of a married
woman (who appeared as a witness), without the knowledge
of her husband, and then asking her shockingly indelicate
and indecent questions. Of this witness the Bishop subse
quently stated : — " Every attempt was made, but in vain, to
invalidate her simple, straightforward testimony ; and no
imputation was ever cast upon her general integrity." l
After the inquiry the Bishop wrote to Mr. Beckett : — " It
appeared in evidence which you did not contradict, and
could not shake by any cross-examination, that Mr. Rooke,
who was then a deacon, having required a married woman
who was a candidate for confirmation to go for Confession
to you as a priest, you received that female to confession
under these circumstances, and that you put to her ques
tions which she says made her feel very much ashamed and
greatly distressed her, and which were of such an indelicate
nature that she would never tell her husband of them." 2
Mr. Beckett replied to the Bishop's letter, but he did not
dare to deny the truth of the charges brought against him.
He made, however, one remarkable assertion, which hus
bands whose wives go to Confession would do well to bear
in mind. " No woman" he said, "would, I suppose, ever tell
her husband what had passed in her Confession " ; 3 and as to
asking questions of the penitent, he wrote : — " The asking of
questions according to the discretion of the Confessor is,
your lordship must see, absolutely necessary to make Con
fession of value to those who have recourse to it." 4

It was thought absolutely necessary by the Bishop of
Ripon (afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury) to print some
of the indecent questions which this Puseyite priest put to

1 A Letter to the Parishioners of St. Saviour *s, Leeds. By the Bishop of Ripon,

P- 31-

2 Ibid. p. 37. 8 Ibid. p. 38.
4 Ibid. p. 39.

324 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

this woman in the Confessional.1 All that I can say about
them here is that if any husband, be he Protestant or
Ritualist, knew that his wife was asked those questions
in Confession by her Ritualistic Confessor, the next time
that Confessor came to that husband's house he would
knock him down flat, and afterwards kick him out of the
house. I do not say the husband ought to act thus : I only
affirm that he could not very well help doing so. And I
am quite certain that the filthy-tongued Confessor, who
asked such obscene questions, wrould deserve all that he
got from an outraged and justly indignant husband. Ordi
nary men of the world would be ashamed to ask such
questions ; but these brazen-faced Puseyite priests of St.
Saviour's, Leeds, gloried in their shame. They issued a
Statement of their case, in which they had the audacity
to justify Father Confessors in asking penitents, male or
female, indecent questions. As this, to my ordinary readers,
will seem almost incredible, I give their justification of such
dirty conduct in the priests' own words : —

"We now come," said the clergy of St. Saviour's, "to the second
charge, relied on by the Bishop, against Mr. Beckett. The same
witness states that certain questions which he asked her were very
indelicate.

"To those who do not recognise the presence of Almighty God
in the ministrations of the Confessional, it may seem that an 'in
delicate ' question may be a wrong one. But we believe that He
who has created physicians for bodily sickness, and by them is
pleased to effect many merciful cures, has ordained other physicians
in His Church for the relief of men's spiritual disorders ; and that
there is an analogy between the discretion which we willingly con
cede to those whom we consult for the health of our bodies, and
that which must be exercised by the physicians of the soul. If this
be true, a question in itself indelicate ceases to be so when it is
known to be important to the safe treatment of the sufferer's case ;
and woe be to those who countenance the vicious refinement of
this generation, and abet the world in its unceasing efforts to place
a false delicacy between the soul and its salvation. It would doubt
less be indelicate, were it not in the highest degree necessary, to
drag sin from its lurking-place, and expose it to the sinner's view;

1 A Letter to the Parishioners of St. Saviours, Leeds. By the Bishop of
Ripon, p. 32.

INDECENT QUESTIONS DEFENDED 325

but that there is often a paramount necessity for doing this, will be
doubted by none whose earnest thoughts of sin and of repentance,
of God's wrath and of acceptance with Him, have not been checked
and stunted, chilled or blasted, by the breath of Lutheran heresy
and Socinian unbelief. Whether such a necessity existed in the case
which has led the Bishop to visit Mr. Beckett with his severest
displeasure, is known, and will be known, to none but God and Mr.
Beckett himself. He was asked by Mr. Randall, at the ' investiga
tion,' whether he would have put the same questions to his (Mr.
Randall's) wife ? to which he replied that under the same circum
stances he would have put the same questions, not only to Mr.
Randall's wife, but even to Mr. Randall himself." l

A defence of this kind is simply a slander on an honour
able profession. No medical man of honour would ever
ask a patient such questions as those put to this woman in
the Confessional. And even if, in some points, the analogy
were to hold good, yet it would fail in this. The priest in
the Confessional is not a physician but a quack, who kills
souls, instead of curing them. The whole system of Con
fession on these indelicate lines is abhorrent to every
enlightened Christian. It pollutes both Confessor and
penitent.

The result of the Bishop's investigation was that all the
clergy of St. Saviour's, with one exception, seceded to the
Church of Rome. Out of fifteen clergy who had laboured
in that Church since its consecration in 1845, no fewer than
nine had now seceded to the Church of Rome. So much
for the first attempt to exhibit the Oxford Movement in
operation.

1 The Statement of the Clergy of St. Saviour 's, Leeds, in Reference to the.
Recent Proceedings Against Them, p. 9. Leeds : S. Morrish. 1851.

CHAPTER XII

The Bristol Church Union — Pusey objects to a protest against Rome —
Archbishop Tait on the Church Discipline Act — The Judicial Com
mittee of Privy Council — Lay Address to the Queen — Her Majesty's
action in response — Lay Address to the Archbishop of Canterbury —
The appeal to the Bishops — An Episcopal Manifesto — A Clerical and
Lay Declaration in support of the Gorham judgment — The Confes
sional at Plymouth — Revival and reform of Convocation — Prosecu
tion of Archdeacon Denison — The power and privileges of examining
chaplains — The Archbishop's Commission of Inquiry — The Arch
bishop's judgment at Bath — How the Archdeacon evaded punishment
— Pusey hoists the flag of rebellion — The protest against the Bath
judgment — The Society of the Holy Cross — The Association for the
Promotion of the Unity of Christendom — Startling revelations as to
its early history — Secret negotiations with Rome — De Lisle's secret
letter to Cardinal Barnabo — The Cardinal's answer — Newman con
sulted by De Lisle — The conspirators meet in London — Their secret,
traitorous, and treacherous message to the Pope — The case of Wes-
terton v. Liddell — Judgment — A Ritualistic rebel.

A NUMBER of independent " Church Unions/' formed by the
Tractarians, had been in existence for several years when
the Papal Aggression commenced. The first of these, called
the Bristol Union, was formed in 1844, to which were sub
sequently affiliated a number of local Church Unions
throughout the country, all having the promotion of High
Church principles as their chief object. In addition to
these, but working independently on similar lines, were the
Metropolitan Church Union, and the London Church Union.
One of the chief promoters of the Bristol Church Union
was the Rev. William Palmer, whose Narrative of Events
Connected with the Tracts for the Times, published in 1843,
was, as I have already stated, the first effectual exposure of
the Romanising party which had appeared up to that date.
At the time of the Papal Aggression Mr. Palmer was very
much alarmed at the prospect of the extreme division of
the Puseyites, under their leader Dr. Pusey, capturing all the

THE PUSEYITE CHURCH UNIONS 327

Church Unions throughout the country. He wished these
Unions to be regulated by those High Church principles
which had ever guided his own conduct. The London
Church Union, which was then managed by the extreme
section, was anxious to become the centre of the whole of
the Church Unions of the country, and thus bring them all
under the guidance of men in whom moderate High Church
men could place no trust. That Mr. Palmer's fears were
not without foundation is proved by a letter written to Mr.
A. Beresford Hope, M.P., by Dr. Pusey, on October 3, 1850.
The Metropolitan Church Union, to which he refers at the
commencement of his letter, was not, at that time — so Mr.
Palmer states1 — under Tractarian (though it was under
High Church) guidance.

" MY DEAR HOPE, — All hope of reconciliation with the Metro
politan is now plainly at an end. But something must be done to
prevent their absorbing the whole Church Movement into their
hands, at which they are evidently aiming. Some are ambitious for
the Metropolitan ; Palmer wishes to get rid of J. K.[eble] and my
self; Dr. Biber to put forward himself.

" Might not the London Union unite itself more closely with
some of the others ? as the Bristol, the South- Eastern, the Yorks,
&c. . . .

" One great Union, such as Badeley suggests, which should take
in all England, and have leading clergy or laity from every diocese
on its Committee (the distrusts would not often be then) would be
immense strength.

"The members of this great Union in each diocese might
assemble in their diocese, at any time, or regularly as now, and
any member in the diocese, who was a member of the Central Com
mittee, might be the chairman.

" This (which B. suggested) would have much greater moral
strength than the existing Unions.

" I wish that you would think of this, or some similar plan. I
sent you Badeley's opinion, which was sent to J. K.[eble] relatively
to the plan we were hoping might be carried out, that all Unions
might be fused into one. — God bless you. Yours most faithfully,

" E. B. PUSEY."

" LONDON, Oct. 3."

1 A Statement of Circumstances. By William Palmer, M.A., p. 21. London :
Rivington. 1850.

328 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

The idea here suggested by Pusey was eventually carried
out several years later by the formation of the English
Church Union. Palmer's suspicions were therefore well
founded, and so to prevent, if possible, what he considered
would be a disaster to the High Church cause, he gave
notice that at the forthcoming Annual Meeting of the
Bristol Church Union on October ist, he would propose that
a " Statement of Principles " should be adopted by the
Union, containing a protest against the Church of Rome
and her errors. On hearing of this proposal Pusey was
greatly alarmed. A protest against Rome was what he
hated with all his heart. He was afraid that his Father
Confessor, Keble, would approve of this protest, so he wrote
to him : — " If you go along with this plan I shall withdraw
my name from the Bristol Union, by a letter to the Chair
man, in order not to have any responsibility in the matter." l
Canon Liddon tells us that : — " Dr. Mill suggested a resolu
tion expressing love and allegiance to the English Church,
' as reformed in the sixteenth century/ Pusey would prefer
to omit the allusion to the sixteenth century. It would
introduce a large controverted subject, and would repel
many minds. Pusey would have as simple a statement as
possible ; a positive statement of love for the Church of
England, without a negative statement about the Church of
Rome." ' Keble at length came over to Pusey's view, and
therefore wrote : — " I cannot join in any Anti-Roman
Declaration that I have yet seen, not even in my own, now
that I find the terms of it are equivocal." 3 At length the
day arrived (October ist), on which the Bristol Church
Union held its annual meeting. And what, it may be asked,
was this declaration which Pusey and his supporters so
dreaded and hated ? It was proposed by the Rev. William
Palmer, and seconded by the Rev. Prebendary Clarke, and
was as follows :—

"STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES.

" i. That the English branch of the One Holy Catholic and
Apostolic Church, which has reformed herself, taking primitive

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 275.

2 Ibid. p. 275. 3 Ibid. p. 280.

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES 329

Christianity as her model, has a claim upon the undivided and
faithful allegiance of the whole English people.

" 2. That the Roman Church (including the other Churches
in communion with her) having repudiated communion with all
the Churches which do not recognise the claims of the Bishop of
Rome, and having by formal decrees and other authoritative acts,
and in her popular practice, corrupted the primitive faith and worship
of the Holy Catholic Church, and persisted in the said claims and
corruptions, communion with the Roman Church, on the part of
Churches, and therefore of individuals, of the English Communion,
cannot, consistently with the laws of Christ, be restored, until the
Roman Church shall have relinquished her pretensions ; and suffi
cient provision shall have been made for the maintenance of Christian
truth in all its purity and integrity.

" 3. That the serious dangers to the faith, arising from the abuse
of private judgment, and from a mere negative Protestantism, having
of late years been greatly aggravated by the insidious propagation of
Rationalistic notions, and by the encroachments of a Latitudinarian
State policy, it is the duty of all members of the Church of England
to offer to these several abuses, errors, and pernicious principles, the
most active and uncompromising opposition." l

The wording of the third section of this Statement shows
that Mr. Palmer was no lover of decided Protestantism ;
nor can there be a reasonable doubt that if there were
nothing more in the Declaration than this section it would
have been carried unanimously. But, as we have seen, the
Corporate Reunion of the Church of Rome had been the
chief object of the leaders of the Oxford Movement from
its very birth. How, then, could they agree to a Declara
tion censuring either that Church, its doctrines, or its
practices ? And why should they be called upon to demand
that Rome should " relinquish her pretensions," or give up
any of her doctrines, as a condition of England's union
with her ? It is true that no reasonably loyal Churchman
could consistently object to sign the second clause of the
Declaration ; but these were not consistent or loyal Church
men, as their conduct on this occasion amply proved.
They were more anxious to shield and protect the Church
of Rome from her enemies than to defend the Church of

1 Palmer's Statement of Circumstances > p. 74.

330 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

England, and, therefore, Lord Forbes proposed, and Mr.
A. Beresford Hope, M.P., seconded, the following amend
ment, which was carried by a large majority : —

" That whereas the Bristol Union was designed to be a union
of all Churchmen desirous of co-operating in the promotion of cer
tain defined objects, it cannot consent to narrow the basis of its
constitution by identifying itself with an organisation which is founded
upon the acceptance of a Declaration of faith over and above the
existing formularies of the English Church, which it desires to make
the rule of its proceedings." l

Amongst those who spoke in favour of this amendment,
in addition to the mover and seconder, were Dr. Pusey and
the Rev. ]. Keble. Amongst those who spoke in favour of
Mr. Palmer's motion was the Rev. G. A. Denison, afterwards
so well known as Archdeacon Denison. The objection to
signing a Declaration of faith "over and above the existing
formularies," came w7ith a bad grace from those very men
who signed Declarations of faith soon after "over and
above the existing formularies " in defence of Baptismal
Regeneration, as against the Gorham judgment. Two days
after the Bristol meeting, Dr. Hook replied to an invitation
to join the Yorkshire Church Union. He declined to do so.

" I do not," he wrote, " see how members of the Church of Eng
land can be called upon to form a Union, except on the principles,
and in vindication of the principle?, of the English Reformation.
Those principles are both Catholic and Protestant — Catholic as
opposed to the peculiarities of Rationalism, and Protestant as
opposed to the Medievalism of the Romanist. I do not see how a
consistent High Churchman can, after what has transpired, join your
Union, unless you state one of your objects to be 'to maintain and
propagate the principles of the English Reformation ; to uphold
Scriptural and primitive truth in opposition to mediaeval heresies ;
and to preserve the middle position of the Church of England in
opposition equally to Rationalistic scepticism and Romish supersti
tion.' If this were to be one of the avowed objects of your institu
tion, it would exclude Romanisers as well as all Rationalists." 2

One result of the Gorham judgment was seen this year
in an organised attack on the Judicial Committee of Privy

1 English Churchman, October 3, 1850, p. 675.

2 Ibid. October 10, 1850, p. 685.

THE BISHOPS AND THE CHURCH DISCIPLINE ACT 331

Council as the final Court of Appeal. It was the desire of
the Puseyites that not only should the Church's laws be
made by the clergy only, but that they alone should be
judges in ecclesiastical causes. Their wish was to bring
the Church once more into priestly bondage. It is remark
able that the Act of Parliament which made the Judicial
Committee of Privy Council the final Court of Appeal (viz.,
3 & 4 Victoria, chap. 86), was passed with the consent of
the Bishops. Archbishop Tait, on this subject, wrote, while
Bishop of London : —

"It is important to observe that this Act was framed with the
concurrence of the Bishops. The Lord Chancellor, in introducing
it, expressed a hope that it would reconcile all differences upon the
subject. The Archbishop of Canterbury, on the part of the clergy,
gave his cordial approbation to the Bill ; the Bishop of Exeter, also,
entirely and heartily concurred in the measure. There is no record
of any debate upon the Bill, beyond a very few suggestions by inde
pendent members in either House ; and the acquiescence with which
it was received on all sides was doubtless owing to the agreement
of the Bishops in supporting the measure. It seems clear, therefore,
that the rulers of our Church at that time saw no reason to object to
the Judicial Committee as a Court of Appeal in matters of ecclesiastical
discipline, whether relating to faith or morals. It would be a serious
reflection upon the character of men like Archbishop Howley, and
Bishop Blomfield, and Bishop Kaye, were it to be supposed that
they were ignorant of the nature of a tribunal which they had them
selves assisted in founding, or that they were careless of the interests
with which they were now, after trial, entrusting it, or that they
deliberately sanctioned an institution against which any objection of
principle could be raised." l

During this year, the Bishop of London introduced a
Bill into the House of Lords, which received the assent of
the Archbishop of Canterbury, the object of which was to
deprive the Judicial Committee of Privy Council of its powers
as the final Court of Appeal, and to transfer them to the
Upper House of Convocation. Happily it was defeated on
its second reading, on June 3, 1850, by 84 to 51, and from
that day to this the Judicial Committee remains the final
Court of Appeal. It will be a dark day for Protestantism

1 Brodrick and Freemantle'syw<2^w<?#fr of the Judicial Committee. Introduc
tion by the Bishop of London, p. Ixxi.

332 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

should Parliament ever make the Bishops the final Court of
Appeal. The opinion of Lord John Russell on this impor
tant subject was wise and worthy of remembrance. He
wrote to the Bishop of London on February 25, 1850 : —
" What I think essential to the Queen's Supremacy is that no
person should be deprived of his rights unless by due inter
pretation of law. If the Supreme Court of Appeal in heresy
were formed solely of the clergy, their opinions would pro
bably be founded on the prevailing theological opinions
of the Judicial Bishops, who might be one day Calvinistic
and the next Romish. Especially if three senior Bishops
and two Divinity Professors were to form part of the
tribunal, we might have superannuated Bishops and Uni
versity intolerance driving out of the Church its most dis
tinguished ornaments." l It was on this same subject of a
final Court of Appeal that his lordship wrote the sentence
which I have already cited : — " I fear that nothing but the
erection of a priestly supremacy over the Crown would ever
satisfy the party in the Church who now take the lead in
agitation." r'

The Papal Aggression led to a great increase of Protes
tant opposition to Puseyism throughout the country. By
this time the Puseyite clergy had made considerable pro
gress in the adoption of Ritual which had not been seen in
English Churches since the Protestant Reformation. Pro
tests were heard on every hand, and addresses to the Bishops
were multiplied. Of these, the most remarkable was the
outcome of a great Protestant meeting held in the Free
masons' Hall, on December 6, 1850, over which Lord Ashley
presided. An important Lay Address to the Queen on the
subject of the Papal Aggression wras presented to her
Majesty, signed by 63 Peers, 108 Members of Parliament,
and 321,240 lay members of the Church of England. In
this Address, an earnest protest was made against the
Romanising work going on in the Church of England.
From it I give the following extracts : —

" But we desire also humbly to represent to your Majesty our
conviction, confirmed by the recent testimony of several Bishops of

1 Life of Lord John Rttsselt, vol. ii. p. 116. 2 Ibid. p. 117.

LAY ADDRESS AGAINST ROMANISING 333

our Church, that the Court of Rome would never have attempted
such an act of aggression had not encouragements been held out to
that encroaching power by many of the clergy of our own Church,
who have for several years past shown a desire to assimilate the
doctrines and services of the Church of England to those of the
Roman Communion. While we would cheerfully contend for the
principles of the Reformation against all open enemies, we have to
lament that our most dangerous foes are those of our own household ;
and hence we feel that it is to little purpose to repel the aggressions
of the foreigner, unless those principles and practices which have
tempted him to such aggressions be publicly and universally re
pudiated.

"We are conscious that the evils to 'which we allude are deeply
seated, and have been the growth of a series of years, and hence we
entertain no expectation that they can be suddenly eradicated. But
we humbly entreat your Majesty, in the exercise of your Royal
Prerogative, to direct the attention of the Primates and the Bishops
of the Church to the necessity of using all fit and proper means to
purify it from the infection of false doctrine ; and, as respects external
and visible observances, in which many novelties have been intro
duced, to take care that measures may be promptly adopted for the
repression of all such practices.

"While we feel deeply conscious that the true and effectual
remedy for the dangers which beset our Protestant Church belongs
to no human power, but only to the Supreme Head of the Church
whose Almighty aid is to be sought by humble, persevering prayer,
we are thankful that, by the Constitution and the existing laws, there
is vested in your Majesty, as the Earthly Head of our Church, a
wholesome power of interposition ; which power we entreat your
Majesty now to exercise. The records of the reigns of your Majesty's
illustrious predecessors, both before and since the glorious Revolu
tion, furnish many examples of the manner in which the mischiefs
and abuses which at various times have sprung up in the Church
have been dealt with by the exercise of the Royal Authority.

" That it may please your Majesty, on a view of the peculiar
perils in which our Protestant Church is now placed, to interpose for
its defence, is our humble petition."

A record of some of the instances, referred to in this
petition, in which evils in the Church have been dealt with
by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, may be read in
Cardwell's Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of
England. It gave great pleasure to those who signed this

334 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

petition to the Queen to find that it had been acted on by
her Majesty. By her command a copy was sent to the
Archbishop of Canterbury, to be by him communicated to
the Archbishop of York and the Bishops, with a request that
they would do all in their power to prevent innovations.
Sir George Grey's letter, conveying the Royal commands to
the Archbishop, is important, not only for what it contains,
but as a possible precedent in the not distant future. It
was as follows : —

"WHITEHALL, \st April> 1851.

"Mv LORD ARCHBISHOP, — I have received the Queen's com
mands to transmit to your Grace the accompanying Address, which
has been presented to her Majesty, signed by a very large number
of lay members of the United Church of England and Ireland,
including many Members of both Houses of Parliament.

" Her Majesty places full confidence in your Grace's desire to
use such means as are within your power to maintain the purity of
the doctrines taught by the clergy of the Established Church, and
to discourage and prevent innovations in the mode of conducting
the services of the Church not sanctioned by law or general usage,
and calculated to create dissatisfaction and alarm among a numerous
body of its members.

"I am, therefore, commanded to place this Address in your
Grace's hands, and to request that it may be communicated to the
Archbishop of York and to the Suffragan Bishops in England and
Wales, who, her Majesty does not doubt, will concur with your
Grace in the endeavour, by a judicious exercise of their authority
and influence, to uphold the purity and simplicity of the Faith and
Worship of our Reformed Church, and to reconcile differences
among its members injurious to its peace and usefulness. — I have
the honour to be, my Lord Archbishop, your Grace's obedient
servant, G. GREY.

"His GRACE THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY."

On March 19, 1851, Lord Ashley presented an address
to the Archbishop of Canterbury, signed by 239,860 clerical
and lay members of the Church of England, stating that
the Papal Aggression had been " invited, encouraged, and
facilitated" by the state of things in the English Church
produced by Tractarianism, and calling upon the Bishops
to give "the desired relief." The Archbishop, in his reply,

AN EPISCOPAL MANIFESTO 335

said : — " It will be vain to deny what our adversaries have
themselves avowed, that the aggressive measures on the
part of Rome, against which this country is protesting,
have been encouraged by symptoms of approach towards
Romish doctrines and Romish usages which have appeared
of late years within the Church of England. It is also
certain that the principles which have been loudly main
tained and zealously propagated, under the equivocal title
of Church principles, have a tendency to lead those who
embrace them to reconciliation with the Church of Rome,
as the Church in which those principles are most perfectly
carried out and established." 1 In conclusion, his Grace
promised, on behalf of the Episcopal Bench, that they
would do their duty in preventing practices and innovations
in public worship, which had their origin in error and
superstition. I have no doubt that his Grace meant all
that he said, but, alas ! the Protestant petitioners looked to
the Bishops in vain for any effectual remedy for the evils
of which they complained. And so it has been ever since
to the present day. There have been some noble exceptions
to the general rule with regard to the attitude of the Bishops
in their own dioceses, but taking the Episcopal Bench as a
whole they have lamentably failed in their duty. We have
had plenty of words, and many promises, but for all this,
little or nothing has been done to satisfy the just demands
of the loyal and aggrieved laity. What was the immediate
result of the Archbishop of Canterbury's promise of Epis
copal action in 1851 ? Scarcely anything but an Episcopal
Manifesto, which, however, was not signed by the Bishops
of Bath and Wells, Exeter, Manchester, and Hereford.
It was about as mild and harmless a document as could
well be imagined. It was simply an exhortation to the
clergy to make no innovations in Divine Service which
should give offence to the congregation, even if legal ; and
to do nothing contrary to the law of the Church. They
did, however, denounce the principle which had been laid
down by some of the clergy, that " whatever form or usage
existed in the Church before the Reformation may now be

1 Guardian, March 22, 1851, p. 212.

336 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

freely introduced and observed, unless there can be alleged
against it the distinct letter of some formal prohibition."
As to this principle their lordships declared that : — " It is
manifest that a licence such as is contended for is wholly
incompatible with any uniformity of worship whatsoever,
and at variance with the universal practice of the Catholic
Church, which has never given to the officiating Ministers
of separate congregations any such large discretion in the
selection of ritual observances."1 From this document it
is evident that the overwhelming majority of the Bishops
of that day accepted the principle that " omission is pro
hibition."

Later on in the year, another Declaration was signed by
no fewer than 3262 clergymen, including seven Deans and
twelve Archdeacons, in favour of the Royal Supremacy, and
expressing approval of the judgment of the Judicial Com
mittee of Privy Council in the Gorham case. It was for
warded to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. Those
who signed it declared that they felt called upon " under
present circumstances (whether holding or not the view
which called forth the judgment) humbly to state our con
viction that it was a wise and just sentence, in accordance
with the principles of the Church of England. And we re
spectfully, but firmly, protest against any attempt, from
whatever quarter it may proceed, to bring into contempt a
judgment so issued ; and to charge with false teaching, and
discredit with their flocks, those whose doctrine has been
pronounced by that judgment to be ' not contrary or repug
nant to the declared doctrine of the Church of England.'
And we respectfully, but firmly, protest against any attempt,
from whatever quarter it may proceed, to bring into con
tempt a judgment so issued." Amongst those who signed
this very proper declaration, was the Very Rev. A. C. Tait,
Dean of Carlisle, and afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury.
From the Archbishop of Canterbury a reply to the Declara
tion was received, expressing " much satisfaction " at receiv
ing it, while from the Archbishop of York a letter was
received expressing approval of the Declaration.2

1 Guardian, April 2, 1851, p. 251. 2 Ibid. January 14, 1852, p 28.

A PLYMOUTH CONFESSIONAL CASE 337

A great deal of excitement was created in Plymouth
during the year 1852, in connection with some Confes
sional scandals alleged to have taken place at St. Peter's
Church in that city. The Bishop of Exeter was asked to
hold a judicial inquiry on oath as to the alleged facts, but
he declined to do so. In the month of September, however,
he held an inquiry into the case at the Royal Hotel, Ply
mouth, but refused to consider it as judicial, nor would he
consent to grant the urgent entreaties of the Protestant ac
cusers of the Vicar of St. Peter's, that the witnesses should be
sworn before giving their evidence. The principal charge
against the Vicar was that of hearing the Confessions of
young girls from the institutions of Miss Sellon's Sisters of
Mercy, and then asking them indecent questions. During
the inquiry a letter was read from Miss Sellon, the Mother
Superior of the Sisterhood, denying that any of the girls
under the care of the Sisters were " in anywise compelled or
constrained to confess," but admitting that they were allowed
to go "of free choice " ; and that " it is our constant practice
to advise them to see their Minister, either for this pur
pose [Confession], or for receiving such higher counsel and
spiritual aid as it is not ours to give them, for their soul's
good." l The principal witness examined was a girl whose
character, as it appeared at the inquiry, was far from satis
factory, nor would it, I think, have been right to have con
demned the Vicar on such evidence, more especially as he
appeared personally before the Bishop and in the most
solemn manner denied that he had ever even so much as
received the girl to Confession at all, much less put disgust
ing questions to her. There were other cases to be brought
against the Vicar, and it was certainly unfortunate, for both
parties, that time was not allowed to bring them forward.
In the result, the Bishop entirely acquitted the Vicar as to
the whole of the charges brought against him, and declared
that he was free, not merely from blame, but "even of
indiscretion in receiving the Confessions made to him."
There was, however, a remarkable letter from the accused
Vicar to the Bishop, which was read at the inquiry, which
contained a startling statement worthy of nctice heie

1 Guardian, September 29, 1852, p. 647.

338 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

Referring therein to his practice in the Confessional — he in
no way denied that he heard Confessions — he declared : —
" On the Seventh Commandment I trust I have been most
cautious not to suggest evil to the penitent, but judicious
questions'.' l This was a frank acknowledgment that, in
some cases, he asked questions about the Seventh Com
mandment — one of the most objectionable features of the
Confessional to an enlightened Protestant mind. If a girl
has a trouble on this subject it would be far wiser, and more
modest, to consult one of her own sex for advice. Later
on in the year Dr. Pusey wrote to this same Vicar that :—
" It is (as you know), a mere dream, that any father, mother,
husband, wife, or child, would be pained by any question
\ve put in Confession, apart from the pain that sins have
been committed." 2 In reply to this very bold statement,
it may be sufficient to ask any husband or father reading
these pages — Would you like your wife or daughter ques
tioned in the Confessional as to sins of word, thought, and
deed against the Seventh Commandment ? You would, in
such a case, be something more than "pained"; you would
be highly and justly indignant, if a wife or daughter of yours
had been thus subjected to the indecent talk of a Father Con
fessor, who might be far from immaculate. The whole thing
is disgusting and intolerable. I should be sorry to accuse
Ritualistic Confessors generally of doing this sort of dirty
work from evil motives ; but it is dirty work none the less,
whose natural tendency is to corrupt both priest and peni
tent. God, the Holy Ghost, in his Word, exhorts us con
cerning sin against this commandment : — "Let it not be once
named among you, as becometh saints " ; and I am not
aware that any exception is given in favour of a Father Con
fessor — an official wholly unknown in the New Testament.
A very important event took place on November 12,
1852, when the Convocation of Canterbury met for the
despatch of business, for the first time in 135 years. A
persistent agitation for freedom to transact business had
gone on for several years, and a " Society for the Revival
of Convocation" had been formed in the previous year.

1 Grtardian, September 29, 1852, p. 647. 2 Ibid. November 24, 1852, p. 788.

REVIVAL OF CONVOCATION 339

The founders of this Society, some time before its forma
tion, endeavoured in vain to secure the adhesion of the
National Club to an address to the Queen in favour of the
revival of Convocation. This Club, I may here remark,
was formed in 1845 for promoting the cause of Protestant
ism in the Established Church, and is still in existence with
a very large number of members. The movement for the
Revival of Convocation was mainly conducted by High
Churchmen, and was not fully successful until March 20,
1861, when the Convocation of York also met for the transac
tion of business. And now, after nearly forty years, we are
met face to face with an agitation, not for the Revival, but for
the Reform of Convocation, and a Bill has been prepared
to enable it to reform itself. Unfortunately, there are so
many Romanisers in Convocation that Protestant Church
men cannot safely entrust them with such an important
task, nor should any reform be considered satisfactory
which does not give to the laity an adequate representa
tion, with a voice on all questions, whether matters of
doctrine or discipline. But this is what the extreme
Ritualists will never, if they can help it, permit the present
Convocations to accept, and to allow the Convocations of
Canterbury and York to become a real Parliament of the
Church, without granting to the laity even as much power
as they already possess in the Established Church of Scot
land, would be to place the Church of England under
sacerdotal bondage as real as that from which our fore
fathers escaped at the Protestant Reformation.

During the years 1853 and 1854 n°t manY events of
great importance took place in the History of the Rome-
ward Movement, with the exception of the prosecution of
Archdeacon Denison for false doctrine, and the first steps
in the case of Wester ton v. Liddell. Yet during this period
the Ritualists were by no means asleep or idle. They were
quietly pushing their way into many a hitherto peaceful
parish, causing in numerous instances heartburns, dissen
sion, and frequently energetic opposition. " Altar Lights"
were slowly introduced, and the way prepared for the
use of the Romish vestments. Occasionally notes of de-

340 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

fiance were heard from the Puseyite camp. The Rev.
James Skinner, Senior Curate of St. Barnabas', wrote to
the Times challenging a prosecution. "The worship of
St. Barnabas'/' he said, "is the worship of the Church of
England. We challenge this issue in the Courts of the
Church of England, if any such there be. If it is not the
worship of the Church of England, the sooner it is put
down the better." l We do not hear challenges like this
in the year 1900. The Ritualists now dread nothing so
much as prosecutions. A brother Curate of Mr. Skinner's
at St. Barnabas', the well-known Rev. Charles Lowder,
when opposition again arose in that parish, in 1854, was
of a somewhat militant nature. A placard was being
carried one day, about the parish, urging people to " Vote
for Westerton," the Protestant Churchwarden, which greatly
angered a youthful cousin of Mr. Lowder. " Charles,"
says his biographer, "bade him not to throw dirt or stones,
but gave the boys sixpence to buy rotten eggs. They were
not slow in using them, carrying the war into Ebury Street,
and the bespattered ' sandwich ' complained to his em
ployers, who speedily invoked the aid of the law against
the assailants. Charles [Lowder] was interrogated, and
took all the blame of inciting the boys to bedaub the
inscription. Before the police magistrate he repeated
publicly the admission of indiscretion and sorrow for it,
which he had already made privately, and the case was
dismissed, with more than acquiescence on the part of
the prosecution." But the Bishop of London did not let
Mr. Lowder off so easily, for he suspended him from his
duties as Curate for six weeks, as a punishment for his
offence, which he subsequently mitigated at the request
of the Vicar, the Hon. and Rev. R. Liddell, who had
succeeded to the Rev. W. ]. E. Bennett, then Vicar of
Frome. The latter gentleman wrote to Mr. Lowder in
his trouble : — " I have no doubt I myself have done, or
might have done, a similar thing." 2

In the month of January 1853 a controversy arose be
tween Bishop Spencer (late of Madras), Assistant-Bishop to

1 Charles Lowder : A Biography, 1st edition, p. 49.

2 Ibid. pp. 57-60.

THE POWER OF EXAMINING CHAPLAINS 341

the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and the Rev. G. A. Denison,
Archdeacon of Taunton, and Examining Chaplain to the
Bishop of Bath and Wells. It arose in this way. A young
Deacon, the Rev. William F. Fisher, wrote to Bishop
Spencer to inform him that Archdeacon Denison had re
fused to present him for priest's orders at his lordship's next
Ordination, on the ground that he held views as to the
Lord's Supper, which, in the Archdeacon's opinion, were
erroneous. To this the Bishop replied, giving at some
length his own views as to the Real Presence, which were
decidedly Protestant, and then he wrote to the Archdeacon
on the subject. After reminding him of an interview he
had had with him on April i5th, Dr. Spencer proceeded to
say that : — " It would be highly dishonest and improper on
my part to ordain a candidate holding such an opinion "
as that of Archdeacon Denison's. The latter gentleman
replied, giving an outline of his doctrine :—

" To you, as a kind friend and a Bishop of the Church, I am
ready to state, that I hold the doctrine of the ' Real Presence,' as
taught and declared by the Church of England, to be this : — First,
Negatively. — That there is not a corporal presence of the Body and
Blood of Christ in the Sacramental Bread and Wine; that the
Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural sub
stances, and therefore may not be adored.

" Secondly, Affirmatively. — That there is a Real Presence of the
Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacramental Bread and Wine, in a
manner which, as Holy Scripture has not explained, the Church has
not defined. That the Body and Blood of Christ, being really pre
sent in the Sacramental Bread and Wine, are given in and by the
outward sign to all, and are received by all." J

Bishop Spencer, of course, was not satisfied with this
explanation, which was followed by an intimation from the
Archdeacon that if the Bishop attempted to counter-exam
ine any of the candidates at the forthcoming ordination, he
should " most positively " decline to have anything to do with
the presentation of any of the candidates. The result was
that Bishop Spencer resigned his commission as Episcopal
Assistant to Bishop Bagot, and soon after Archdeacon
Denison resigned the office of Examining Chaplain. When

1 A Letter to the Bishop of Bath and Wells. By Bishop Spencer, pp. 20, 21.
London : Rivington. 1853.

342 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

writing his autobiography, the Archdeacon declared that
the Bishop of Bath and Wells was in error in supposing
that he had imposed, " of my own authority," his doctrine
of the Real Presence on the candidates for Holy Orders.1
This was not an absolute, but a qualified denial of the
charge. He admits that he did impose his doctrine as to
Baptismal Regeneration on all the candidates, refusing to
pass those who did not accept it. In conduct like this we
discover one of the reasons why there are so few Evangelical
candidates for the Ministry at the present time. It is no
easy matter, in some cases, for an Evangelical of decided
views to pass an examination at the hands of men who
are advanced Romanisers, as, unfortunately, several Ex
amining Chaplains are.

Soon after these events, Archdeacon Denison preached
in Wells Cathedral three sermons on the Real Presence,
which led to legal proceedings being taken against him for
false doctrine. They were preached respectively on August
7, 1853, November 6, 1853, and May 14, 1854. The pro
secutor was the Rev. Joseph Ditcher, Vicar of South Brent,
Somerset. These sermons were subsequently published
by the Archdeacon. As the Bishop of Bath and Wells was
patron of the living of East Brent, of which the Archdeacon
was Vicar, it was necessary to apply to the Archbishop of
Canterbury to issue a Commission of Inquiry. On Novem
ber 3, 1854, his Grace served on the defendant a formal
notice that the Commission would shortly be appointed,
but it did not meet until January 3, 1855, when the proceed
ings lasted four days. On January loth, the Commissioners
reported that there were prima facie grounds for proceed
ing. In the unanimous opinion of the Commissioners : —
"The proposition of the Venerable the Archdeacon, 'that
to all who come to the Lord's Table, to those who eat and
drink worthily, and to those who eat and drink unworthily,
the Body and Blood of Christ are given, and that by all
who come to the Lord's Table, by those who eat and drink
worthily, and by those who eat and drink unworthily, the
Body and Blood of Christ are received,' is directly contrary
or repugnant to the doctrine of the Church of England,

1 Archdeacon Denison's Notes of My Life, p. 230.

THE DENISON CASE 343

and especially to the Articles of Religion, and that the doc
trines set forth in the aforesaid sermons, with reference to
the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, are unsupported
by the Articles taken in their literal and grammatical sense,
are contrary to the doctrines and teaching of the Church of
England, and have a very dangerous tendency." l The
passage from the Archdeacon's sermon thus selected for
condemnation is found in the first of the three sermons
objected against.2

After the finding of the Commissioners, several legal
difficulties arose in the way of proceeding with the case,
but eventually these were overcome. The case was argued
on its merits at the Guildhall, Bath, on July 22, 1856, and
the five following days, before the Archbishop of Canter
bury, Dr. Lushington, the Rev. Dr. Heurtley (Margaret
Professor of Divinity at Oxford), and the Dean of Wells.
After the hearing the Court adjourned, and on August i2th
Dr. Lushington delivered an interlocutory judgment con
demning the Archdeacon, but allowing him time until
October ist to revoke his errors. As this judgment was
subsequently confirmed by the Court, it is important to give
here the following extract from it, condemning Archdeacon
Denison's doctrine on the Real Presence: —

"Whereas it is laid in the said ninth article filed in this pro
ceeding, that the said Archdeacon, in a sermon preached by him
in the Cathedral Church of Wells, on or about Sunday, August 7,
1853, did advisedly maintain and affirm doctrines directly contrary
and repugnant to the 25th, 28th, and 29th Articles of Religion, re
ferred to in the statute of 13 Eliz., c. 12, or some or one of them.
Among other things, did therein advise, maintain, and affirm,
4 That the Body and Blood of Christ, being really present after an
immaterial and spiritual manner in the consecrated Bread and Wine,
are therein and thereby given to all, and are received by all who
come to the Lord's Table ' ; 3 and * That to all who come to the
Lord's Table, to those who eat and drink worthily and to those who
eat and drink unworthily, the Body and Blood of Christ are given ;
and that by all who come to the Lord's Table, by those who eat and

1 Guardian, January 17, 1855, p. 57.

2 The Real Presence. A Sermon Preached on August 7, 1853. By George
A. Denison, Archdeacon of Taunton, p. 20. London : Masters. 1853.

3 Ibid. p. 1 8.

344 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

drink worthily and by those who eat and drink unworthily, the Body
and Blood of Christ are received ' — his Grace, with the assistance
and unanimous concurrence of his Assessors, has determined that
the doctrine in the said passages is directly contrary and repugnant
to the 28th and 29th of the said Articles of Religion and the various
statutes of Queen Elizabeth, and that the construction put upon the
said Articles of Religion by the Venerable the Archdeacon of
Taunton, viz., that the Body and Blood of Christ become so joined
to and become so present in the Consecrated Elements by the act of
consecration, that the unworthy receivers receive in the elements the
Body and Blood of Christ, is not the true, nor an admissible con
struction of the said Articles of Religion ; that such doctrines are
directly contrary and repugnant to the 28th and 2Qth Articles, and
that the true and legal exposition of the said Articles is, That the
Body and Blood of Christ are taken and received by the worthy
receivers only, who, in taking and receiving the same by faith, do
spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ and drink the Blood of Christ ;
whilst the wicked and unworthy, by eating the bread and drinking
the wine without faith, do not in anywise eat, take, or receive the
Body and Blood of Christ, being void of faith, whereby only the
Body and Blood of Christ can be taken, eaten, and received. . . .

"Whereas it is pleaded in the said i4th article filed in these
proceedings, that divers printed copies of the sermons or discourses,
in the i2th article mentioned as written or printed, or caused to
be printed, by the said Archdeacon, were, by his order and direction,
sold and distributed, in the years 1853 and 1854, within the said
diocese of Bath and Wells ; and whereas the said sermon or dis
course contains the following amongst other passages : ' And to all
who come to the Lord's Table, to those who eat and drink worthily,
and to those who eat and drink unworthily, the Body and Blood of
Christ are given ; and that by all who come to the Lord's Table, by
those who eat and drink worthily, and by those who eat and drink
unworthily, the Body and Blood of Christ are received ' ; and ' It is
not true that the consecrated bread and wine are changed in their
natural substance, for they remain in their very natural substance,
and therefore may not be adored. It is true that worship is due to
the Real, though invisible and supernatural presence of the Body
and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, under the form of Bread
and Wine' — his Grace, with the assistance of his Assessors, has
determined that the doctrines of the said passages are directly
contrary and repugnant to the 28th and 2pth of the said Articles of
Religion mentioned in the various statutes of Queen Elizabeth." 1

1 Guardian, August 13, 1856, pp. 649, 650.

JUDGMENT IN THE DENISON CASE 345

On October 22, 1856, the Court again met, when the
Archdeacon was called upon to retract his errors. He
delivered a paper of explanations, which the Court con
sidered a mere reiteration of his offence, after which the
Archbishop of Canterbury's judgment was read by the
Registrar, confirming and approving the interlocutory
judgment of August 12, and concluding as follows : —

" Having maturely deliberated upon the proceedings had therein,
and the offence proved, exacting by law deprivation of ecclesiastical
promotion, [we] have thought fit to pronounce, and do accordingly
pronounce, decree, and declare, that the said Venerable George
Anthony Denison, by reason of the premises, ought by law to be
deprived of his ecclesiastical promotions, and especially of the
said Archdeaconry of Taunton, and of the said Vicarage and Parish
Church of East Brent, in the county of Somerset, Diocese of Bath
and Wells, and Province of Canterbury, and all profits and benefit
of the said Archdeaconry, and of the said Vicarage and Parish
Church, and of and from all and singular the fruits, tithes, rents,
salaries, and other ecclesiastical dues, rights, and emoluments
whatsoever, belonging and appertaining to the said Archdeaconry,
and to the said Vicarage and Parish Church ; and we do deprive
him thereof accordingly by this our definite sentence or final decree,
which we read and promulgate by these presents." l

The Archdeacon at once gave notice of appeal against
this judgment, and bitterly complained afterwards that the
Court did not give him credit for his assertion, in his
sermons, that he taught that while in Communion the good
and wicked eat the same Body and Blood of Christ, the
one eats it to his salvation, while the other eats it to his
damnation. But surely this statement in no way affected
the charge brought against him, which had nothing to do
with the results of eating, but with the reality of what is
eaten. And so the Archdeacon appealed to the Arches
Court, but when the case came before that Court, on
April 20, 1857, it was found that it was not an appeal on
the merits of the case, but an attempt to evade punishment
by raising a side issue. It was pleaded by the Counsel for
Archdeacon Denison that all the proceedings in the case
were null and void, because more than two years had elapsed

1 Guardian, October 29, 1856, p. 840.

346 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

between the commission of the last alleged offence, and

O '

the citation to appear before the Archbishop at Bath,
contrary to the Act under which the prosecution was under
taken. On April 23, 1857, the Dean of Arches gave judgment
in favour of the Archdeacon. Mr. Ditcher, the prose
cutor, appealed to the Judicial Committee of Privy Council,
which gave its judgment on February 6, 1858, dismissing
the appeal, but carefully guarding itself by the state
ment : — " Of course it is understood that upon the question
of heterodoxy, the question whether the respondent [Arch
deacon Denison] has at any time uttered heretical doctrine
or committed any ecclesiastical offence, their lordships
have intimated no opinion." l

The Archdeacon was afraid to make an appeal on the
merits of the case, and therefore the judgment of the
Court at Bath still remains an unrefuted exposition of the
law of the Church of England, which has in no way been
upset by the Bennett judgment. Indeed, the Archdeacon,
in later life, seems to have held the Bennett judgment in
as great contempt as the Archbishop's judgment at Bath.
"The Judicial Committee of Privy Council," he said, "has
done what it could, first in the Gorham case, then in the
Bennett case, to ruin the teaching of the Doctrine of the
Sacraments." 2 And what, it may be asked, were the
Archdeacon's reasons for not appealing, on the merits of
the case, from the Archbishop's judgment at Bath, depriving
him of his living, as a teacher of doctrine condemned by
the Church whose bread he ate? He writes : —

" I despised throughout the imputation that I was shielding
myself under 'legal objections,' when, if I had been an honest
man, I ought to have waived all such things and gone at once to
'the merits.' I despised the imputation as dishonest: I laughed
at it as ridiculous. If there had been so much as the shadow of
a shade of a decently fair tribunal, rather I should say, if there
had been any tribunal in England recognised by the constitution
in Church and State as competent to pronounce in matter of
Doctrine (the same has to be said now [in 1878] in respect of
matter of Worship), I might possibly have considered about taking

1 Brodrick and Freemantle's Judgments of the Privy Council, p. 175.

2 Denison's Notes of My Life, p. 192.

PUSEYITE REBELLION AGAINST THE JUDGMENT 347

the case simpliciter upon its * merits.' But fairness and competency
were alike lacking." *

In other words, Denison would appeal against the Bath
judgment on " its merits " when a Court came into existence
which would take his side. A very convenient policy for
the defendant, no doubt, but one which can only be allowed
in a country where law has ceased to exist, and every man
is allowed to do that which is right in his own eyes. It is
evident from what he said that, if every existing Court of
Law in England had given judgment against him, the Arch
deacon would have been as much a rebel as he was to the
Bath judgment. There was not, it seems, in 1856, in
existence a tribunal " competent to pronounce in matter
of doctrine ; " and, in 1878, when he wrote his Notes of My
Life, matters were still worse, for then there did not exist a
Court competent to pronounce a judgment even " in re
spect of matter of worship." Of course, all this sort of talk
was simply the language of an anarchist, which left every
clergyman in the Church free to be a law unto himself.
The Ritualists are acting on the lines of Archdeacon Denison
at the present moment, and frankly tell us that even the
Church of England, as a whole, has no power to forbid cer
tain Romish doctrines and practices which they hold dear,
though they are disliked and opposed by the overwhelming
majority of loyal Churchmen. We have been reminded
again and again of late that the Church of England is not
an independent Church, but is subject to the rest of what
is somewhat vaguely termed " the Catholic Church." The
Archbishop's Court at Bath was a purely spiritual Court ;
yet it was treated with as much contempt and rebellion as
though it were the most Erastian tribunal ever set up by a
State anxious to oppress the Church.

No sooner was Archdeacon Denison condemned than a
great hue and cry was heard throughout the length and
breadth of the land. The Puseyites were furious ; but all
they could do was to rally round the Archdeacon and prac
tically, though not in so many words, declare : " We are
one with you. There shall be not one rebel, but a small

i Denison's Notes of My Life, p. 242.

348 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

army of rebels on your side." Dr. Pusey boldly wrote : —
" The only course open to us is, publicly to apprise those
in authority over us, that we cannot obey them in this, and to
go on as before, leaving it to them to interfere with us, or no,
as they may think fit." x This was done by means of the cele
brated Protest against the Bath judgment, signed by Pusey,
Keble, Bennett, Carter, Neale, Isaac Williams, and other
members of the party. Those who signed this document
identified themselves with the views for which Denison had
been condemned, and appealed against the Archbishop's
judgment, not to any existing Court of Law, which they
knew very well would condemn them, but "to a lawful
Synod of all the Churches of our communion," which had
no existence, and which, as a matter of fact, has had no
existence from that day to this. These protesters against
Protestantism affirmed their belief that : " The wicked,
although they can ' in no wise be partakers of Christ,' nor
'spiritually eat His Flesh and drink His Blood/ yet do in
the Sacrament not only take, but eat and drink unwor
thily to their own condemnation the Body and Blood of
Christ, which they do not discern." Surely this is a self-
contradictory paragraph ? If, as is here clearly asserted,
the wicked "eat and drink" the Body and Blood of Christ,
surely they must at the same time be "partakers of Christ,"
whom they are supposed to have eaten with their bodily
mouths. The protesters also declared : "We appeal from
the said opinion, decision, or sentence of his Grace, in
the first instance, to a free and lawful Synod of all the
Churches of our communion, when such by God's mercy
may be had." 2

Of course, this Protest against the Bath judgment was
equivalent to a challenge to those in authority to prosecute
the men who signed it. It is much to be regretted that the
challenge was not accepted. I have no doubt whatever
that the final decision would have been against the Roman-
isers, and an effectual blow would thus have been inflicted
on the Puseyites, from which they would not have re
covered. But our rulers in the Church of England have

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 444.

2 Ibid. pp. 440-442.

THE SOCIETY OF THE HOLY CROSS 349

never been noted for an excess of courage, and so they let
the grand opportunity slip by. Will it ever come again ?

The year 1855 witnessed the formation of the first secret
Society of the Romanisers. The Society of the Holy Cross
was formed on February 28, 1855, and its first secret
Synod was held on the 3rd of the following May. From
the very first it loved darkness rather than light, dreading
nothing so much as publicity. As its Master said, at its
Synod, held in May 1876 : "The bond of union between
the Brethren was to be as strict as possible. None but
themselves were to know their names, or of the existence of
the Society, except those to whom it might be named to
induce them to join : but this only with leave of the
Society." l For the first eight years of its existence its
statutes and rules existed only in manuscript ; the authori
ties were afraid to commit them to print. The names of
the Brethren for the first ten years " were only to be found
in a written book kept by the Secretary " ; 2 and when, at
last, in 1865, they wrere printed for the first time, every care
was taken to prevent a copy falling into Protestant hands,
a precaution which is still adopted, for there is nothing the
members more dread than that their names shall be known
to the public. The Society of the Holy Cross is very
influential, and is more secret, more Romanising, and more
dangerous now than ever it has been before. An exposure
of its history and work, based on its own secret documents,
may be read in the second chapter of my Secret History of
the Oxford Movement, and therefore I need not say anything
more about it here.

Two years later, in 1857, the Association for the Pro
motion of the Unity of Christendom was formed by
members of the Church of England, the Church of Rome,
and the Greek Church. Its members are expected to pray
that all those three Churches may become united and form
one Church again. It would be a bad day for England
were such a request granted. Some years after its forma
tion the Pope ordered all the Roman Catholics to leave the
Association, though I see from one of its recent reports

1 S.S.C. Master's Address, May Synod, 1876, p. 2.

2 Ibid. p. 4.

350 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

that some Roman Catholics are still members. Since the
publication of my Secret History of the Oxford Movement,
in the tenth chapter of which the Romanising character
of this organisation is proved from its own documents,
some startling revelations as to its early history have been
given to the world in the Life and Letters of Ambrose
Phillipps de Lisle, who was one of its principal founders.
The way had been carefully prepared for the formation
of such an Association. In 1857 Ritualism had made con
siderable progress. A Roman Catholic barrister, writing
to the Union — a new paper representing the advanced
Romanisers — remarked : — "The Oxford Movement is still
doing its work, and spreading the true principles of Angli
canism ; which, if carried out, are, as all allow, almost
identical with those of Catholicism. Go to such churches
as St. Barnabas', Pimlico ; and St. Mary, Osnaburg Street
(both of which I have recently visited to see with my own
eyes, and to judge for myself, instead of letting the con
verts judge for me, as they do for most Catholics) and tell
me in what they differ from our own?' By this time
Roman Catholic Vestments had been restored by a small
section of the clergy, and the Mass, though as yet without
the name, was exalted in certain quarters as highly as in
the Church of Rome.

"Our firm conviction," said the Union, in a leading article, "is
that, until the Sacrifice of the Altar takes its legitimate and appointed
place in our Sunday worship, we shall only remain hampered by
Puritan traditions, and be hindered in our great work of Catholicising
England. If this were done, the charge about ' unlighted Altars and
unstoled priests ' would fall to the ground. Those who are led to
underrate this revival must seek to accomplish it effectually. Every
thing should give place to this. The Altar should be duly raised
and effectively vested and adorned. Cross, lights, flower vases,
pictures, book-rest, chalice, and corporal should all be provided.
The Sacred Vestments should be used to distinguish the ordinary
office from the Tremendous Sacrifice. Then shams and empty
ceremonies, ' table prayers/ Ten Commandments, and the ' form
and ceremony ' of going to the Altar to ' read the Epistle and

1 Union, August 14, 1857, p. 102.

IDENTITY OF ROMAN AND RITUALISTIC CONFESSIONALS 351

Gospel' would cease to be perpetuated. Then would our flocks
learn what true worship is." l

The anxiety herein manifested to get rid of the Ten
Commandments, as a part of the service called "the
Sacrifice of the Altar/' is very instructive. It shows that
the Ritualists are not on terms of good friendship with
them. They must feel very uncomfortable when, in church
— as I have frequently witnessed — a clergyman reads out
the Second Commandment against the use of images in
worship, while the ends of his surplice are, perhaps, touch
ing one of the God-condemned articles, let in to the frontal
of the Communion Table, while other images are seen
scattered throughout the chancel. In these dangerous days
we may well be thankful for the law of the Church, which
commands the placing of the Ten Commandments in a
prominent position in every parish church, from which,
alas ! many Ritualistic priests remove them, thus showing
themselves to be the enemies of God and the Church.

Next to the so-called "Sacrifice of the Altar," the
Romanisers threw considerable energy, at this time, into
propagating the Confessional. Nothing of a modified
character would please them : they must have Auricular
Confession as in the Roman Catholic Church, or go
without it altogether. In a leading article, the new organ
of the advanced section boldly and unblushingly de
clared : —

" Every one knows that the only difference between Confession
in the Roman and English Churches is that, in the former, it is
compulsory ; and in the latter not so. The mode of making and
receiving a Confession is substantially identical ; the same questions
are asked ; the same kind of penances given ; the same consolation
offered ; and it appears to us somewhat dishonest to pretend that it
is otherwise." 2

A month later the Union repeated its assertion, which,
unfortunately, is as true now as when first uttered, except
that the word " Ritualists " should be substituted for
"England": — "We continue to maintain that there is

1 Union, December 4, 1857, p. 353.

2 Ibid. August 20, 1858, p. 540.

352 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

no virtual distinction between the doctrine of Rome and
England as regards the Ordinance of Confession."1

In this way the Romeward Movement was being actively
carried on. The Church of England was being made ready
to reunite with Rome, by teaching Roman doctrine and,
as far as possible, turning the parish churches into imita
tions of Roman Catholic places of worship. The work had,
as we have seen, been really going on ever since 1833, but
now the time had arrived when the conspirators felt them
selves powerful enough to band together into a society,
having for its real object the submission of the Eastern
churches and the Church of England unto the Church of
Rome. But before such an organisation could be founded,
a great deal of subtlety had to be called into action, and,
above all, the Pope and his Propaganda had to be con
sulted. Of course, all the preliminary work had to be done
in the dark, and the utmost possible secrecy was enjoined on
all who were called upon to organise the new, daring, and
united movement towards Rome. The negotiations with
the Propaganda at Rome were undertaken by Mr. Ambrose
Phillipps de Lisle, as a devout and humble servant of the
Pope. On May 18, 1857, he wrote a long and confidential
letter on the subject to Cardinal Barnabo, Prefect of the
Propaganda : —

" I write to you," said De Lisle, " most eminent and reverend
Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, concerning a matter of great
importance, but of great secrecy and delicacy, which I humbly pray
your Eminence to lay before our most holy Lord the Pope. I will
briefly explain the matter if you will give me your ear.

"There is at this moment a large party in the Established Church
of this realm (called the Anglican Cnurch) which have conceived
the idea of reuniting their National Church with the holy Mother
Catholic, and also of placing the same under canonical obedience to the
authority of the holy Apostolic See, which for three hundred years
heretical malice has so miserably delighted to cast away.

" Persons of great dignity, who are the heads of this party, with
whom I am related either by blood or by marriage or by friendship
have communicated their idea to me, and their longing, begging me

1 Union, September 17, 1858, p. 601.

SENSATIONAL LETTER TO CARDINAL BARNABO 353

to open and reveal to your Eminence the matter, in order to its being
known to his Holiness the Pope, and if it be lawful to beg of him in
all humility his Apostolic blessing upon the matter taken up and
already begun.

"These persons have designated me, although unworthy, to
communicate this business to the Holy See, partly because they
wished to act most secretly on account of the intimate relations of
their Church with the civil power of this realm, and because Her
Majesty's Government at this moment is directed by Viscount
Palmerston, a man by no means friendly to the Catholic Church
and things Catholic; partly because they were unwilling on account
of political reasons to divulge the matter to our holy Father the
Archbishop Cardinal of Westminster, our Catholic Primate, there
being a certain suspicion in existence, not without natural causes,
between the National Anglican Church and the local Catholic
Church, as your Eminence will easily apprehend.

"This Party, therefore, wish to show your Eminence their sincere
desire to reconcile as soon as possible their own Church with the
Holy See. But so great an undertaking cannot be carried through
all at once. The Party which has taken up the matter numbers
two thousand priests and ten Bishops, joined together in this idea.
. . . Now the ten Bishops who favour union are Salisbury, Oxford,
Chichester, London, Exeter, in England, all in the Province of
Canterbury ; the other four are in Scotland, the Bishop of Brechin
with three others. To these Bishops are united two thousand priests,
amongst whom ,are some Archdeacons, Deans, and Canons, some
Rectors of Collegiate Churches, others parish priests and vicars. To
this section of the Anglican clergy belong a very large body of men
of the richest and noblest families of the realm, amongst whom are
some most illustrious persons very closely bound to myself, who held
office under the Crown in 1852, in the Government of the Earl of
Derby. They have made it known to me that they wish the busi
ness begun to succeed.

"Accordingly, this Party of the Anglican Church humbly desires
ecclesiastical reunion of the National Church of the whole British
Empire with the holy Catholic Mother, by embracing without any
ambiguity all the articles denned in the sacred Council of Trent and
the whole Orthodox Faith ; also the latest definition of the Immacu
late Conception of our Lady, the holy Virgin Mary, Mother of God ;
and by submitting their Church to the divine authority of the holy
Apostolic See, with all affection of the heart and most faithful
canonical obedience.

" But, as your Eminence will easily understand, this Party in the

354 HISTORY OP THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

National Anglican Church, as yet a minority in the whole kingdom,
can for the present do no more than, with all prudence but zeal,
dispose the people to take up so grand an object in the future . . .
For such an end they already teach amongst the people the whole of
the Catholic doctrine, not less explicitly than we Catholics ourselves
are able to do it, and with the greatest reverence. It is indeed
wonderful, and for so many centuries quite unhoped for ! They
teach the Sacrifice of the Mass, the true presence and Transubstan-
tiation, the oblation of the most holy Body and Blood of our Lord
for the quick and the dead ; the Invocation of the Blessed Virgin
and the Saints, the veneration of sacred images; also, so far as they
prudently can, concerning the Primacy of the holy Apostolic See . . .
Whatever may come to pass, they requested me to lay the matter
before your Eminence, O most excellent Cardinal, requesting your
generous prayers for its success, and also (if it be lawful) desiring
with their whole heart and soul some word of encouragement from our
most holy Lord the Supreme Pontiff that all things may turn out
well."1 "

No doubt the writer of this very remarkable letter was
an enthusiast in the cause to which he had devoted his life,
and somewhat too hopeful as to the immediate future, and
I think he was probably misinformed as to the English
Bishops being a party to the scheme. Yet I have no doubt
that he was perfectly sincere in conveying this information
to Cardinal Barnabo, and that he had only too much reason
for rejoicing at what was being done in the English Church
by the traitors within her camp, whose dearest and dis
graceful ambition it was to hand her over, bound hand and
foot, to the bondage of her bitterest enemy, the Church of
Rome. Mr. De Lisle soon received a favourable reply from
Cardinal Barnabo, who wrote to him : —

"Mosx HONOURED SIR, — The subject brought to my notice by
your letter of the i8th of May last has given me the deepest consola
tion. For nothing could be better, or more in accordance with my
prayers as Prefect of this Sacred Congregation, than the accom
plishment of the designs which your letter declares to be of not
insuperable difficulty.

" And this matter, which I at once commend in my prayers to
the Omnipotent God, I shall be most happy to place before our

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, vol. i. pp. 375-377.

THE BEST THING FOR ROME 355

most holy Lord Pius IX. on his return to Rome, so that what is
already a subject of hope may soon be brought to a happy issue for
the glory of God and the eternal salvation of souls.

"Moreover, I return my thanks over and over again, and I
shall pray for all things to turn out favourably according to our
wishes.

" Your Lordship's most obliged,

" ALEXANDER, CARD. BARNABO, Prefect" 1

With this encouraging letter in his possession, De Lisle
next approached Dr. Newman, and laid the whole plan, in
strict secrecy, before him, asking for his opinion and
guidance. Newman replied : — " I thank you very much for
your most confidential letter, and the very interesting infor
mation it contains. ... I am still somewhat uneasy lest per
sons who ought to be Catholics should allow themselves to
bargain and make terms. Should not they have some pre
sumption from the Holy See — or in some formal way
surrender themselves ? " 2 There is something mysterious
as to what Newman meant when he asked thus, " Should
not they have some presumption from the Holy See ? "
Three days before this he wrote to De Lisle : — " I perfectly
agree with you in thinking that the Movement of 1833 is
not over in the country, whatever be the state of Oxford
itself ; also, / think it is for the interest of Catholicism that
individuals should not join us, but should remain to leaven the
mass. I mean t/iatTHEY WILL DO MORE FOR US BY REMAIN
ING WHERE THEY ARE THAN BY COMING OVER, but then they

have individual souls, and with what heart can I do any
thing to induce them to preach to others, if they themselves
thereby become castaways ? " 3

Thus encouraged, with the approval of the Cardinal
Prefect of the Propaganda and Dr. Newman, the con
spirators held a meeting in London on July 4, 1857, at
which they passed the following six resolutions (to be sent
to the Pope), which were kept as a profound secret from
the public for forty-two years, until the publication of De
Lisle's biography, at the close of 1899. I can understand

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, vol. i. p. 378.

2 Ibid. p. 369. » Ibid. p. 368.

356 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

Roman Catholics voting for these resolutions, but how
English Church clergymen, with a spark of common honesty,
could approve of them is more than I can comprehend : —

" i. To express their gratitude and respect for the person of his
Eminence they vote a golden chalice studded with jewels and a
paten of beaten Australian gold, to be presented to Cardinal
Barnabo as a pledge of the hoped-for Reunion between the English
and Roman Churches.

" 2. To carry out the wishes expressed in the Cardinal's letter,
they determine never to rest until they have done everything possible
to reunite the said two Churches, AND RESTORE THE AUTHORITY OF
THE HOLY SEE IN ENGLAND.

"3. They express the opinion that after the lapse of some years
the plan will become feasible.

" 4. They resolve that a treatise, exact, statistical, and historical,
dealing with the vexed question of Anglican Orders, shall be drawn
up by one of their own body, and submitted to Pope Pius IX. for his
supreme and authoritative judgment.

" 5. They propose to organise a select body of learned preachers
to bring forward, and expound and recommend, the godly reunion
of all dissident Churches with their holy Catholic Mother Church,
in all Churches and Colleges and Cathedrals where the Bishop's
licence to do so can be obtained.

"6. They propose to establish a Society or Association of Prayer
to promote this sacred object, of which the only obligation shall be to
recite daily the Lord's Prayer once, and the Liturgical Prayer for
Peace and Unity, ' ut ecclesiam secundum Voluntatem Tuam pacificare
et coadunare dignerisj and beg of his Holiness to attach an Indul
gence to this prayer, to be extended even to Anglicans not in external
communion with the Holy See, should it seem good and be within
the limits of the power of the Supreme Pontiff to do so." *

It must be admitted by every honest man that these
resolutions were a disgrace to every member of the
Church of England who agreed to them. The Oxford
Movement has no reason to be proud of those of her
children who thus acted in a way which puts to shame
every idea of honesty and honour. And so " to promote
this sacred object," of bringing the English Church to bow
the neck once more to Rome, the Association for the

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose Philiipps de Lisle, vol. i. pp. 379, 380.

THE HON. AND REV. ROBERT LIDDELL 357

Promotion of the Unity of Christendom was actually
founded, at a private meeting held in the parish of St.
Clement Danes, Strand, London, on September 8, 1857.
Since then it has continued its Romeward progress, and
although, as I write, Mr. De Lisle's biography has been
before the public for ten months, I have yet to learn that
the A.P.U.C. has uttered one word of censure of the docu
ment which led to its formation, or denied its authenticity.
Scores of churches are placed at its disposal every year
for celebrations of Holy Communion on behalf of its
objects. It is understood to have over 10,000 clerical and
lay members scattered throughout the English Church,
but nobody knows who they are, except the officials at
its head office in London.

The Hon. and Rev. Robert Liddell, who succeeded Mr.
Bennett as Vicar of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, was quite as
far removed from Protestantism as his predecessor. In
stead of diminishing he added to the Ritual and ornaments
of the Church. Intense dissatisfaction was created in the
parish by these changes, and at last the parishioners decided
to elect a Protestant Churchwarden to look after their
interests. The gentleman they selected was Mr. Westerton,
who had all the courage of his convictions, and soon made
things very uncomfortable for the Vicar. Early in 1854
Mr. Westerton wrote to the Bishop of London (Dr. Blom-
field) requesting him to order the removal of certain
ornaments from St. Paul's Church ; but this the Bishop
declined to do, pleading that he doubted whether he pos
sessed the power to order their removal, except through
a decree in the Consistory Court. Some of the ornaments
complained of were, he believed, not illegal. At about the
same time Mr. Beal, a resident in the district of St. Bar
nabas, Pimlico (a District Church in the charge of Mr. Lid-
dell), applied to the Consistory Court for a monition to the
Chapelwardens to remove certain ornaments from St.
Barnabas' Church. Mr. Westerton also applied to the
same Court for a monition "as to the ornaments in St.
Paul's Church. The two cases were argued together in the
Consistory Court, and at length judgment was delivered

358 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

by Dr. Lushington, on December 5, 1855. The following
were the subjects with which he had to deal, together with
his decisions thereon : —

1. A High Altar of carved wood, raised on platform in St. Paul's
Church — Being of wood, Legal.

2. A High Altar of stone in St. Barnabas' Church — Illegal.

3. A Credence Table — Legal.

4. Candlesticks and Candles, used when not needed for light —
Illegal.

5. Coloured Cloths on Communion Table changed according to
the seasons — I! legal.

6. Embroidered lace cloths on Communion Table at time of
Commun ion — Illegal.

7. Crosses — Illegal.

From this judgment Mr. Liddell appealed to the Court
of Arches, where, on December 20, 1856, Sir ]. Dodson
gave judgment confirming in every respect the judgment
of the Consistory Court. Under these circumstances what
was the Vicar to do ? Two purely Spiritual Courts had
decided against him. There was only an appeal to the
Judicial Committee of Privy Council open to him. But
this Court was, in the estimation of the Puseyites, a purely
State tribunal whose decisions had no weight in conscience.
Yet if Caesar would only upset the decisions of the Spiritual
Courts, then to Caesar they would go. It was not a con
sistent position to take up — there is not an atom of legal
consistency in the whole Romeward Movement — but it was
a convenient one. To appeal to the Judicial Committee on
such a subject was to acknowledge its competency and
right to decide. So to the Judicial Committee Mr. Liddell
went, hoping it would overthrow the Spiritual Courts'
authority, when blessings would be upon it ; but if it
failed in this respect, why, then, the sooner the Judicial
Committee was pulled down, and a Court of Appeal more
favourable to the Ritualists erected in its place, the better
it would be for the law-breaking clergy.

The appeal of Mr. Liddell was heard before the Judicial
Committee of Privy Council on February 9, 10, u, 12, 13,
14, and 16, 1857. Judgment was delivered on the 2lst of

JUDGMENT IN LIDDELL v. WESTERTON 359

March 1857. From it I give the following extracts, dealing
with the seven points mentioned above :—

i and 2. Tables and Stone Altars. — "The Rubric of the present
Prayer-Book provides only that at the Communion time, the table,
having a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand in the body of
the Church or chancel, where Morning and Evening Prayer are
appointed to be said ; and the priest is to commence the service
standing at the north side of the table. The term ' Altar ' is never
used to describe it, and there is an express declaration at the close
of the service against the doctrine of Transubstantiation, with which
the ideas of an Altar and Sacrifice are closely connected. Under
these circumstances, the first question is, whether the stone struc
ture at St. Barnabas is a Communion Table within the meaning
of the Canons and the Rubric ; and their lordships are clearly of
opinion that it is not . . . Their lordships, therefore, are satisfied
that the decision upon this point [that Communion Tables must be
made of wood] in Faulkener v. Litchfield is well founded, and they
must advise her Majesty that the decree as to the removal of the
stone structure at St. Barnabas, and the Cross upon it, and the sub
stitution of a Communion Table of wood, ought to be affirmed."

3. Credence Tables. — For the text of the judgment on this sub
ject, and a further extract on Altars, see above, chapter ix. p. 253.
" As to the Credence Tables, their lordships therefore must advise
a reversal of the sentence complained of."

4. Candlesticks arid Caudles. — The Consistory Court declared
lights illegal when not needed for light, but did not order the
removal of either candlesticks or candles. Their lordships now
said : — " The judgment complained of has not ordered the removal
of the table [in St. Paul's] or of the candlesticks, but only of the
Cross, the Credence Table, and the cloths. There is no appeal
against this order as far as it permits the table and candlesticks to
remain, and it is therefore not open to their lordships to consider
the judgment with reference to the articles not ordered to be removed."

5. Coloured Cloths on Communion Table. — " In this case their
lordships do not see any sufficient reason for interference, and they
must therefore advise the reversal of the sentence as to the cloths
used for the covering of the Lord's Table during the time of Divine
Service, both with respect to St. Paul's and St. Barnabas."

6. Embroidered Lace on Communion Table. — " With respect to the
embroidered linen and lace used on the Communion Table at the
time of the ministration of the Holy Communion. The Rubric and
the Canon prescribe the use of a fair white linen cloth, and both the

360 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

learned Judges in the Court below have been of opinion that em
broidery and lace are not consistent with the meaning of that expres
sion, having regard to the nature of the table upon which the cloth is to
be used. Although their lordships are not disposed in any case, to
restrict within narrower limits than the law has imposed, the discretion
which, within those limits, is justly allowed to congregations by the
rules both of the Ecclesiastical and the Common Law Courts, the
directions of the Rubric must be complied with : and upon the whole
their lordships do not dissent from the construction of the Rubric
adopted by the present decree upon this point ; and they must there
fore advise her Majesty to affirm it."

7. Crosses. — "Upon the whole, their lordships, after the most
anxious consideration, have come to the conclusion that Crosses, as
distinguished from Crucifixes, have been in use, as ornaments of
churches, from the earliest periods of Christianity ; that when used
as mere emblems of the Christian faith, and not as objects of super
stitious reverence, they may still lawfully be erected as architectural
decorations of churches; that the wooden Cross erected on the
Chancel screen of St. Barnabas is to be considered as a mere
architectural ornament ; and that as to this article, they must advise
her Majesty to reverse the judgment complained of."

" Next, with respect to the wooden Cross attached to the Com
munion Table at St. Paul's. Their lordships have already declared
their opinion that the Communion Table intended by the Canon
was a table in the ordinary sense of the word, flat and movable,
capable of being covered with a cloth, at which or around which the
communicants might be placed in order to partake of the Lord's
Supper, and the question is, whether the existence of a Cross
attached to the table is consistent with the spirit or with the letter of
those regulations. Their lordships are clearly of opinion that it is
not; and they must recommend that upon this point also the decree
complained of should be affirmed." l

By this appeal to the Judicial Committee of Privy
Council, Mr. Liddell gained the following points: — (i) The
carved wood table in St. Paul's, (2) the Credence Table,
(3) Coloured " Altar" cloths, changeable according to the
seasons, (4) the Cross on the Chancel Screen. On the
other hand, it was declared by the highest Court of Appeal
illegal (i) to erect a Stone Altar, (2) to use Embroidered
Lace on the Communion Cloth, and (3) to erect a Cross

1 The Judgment of the Judicial Committee in Liddell v. Westerton. Edited
by A. F. Bayiord, LL.D., pp. 105-136. London: Butterworths. 1857.

A RITUALISTIC REBEL 361

attached to the Communion Table. A fifth point, which
was not appealed against, was that it was declared illegal to
burn lights when not needed for light. As to how these
points are affected by later judgments, it seems that they
are all still illegal. The illegality of " Altar Lights" is not
affected by the judgment of the Archbishop of Canterbury
in the Lincoln Case, since his, as an inferior Court, could
not upset the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case
of Martin v. Mackonochie (1868). When the judgment of
Archbishop Benson subsequently came before the Judicial
Committee, their lordships did not reverse their previous
judgment on lights given in 1868, and therefore it still
stands as the declared law of the Church.

To his credit be it recorded, Mr. Liddell at once
accepted the judgment, and in a letter to his parishioners
expressed his opinion that it had " clearly defined some
points of ritual which were previously deemed ambiguous,
and has established beyond contradiction the Church's
Law, to which I, for one, have ever desired to yield loyal
and unswerving obedience." l Not so, however, with all his
brethren. There were rebels in their rank. One of these was
the Rev. E. Stuart, Vicar of St. Mary Magdalene, Munster
Square, and one of the founders of the English Church
Union. To him, on March 5, 1858, the new Bishop of
London (Dr. Tait) wrote : — " I have very carefully con
sidered what passed at my interview with you yesterday
in London House, and I feel myself obliged to adhere to
the opinion I then expressed. I must, therefore, lay my
commands upon you to discontinue the practice you have
introduced without any authority in St. Mary Magdalene,
Munster Square, of lighting the candles on the Communion
Table in broad daylight, except when they may reason
ably be considered necessary or convenient for purpose of
light." ' To this Episcopal command, Mr. Stuart, notwith
standing his oath of obedience to his Bishop, bluntly and
rebelliously replied : — " I write to acknowledge the receipt
of your letter of the 5th4 instant, containing a command to

1 A Letter to the Parishioners of St. Paul's, Knight sbridge. By the Hon. and
Rev. Robert Liddell, pp. 3, 4. London : Hayes. 1858.

2 Life of Archbishop Tait, vol. i. p. 220.

362 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

me to discontinue the use of lights at the celebration of the
Sacrament. / must respectfully decline to obey this command,
as I believe that in issuing it you have (unintentionally,
of course) transgressed the limits of that authority which
the Church of England has committed to her Bishops. I
believe that you have done this by forbidding what the law
of the Church distinctly authorises." x To this Bishop Tait
replied : — " I greatly regret that you should think it right to
disobey my command on your own private interpretation
of what you deem to be the law. Had you read the
judgment of the Privy Council in the Knightsbridge Case,
and Dr. Lushington's previous judgment on the same, with
the care that they deserve, you would, I doubt not, have
seen your error as to the point of law." 2 The pity is that
the Bishop did not prosecute this rebellious Vicar ; but he
seems to have dreaded the trouble and worry, and conse
quently Mr. Stuart was left to do as he liked, practically
triumphant over his Bishop. This claim of Mr. Stuart to
refuse obedience to a Bishop, if he, in the exercise of his
own opinion, thinks he understands the Church's law as to
doctrine and ritual better than the Bishop and all the
Courts of Law, is still a very common one. Born of
conceit, pride, and self-will, it ought not to be allowed.
On this subject it may be well to quote here the wise words
of Lord Stowell in his judgment on the Stone Case : —

" But that any clergyman should assume the liberty of inculcating
his own private opinions, in direct opposition to the doctrines of the
Established Church, in a place set apart for its own private worship,
is not more contrary to the character of a National Church than to
all honest and rational conduct. Nor is this restraint inconsistent
with Christian liberty ; for to what purpose is it directed, but to
ensure, in the Established Church, that uniformity which tends to
edification ; leaving individuals to go elsewhere according to the
private persuasions they may entertain. It is, therefore, a restraint
essential to the security of the Church, and it would be a gross
contradiction to its fundamental purpose to say, that it is liable to
the reproach of persecution, if it does not pay its Ministers for
maintaining doctrines contrary to its own."3

1 Life of Archbishop Tait, vol. i. p. 221. 2 Ibid. p. 222.

3 Considerations on the Exercise of Private Judgment. By James Parker
Deane, D.C.L., p. 43. London : Parker. 1845.

CHAPTER XIII

The Convent Case at Lewes — Charges against the Rev. J. M. Neale —
Riot at Lewes at the burial of a Sister of Mercy— Bishop of
Chichester's letters to Mr. Scobell and the Mother Superior — The
Bishop withdraws his patronage from St. Margaret's, East Grin-
stead — Threatening the Bishop — Mr. Neale's pamphlet — His under
hand conduct— Confession on the sly — The Case of the Rev. Alfred
Poole — His licence withdrawn — His admissions — Remarkable
assertions at a Communicants' Meeting — Mr. Poole appeals to the
Archbishop of Canterbury — His Judgment — The Lavington Case —
Romanising books— Theological Colleges— Attack upon Cuddes-
don College — Mr. Golightly's Facts and Documents Showing the
Alarming State of the Diocese of Oxford — An exciting controversy.

SOME events of minor importance, but not without interest,
have now to be recorded. Considerable excitement was
created at Lewes, Sussex, towards the close of the year
1857, in consequence of the publication of a pamphlet by
the Rev. John Scobell, Rector of All Saints, Lewes, and
Hon. Canon of Chichester, containing serious charges
against the Rev. ]. M. Neale, Chaplain and Father Con
fessor of St. Margaret's, East Grinstead, Sisterhood. These
charges were first privately made in a letter addressed to
Mr. Neale by Mr. Scobell, in February 1857, an<^ were as
follows : —

" i. That you have been carrying on by letter, under cover to
the Mistress of my Infants' School, a clandestine correspondence
with my eldest daughter while in my house.

" 2. That you hold clandestine and secret meetings with her, of
some hours' duration, in the private apartments of my Infants'
Schoolhouse, situate in my parish of All Saints, Lewes.

" 3. That you there usurp, dishonourably and unlawfully, the
office of parish priest of All Saints, Lewes; wearing a surplice;
exercising Liturgical offices ; receiving Confession and pronouncing
Absolution.

"4. That you assume to yourself, and allow yourself to be
viewed by my daughter and parishioner in the character of her

363

364 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

spiritual guide and adviser, to my detriment as her natural parent
and lawful parish priest ; that you receive in that character, at her
hands, the letters of me, her father, for your perusal ; that you anim
advert, and dictate how they shall be replied to — how far complied
with — how far resisted.

" 5. That you seek to hold and keep up a lasting spiritual
influence over my daughter living in my house. That you seek to
guide her future course of life. That your advice is to her, that she
quit my house, that she persevere in demanding my consent to so
doing, and that she join and give herself, and whatever income or
property she may have, to an establishment, at or near East Grin-
stead, or some other similar establishment ; and, under your
guidance and tutelage, there to resign her will, her person, her
services, her property, to your or others' will and pleasure.

"6. That in the prosecution of these designs you have never
made one word of communication to me, her natural parent, the
guide of her youth, and constituted spiritual pastor ; that the whole
is clandestinely and surreptitiously carried on and continued now
by letter during her absence from home, to the injury of my family
peace and to the infringement of my public rights.

" I make these charges distinctly and deliberately, and I ask for
your distinct and definite reply."1

Mr. Neale formally acknowledged the receipt of Mr.
Scobell's letter, stating that he declined replying to his
questions, although his silence was not to be taken as
an acquiescence in the correctness of his statements, but
as taken from motives "of the most friendly character
towards" Mr. Scobell.

The facts of the case were not made public until the
following December, after the funeral of Mr. Scobell's
daughter, who died at St. Margaret's, East Grinstead,
from fever, on November 13, 1857, a^er she had been a
Sister there for a few months. Great indignation was felt
at Lewes when some of the circumstances became known,
immediately after the young lady's death, and with the
result that at her funeral, on November i8th — which took
place at Lewes — something approaching to a riot took
place. At the conclusion of the funeral service, the body
having been buried in a vault within the Church, a dis-

1 The Rev. J. M. Neale and the Institute of St. Margaret's, East Grinstead.
Statement by the Rev. J. Scobell, p. 9. London : Nisbet & Co. 1857.

THE LEWES RIOTS 365

graceful attack was made upon Mr. Neale and the Sisters
of Mercy who accompanied him. Amid cries of " No
Popery/' Mr. Neale was knocked down, and parts of the
dresses of the Sisters were torn off, the whole party from
East Grinstead being hustled about by the mob, until
rescued by the police. Such conduct on the part of the
Protestants was, I believe, wholly without excuse, and was
a disgrace to the cause it was ostensibly got up to promote.
There was grave cause for public indignation, but not for
mob violence on defenceless women.

About three weeks after this riot Mr. Scobell published
the pamphlet containing the six charges against Mr. Neale,
which I have quoted above. Meanwhile Mr. Scobell had
received from the Bishop of Chichester a letter of sympathy,
dated November 22nd: — "You may," wrote his lordship,
" be well assured of the deep-felt sympathy of every upright
candidly religious man. I beg to offer you and your family
the sincere expression of mine and Mrs. Gilbert's. I have
felt it my duty to write to the Lady Superioress and the
Society of St. Margaret's at East Grinstead, the letter, with
a copy of which I thus briefly intrude upon your sorrows.
He must be heartless who could have permitted himself to
add to them as that infatuated man from East Grinstead
has done " l (that is, Mr. Neale). To the Mother Superior
of the Sisterhood the Bishop wrote as follows :—

PALACE, CHICHESTER, Nov. 21, 1857.

" MADAM, — Your Society was first formed as an association of
ladies, who should engage themselves and train others to minister
to the bodily wants of their fellow-Christians, by nursing them in
sickness. Such an institution I regarded as praiseworthy and
Christian in its object, and I authorised the use of my name in con
nection with it. It has for some time past submitted itself to the
unlimited influence of Mr. Neale, a clergyman, in whose views and
practices it is well known I have no confidence. Especially it is
well known that I deny that the Church of England sanctions the
habitual practice of Confession. She acknowledges it only in rare
and exceptional cases, and Mr. Neale is unwarranted in using it in

1 The Rev. J. M. Neale and the Institute of St. Margaret's, East Grinstead.
Statement by the Rev. J. Scobell, p. 13. The Lewes Riots. A Letter to the
Bishop of Chichester. By the Rev. J. M. Neale, p. 36, 5th edition. London :
Masters. 1857.

366 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

the frequent and regular way in which he applies it. Those who
admit such application of it to themselves, manifest thereby the
inadequacy of their direct faith in Christ's promises. Their resort
to this unauthorised remedy, by a righteous retribution, issues in a
continuous increase of weakness, and an accumulation of obstruc
tions in the way of the true influences of grace upon their hearts.
They trust more and more in man, and are less and less able,
without man, to hope in Christ, i.e. truly hope in Him. I desire,
therefore, that henceforth neither you nor any of your Sisterhood
will state that I approve of, or have any connection with, your
Institution and Sisterhood of S. Margaret's. I desire that any
circulars or printed copies of your rules in which my name is
introduced, may be cancelled and not used with my name in future.
Whatever expense is brought upon the Institution by the consequent
loss of the copies you may have by you, I will fully repay. — I remain,
Madam, your faithful Pastor,

(Signed) "A. T. CICESTR.
" Miss GREAME, or the Lady Superioress
of S. Margaret's, East Grinstead."

On Sunday, November 29th, Mr. Scobell preached in
All Saints' Church, Lewes, a special sermon on the treat
ment his deceased daughter had received at the hands of
Mr. Neale, in the course of which he announced his inten
tion to publish a narrative of what had taken place. On
December 3rd the Mother Superior of St. Margaret's Con
vent appeared at the door of the Palace of the Bishop of
Chichester, and sent in a letter requesting an interview.
This document has the appearance of having been written
under dread of Mr. Scobell's forthcoming pamphlet. It
was, in fact, a threatening letter, evidently written in the
hope of frightening the Bishop into using his influence
to prevent Mr. Scobell publishing his exposure. " Mr.
Neale," wrote the Mother Superior to the Bishop, in the
letter which she handed in at the door, "is extremely
anxious to spare the feelings of that unhappy parent, and
he hoped that after I had seen you, an arrangement would
be made by which the public might be disabused of their
false impressions without an exposure in the papers.'1 1 I do
not wonder that the Bishop refused to see a lady who
brought him such a threatening letter. But he wrote her

1 The Lewes Riots. By the Rev. J. M. Neale, p. 37.

A PRIEST'S CLANDESTINE CORRESPONDENCE 367

a letter, which has not been published, to which the
Mother Superior sent a rude and sneering reply. On
December 2nd Mr. Neale himself wrote to the Bishop,
expressing a hope that he would not compel him, "in
absolute self-defence, to expose Mr. Scobell."1 But the
Bishop would not yield, so in a letter, bearing date De
cember 4, 1857, Mr. Neale published his " exposure "
of Mr. Scobell. In this pamphlet Mr. Neale quotes nume
rous documents, amongst them being one he wrote to Miss
Scobell, on January 21, 1855, containing the following
statement : — " I should advise you to act thus. To tell
your father (perhaps it would be better to write it) that,
while you shall always be ready to go to the very furthest
length you can in obeying him, there are some points on
which you feel that you have a higher duty. That you feel
that you need that counsel from a priest, and that Absolu
tion which the Church clearly allows you to have ; that
you intend, however painful it must be to disobey him, to
avail yourself of it." 2 On February 22, 1855, he wrote to
her : — " I cannot feel happy about the state in which
matters stand as regards your father. It is a sad necessity
(if it be a necessity) for me to write, as this letter must be
sent, under cover, to a third person" 3 Again, on the
following November 27th he wrote to her : — "This kind
of correspondence ought not to go on, because it is in
your power to end it. Only be firm now, only insist on
an answer, and one way or the other it will be terminated.
/ never direct to you under cover to Miss Parker without
pain." It may have caused him pain, but he continued
to do it. The Miss Parker here mentioned was Mr.
Scobell's Infant Schoolmistress. These letters, from which
I have just quoted (published by Mr. Neale himself), fully
prove Mr. Scobell's charge against him of "carrying on,
by letter, under cover to the Mistress of my Infants'
School, a clandestine correspondence with my daughter
while in my house." Mr. Neale did not dare to deny that
he had " secret meetings " with Miss Scobell in her father's
Infant School House, or that he there, vested in surplice,

1 The Lewes Riots. By the Rev. J. M. Neale, p. 39.

2 Ibid. p. 10. 3 Ibid. p. 10.

368 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

clandestinely heard her Confessions, and never wrote a
word himself to her father about it. Not until two years
after her first Confession did Miss Scobell's father know the
name of her Father Confessor, and even then not through
her action, or that of Mr. Neale, but through a penitent
letter from Miss M. B. Parker, the Infant Schoolmistress.
She wrote to her Rector on February 10, 1857, to acknow
ledge her double dealing : — " I have for a long time," she
said, "been labouring under the weight of an evil con
science, inasmuch as I promised to be faithful to the trust
placed in me by yourself with reference to one of your
family. Out of kindness to Miss Scobell, I have been
induced to allow her the use of my sitting-room, to meet
a person [Mr. Neale] whom I never before saw in my
life ; and what is more I deceived you in this thing, in
that I ought to have told you, but I did not see the harm
in it then, but I have since, and do now, to my sorrow." l
On the receipt of this letter Mr. Scobell at once wrote to
Mr. Neale the letter containing the six charges quoted
above.

And what, it will be asked, was Mr. Neale's defence ;
what were the charges which he, in return, had to bring
against Mr. Scobell ? Briefly, it was that he and the Sisters
of Mercy who had enticed Miss Scobell into the Sisterhood,
were justified in doing so, because Mr. Scobell had been
tyrannical and unkind to his daughter. But on looking
through the evidence produced, I find that the supposed
tyranny consisted in a firm refusal to give his consent to
his daughter going to Confession, or becoming a Sister of
Mercy. And why should he be compelled to give his con
sent, against both his reason and his conscience ? He was
a decided Protestant, and conscientiously he believed that
Auricular Confession and the Conventual life would not
be for the spiritual benefit of his child. There was elo
quence, faithfulness, and true fatherly affection in his letter
to his daughter, on December 8, 1855, giving her his refusal
to sanction her conduct in going to Confession to Mr.

1 The Rev. /. M. Neale and the Institute of St Margaret 's, East Grinstead.
By the Rev. J. Scobell, p. 8.

A FATHER'S FAITHFUL LETTER 369

Neale, of which he had just heard from her, though he did
not for long after know the name of her Confessor: —

" It is," he wrote to her, " my duty to tell you this, even if you
give me an unwilling ear. You shall not sin in ignorance. But the
question to myself is — can I bear it ? For almost thirty years, God
knows, I have lived for my children — so did their mother. There
was nothing we would not have denied ourselves and borne for them.
But there are things which man or woman cannot resolve — cannot
effect. I do not feel it to be in my power to promise to bear what
you now propose to me. For me to live at home without family
privacy — to live in fear and subjection to another man — to live in
the bondage of distrust — to fear or to think it possible, that my own
words, my private thoughts, my most unguarded actions, if they
relate to you, are noting down, to be laid at the feet of another man
by my kneeling, captive, misdoing daughter ! and this, a proposal, not
for a week, for a month, but for years, and for life ! 'Tis more than
I can promise to bear and endure with patience, with contentment,
with reconciliation, with fulness of family love. ... Be wise, my
dear Emily, in time. Retrace your steps. You have begun to do
so in small things, advance upon greater. ... I must not write
more ; my heart yearns to you. Dismiss ' secrets ' and secrecy ;
never did good come of them when interrupting the natural love
between father and child, husband and wife. Increase and renew
your confidence. Put away jealousy and pride and every insubor
dinate temper and practice, and seek without pain and without
mortification to be loving and amiable, faithful and obedient. Do
this ; pray for this ; obtain this, and all will be well. God will
sanctify everything to your use and improvement. Be strong in
faith, and you shall subdue these mountains. Be in spiritual bond
age to no man. Live in patience and godly resolution, and be
willing in your own sphere, and your own proper calling, to take
up your cross daily, and follow the Lamb whither He goeth." l

Is this, I ask, the letter of a tyrant, a cruel and unfeeling
father ? Rather is it not full of affection and anxiety for
the welfare of a beloved daughter ? It is certainly decided.
Mr. Scobell was, undoubtedly, a firm man, and it may be
that from time to time he manifested the irritability of
firm men. He had to deal with a daughter who, being in
her early childhood an invalid, had been petted and made

1 A Reply to the Postscript of the Rev. John M. Neale. By the Rev. J.
Scobell, p. 8. London : Nisbet. 1858.

2 A

370 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

much of by her affectionate father. When other children
came he divided his love with them, with the result that this
one became peevish, jealous, and often sulky. Mr. Neale
further pleaded, in self-defence, that he had urged Miss
Scobell to tell her father that she had been to Confession.
Just so. He was quite willing that she should bear the
brunt of her father's displeasure ; but he took good care,
so far as he could, to keep himself safe from her father's
wrath. There was nothing very courageous in this. On
this point, it may be well to cite here the testimony of three
trustworthy witnesses. The first is that of Hannah Potter,
who made a special declaration on the subject, dated
December n, 1857, in the course of which she said : —

"Miss Scobell first spoke to me of Confession as applying to
some third person, and asked my opinion of it. Afterwards she told
me it was herself, and said Mr. Neale had come to her, and she had
made one Confession to him. She said it was a very hard and long
Confession ; that he said he must know all or he could advise her in
nothing. That she had drawn up a paper from four years old and
upwards, and read it, as a Confession, to Mr. Neale. That she had
suffered very much in doing this in body and mind, and from the
questions arising out of it. Having done this she thought she had
done all. But Mr. Neale said, 'No! having done thus much you
must go on and continue to confess.' If he would have been satis
fied, I gathered from her that she would rather not. She wished to
tell her father all this. At first Mr. Neale made no objection to
this being told to her father ; but then he wrote and forbade his name
being mentioned, and that was the reason why all Mr. Neale's letters
were sent under cover to the Infant Schoolmistress, and not direct to
her. Miss Scobell persevered in wishing and requesting that Mr.
Neale's name should be made known to her father, with all else that
had occurred. Mr. Neale opposed that, and promised at some future
time to give the reason why, and added that if she did disclose his
name contrary to his wishes, she might confess, but he would not
absolve her. . . . After this her Confessions went on without inform
ing her father."1

It makes one burn with indignation to thus witness this
cowardly Father Confessor trying to suppress the honour-

1 A Letter to the Rev. John M. Neale. By the Rev. John Scobell, p. 10.
London: Nisbet. 1857.

A SNAKE IN THE GRASS 371

able desire in this young lady's breast to be open and above-
board with her father. He had to resort to threats to
accomplish his wishes, threats to withhold his absolution,
which she was not strong enough to resist. Why was he
ashamed and afraid to be found out ? He had no objection
to act like a snake in the grass, but he trembled with a
cowardly fear at exposure in the light of day. And now we
come to the testimony of Miss Parker, the Infant School
mistress, dated December 10, 1857 :—

" I distinctly remember Miss ScobelPs wish and desire, strongly
expressed to me, that both she and I should make known to her
father, the Revd. J. Scobell, the fact of Mr. Neale's visits to her in
my sitting-room, and of her practice of Confession to him, and of
receiving Absolution from him. This was not long after her first
Confession to Mr. Neale. She said she would rather do this her
self, but if that could not be allowed, she wished I could do it. She
said she had made this her desire known to Mr. Neale, and requested
his permission to do so, but that Mr. Neale positively forbade if, and
threatened that if she did so, he would not give her Absolution. She
would not therefore tell her father, or allow me to do so ; for, she
said, Mr. Neale's wish ought to be her and my wish also." *

Early in December 1855, Miss Scobell wrote a letter to
her father stating that she had been to Confession, but
not giving the name of her Confessor. She wrote this
letter in the presence of Miss Parker, and when the father's
reply came back it was sent on to Mr. Neale to read, who
at once, fearing, no doubt, that he would lose his penitent,
sent word that he would come over from East Grinstead
to Lewes to see Miss Scobell. Miss Parker states that when
Miss Scobell heard from her that her Father Confessor was
coming to see her —

" She was very sorry, and cried, and said, ' Oh dear, he is com
ing again ! What shall I do ! I suppose I must see him.' On
Friday the 2ist December he did come, sent to say he wished to
see her, and they had another long interview, from two to half-past
five p.m., at my room. When he went away I went in, and she was
weeping and in an exhausted state and hysterical. I was frightened,
and cried too. I made her coffee and quieted her. She was not

1 A Letter to the Rev. John M. Neale. By the Rev. John Scobell, p. 9.

372 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

able to walk home alone, she shook so violently; she could not
have got along without my arm. I went back to tea and returned
again to the Rectory in the course of the evening, and sat with her
two or three hours in her bedroom ; she was very weak, and cried
again more than once. She said ' she could not have her own way
in anything.' She said che overpowered her,' and she supposed it
was right to give up her own will, for she must do as he bid her ;
I understood this to mean that else (as before) he would not give her
absolution. And thus I understood that the hope of returning to a
good understanding with her father was given up by her for lost."1

Thus do these Ritualistic Father Confessors come in
between daughters and their parents, and disturb the peace
of families, acquiring thereby a greater power in the house
hold than is possessed by either father or mother. Who
can wonder that when Mr. Scobell came to quote this last
declaration of Miss Parker, in his published Letter to the
Rev. John M. Neale, he should comment on it in the follow
ing righteously indignant terms : — " This was the oppression
that was intolerable — an evil angel had stepped in and the
waters were as troubled as before. You [Mr. Neale] were
an incubus which no effort or cry of mine could dislodge,
and you truly say it was possible I might, as a last remedy,
have broken up my establishment, and gone to another
land for refuge. I felt a stabbing in the dark ! a hidden
voice replying — another's eye lurking — another hand guid
ing — a relentless heart plotting against a child, whom for
more than twenty years of her short life 2 I had loved with
uninterrupted and fullest affection, returned by her with all
the ardour of an enthusiastic temperament. Oh, for the
love of God and man desist — rash man, desist — with all
who act with you or like you, and never drive another
fellow-creature to agony and desperation by your boasted,
but empty, evil-working, ungodly ' Confessions.' " 3

As to the third witness, another daughter of Mr. Scobell, I
give her testimony in the words of her father : — " As regards
the matter of ' secrecy/ In addition to what has been al
ready said, I give the testimony of a daughter. She has often

1 A Letter to the Rev. John M. Neale. By the Rev. John Scobell, p. 17.

2 Miss Scobell was 27 at her death.

3 A Letter to the Rev. John M. Neale. By the Rev. John Scobell, p. 17.

THE CONFESSIONAL AND MONEY 373

heard her deceased sister say, that the reason why she so
often refused her father the name of her guide, was the un
willingness of that unknown gentleman to have his name
mentioned ; and that her sister believed the reason to be
his dread of the further displeasure of the Bishop." l

There was one statement in the fifth section of Mr.
Scobell's indictment of Mr. Neale which he was unable to
prove. It was contained in these words : — " And give her
self and whatever income and property she may have, to
an establishment at or near East Grinstead." I happen to*
know that one of the rules of the Sisterhood at that time
was that a Sister was not compelled to give all her property
to the Sisterhood. Before entering the Convent, Miss
Scobell promised three of her relatives that she would not
leave, by will, any of her property to the St. Margaret's
Sisterhood ; it should only have her annual income during
her life. But on her deathbed she made a will giving the
Sisterhood ^400 (the rest she gave to a brother), and mak
ing Mr. Neale and the Mother Superior her sole executors,
instead of her father. Mr. Neale declared that he in no way
interfered in the matter of making the will, and was not
present when it was made by a solicitor who was sent for.
But the question here arises, how far was she influenced
in the Confessional ? Some of the Sisters, at least, were
certainly expected to mention the disposal of their property,
to their Confessors, in the Confessional. Only the year
after Miss Scobell died, Mr. Neale himself gave a secret
address on the subject to the Sisterhood, which was subse
quently printed for their secret use, and of which I possess
a copy: — "A Sister coming to us," said Mr. Neale, "and
able to pay the dowry of this House, is at perfect liberty to
dispose of the rest of her money as she pleases, provided it
be not on herself. She may give it to whom she will, with
out mentioning the subject even in Confession. A Sister
coming to us, and not able to pay any, or all, of the dowry
of this House, is then bound to mention in Confession why
not, and to tell the Priest how she disposes of her income" 2
Here, then, is a case in which the priest uses the Con-

1 A Reply to the Postscript, p. 9.

2 The Spirit of the Founder, p. u.

374 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

fessional to interfere with the money and property of the
Sister. Can we, for one moment, suppose that this is the
only case in which it is used for this purpose ? And is there
not grave reason to fear that, even outside of Convent walls,
the Confessional is used for the same purpose ?

I have devoted a considerable amount of space to this
case, because I am not without hope that it will serve as a
warning to parents, leading them to keep a watchful eye on
the proceedings of any Father Confessor who may be seek
ing to influence their daughters.

The question of Auricular Confession was very much
discussed in London and the provinces in 1858, in conse
quence of the Bishop of London (Dr. Tait) having with
drawn the licence of the Rev. Alfred Poole, Curate of
St. Barnabas', Pimlico, under the Hon. and Rev. Robert
Liddell, Vicar of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, the mother
parish. The licence was withdrawn on the ground that
Mr. Poole had advocated systematic Confession to priests,
and had asked females improper questions on the Seventh
Commandment. A statement of this case, on behalf of
Mr. Poole, was published in I864,1 on which I mainly rely
for my account of the proceedings and facts.

A formal complaint against Mr. Poole was forwarded to
the Bishop of London, on February 26, 1858, by the Hon.
Rev. F. Baring, together with the written evidence of three
women who had been to Confession to Mr. Poole. The
Bishop thereupon sent for the latter gentleman, and read
to him the statements of the women. " Mr. Poole," says
the document issued in his defence, " denied before the
Bishop most solemnly that he ever put to the women,
whose statements are above referred to, or to any persons,
the objectionable questions contained in them, or any
questions of a similar import ; and he asserted to the
Bishop, that the statements, so far as they express that he
did so, were entirely and deliberately false." 2 At this
interview the Bishop questioned Mr. Poole upon the
general subject of Confession. Later on, Mr. Poole had a

1 An Authentic Statement and Report of the Case of the Rev. Alfred Poole,
pp. 140. London : Joseph Masters. 1864.

2 Ibid. p. 4.

THE REV. A. POOLE'S CONFESSIONAL CASE 375

second interview with the Bishop, who again questioned
him as to his views and practice, taking on this occasion
written notes of his replies. The result was that on May 8,
1858, the Bishop wrote to Mr. Poole : —

" While I fully admit that the statements you have made to me,
tend to make me look with much suspicion upon the particular
evidence laid before me, I regret to say, that quite independently of
that evidence, I am led by your oivn admissions to regard the course
you are in the habit of pursuing, in reference to Confession, as likely
to cause scandal and injury to the Church. I feel especially, that
this questioning of females on the subject of the violations of the
Seventh Commandment is of a dangerous tendency; and I am
convinced, generally, that the sort of systematic admission of your
people to Confession and Absolution, which you have allowed to be
your practice, ought not to take place.

" Under these circumstances, I feel I ought to mark my sense of
the impropriety of what you describe as your practice, and I shall
therefore feel myself bound, though with great pain, to withdraw
your licence as Curate of S. Barnabas', and shall send you formal
notice accordingly." 1

To this letter Mr. Poole replied, on May nth, asking
the Bishop to " point out what are the particulars, either as
regards my admissions, to which you refer, or anything I
have done, on which your lordship's severe animadversion is
founded." Two days later the Bishop answered : — " I have
already stated that what I object to in the course which you
admitted to me that you pursue, is, that questioning, especially
of females, on the subject of violations of the Seventh
Commandment, which seems to me of very dangerous
tendency, and a systematic admission of your people to
Confession and Absolution, going beyond anything con
templated- by the services or teaching of our Church." '
To this statement Mr. Poole replied :— " The only admis
sion I have made upon this point is, that 1 asked questions
in the particular instance alluded to, because I was requested
by the person to do so — knowing beforehand that these were
the very sins which she came to confess. Am I to under
stand that your lordship condemns me without previous

1 An Authentic Statement and Report of the Case of the Rev. Alfred Poole^
p. 6. 2 Ibid. p. 8.

376 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

advice or remonstrance given on so difficult a point of
discretion, in which I am borne out by the approval of my
Incumbent, viz. — that of asking any questions on a certain
Commandment, when requested to do so by the penitent
herself, and when the refusal to do so might hinder the
penitent from ' opening her griefs ? ' " l Three days later the
Bishop sent Mr. Poole notice that unless he could "show
cause to the contrary" either personally at London House,
or "in writing," he should at once withdraw his licence.
The accused preferred to show cause in writing, and did
so in a letter dated May 2ist, in which he remarked : —

" The ground upon which your lordship intimates your intention
to withdraw my licence is, that ' admitting females to Confession, I
address to them questions of a character calculated to bring scandal
on the Church.'

" This charge is made in general terms, and I do not know in
what way I can meet it, unless it be by a general, but a solemn and
entire, denial of its truth. I admit that when persons, male or
female, have sought my ministry in Confession, I have put to them
such questions as have been suggested by the matters confessed,
which have appeared to me necessary, in order to enable me to give
the 'counsel and advice' which the case required. But I solemnly
assert that I have never put any questions of a nature, or in a
manner, or in language 'calculated to bring scandal on the Church,'
or otherwise, than was calculated to assist the penitent, and to
enable him or her to receive more effectually the consolation or
advice which, as the minister of the church, it was my duty to
impart." 2

Mr. Poole concluded by demanding, as of right, " that
my accusers may be brought before me, and that I may
meet them face to face, and be allowed such assistance
as I may require for my defence ; and for this purpose
I request your lordship to allow me to be furnished with
a statement in writing of the particular charges which I
may be required to meet." As a matter of fact, Mr. Poole
had already, as we have seen, been furnished by the
Bishop with a written statement of charges, and as to
the other demands the Counsel for the Bishop, when the

1 An Authentic Statement and Report of the Case of the Rev. Alfred Poole ,
p. 10. 2 Ibid. p. 12.

QUESTIONING WOMEN IN THE CONFESSIONAL 377

case was being subsequently heard before the Archbishop,
said : — " It had been asked, why was not Mr. Poole afforded
the opportunity of showing that the statements of the
witnesses were untrue, and putting a different complexion on
the matter ? Now, as there were no persons present but
Mr. Poole and the women, Mr. Poole was the only person
who could reply to their statements ; and the Bishop
handed the depositions to Mr. Poole, who made such
comments upon them as he thought desirable ; and these
comments and the admissions made by Mr. Poole himself
were, in the opinion of the Bishop, inconsistent with the
law and practice of the Church, and quite sufficient to
show that Mr. Poole had been guilty of grievous indis
cretion in the performance of the duties of his office." l
The Bishop, in his letter of May 8th, had practically cast
off the evidence of the women witnesses, and had only
acted on it so far as it had been confirmed by Mr. Poole
himself. As to one of these witnesses, the Bishop's Counsel
said : — " With respect to the questions which the woman
stated to have been put to her, he did not ask the Court to
believe anything further than the admissions of Mr. Poole
himself on that subject."2 And again, the Counsel said : —
" His learned friends had stated their inability to discover
whether the Bishop had acted upon a belief of the evidence
of these women. This seemed rather unfair towards the
Bishop, when he stated that he was acting on Mr. Poole's
own admissions, and when it was perfectly clear that he
was only acting on their evidence so far as it was confirmed
by Mr. Poole himself. The Bishop, therefore, was not
acting on conflicting, but on concurrent testimony, and
surely Mr. Poole had no right to complain of being judged on
statements which he was not prepared to deny" 3 From his
first interview with Mr. Poole the Bishop had accepted
fully his denial that he had ever put to the women the
particular questions specified. His lordship could not
well have acted otherwise, for the women were persons of
notoriously immoral character, whose evidence could not

1 An Authentic Statement and Report of the Case of the Rev. Alfred Pool
P- 73-

2 Ibid. p. 75- 8 Ibid. p. 77.

378 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

be accepted by itself. And therefore he relied on what the
counsel termed " the admissions of Mr. Poole himself." It
is important and right to bear in mind that throughout the
whole of the proceedings no charge was brought by the
Bishop or any one else, against Mr. Poole himself, nor was
it suggested in any way that he had acted from evil or
prurient motives. On the contrary, writing to the Church
wardens of St. Barnabas' on June 24, 1858, in reply to an
address in favour of Mr. Poole, sent by the Communicants,
his lordship emphatically said : — " I beg to thank you for
the opportunity you have given me of stating that I fully
believe him to be a conscientious and upright man."1

If I be asked why I devote so much space to this par
ticular case, I reply that I do so because of its importance
in the present day, when the Confessional, in its most
objectionable form, is far more prevalent than it was in
1858 ; and the evil complained of — questioning women on
the Seventh Commandment — far greater than ever before.
In this particular case, when disguise was no longer
available, it was thrown off ; the fact that women were
questioned in this way by Puseyite Confessors was un-
blushingly avowed, and actually defended by one of Mr.
Poole's Counsel, in the Archbishop's Court. A meeting of
the Communicants of St. Barnabas' was held on June 29th,
at which it was unanimously resolved to send to the Bishop
a letter on this case of Mr. Poole, which, amongst others,
contained the following statement : —

" It is true also that in your correspondence you specify as
objectionable Mr. Poole's questioning of females admitted to Con
fession; but this also is manifestly only a general charge, and it
appears to us that the propriety or impropriety of such a practice
must depend on the prior and larger one, of the propriety of Con
fession altogether. For if the practice of Confession be, as we hold
it is, the Right of the People, which the clergy may not refuse when
'any come to ' them for it, then it cannot be more improper to question
them upon the violation of the Seventh than of any of the other
Commandments ; or, to question females upon it, if they present them
selves for Confession, than males." 2

1 An Authentic Statement and Report of the Case of the Rev Alfred Poole,
P- 20. 2 Ibidt p- 2I%

QUESTIONING ON THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT 379

This is plain speech, at any rate, and I trust that it will
not be forgotten. It was the best argument which could
be devised in defence of Mr. Poole's conduct ; and the
only wonder is that the Communicants were not ashamed
to make it. Mr. Poole's Vicar, the Hob. and Rev. Robert
Liddell, agreed with them on this point. In his published
letter to the Bishop of London, he wrote as follows : —

"Your lordship has stated, in your condemnation of Mr. Poole,
that you consider the questioning, especially of females, on the
subject of violations of the Seventh Commandment, to be of very
dangerous tendency. Putting aside, as denied by Mr. Poole, and
not yet [August 1858] proven, the particular questions with which
he was charged, I most readily admit the difficulty of this part of
our duty, the need of much prayer and self-discipline, and the great
impropriety, nay, sin, on the part of the Confessor, of asking any
questions on this Commandment, which do not strictly arise out
of matters confessed^ or out of the circumstances of the penitent,
otherwise known to him ; because his duty is simply to aid the
penitent in an unreserved Confession of past acts of sin, not to suggest
fresh evil.

"I hope I may be permitted to consider that this is your lord
ship's general meaning; for I cannot conceive your lordship to
imply that God's ministers are to be more silent upon one part of
His holy law than upon another ; or that sinners' consciences are to
be least probed upon that Commandment, which, in spirit and in
letter, is, by general admission, most violated." *

This, of course, was a defence of asking questions in
Confession on the Seventh Commandment, whether of men
or women, though with great care on the part of the
Confessor. Protestant Churchmen strongly object to any
questions whatever being put in Confession on such a
subject, to persons of an opposite sex. It is an unmitigated
evil, though, as we have seen, defended and glorified in by
the Puseyites. Even Mr. Coleridge, in his speech for Mr.
Poole before the Archbishop, defended the objectionable
practice. He said : —

" If a person wished to confess, the Scriptural course [Where is
there ' Scriptural ' authority for confessing to priests ?] was to place

1 A Letter to the Bishop of London On Confession and Absolution, with Special
Reference to the Case of the Rev. Alfred Poole. By the Hon. and Rev. Robert
Liddell, p. 26. London : J. T. Hayes. 1858.

380 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

the precepts of the Decalogue before him, and ask him to examine
himself upon those precepts. In that case must the Seventh
Commandment be omitted ? Where was the authority to be found
for such an omission ? He admitted the delicacy of the case, and
that a prurient person ought to be scouted out of society; but, ad
mitting the bona-fides of the person administering the Confession,
where was the authority for leaving out one Commandment more
than another? If Confession was to be anything more than a mere
mockery, it was impossible to avoid going into those very questions
respecting which the penitent was seeking relief and assistance."1

The Bishop formally withdrew Mr. Poole's licence on
May 25, 1858, who thereupon appealed to the Archbishop
of Canterbury. This was done, says Archbishop Tait's
biographer, " with the Bishop's entire approval, and even
encouragement." ' The Archbishop, unfortunately, gave
his decision without a formal hearing of Mr. Poole, and
confirmed the decision of the Bishop of London on July 9th.
On this Mr. Poole applied to the Court of Queen's Bench
for a mandamus to compel the Archbishop to hear him. In
this he was successful, and as a result the case was heard by
his Grace on February 18 and 19, 1859, Dr. Lushington, as
Dean of Arches, being his Assessor. Counsel were heard
on both sides at considerable length, and on March 23,
1859, Dr. Lushington delivered, at Lambeth Palace, his
report on the case as Assessor, after which the Archbishop
gave his judgment in the following terms : —

" With the able assistance of my learned Assessor, I have given
the merits and circumstances of this Appeal my most serious and
careful consideration. I am of opinion that the proved and
admitted allegations afford in the language of the Statute good and
reasonable cause for the revocation of this licence, and that the
Lord Bishop of London has exercised a sound discretion in revoking
the same.

" And I am further of opinion that the course pursued by the
Appellant is not in accordance with the Rubric or doctrine of the
Church of England, but most dangerous and likely to produce most
serious mischief to the cause of morality and religion." 3

These two spiritual authorities having dealt with Mr.

1 An Atithentic Statement, pp. 69, 70.

2 Life of Archbishop Tait, vol. i. p. 224.

3 An Authentic Statement, p. 95.

THE LAVINGTON CASE 381

Poole's case, and having decided it against him, the incon
sistent Puseyites at once determined to appeal to what they
considered a purely State Court, the Judicial Committee of
Privy Council, in the hope that it would upset the decision
of the Archbishop's Spiritual Court. When the State is
willing to put down the Protestant cause, the Ritualists are
quite willing to support its decisions, but if it dare to remove
one of their pretty ribbons from their backs, the whole
party is up in arms directly, protesting with all their power
against the State's audacious profanity. The fact is the
Ritualists hate and oppose every Court, spiritual or State,
and every authority, which dares to contradict and condemn
them, no matter how guilty they may be. Mr. Poole
appealed to the Judicial Committee, but he did so in vain.
After hearing arguments on both sides, their lordships
delivered judgment on March 13, 1861, dismissing the
appeal, and declaring that, by law, there really was no
appeal against the Archbishop's decision, which was final.

At Lavington, Sussex, of which Cardinal Manning was
once Rector, and of which parish Bishop Samuel Wilber-
force was at the time the Squire and Patron, a controversy
broke out as to the alleged Romanising practices of its
Rector, the Rev. R. W. Randall. The Rector had as Curate
the Rev. E. Randall, who, though bearing the same sur
name, was in no way related to him. This Curate, though
a moderate High Churchman, could not approve of his
Rector's advanced teaching. The National Standard of
August 28, 1858, in calling attention to the controversy
which had arisen, said : — " The Rector of Lavington, as we
learn, is a clergyman of the most extreme views. During
the time that Mr. Edward Randall was his Curate, he was
guilty of gross violations of the Rubric, and of sundry most
unchurchmanlike irregularities. For instance, it was his
habit to cross himself during divine service, to make the
sign of the Cross upon the water at Baptism, to mix water
with wine at the Eucharist, and to bow to the elements after
consecration. . . . On one occasion Mr. E. Randall, while
catechising the children at the school, asked them what
other name there was for the Lord's Supper ? To his

382 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

astonishment they answered ' The Mass.' Upon his remark
ing that that was the name the Pope called it by, they
informed him that they had been so taught by the Rector.
He then asked them how many Sacraments there were ?
They answered ' Seven/ and enumerated the Romish Sacra
ments. He called upon the Rector, and informed him of
what the children had said, and of the manner in which he
had corrected them. The Rector rebuked him, and ex
pressed his determination to go to the school, and unteach
the Curate's instruction." Subsequently, the Rev. E. Ran
dall made a statement, asserting the above facts as true, at
the office of the Protestant Defence Society, in the presence
of five clergymen.1 A few days after the above-mentioned
interview with the Rector, Mr. E. Randall again went into
the school, when the schoolmaster put into his hands a
paper, in the Rector's handwriting, containing instruction
on the Seven Sacraments, which, he said, had been given to
him in December 1857 by the Rector, in order that its con
tents might be taught by him to the school children. This
paper was as follows : —

''BAPTISM. — A Sacrament instituted by Christ for the spiritual
regeneration of men, which is performed by the washing of water,
with the expressed invocation of the Holy Trinity.

"CONFIRMATION. — A Sacrament in which, by the laying on of
hands, according to the prescribed form, fresh strength is given to
the baptized, that they may believe firmly, and more constantly and
bravely contend for the faith.

" EUCHARIST. — A Sacrament of the new law, instituted by our
Lord, for the heavenly nourishment of our souls, in which the Body
and Blood of Christ are truly and really present under the form of
bread and wine.

" PENANCE. — A Sacrament instituted for the forgiveness of sins,
after Baptism, by the Absolution of the priest.

" EXTREME UNCTION. — A Sacrament of the new law, consisting
of unction with oil and the prayer of the priest, by which salvation
of the soul is conferred on a Christian grievously sick, and even
health of the body, if that be good for the soul.

" ORDERS. — A Sacrament of the new law, in which spiritual
power is given to the ordained.

1 A Statement Respecting the Romish Doctrines and Practices of the Rev. R. W.
Randall. By An English Churchman, p. 21. London : Hatchard. 1858.

THE LAVINGTON CASE 383

" MATRIMONY. — A Sacrament of the new law, in which a baptized
man and woman naturally give themselves each to the other to live
together continually.

" SACRAMENTS. — Outward ceremonies instituted to give grace.

" CONFIRMATION. — A Sacrament given by a Bishop to strengthen
and confirm our faith." 1

The Curate sent this paper to the Bishop of Chichester,
in the absence from home of his Rector, and was severely
censured by his lordship for doing so without first having
waited until he could discuss the matter with his Rector on
his return home. The Bishop wrote to the Rector on the
subject, and in a letter to the Curate (dated February 23,
1858), declared himself satisfied with the Rector's explana
tion. What that explanation was remained unknown to the
public until September i6th, when the Rector wrote to the
Brighton Gazette of that date: — "The very paper of notes
from which you quote [that is, the document quoted above]
was intended to be used in the school, not by itself, but
together with other more detailed papers, for the purpose of
showing what the Church of England believes, and, at the
same time, of guarding the children against the Romish
errors which she has rejected." 2 The extraordinary docu
ment in question was shown to be substantially a translation
into English from Den's Theology and the Catechism of the
Council of Trent. The Rector's letter to the Brighton Gazette
brought a reply in the next issue of the same paper, dated
September i8th, from Mr. .H. R. Harding, Choirmaster of
Lavington Church, in the course of which he said : —

" Alarmed at this state of things I went [on February 3rd] to the
Schoolmaster, who produced the paper of which I enclose an exact
entire copy [see above]. This paper, bearing plain evidence that it
was intended to be taught, by the fact of the five questionable
Sacraments being repeated, was in the handwriting of the Rector,
and the Schoolmaster assured me it had been given to him to be
taught in the school. He was very clear, it was the last and only
paper he had received from the Rector for many months, and that
it was not intended to be modified by any other paper or any other
teaching. He also asserted again and again that the words the

1 A Statement Respecting the Romish Doctrines and Practices of the Rev. R. W.
Randall, pp. 31, 32. 2 Ibid. p. 24.

384 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

Rector used on giving him the paper were, 'The former papers
would be a guide for me in teaching the Sacraments, but they are
not sufficiently explicit for you ; this paper is what I want you to
teach.' ... In the evening of that day [February yth] the Rector
came to me, to satisfy my mind about the paper. The Schoolmaster
was present. The discussion lasted a long time, and the paper was
fully defended by the Rector, and certainly he neither brought out
that the paper was intended to have been taken with others, nor to
illustrate the Church of Rome. At the conclusion of this interview,
the Rector said to the Master, ' If your mind is not made up to the
paper, I don't wish you to teach it,' and asked for the paper." 1

To this letter of the Choirmaster, who had resigned his
situation in consequence of the Rector's Romanising, the
latter gentleman made no reply, and so far as I can ascer
tain, never publicly denied the truthfulness of the statements
it contained. The ex-Choirmaster's letter was followed,
a month later, by one written to the National Standard, by
the Schoolmaster, Mr. William Marigold, enclosing a letter
which he had addressed to the Rector, on October 21, 1858,
in the course of which he said : —

" Every statement with reference to the teaching which appears
in your letter to the Brighton Gazette of the i6th September I utterly
contradict ; and every word of Mr. Harding's letter to the same
paper of 23rd September, in reply to yours, I fully confirm and
accept as my own.

" You know well that you did give me that paper containing the
Seven Sacraments to teach as it stands. You know well that you
used every means to convince me the paper as it stands is consistent
with the Church of England's teaching, and that the Bishop had
accepted it as such. You know well that when I spoke to you in
consequence of the reports which were in circulation, that you had
satisfied the Bishop by telling his lordship you had given the paper
merely to show what the Church of Rome teaches, you arose from
your scat pale and trembling with emotion, and exclaimed, ' Thafs
a lie: . . .

"You will perhaps say I am prompted to this course, or that I
have some prospect of advantage in it. 'Tis not so. I have no
situation in view, nor any place to turn to when I leave you. But I
will not be a party to such a system, nor to such conduct." 2

1 A Statement Respecting the Romish Doctrines and Practices of the Rev. R. W,
Randall, pp. 28, 29. 2 Ibid. p. 34.

THE EPISCOPAL VETO 385

The Rector never, so far as I can ascertain, gave any
public denial to the statements made by the Schoolmaster,
any more than before he had given to those of the Choir
master, men, both of them, of unblemished reputation, and
who were certainly not moved by any feelings of personal
ill-will towards the Rector. Nor did the Rev. R. W.
Randall deny that his Curate had received the alleged
answers from the school children as to the Mass and Seven
Sacraments, nor that he had adopted the ritual and cere
monies complained of, though he gave up those portions of
his ritual to which the Bishop objected. He had, it is true,
two Bishops on his side, viz., those of Oxford and Chi-
chester. Since then the former Rector of Lavington has
developed his anti-Protestant views greatly, and has be
come a Vice-President of the Romanising and rebel English
Church Union, and a leading man in the Romanising Con
fraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, established for the
special purpose of bringing back the self-same Sacrifice of
the Mass which our Protestant Martyrs died to put down.
And he has obtained also great favour and honour at the
hands of the State. In 1892 he was made Dean of Chi-
chester, an office which he still holds.

The Bishop of Chichester was requested to issue a Com
mission, under the Church Discipline Act, with a view to a
prosecution of the Rev. R. W. Randall for teaching false
doctrine, and for illegal practices ; but he declined to do so.
Thereupon the Rev. C. P. Golightly applied to the Court of
Queen's Bench for a writ of mandamus commanding the
Bishop of Chichester to issue a Commission under the Act.
The case was heard on June 6, 1859, and judgment was de
livered on June I5th, refusing to grant the application.

MR. JUSTICE HILL said: — "If it were necessary to give an
opinion on the construction of the 3rd Section of the Statute
[Church Discipline Act], I should have thought that the writ ought
to issue, so that a question of such importance might be decided on
the return in such manner that the judgment of this Court might be
reviewed by a Court of Error. I am not satisfied that it is a mere
matter in the discretion of the Bishop whether he will issue a Com
mission if a proper complaint be made by a party who is entitled to
complain. But it appears to me not necessary to give any opinion

2 B

386 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

on the construction of the Statute. This is an application to the
discretion of the Court to issue the prerogative writ of mandamus.
That the Court has a discretion whether the writ shall be issued or
not was distinctly recognised by Ashurst J. in R. v. Bishop of
Chester (i T. R. 403), In the case before the Court the party
applying for the writ of mandamus is a total stranger to the Diocese
of Chichester, and in no way interested in the matter charged
against Mr. Randall, more than any other Clerk in Holy Orders in
the most remote part of the kingdom. I think it would be produc
tive of the greatest inconvenience and mischief if this Court were to
lend its aid to any stranger to compel a Bishop to issue a Commis
sion in any particular case, and that this Court ought not to interfere
upon the application of a party who is not shown to be a party
aggrieved or to have some connection with the parish or Diocese. On
this short ground, therefore, I think the rule should be discharged."

MR. JUSTICE WIGHTMAN said: — "The real question in the case
is, whether the Bishop has any discretion in the matter, or whether,
under the provisions of the Church Discipline Act, 3 & 4 Victoria,
chap. 86, he is absolutely bound, without previous examination or
inquiry himself, to issue a Commission of Inquiry as directed by that
Statute, if any clergyman of his Diocese is charged with an offence
against the laws ecclesiastical. ... I cannot think that such can
have been the intention of the Legislature, but that it was intended,
when this new mode of procedure was instituted, to invest the
Bishop with a power to cause inquiry to be made in cases where it
appeared to them that the interests of the Church and the public
required it, and in the belief that such power would be duly and
properly exercised whenever a proper case arose ; and that it was
better for the interest of religion and the public that the Bishop, who
is the overseer or superintendent of religious matters in the Church,
should be intrusted with a discretion as to the propriety of issuing a
Commission of Inquiry in such cases, than that it should be left
entirely, as expressed by Sir W. Scott, to the judgment or passions
of private persons, who, under the influence of zeal, or prejudice,
or fancy, might call peremptorily upon the Bishop, without any real
or substantial ground, upon a mere scandal or evil report, to in
stitute proceedings which would cause at once expense, trouble, and
vexation, and tend to create disturbance and scandal in the Church.
I am, therefore, of opinion that the Bishop might exercise his dis
cretion as to the propriety of issuing a Commission in this case,
and that the present rule for a mandamus should be discharged." l

Mr. Justice Wightman's opinion, that the Church Dis-

1 Guardian, July 6, 1859, p. 583.

THE EPISCOPAL VETO 387

cipline Act gave to the Bishop the right to veto proceedings
under that Act, was upheld by the House of Lords on
March 23, 1880, in the case of Julius v. Bishop of Oxford.
The Episcopal Veto has thus been legally established ; but
there is at present a widespread and rapidly-growing feeling
in the country that the Bishops have greatly and inexcus
ably misused the Veto, by shamelessly barring the Courts
of Justice to those who had a right to enter, and whose case
was a strong one. They have used the Episcopal Veto to
protect flagrant law-breakers from the just punishment
which was their due, and have thus encouraged the very
lawlessness which they ought to have been the first to
suppress. It is felt that it is no longer safe to entrust them
with the power of vetoing ecclesiastical prosecutions. The
fact that they are so costly and wearisome is alone sufficient
to prevent any man, or any body of men, from taking up
the part of prosecutor without a strong prima facie case in
hand. The Episcopal Veto is at present the shield of law
lessness, and the oppressor of justice. It must be swept
away, and the sooner the better.

For many years the Puseyites had been adding to their
stock of literature of a Romanising tendency, which had
become more Romish as the years went on. Some of the
works which they produced were privately printed, and
were circulated with great care, lest they should fall into
Protestant hands. One of the most remarkable books of
this class was printed in 1855, primarily for use in the
Scottish Episcopal Church, but also adapted for use in the
Church of England. It was written by the Rev. William
Wright, LL.D., who died before it was printed, and it bore
the title of Directorium Scoticanum et Anglicanum. The
book simply reproduced the directions of the Church of
Rome as to what Vestments Ministers should wear at Holy
Communion, and what ornaments of the Church were
required ; together with the directions of the Papal Church
as to rites and ceremonies. The book was, in brief,
unblushing Popery. At length, in 1858, the Rev. John
Purchas, M.A., published his now well-known Directorium
Anglicanum, containing all the superstitions and extrava-

388 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

gances of the Sacrifice of the Mass, as found in the Roman
Church. At about the same time Mr. Purchas printed for
private circulation a translation of the Cautels of the Mass
from the Sarum Missal/ which were so extraordinary that
I gave a selection of them in the last chapter of my Secret
History, as they appeared in the fourth edition of the
Directorium Anglicanum. These Cautels were secretly cir
culated for seven years before it was considered safe to
give them to the public. They were published for the first
time, in the second edition of the Directorium, in 1865.
This latter book created a great sensation when it first ap
peared, was sold out within six months, and remained out
of print until 1865. The last edition, the fourth, was
issued in 1879, edited by the Rev. F. G. Lee, one of the
Bishops of the notorious and secret Order of Corporate
Reunion. The work has had a very large circulation
amongst the clergy, and this fact affords ample evidence
of the wide extent to which Roman Catholic ritual has
spread amongst the clergy in the pay of the Church of
England.

At about this period the subject of Theological Colleges
occupied a great deal of public attention. As far back as
1853, Mr. James Bateman, F.R.S., a Staffordshire gentle
man, called attention to this important subject at a meeting
held at Stoke-on-Trent, to consider the advisability of found
ing a new Theological College at Lichfield. He proved
clearly that Wells Theological College and Chichester Dio
cesan College were already under Tractarian control, and
asserted that there was grave reason to fear that the pro
posed College at Lichfield would turn out a similar institu
tion, a fear which the subsequent history of that College
has more than justified. "This Lichfield scheme," said Mr.
Bateman, " is but part of an extensive scheme of Tractarian
policy, which contemplates the creation of similar establish
ments in every Diocese throughout the land, and which—
whenever the ecclesiastical cordon shall have become com
plete — would effectually exclude from the walls of our

1 A Translation of the Cautels of the Sarum Ritual. By John Purchas, M.A.,
pp. 14. 4to. Privately printed. 1858.

CUDDESDON THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE 389

Church, every Minister holding to the pure principles of the
Reformation." *

As years went on, the need of Mr. Bateman's warning
became more and more apparent. A Theological College
had been established at Cuddesdon, near Oxford, which had
given cause for anxiety to the decided Protestants of the
Diocese. They perhaps suspected more than they could
actually prove at that time, but when, in January 1858, the
Quarterly Review made an attack on Cuddesdon, the Rev.
C. P. Golightly took the subject up with all the ardour for
which he was famed. He issued a circular letter to the
clergy and laity of the Diocese of Oxford, calling attention
to the article in the Quarterly Review, summarising its
allegations against Cuddesdon College, and declaring that
the tendency of the teaching given therein was "to sow
broadcast the seeds of Romish perversion in the counties
of Oxfordshire, Berkshire, and Buckinghamshire."2 The
Bishop of Oxford (Dr. S. Wilberforce), lost not a day in
dealing with the charges, which were as follows : — " i. That
the Chapel of the College is ' fitted up with every fantastic
decoration to which a party meaning has been assigned.'
2. That the so-called Altar ' affects in every particular the
closest approximation to the Romish model.' 3. That the
service of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is ' conducted
with genuflexions, rinsings of cups in the piscina, and other
ceremonial acts, foreign to the ritual and usages of the
Church of England.' 4. And, lastly, that a service-book is
in use in the Chapel ' concocted from the seven Canonical
Hours of the Romish Church.'"3 The Bishop promptly
called the atttention of the Principal of the College (the
Rev. Alfred Pott), to these accusations, who replied, denying
the truth of the charges altogether, and requesting his lord
ship to appoint a Commission, consisting of the three Arch
deacons of the Diocese, " to examine into the truth of Mr.
Golightly's allegations, and report officially to you thereon,
as the Visitor of the College." To this request the Bishop
agreed, and appointed the three Archdeacons accordingly,

1 The Tractarian Tendency of Diocesan Theological Colleges. By James Bate-
man, Esq., M.A., F.R.S., p. 27. London : Seeleys. 1853.

2 Guardian, February 3, 1858, p. 86. 3 Ibid.

390 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

forgetting that the Protestant party would have had more
confidence in the Commission, if it had been partly com
posed of men who were not the officials of the Visitor of
the College. However, they made their inquiries, and after
they had had an interview with Mr. Golightly, they made
their report in February. They dealt with the charges in
the order in which they were made: — (i., 2.) "We see no
reason for imputing a party meaning to any of these
decorations — nevertheless we think it right to express our
opinion that there is too lavish a display of ornaments, and
we consider that excess of decoration in the Chapel of such
an institution has a tendency, on the one hand, to strengthen
a prejudice which already exists in some minds against
Theological Colleges, and, on the other hand, to encourage
in the students a disproportionate regard for the mere
accessories of public worship, and to invest them with an
over-prominent importance. The ' so-called altar ' is a
movable table of wood. It has on the side next the east
wall a raised shelf, on which stand two candlesticks. The
candles in these are never lighted, except when the Chapel
is lighted throughout. ... At the time of the celebration of
Holy Communion the table is covered with a fair linen
cloth, without lace or other ornament. A cloth with lace
was formerly used ; but the use has been discontinued in
consequence of the recent judgment of the Privy Council.
We find that at one period a small metal cross stood on
the shelf of the table. It was given ; and was placed there
by the donor without objection on the part of the heads of
the College ; but was removed about a year ago by your
lordship's directions." 3. The truth of this charge the Com
missioners denied altogether, though they admit that "it
was at one time the custom to rinse the Sacramental vessels
in the piscina of the Chapel ; " but that this practice had
" for some time been abandoned." 4. As to the Service-
Book in use in the Chapel — " We have examined the
prayers and hymns, and think them not only unexception
able, but highly valuable. The book is certainly not ' con
cocted from the Seven Canonical Hours of the Romish
Church/ nor, in our judgment, does it contain or suggest

CUDDESDON THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE 391

any doctrine at variance with that of the Church of England.
It has, however, been cast in a form which bears an unfor
tunate resemblance to the Breviary of the Church of Rome ; and
we think it would be much improved if the compilers would
abandon the title of Antiphon, and the obsolete designation
of the Hours."1

The Bishop, in sending on his Archdeacons' report to the
Principal of Cuddesdon, actually said : — " I am rejoiced to
see that it negatives completely every charge brought against
you by my gossiping friend, Mr. Golightly ; " 2 though how
that could be, when it acknowledged the accuracy of several
of his facts, it is hard to see. Mr. Golightly had certainly
proved to the Archdeacons that there was need for reform.
There was more going on in the College than Mr. Golightly
was then aware of. The Bishop himself was by no means
satisfied with the existing state of things. He wrote to a
friend : — " Then there are things in the actual life [in
Cuddesdon College] I wish changed. The tendency to
crowd the walls with pictures of the Mater Dolor osa, &c.,
their chimney-pieces with Crosses, their studies with
Saints, all offend me and all do incalculable injury to the
College in the eyes of chance visitors. The habit of some
of our men of kneeling in a sort of rapt prayer on the steps
of the Communion Table, when they cannot be alone there ;
when visitors are coming in and going out and talking
around them : such prayers should be ' in the closet ' with
the ' door shut ' — and setting apart their grave dangers, as
I apprehend them to be to the young men, they really
force on visitors the feeling of the strict resemblance to
what they see in Belgium, &c., and never in Church of
England Churches." 3 The Rev. H. P. Liddon, afterwards
widely known as Canon Liddon, of St. Paul's Cathedral,
was at this time Vice-Principal of Cuddesdon College,
and the Bishop was not satisfied with his teaching and
influence — in fact, he was anxious to get rid of him on
this account. " It was," says the Bishop's biographer, " a
far graver and greater question than one of mere forms

1 Guardian, March 3, 1858, p. 183.

2 Ibid,

3 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. ii. p. 368.

392 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

and ceremonies which lost to Cuddesdon College the ser
vices of its able Vice-Principal. The Principal, in one of
his letters to the Bishop, says : — ' On the Eucharistic
question I feel that, although I and Liddon have never
had a word like dispute since we have been together, we
are mutually conscious of a difference on this point, and
so are our men.' The Bishop, in a letter written about
this time, says: — 'Our (that is, Liddon's and mine), theo
logical standpoint is not identical. On the great doctrine
of the Eucharist we should use somewhat different lan
guage and our Ritualistic tendencies would be all coloured
by this. On Confession, and its expedient limits, we should
also, I think, differ. The Principal entirely agreed with
me. ' ;; i

And so Mr. Liddon was induced to resign — the Prin
cipal had already done so — but the Bishop was anxious
that the public should not know the real reason. So he
wrote to the Rev. W. J. Butler, Vicar of Wantage, and
afterwards Dean of Lincoln : — " Now no reason need be
given but that after full deliberation the coming of the
new Principal necessitated a new Vice-Principal." 2 The
biographer of Bishop Wilberforce denies that Golightly's
attack was the cause of Liddon's resignation ; but a warm
friend of the Oxford Movement, in his sketch of Canon
Liddon's life, distinctly asserts that " on account of the
attacks that were made upon the College, after five years
of laborious and loving work, Liddon resigned." 3 Mr.
Golightly's attack was, therefore, not without satisfactory
results. Another satisfactory result was seen at the annual
festival of the College that year. The Union, in giving a
friendly notice of the proceedings, remarked that, " evi
dently in consequence of Mr. Golightly's attack," several
changes were made — "A Cross and flowers on the altar,
banners, a second celebration, Gregorian music, and a
procession up the village have been given up."4 This
organ of the advanced section of the Romanisers was

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce^ vol. ii. p. 366.

2 Ibid. p. 371.

3 Five Great Oxford Leaders. By the Rev. A. B. Donaldson, p. 237.
London : Rivingtons. 1900.

4 Union, June 5, 1858, p. 362.

STATE OF THE DIOCESE OF OXFORD 393

furious at Bishop Wilberforce and the Principal for yield
ing to the Protestant demands, and charged them with
trimming and compromising.

The Oxford Protestant Crusade against Tractarianism
was renewed in January 1859, but this time it was directed
not specially against Cuddesdon College, but against the
Ritualistic Movement throughout the Diocese of Oxford,
and included a severe attack on the administration of the
Bishop of Oxford himself. The attack was again led by
the Rev. C. P. Golightly, in an anonymous pamphlet
(the authorship of which was at once widely known), en
titled, Facts and Documents Shewing the Alarming State of
the Diocese of Oxford. The author termed himself " neither
a High Churchman nor a Low Churchman," but " simply
a Protestant, and a true son of the Church of England."
He quoted largely from the Directorium Anglicanum, be
cause its author, Mr. Purchas, acknowledged his obligations
for assistance in compiling that Romanising work to the Rev.
T. Chamberlain, Vicar of St. Thomas', Oxford ; to the Rev.
F. G. Lee, formerly a student of Cuddesdon College, and
subsequently a Curate in the Diocese of Oxford ; x and to the
Rev. T. W. Perry, then Curate of Addington, in the same
Diocese. He also quoted from the Churchman's Diary,
of which Mr. Chamberlain was the reputed editor.

"I shall now," continued Mr. Golightly, "proceed to set before
the reader a series of extracts from the above-named publications,
and to furnish him with a few facts, to show the introduction into
the Diocese, actual or attempted, of the following peculiarities of the
Romish system, viz., Auricular Confession, Altar Crosses and Cruci
fixes, Processions and Processional Crosses and Banners, Stone
Altars, the Romish Wafer, Mixing Water with the Wine at the
Eucharist, Elevation of the Elements, Bowing to the Elements, the
Priest Crossing Himself, Unction of the Sick, Prayers for the Dead,
Masses for the Dead, Romish Vestments, Romish Ornaments,
Sisterhoods. I shall conclude with a few remarks upon Cuddesdon
College and the Lavington Case, with especial reference to the
position of the Bishop of this Diocese." 2

1 Since then a Bishop of the secret Order of Corporate Reunion.

2 Facts and Documents. By a Senior Clergyman of the Diocese, p. n.
London : Wertheim, Mackintosh & Co. 1859.

394 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

In proof of the existence of Auricular Confession in the
Diocese, Mr. Golightly quoted from the Churchman's Diary,
and referred to the Confessional revelations which had just
been made public at Boyne Hill, in the Diocese, and to the
Rev. W. Gresley's book, The Ordinance of Confession, whose
author was at the time Vicar of Boyne Hill. As to the use
of Crucifixes, he merely relied on the Directorium, without
mentioning any instances in which they were in use in the
Diocese; but as to Altar Crosses, he said: — "The Bishop
of Oxford removed an Altar Cross from the shelf of the
Communion Table in Cuddesdon College Chapel ; but he
defended the use of Altar Crosses, when attached to the
east wall of the Church, to the Churchwardens of Holy well
Parish, and in a speech (January 8, 1859) at the consecration
of Addington Church, near Winslow. He objects, however,
to Crucifixes." 1 As to Processions, Processional Crosses,
and Banners, after citing the Directorium, he added : — " A
Procession with Processional Crosses took place at the anni
versary of Cuddesdon College in 1855, and was so strongly
objected to by some of the clergy, that the Bishop promised
that it should not occur again." 2 Yet on January 8th,
that very year, his lordship had taken part in a procession
at the consecration of Addington Church, near Winslow, in
which a Banner was carried, and also a Processional Cross,
by the Curate, the Rev. T. W. Perry, one of Mr. Purchas'
assistants in bringing out his Directorium. The Bishop had
consecrated, in 1848, three Cemetery Chapels at Oxford,
with illegal Stone Altars, and he was reminded that in
addition there were, at that moment, Stone Altars at St.
Thomas', Oxford ; Wolvercote, Littlemore, St. John's,
Sandford, Radley, and Binsey, all in his Diocese. For
the charge of using Wafers and the Mixed Chalice, Mr.
Golightly quoted the Directorium^ and as to Elevation of
the Elements, he mentioned that it had been practised by
the Rev. F. G. Lee, at Kennington Church, near Oxford.
For the rest of the charges, viz., Bowing to the Elements, the
Priest Crossing Himself, Anointing of the Sick, Prayers and

1 Facts and Documents, p. 1 2.

2 Ibid. p. 13.

STATE OF THE DIOCESE OF OXFORD 395

Masses for the Dead, Romish Vestments and Ornaments,
he quoted only the Directorium. Mr. Golightly had a
strong case, but it would have been much stronger if he
could have proved that the Romanising books he had cited
were actually in use in the Diocese. He concluded by giving
a list of 125 Members of Oxford University who had seceded
to the Church of Rome, including eighty-six clergymen.

I dare say that some of my readers may think these
were comparatively small things, when compared with what
we see around us to-day ; but I may remind them of what
the Ritualistic Churcli Review said about them six years
later : — " The Protestant is quite right in recognising the
simplest attempt at Ritual as the ' thin edge of the wedge.'
It is so. ... It is only the child who is not terrified when
the first creeping driblet of water and the few light bubbles
announce the advance of the tide ; and the Protestant is
but a child who does not recognise the danger of the
trifling symptoms which are slowly and surely contracting
the space of ground upon which he stands." x Mr. Golightly
recognised the danger, and, to his honour be it recorded,
he did his best to protect the Church by raising a warning
cry, though he had to pay the penalty of the scoffs and
abuse of the men whose unworthy conduct he exposed.
But, after all, sensible men know very well that ridicule is
not argument.

No sooner was Mr. Golightly's pamphlet published than
a great outcry arose in what may now be termed the
Ritualistic camp, and great wrath in the Palace of the
Bishop of Oxford, whose special failing was that he did not
sufficiently curb the extravagances of men who often went
further than himself in a wrong direction. Dr. Wilberforce
always disliked the man, whether he was a Protestant or a
Romaniser, who was the cause of a row. His anger at
Mr. Golightly's audacity scarcely knew any bounds. The
Saturday Review was indecently insulting. " If anybody,"
it said, "is wanted to do a job extremely dirty and offen
sive, such as signing a protest complaining of a sermon, or
denouncing a brother clergyman, Mr. Golightly is the man
for it."

1 Church Review, June 24, 1865, p. 587.

396 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

As to the charge against the Bishop of taking part in a
procession at Addington, in which a Banner and Proces
sional Cross were carried, the Rev. J. W. Burgon (after
wards Dean of Chichester) gave the following explanation :
— " Had the Reverend author of the pamphlet, instead of
alarming himself and the Diocese, respectfully asked his
lordship how it came to pass that he did not insist on the
removal of such a toy [as the Processional Cross] before
proceeding with the consecration, he would doubtless have
received the same reply which the present writer received
when he asked the same question : — ' There was no
Bishop's procession : and I did not see the toy till it
was too late to act ; or it was just what I would have
done. In Church I actually did so, as to the paraphernalia
of the Celebration.' " l The Bishop's own direct explanation
of what took place was given two months later, in reply to
an address from seventy-eight of his Protestant clergy : —
"The only ' Procession' there," said the Bishop, "was the
walking round the new ground to be added to the church
yard, as appointed in the Consecration Service in use in
every Diocese in England, and the reading or chanting of
the appointed Psalm. The temporary Curate, a stranger to
our Diocese and its usages, carried in his hand a Wand, to
which he had fastened a small metal Cross. This he did with
out my knowledge, or that of his Patron ; and, as soon as I
had the opportunity of speaking to him, at my desire he laid
it aside." 2 And so there was a Processional Cross after all ;
but the Bishop certainly cleared himself from any respon
sibility or blame for what had taken place. Yet in the very
same document in which he completely cleared himself, as
to this instance, he actually defended the custom assailed.
In their Address to the Bishop the Protestant clergy of the
Diocese had said : — " At the Anniversary of Cuddesdon
College, and at the consecration or reopening of several
Churches, it is reported, and we believe truly, that there
have been Processions of Clergymen in Surplices, with
Banners and Crosses, and chanting Hymns and Psalms :

1 Guardian, February 23, 1859, p. 166.

2 Address to the Bishop of Oxford of the Rev. E. A. Litton and Other Clergy
men of the Diocese, p. 9. No printer's name or publisher's.

STATE OF THE DIOCESE OF OXFORD 397

all bearing a close resemblance in many respects to the
Romish Processions." 1 The Bishop, in his reply, quoted
this statement in full, did not deny that Crosses and
Banners were so carried ; defended what had taken place,
and added : — " / see no objection to such a devout and orderly
walking to Church, . . . and 1 therefore cannot censure or
forbid it." 2

The Bishop acknowledged that he had consecrated
Cemetery Chapels at Oxford with Stone Altars, but it was
without his knowledge, and that subsequently he had used
his influence and succeeded in having placed in their room
movable tables with wooden legs, but with " stone tops."
When such stone slabs had been erected elsewhere in the
Diocese, he did not " think it wise to move in the matter,"
in order to their removal, so long as no " superstitious
use" was made of them; indeed, he "saw no objection
to their retention." 3 Dr. Wilberforce acknowledged that
Churchmen in the Diocese did "suffer much from the
attempts made by a few, mostly inexperienced young menf
to introduce amongst us unusual ornaments or Ritual
observances" — so that the Bishop had to acknowledge
after all that there was just cause for anxiety. In con
cluding his reply to the Protestant clergy of his Diocese,
his lordship censured them for what they had done, declared
that the controversy had been " wantonly stirred up," and
added the request : — " If at any time any point in my
conduct of the Diocese causes you scruple or alarm, that
you will tell me privately of your difficulty, instead of
flying to inflammatory appeals." 5 But, unfortunately for
his plea, Mr. Golightly had told the Bishop " privately,"
some time before he appealed to the public, what had
" caused him scruple and alarm " in the Bishop's conduct
at Cuddesdon and throughout the Diocese, and had got
nothing from him for his pains. In matters of this kind

1 Address to the Bishop of Oxford, p. I.

2 Ibid. pp. 8, 9.

3 Ibid. pp. 12, 13.

4 This is exactly what the Bishops now say of the Romanisers; they are but
" few," and " inexperienced young men." But where they are now the rank and
file will be thirty years hence, if not checked.

5 Address to the Bishop of Oxford t pp. 15, 16.

398 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

public appeals are alone likely to make the Bishops do their
duty. If High Church Bishops can only succeed in gag
ging the Protestants, so as to stifle their public protests
against Popery in the Church of England, the cause of
the Reformation will not long survive in her fold.

To the Bishop's reply a weighty rejoinder was pub
lished by the Rev. ]. Tucker, B.D., Vicar of West Hen-
dred, Berks, and formerly Fellow of Corpus Christi
College, Oxford. Mr. Tucker was one of the oldest
clergymen in the Diocese, and his reply was able, learned,
and convincing. At the close he addressed the Bishop
in words of great power and justice : —

" And now. my lord," he said, " in conclusion, I must make my
very serious appeal to your lordship, in the hope that it may not be
in vain. I am not writing in the heat, and under the impulse of
youth, for I am advancing in years ; nor am I conscious of any
feeling of bitterness towards yourself or any individual ; I have well
thought over and calmly deliberated, not only upon what I have
now written, but on every step that I have taken in conjunction
with those with whom I am associated. It is my conviction,
resting, as I believe, on plain matters of fact, that views are being
propagated and are spreading throughout our Church, subversive of
that pure faith restored by our forefathers, and tending to gradually
bring us back into all the corruptions and superstitions of Rome ;
and under this conviction, I consider myself bound by the most
solemn obligations to do what I can in my day, in my humble and
narrow sphere, to expose and resist these encroachments, and to
uphold God's pure truth.

" I have consequently heartily and readily joined with others of
my brethren in the Ministry in remonstrating with the Archdeacons
and Rural Deans on their statements and assertions, and in address
ing your lordship on the state of things. While others, the majority
of the clergy in the Diocese, have also addressed your lordship, they
have spoken only of their confidence and attachment to your person,
and admiration of your great activity and zeal, and have made general
and vague declarations of their disbelief of any danger : but they have
not brought forward one single fact, nor questioned one single assertion
of facts made by us. We, on our part have, in both the Remonstrance
and Address, dealt with facts, and facts alone; and, whilst we have
most carefully avoided everything that could be construed into dis
respect to your lordship, or that could cause unnecessary irritation

STATE OF THE DIOCESE OF OXFORD 399

in the breast of any one, we have asked your lordship to discourage
and suppress, so far as you can, certain things which we specify as
leading to Popery.

" Your lordship in your reply has refused every one of our re
quests ; you have conceded nothing ; one thing you admit the existence
of, and you admit that it is unlawful ; but, instead of promising to
exercise your own influence and authority as a Ruler in the Church
for its removal, you say to us, 'you have the same power of remov
ing them as I have.' Thus you give your countenance to those who
promote what our Reformers condemned, and discountenance those
who seek for nothing but what our Protestant fathers upheld. As
regards human judgment, let the Church, her Bishops, Clergy, and
Laity, judge between your lordship and us. Vital truth is at stake ;
and it concerns not this Diocese only, nor the Clergy alone, but the
whole Church of England, Clergy, and Laity, at home and abroad,
to see that the Truth is preserved. . . .

" I respectfully entreat your lordship to abstain in future from
casting reflections on any body of your Clergy, however small, who
under a sense of duty express to your lordship their honest and
deliberate convictions. It cannot tend to uphold either your own
character or ours, nor to promote peace. While respect is justly due
from Presbyters to their Bishop, they have a right to look to be
treated with respect by him." l

The address of the three Archdeacons and twenty-four
Rural Deans to which Mr. Tucker here refers, was dated
February 23rd. It asserted that the statements contained
in Facts and Documents were, from their " own knowledge
of the Diocese," nothing less than " unjustifiable misrepre
sentations." They denied that the Bishop had " ever
sanctioned any peculiarities of the Romish system." They
condemned Mr. Purchas' Directorium Anglicanum as "a
very unwise and mischievous publication " ; but they took
good care not to term it, as it deserved, a disloyal and
thoroughly Popish production. They declared themselves
to be " loyal and affectionate sons " of the Church of
England, opposed to the introduction of any peculiarities
of the Romish system ; and, in conclusion, they solemnly
affirmed that the statements of Mr. Golightly were "pre
sumptuous and unfounded calumnies against your lordship

1 A Letter to the Lord Bishop of Oxford, By the Rev. J. Tucker, B.D., 2nd
edition, pp. 15-17. London : James Nisbet & Co. 1859.

400 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

in the Diocese." l But, as Mr. Tucker so forcibly pointed
out, they had " not brought forward one single fact, nor
questioned one single assertion of facts " brought forward
on the Protestant side. It was all assertion, and no proof !
But it pleased the Bishop immensely. His reply was all
gushing gratitude, though he could scarcely have forgotten
that the testimony in his favour was entirely from men
who held their offices as Archdeacons and Rural Deans
solely and entirely to his nomination, and at his pleasure.
He thanked God that his Diocese was not"ihe centre of
a Romanising Movement," though it was manifest to the
world that the Movement was born in Oxford, and still
drew its main inspiration from its University.

In reply to the Address of the Archdeacons and Rural
Deans, a Remonstrance was signed by eighty-four Pro
testant clergymen of the Diocese. In this document they
appealed to a series of facts, which they enumerated, of a
distinctly Romanising character, and challenged those
whom they addressed to deny, if they could, their accuracy ;
and " to specify, one by one, what are the statements which
they feel bound solemnly to declare are ' unjustifiable
misrepresentations/ and ' presumptuous and unfounded
calumnies'"2 in the pamphlet, Facts and Documents. My
readers will, no doubt, be very much surprised to hear that
the Archdeacons and Rural Deans never accepted this chal
lenge, and that they had not the courtesy even to formally
acknowledge its receipt. But one of the Rural Deans, to
whom the Protestant Remonstrance was addressed, the
Rev. Henry Bull, published a reply on his own account,
and not as the delegated representative of the others.
Mr. Bull declared that their Address to the Bishop was
mainly intended as a vote of confidence in him personally.
" But the Remonstrants," wrote Mr. Bull, " on the other
hand, maintain that there was no misrepresentation ; and
in order to establish their case, challenge us to disprove
certain facts stated by the Senior Clergyman. We do not
deny, we never thought of denying them ; but we say the

1 An Impartial Account of the Recent Agitation in the Diocese of Oxford^ pp.
5, 6. London : Edward Thompson. 1859.

2 Ibid. p. 12.

STATE OF THE DIOCESE OF OXFORD 40 f

inference drawn from these facts is unjust ; and I must
remark that even facts, when pleaded to a wrong issue,
are virtual misrepresentations}- So that, after all, Mr.
Golightly had but told the truth, so far as facts were
concerned. And the facts certainly justified the Protes
tant agitation which arose when they became known to
the public.

Mr. Bull's pamphlet was replied to by the Rev. W. H.
Freemantle, Rector of Claydon, and himself a Rural Dean
in the Diocese. He was subsequently greatly revered and
loved as Dean of Ripon. He claimed that those who signed
the Remonstrance had no lack of personal affection and
respect for their Bishop, but, he added :—

" Public observation has been aroused. Mr. Gresley's book upon
the Confessional — his appointment, and Mr. West's to Boyne Hill —
Mr. Ridley's Tract upon the Eucharist, at Reading — Cuddesdon
College — Holywell stone altar, and the painted chancel — the pro
ceedings at the reopening of Cuddington, Finmere, North Moreton,
and Addington Churches — the stone tables at Wantage, and the
Oxford Cemeteries — the Sisters of Mercy — these and other subjects
which have from time to time been discussed in the newspapers,
have turned every eye upon our poor Diocese. . . .

" Why am I to be dubbed a Low Churchman, because I have
the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer over my wooden
Communion Table ; and my neighbour styled a good Churchman,
because he has three steps up to his altar, with its super-altar,
candlesticks, and stone cross in relief upon the east wall ? I depre
cate this distinction — because I claim to have the law on my side,
and I think my neighbour has exceeded it. Let us be true to one
another. If we old-fashioned Churchmen, with our wooden tables
and whitewashed walls and unadorned chancels, are robbers of
churches and blasphemers of holy things, the law is open, and
any one may implead us. But if we are found to be quite as earnest
and zealous as others in maintaining the decency and spirituality of
public worship, and quite as successful in securing the attendance
of the people, and in attaching them to the Church of our fathers,
and in converting sinners to Christ, then let us not be ridiculed, or

1 Some Remarks upon the Remonstrance Addressed to the Archdeacons and
Rural Deans. A Letter to the Rev. W. R. Freemantle. By the Rev. Henry
Bull, Rural Dean, p. 5. Oxford : Parker. 1859.

2 C

402 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

stamped with opprobrious names, or branded as Puritans and
Dissenters." l

The next event in the agitation which arose out of Mr.
Golightly's pamphlet, was an address of confidence in the
Bishop, signed by the large number of 495 clergymen in the
Diocese. If truth and justice always go with the largest
number, then, undoubtedly, on this occasion, the Pro
testants were in the wrong, and those they attacked were in
the right. But it is not always so. This Address was very
brief, but because of its importance I give it here in full : —

"We, the undersigned Clergy of the Diocese of Oxford, beg
permission, under the present circumstances of the Diocese, to
approach your lordship with expressions of sincere respect and
affection.

"We have been much surprised and distressed at the wide
distribution around us of a pamphlet entitled Facts and Documents
Showing the Alarming State of the Diocese of Oxford^ by ' A Senior
Clergyman of the Diocese ' ; which, although in itself wholly un
worthy the attention of any reasoning mind, is yet calculated to
encourage the heart-burnings of those who are ignorant and under
the power of their prejudices.

"We conceive ourselves to be, from our position, the best able
to judge of the truth or falsehood of the affirmations made in the
pamphlet to which we refer, and we utterly deny that either in public
or in those private communications which in all courtesy and kind
ness you are at all times ready to encourage in your Clergy, you
have ever given countenance to practices which might tend to
Popery, and we affirm that it has constantly been your aim to
encourage true Protestantism, and the religion of the Bible, as set
forth and explained in the formularies of our Church.

11 We desire to express to your lordship our hearty concurrence
in the Address presented to you, with the signature of our Archdeacons
and Rural Deans.

" And we thank your lordship for your able and most satisfactory
answer given to that Address."2

In order to understand the real value of this Address, it
is necessary to study the following note, which was attached

1 Reasons for Signing the Remonstrance. By the Rev. W. R. Freemantle,
M.A., Rector of Claydon, and Rural Dean, pp. 14-16. London : Nisbet £ Co.
1859-

2 An Impartial Account, p. 14.

STATE OF THE DIOCESE OF OXFORD 403

to it, explaining that portion of the third paragraph which
follows " we affirm that " : — " The Clergy whose signatures
are marked with an asterisk consider the latter part of the
third clause to be indistinct, and would prefer that it should
stand thus — ' Your lordship's aim has always been to
encourage a sincere attachment to the distinctive teaching
of the Reformed Church of England, as proved by Holy
Scripture, and embodied in her authorised formularies.' " 1
The passage which these clergymen would " prefer " to
leave out was as follows : — " It has constantly been your
aim to encourage true Protestantism, and the religion of the
Bible, as set forth and explained in the formularies of our
Church." That is, they would " prefer" to leave out
"Protestantism," and place the Church before the Bible,
in order of precedence. No fewer than 212, out of the 495
who signed the Address, had attached to their names the
asterisk which indicated their preference for the alteration.
This fact alone is a clear and unmistakable proof of the
extent to which anti-Protestantism had spread in the
Diocese of Oxford, and more than justified Mr. Golightly
in placing on the title-page of his pamphlet the words
" Alarming State of the Diocese of Oxford." I have, further,
looked through the list of names of those who signed this
Address, and find in it a large number of those who subse
quently were well known as amongst the most advanced
Romanisers in the Church of England.

Later on in the year an Address from about 4000 laity of
the Diocese of Oxford, including 3 Members of Parliament,
23 Magistrates, and 179 Churchwardens, was presented to
the Bishop, in which it was stated : — " We assure your
lordship that there exists in the minds of the best friends
of our Church a growing mistrust, in consequence of the
Romanising tendency of many of the innovations intro
duced by certain of the clergy into the practices and Ritual
of its services ; " and expressing a hope that the Bishop
would exercise the powers he possessed "to arrest the
progress of these objectionable innovations, to allay the
fears which we entertain, and to suppress all such causes
for further apprehension."

1 An Impartial Account, p. 14 note.

404 HISTORY OF THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

Since 1859 Church affairs, from a Protestant point of
view, have gone from bad to worse in the Diocese of
Oxford. Some slight attempts were made to reform
Cuddesdon College for a time, but they were soon
dropped ; and now the state of things therein is in so
unsatisfactory a condition that it may be safely asserted
that there is no Institution in the country which has turned
out such a large proportion of Romanising and law-break
ing clergy as Cuddesdon College, which, by its statutes,
is placed under the sole control of the Bishop of Oxford
for the time being, and who must therefore be held
primarily responsible for what takes place within its
walls.

CHAPTER XIV

The St. George's in the East Riots— The Rev. Bryan King— The Rev.
Hugh Allen— The attitude of the Bishop of London— The Rector
resigns — Church of England Protection Society — Formation of the
English Church Union— Its early delight in Ecclesiastical Prosecu
tions — Opposes Prayer Book Revision "at present" — Dr. Littledale
advocates "Catholic Revision"— He is "bowed down" with grief,
shame, and indignation — Expulsion of Protestant clergymen aimed
at — Preaching in Theatres "a profane and degrading practice "-
The Union attempts to prosecute Evangelical clergymen — The
Union praises the Bishop of Salisbury for prosecuting Dr. Williams
—The Union demands the prosecution and deprivation of the Evan
gelical Bishop Waldegrave — The E.C.U. demands a cheap and easy
way to prosecute Archbishops, Bishops, and clergy — Tries to prose
cute foreign Protestant Pastors — The Church Review says the
Union was established to "enforce the law" — It declares that "to
silence the teacher of heresy is the plain duty of the Church's
Governors'3 — Dr. Pusey prosecutes Professor Jowett — Pusey says
that " prosecution is not persecution " — The Church Review praises
prosecutors as men of "moral courage" — The President of the
E.C.U. promises obedience to the Courts of Judicature.

IN the year 1859 the Parish Church of St. George's in the
East, London, was the scene of prolonged rioting. Its
Rector, the Rev. Bryan King, had been appointed to the
living in 1842. He was an enthusiastic supporter of the
Oxford Movement, and was well known as a very obstinate
and self-willed man, as even his warmest friends admit.
He lacked tact and a conciliatory spirit, and consequently
did not rally many friends around him in his new parish,
of no fewer than 45,000 souls, mostly of the very poor, and
largely of the criminal class. Mr. King soon made altera
tions in the Church services, in a High Church direction,
which were very distasteful to the majority of those who
attended church. At length he even went so far as. to
introduce the use of the Romish Vestments at Holy Com
munion. He attached great importance to Ritual, as we

405

406 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

learn from a pamphlet which he published in 1860. Re
ferring therein to his introduction of these Vestments in
1857, ne remarked : — " I cannot indeed see any reason
why I was to be blamed for acting in this instance as I
did. These Eucharistic Vestments of the Church are being
used in from fifty to sixty Churches in England, and their
adoption is being extended in other Churches, I believe,
almost every month. I am sure that we shall never
succeed in teaching our flocks, and especially the poorer
members of them, the deep doctrine of the Holy Eucha
rist, and the place which that Sacrament holds in the
economy of Christian grace as the one act of Worship
and Sacrifice offered by the Church to Almighty God,
without the aid of such external adjuncts of Ritual."1
As a matter of fact, Mr. King found that the Ritual he
adopted did not attract the poorer members of his parish
to his Church at all. The attendance grew less and less,
while opposition continued to increase. At the same time
Mr. King's remarks may serve to show us how the modern
Ritualists teach their doctrine to the eye by Ritual, as well
as to the ear, from the pulpit. In fighting the Ritual, there
fore, we are fighting the doctrine which it is intended to
symbolise and teach.

In the month of December 1858 the office of Lecturer
in the Parish Church of St. George's in the East fell vacant.
The appointment was in the hands of the Vestry of the
parish, who elected the Rev. Hugh Allen to the post.
Now Mr. Allen was an out-and-out Protestant, and there
fore a stern foe to the Ritualism of Mr. Bryan King. In
alarm that gentleman appealed to the Bishop of London
(Dr. Tait) to refuse to Mr. Allen that licence without which
he could not officiate as Lecturer ; but the appeal was in
vain. Mr. Allen was licensed on May 17, 1859. On the
following Sunday afternoon, the Rector being absent from
home, Mr. Allen entered the Church at 3.40 P.M., and
insisted on saying the Litany and lecturing, instead of
the usual service at 4 P.M., conducted by the Rector or
one of his Curates. To this course the Rector at once

1 Sacrilege and Its Encouragement. By Bryan King, M.A., Rector of St.
George's in the East 2nd edition, p. 12. London: Masters. 1860.

RIOTS AT ST. GEORGE'S IN THE EAST 407

raised an objection, and the difficulty was settled, after
an appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench, by an arrange
ment by which Mr. Allen was allowed to hold his service
at 2.15 P.M. each Sunday, to be followed by the Rector's
service at 4 P.M., the arrangement to take effect from
Sunday, June 29th. On Sunday, June 5th, unseemly dis
turbances took place in the Parish Church at both the
afternoon and evening services ; but on and after June
29th peace was restored for a while. Rioting, however,
broke out again on August i4th, and was continued,
Sunday after Sunday, with occasional intervals, until the
following March, when by order of the Bishop all the
Ritualistic ornaments of the Church, which had been the
primary cause of the disturbances, were swept away while
the Rector was abroad on a twelve months' holiday. Soon
after an arrangement was made by which Mr. Bryan King
exchanged livings with a country clergyman, and then the
St. George's in the East Riots came to an end.

In one sense the Protestant opposition had succeeded,
but in reality it had been a disastrous failure. The conduct
of the mobs in Church had been disgraceful in the extreme.
Hassocks were thrown about, irreverent whistling, joking,
and singing were heard, stamping of feet, assaults were made
on the clergy, and orange-peel and bread and butter were
thrown at the Communion Table. The mob was largely
composed of some of the lowest ruffians of that low neigh
bourhood, and these, caring for neither Protestantism nor
Puseyism, nor anything else, used the occasion for their
own purposes. The result of all this was that a great spirit
of sympathy for the attacked party arose, not merely in
East London, but throughout the length and breadth of
the land, and the conduct of the rioters was sternly con
demned by the respectable Protestants. In the height of
the disturbances the Bishop of London, who certainly had
no sympathy with Ritualism, and sternly disapproved of
the Rector's conduct, wrote to the senior Churchwarden :
— " No language can be too strong to express the abhor
rence with which all persons of any true Christian feeling
must regard such outrages, if they really take place, as is

40 8 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

not denied. It is the grossest self-deceit to suppose that
they can be justified by any provocation which the Rector's
choral service or usual habiliments may have given." l But,
on the other hand, in the House of Lords, the Bishop said :
— "If the Rector of that parish would do what he ought
to have done months ago, and say, ' I am unable to manage
this parish, I beg the Bishop of the Diocese to manage it
for me,' all the mischief might be put an end to."2

An important event in the history of the Romeward
Movement took place on May 12, 1859, when the "Church
of England Protection Society " was formed, which in the
following year adopted the now well-known title of "The Eng
lish Church Union." Amongst the more noteworthy mem
bers of the Union whose names appear in its first Annual
Report are, Lord Richard Cavendish, Sir Stephen R. Glynne
(of Hawarden Castle), Archdeacon Denison, and the Revs.
W. J. E. Bennett, R. Rhodes Bristow (now known as Canon
Rhodes Bristow), T. T. Carter (of Clewer), J. C. Chambers
(editor of the Priest in Absolution), John Keble, Bryan King,
Hon. and Rev. Robert Liddell, F. G. Lee (now known as
Bishop of the O.C.R.), T. W. Mossman (afterwards Bishop
of the O.C.R.), J. M. Neale, T. W. Perry, Alfred Poole,
R. W. Randall (now Dean of Chichester), J. R. Woodford
(afterwards Bishop of Ely), and the Hon. Colin Lindsay,
first President of the Union, who afterwards became a
Roman Catholic. In the first year of its existence, the
Church of England Protection Society issued a Tract on
Remedies at Law Against Disturbers of Divine Service, with
a view, no doubt, to the St. George's in the East Riots,
which were proceeding at the time, and on November 24th
it sent a deputation to the Bishop of London, to ask him to
use his influence with the Churchwardens, to compel them
to put down the disturbances. The Bishop received them
with great courtesy, told them that the Churchwardens
were, he believed, anxious to do their duty in this respect,
and then — says the report of the proceedings in the Union —
" proceeded to urge upon the deputation the duty of the
Church of England Protection Society endeavouring to

1 Life of Archbishop Taitt vol. i. p. 238. 2 Ibid. p. 246.

PRAYER BOOK REVISION 409

persuade the Rector to meet the feelings of the people, and to
abafe some of the practices objected to as the most likely way
of quelling the disorders." * The members of the deputation
do not appear to have promised to use their influence in
this salutary manner ; they would, no doubt, have preferred
to encourage the Rector in his Romanising practices. That
is what the Society actually did, for we are told, in its first
annual report, that after the interview with the Bishop, " it
offered to assist Mr. Bryan King with such means as it pos
sessed of obtaining for his guidance the best legal advice." 2
In view of an expected motion in the House of Lords
by Lord Ebury in favour of Prayer Book Revision on Pro
testant lines, the Society circulated for signature a Petition
to both Houses of Parliament on the subject. Its purport
will be gathered from its opening sentences : — " Your Peti
tioners are sincerely attached to the Book of Common
Prayer, and entirely disapprove of any changes therein at
the present time. That your Petitioners believe it to be the
true exposition of God's Holy Word, and that to alter it, as
proposed, would be to make it contrary to God's Word." 3
This, be it remarked, was not a Petition against the principle
of Prayer Book Revision. It was simply inexpedient for
them that it should take place " at the present time," when
it would certainly not have been conducted on Ritualistic
lines ; and therefore they naturally objected to it " as pro
posed " by that valiant champion of Protestantism, Lord
Ebury. And here I would impress upon my readers the
fact that the Ritualists are by no means opponents of
Prayer Book Revision ; on the contrary, many of their
leaders are in favour of it. One of their most prominent
and learned champions, the late Rev. Dr. Littledale, who
was one of the leading members of the Council of the
English Church Union, published in 1867 a pamphlet in
favour of Prayer Book Revision : —

"The Rubrics," said Dr. Littledale, "at the end of the Com
munion Office are in sore need of revision. The first three should

1 Union, December 30, 1859, p. 823.

2 First Annual Report of the English Church Union, p. 22.

3 History of the English Church Union. By the Rev. G. Bayfield Roberts,
p. 16. London : Church Printing Co. 1895.

410 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

be totally expunged. They have worked incalculable mischief. . . .
So of the two following Rubrics. ... So of the Rubric enjoining
the reverent consumption of the elements." l

11 The Confirmation Office needs two alterations. The restora
tion of Chrism and the sign of the Cross." 2

"I now come to the subject of primary importance, compared
with which all that has gone before is light. I mean the Com
munion Office. It is impossible for any English Liturgical scholar
to behold it in its present condition, and to compare it with the
glorious rite of S arum, or even with Edward VI.'s First Book, without
being bowed down with shame, grief, and indignation at the enormous
wrong-doing which was perpetrated, and the apathy with which it has
been so long regarded. . . . There is no Christian doctrine more
prominent in the Primitive Liturgies and the Early Fathers than
that of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and its intimate union with the Offer
ing on Calvary. There is none more studiously obscured by the English
formularies, and albeit theologians know that it is still there, though
hidden, yet ordinary readers may well fail to discover it. Our plain
duty to souls, to ourselves, and to those branches of the Church
which, in this more happy than we [he means, of course, the Roman
and Eastern Churches], have preserved the doctrine intact, is to
bring it once more into due prominence. First, then, the word
1 Altar' needs to be restored. It is quite right to retain the word Table
occasionally, in order to prevent the idea of Communion being thrown
into the shade, but the other is the earlier, more universal, and more
appropriate term. Next, the liberty of removing the Holy Table, now
practically abrogated, should be formally withdrawn, and the position
of the priest should be defined so as to prevent the present most un
seemly and irreverent use of celebrating at the North End. . . .
Next, it ought to be provided that the accustomed Ornaments, to
wit, a Cross or Crucifix, and not less than two Lights, shall stand
upon the Altar at the time of celebration, and that the Priest shall
be properly vested in Alb and Chasuble, &c."8

Now I need hardly remark that if Prayer Book Revision
on these lines were carried out, it would make it morally
impossible for any Protestant Minister to officiate in the
Church of England. And that is, I believe, just what, in
their heart of hearts, the Ritualists desire above all things
— the expulsion of Protestant clergymen, not directly, but

1 Catholic Revision. By Richard F. Littledale, LL.D., pp. 26, 27. London :
Palmer. 1867.

2 Ibid. p. 28. 3 Ibid. pp. 21, 22.

PROSECUTING EVANGELICAL CLERGYMEN 41 I

by a side wind. And if Parliament does not refuse
the present demand of High Churchmen to hand over
the government of the Church to the clergy who compose
her Convocations, with a merely nominal control by the
Legislature, Prayer Book Revision on these Romanising
lines may, ere long, become an alarming fact.

There was another subject of interest which occupied
the attention of the E.C.U. during the first year of its
existence. For some time previously Sunday Services for
the People had been held in Exeter Hall, and Theatres, at
which many eminent Church of England Clergymen and
Nonconformist Ministers had preached the Gospel to
immense congregations, and with the most blessed results.
But these services were an abomination in the eyes of the
Ritualists of the day. Referring to the Vicar of St. Michael's,
Burleigh Street, in whose parish Exeter Hall is situated, the
Union said : — "Mr. Edouart might as well shut up his Church
and take a holiday so long as this monster conventicle at
Exeter Hall is braying away in his ears, with Dr. Tait's
connivance." l This Vicar did all that lay in his power to
stop the Exeter Hall Services, though they in no way
interfered with the attendance at his own Church. He ap
pealed to the Bishop, who told him that he would take the
responsibility from off his shoulders, and so, after a vain
struggle, the Vicar gave up the contest, and withdrew his
active opposition, under protest. But when he dropped the
case, the new English Church Union took it up, at least
so far as it related to Theatres, and endeavoured to settle
the question by a prosecution of the clergymen who dared
to preach the Gospel in such places. First of all, they
obtained a legal opinion from Dr. Phillimore, and after that
they set about the task of finding a man qualified and willing
to act as an aggrieved prosecutor. But all their efforts in
this direction were in vain. They discovered that the only
man who could act as prosecutor was the Vicar, and he
was unwilling to act. So in grief and with much wailing,
the English Church Union had to give up the case, and
afterwards relate what they had done to their disappointed

1 Union, July 23, 1858, p. 476.

412 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

subscribers, in their annual report. And this is what the
Committee of the Union said : —

" Your Committee have next to report that the attention of the
Society has been directed to the great scandal which has been given
by certain clergymen of the Church of England, consorting with
Dissenting preachers, in the use of Theatres for public worship, in
London and elsewhere.

"An opinion upon the legality of sucn proceedings has been
obtained from Dr. Phillimore, by the Society, and published in the
newspapers ; but the difficulty of ' promoting the office of Judge ' in
the Ecclesiastical Courts against offenders is very great ; and, indeed,
it cannot be promoted at all except at the instance of the Incumbent
of the parish in which the Theatre is situated. It does not, therefore,
appear to your Committee that there is any hope of putting down
this profane and degrading practice by an appeal to the law." *

The Union might easily have abstained from such a
display of narrow-minded bigotry as was exhibited by
terming the preaching of the Gospel in Theatres "a great
scandal/' and even a "profane and degrading practice."
But the most important thing to notice in connection with
this case, is the startling fact that, in the very first year
of its existence, the English Church Union endeavoured
to get up an ecclesiastical prosecution of Evangelical clergy,
for an alleged breach of the law. And when we remember
how, a few years since, this self-same Union denounced the
wickedness of ecclesiastical prosecutions, when their friends
were the defendants, and literally howled with rage, and even
appealed to the sympathies of the public with whining
tears, it makes one feel an utter contempt for such in
consistent conduct. The position of the E.C.U. with
respect to prosecutions seems to be well expressed in the
words of the big and cowardly schoolboy : — " I may hit
you ; but you musn't hit me ! "

And here I may be permitted to mention a few facts prov
ing the great admiration of the English Church Union for
Ecclesiastical Prosecutions in its early days. In February
1860 the celebrated Essays and Reviews appeared, contain
ing seven Essays written respectively by Frederick Temple,
D.D., now Archbishop of Canterbury ; Rowland Williams,

1 First Annual Report of the English Church Union, pp. 23, 24.

THE E.C.U. AND PROSECUTIONS 413

D.D. ; Baden Powell, M.A. ; Henry B. Wilson, B.D. ;
Mark Pattison, B.D. ; Rev. Benjamin Jowett, M.A.; and
C. W. Goodwin, M.A. A letter was written, signed by all
the Bishops in England and Ireland, expressing disappro
bation of certain opinions attributed to the writers, and in
July 1864, the book was condemned by both Houses of
Convocation. But, meanwhile, the High Church Bishop
of Salisbury (Dr. W. K. Hamilton) decided to prosecute
separately one of the Essayists, the Rev. Dr. Rowland
Williams, who was Vicar of Broad Chalke, in the Diocese
of Salisbury. The Ritualistic party hailed the prosecution
with the utmost delight, nor were Evangelical Churchmen
behindhand in their approval. Canon Liddon says that
" Bishop Hamilton's action in instituting the suit against
Dr. Williams was warmly supported by Pusey, who was
at first as sanguine about its results as he was convinced
of its necessity." l The English Church Union hailed the
prosecution with unbounded delight. In their second
annual report, in 1861, the Council of the Union referred
to the institution of a suit by the Bishop of Salisbury against
Dr. Williams in the Ecclesiastical Court of Arches : —

"A suit, after the most mature deliberation, has been com
menced by the Bishop of Salisbury. The Council commend him and
his sacred cause to the prayers and good offices of the Union, though
experience of the Ecclesiastical Courts, as now constituted, in these
our unhappy intestine wars, proves that the issue must be doubtful." 2

The charges against Dr. Williams were of a most serious
character, involving doctrines of great importance, yet in
the opinion of the E.C.U., in 1861, the existing Ecclesias
tical Courts were capable of giving judgment on them.
At that time it was thought by the Union that to prosecute
all clerical offenders against the Church's laws was the
bounden duty of every Bishop. The Church Review was
then the property of the E.C.U., and was edited by its
secretary. Commenting on the prosecution of Dr. Williams,
it asked :—

" How can a Bishop be ready, as he is under so solemn a vow to
be, to ' banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine,

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iv. p. 43.

2 Second Annual Report of 'the English Church Union, p. 15.

414 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

contrary to God's Word,' if, when one of his clergy writes and
publishes an infidel work, he will not use the means which the law
provides for making an example of him to his diocese and to the
Church?"1

In the following year the E.C.U. demanded that the
Evangelical Bishop of Carlisle (as well as Bishop Colenso)
should be compelled to retract his Protestant opinion as to
Baptismal Regeneration, or be prosecuted : —

" We call upon all our fellow-Churchmen," said the Church
Revieiu, "who take an interest in the maintenance of the Catholic
faith, to unite in this our remonstrance, and to join with us in the
demand that the heretical bishops [i.e. Waldegrave and Colenso]
shall be called to account; and unless they formally retract the
wicked errors promulgated by them, put upon their trial. If we be
asked to point out the tribunal before which they are to be arraigned,
we answer, according to the latest precedents in the law books,
before the Archbishop, who, virtute officii, possesses jurisdiction over
the Bishops of his province. In the case of the Bishop of Carlisle
this would probably be held sufficient ; but if not, or in the case
of the Bishop of Natal (the English Ecclesiastical law not being in
force in the Cape Colony), let proceedings be instituted under the
old Canon Law . . . The tribunal so constituted has power, not
only to inquire into the accusation, but if the Bishop arraigned
before it be found guilty, to visit his offence with canonical punish
ment^ extending to deprivation, and even to deposition and degra
dation."*

If the English Church Union could at that time, by an
Ecclesiastical prosecution, have secured the deprivation,
deposition, and degradation of the Evangelical Bishop
Waldegrave, it would, I doubt not, have shouted aloud
for joy. Their hatred of the Evangelical party, and their
desire to expel them from the Church of England, comes
out very clearly in the leading article I have just quoted
from the official organ of the Union. If they had suc
ceeded, the Union would, I doubt not, have been as much
addicted to prosecuting Protestants as the Church Asso
ciation afterwards became in prosecuting Ritualistic law
breakers. The great difference between these two societies

1 Church Review, September 1 86 1, p. 1 66.

2 Ibid. May 17, 1862, p. 301.

THE E.C.U. AND PROSECUTIONS 415

is that the E.C.U. failed, while the Church Association
succeeded in proving their opponents to be law-breakers.
And although we have, in recent years, occasionally heard
assurances from certain Ritualists that they have no wish
or desire to expel Evangelicals from the Church, I, for one,
am not disposed to place any confidence in such assurances.
Give but the English Church Union the power, and within
ten years there would not be a Protestant clergyman of
Evangelical views left within the Church of England, and
then we should soon have a Church willing, anxious, and
ready to fraternise with the Pope, and submit once more
to Papal supremacy.

There was one thing which troubled the English
Church Union very much. Ecclesiastical prosecutions of
clergy were very cumbersome, costly, and prolonged, and
therefore, at its ordinary meeting, held in the offices on
April 7, 1862, the President (the Hon. Colin Lindsay) in
the chair, a resolution was carried demanding that pro
secutions, not only of priests, but even of Archbishops and
Bishops, should be facilitated — so anxious were they to
put down all their opponents by the strong arm of the law !
The resolution was as follows : —

" That, whilst facilitating the bringing to trial of priests for heresy
and breaches of Church discipline and morality, there should be a
mode of procedure laid down for dealing with Archbishops and
Bishops, if they should offend against the law."1

The Great Exhibition, held in 1862, brought to our
shores a large number of foreign Protestant pastors.
Several of them were invited by Evangelical clergymen to
officiate in their churches. The English Church Union
was greatly alarmed when it heard the news, and at once
took energetic action, and at its annual meeting in June
the Council reported: — "The Council have drawn the
Bishop of London's attention to the subject, with the view
of inducing him to exert his authority, as his lordship's
lamented predecessor, Bishop Blomfield, did in 1851 ; and
have also submitted a case for the opinion of eminent counsel,
in order to determine upon the best mode of enforcing the

1 Church Review, April 12, 1862. p. 229.

41 6 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

/aw."1 In quoting this it must not be supposed that I
object to the E.C.U., or anybody else, "enforcing the
law." Evangelical Churchmen are not afraid of the law,
and are quite willing to obey it. Of course, the Church
Review applauded the action of the Council. One might
almost think, in reading the following comments of that
newspaper, that he was reading the present official organ
of the Church Association : —

" It is not the fault of the English Church Union that the
Unordained Foreign ' Protestant Pastors ' are allowed to persist in
setting both the law of the Church and the law of the land at
defiance, by officiating in chapels of the Church of England in this
metropolis. True to the obligations of an Association established
for the purpose of defending and maintaining unimpaired the dis
cipline as well as the doctrine of the Church of England, her Council
have earnestly endeavoured to enforce the law which requires that no
one shall presume to officiate ministerially in any of the places of
worship of the Church who is not in her Holy Orders, and thereby
duly qualified for the sacred charge. But as they with whom, after
all, the duty rests of giving practical effect to the requirements of the
law refuse to act in the case, the Council are unable, without
embarking in an expensive and probably protracted course of
litigation, to do more than they have done in pursuance of that
object."2

It will be observed that in " endeavouring to enforce the
law," the E.C.U. is described as "true to the obligations"
with which it commenced its career. Unfortunately for
the Union, there seems to be no law left in 1900 for it to
enforce. The law is on the side of Protestant Churchmen.
In this same year the Rev. D. I. Heath, Vicar of Brading,
Isle of Wight, was condemned by the Judicial Committee of
Privy Council for teaching certain Broad Church doctrines
contrary to the teaching of the Church of England, and it
confirmed the sentence of deprivation of his living passed
upon him by the Court below. And this is the way in
which the English Church Union, through its official organ,
hailed with great satisfaction the judgment of the now
hated " State " Court. This is what it said :— " This, then,

1 Third Annual Report of the English Church Union, p. 15.

2 Church Review, July 26, 1862, p. 459.

E.C.U. PRAISE OF PROSECUTIONS 417

is substantially the judgment of the Privy Council in the
case in question. And one who has been proved guilty of
such an anomaly and scandal, and refuses to revoke his
errors, is justly sentenced to deprivation. Let us hope it will
act as a salutary warning." x One of the strongest defences
of suppressing lawlessness in the Church by the strong arm
of the law, was published by the English Church Union, in
its official organ, early in 1863. It is well worth reading.
The article was headed " Prosecutions for Heresy," and in
reply to those who objected to prosecutions it said : —

" Now, to all this ribald nonsense we simply reply that a tainted
sheep is removed from the flock, not for his punishment — save as
that punishment may be the means of recovery to health — but that
the rest of the flock may not be infected. To silence the teacher of
heresy is the plain duty of the Church s governors. Whether that
silence shall be only for a definite time, or for life, or until the
offender has purged himself of his wrong-doing, ought to depend
upon the particulars of each offence. But the object of the
temporary punishment of an heretical priest must be always con
sidered to be, first, the protection of the flock entrusted to his charge
from his pernicious influence ; and, next, his own correction, with a
view to a recantation of his error, and his submission to her judg
ment who has authority { in controversies of faith.' If any one is so
unmindful of his Ordination vows as to write against the faith to
which they have solemnly committed him, he can only be dealt with
by the action of the law. It is the only means by which he can be set
right. And right he must be set, or he will make others go wrong.
How can the man who is himself in doubt teach others the truth ?
And if he have disqualified himself from discharging the prophet's
office, why should he take the prophet's pay ? . . . The Church's
revenues are for the teaching of the Church's faith. Let those who
do not hold that faith be restrained from the sacrilege of appropriat
ing funds which have been provided to teach and maintain it." 2

Dr. Pusey formed one of "three aggrieved" ones, who, in
1863, prosecuted for heresy Professor Jowett, late Master
of Balliol College, Oxford, but with the result that the case
against Professor Jowett was dismissed by the Oxford
Chancellor's Court. Dr. Pusey found it necessary, before
the case was heard, to write to the Times, of February 19,

1 Church Review^ June 14, 1862, p. 362.

2 Ibid. January 31, 1863, p. 113.

2 D

41 8 HISTORY OF THE HOMEWARD MOVEMENT

1863, a defence of Ecclesiastical Prosecutions, in which he
said : — " Prosecution is not persecution. It would be an evil
day for England when it should be recognised that to appeal
to the majesty of the law is to contravene truth and justice."
The Church Review was delighted with Pusey's letter, and
burst forth in praise of prosecutors. It said : —

"None better than Dr. Pusey know the difference between
prosecution and persecution. There is something noble in the learned
Professor's vindication of the majesty of law. Evil day, indeed, will
it be for England when it shall be deemed an act of cruelty to
afford a man accused of wrong the opportunity of purging himself
from that accusation by the solemn process of a legal inquiry.
Dark will be the gloom which obscures the horizon of England's
Church when there shall not be to be found among her sons any ivho
will have the moral courage to bring before the Courts to which they
may be amenable those who are engaged in poisoning the streams of
religious knowledge at their very fountain head" x

In 1864 the English Church Union unanimously passed
a resolution to start a fund to assist in prosecuting Bishop
Colenso.2 At its annual meeting the same year the Presi
dent of the E.C.U. actually declared that it was the duty of
the Union to obey the decisions of the Law Courts. He
said : — " With respect to discipline the same argument
applies. That which has been laid down in the Canon Law,
and has been received and acted upon in the Church,
especially in her Courts of Judicature, we are, I think, clearly
bound to 'defend and maintain unimpaired.'"3 I do not
think the present President of the English Church Union
would make such a declaration now.

It will thus be seen that in its early years the English
Church Union paraded itself before the public as the great
maintainer of law and order in the Church. And so — to
do it credit — it continued, until it found that law and order
were against its sacerdotal and Romanising claims. From
that time it has slowly adopted the principles of rebellion
against every law and order in the Church opposed to its
preposterous claims, and has, in practice, approved of

1 Church Review, February 21, 1863, p. 183.

2 Ibid. March 19, 1864, p. 285.

3 Ibid. June 18, 1864, p. 603.

E.C.U. SECESSIONS TO ROME 419

every clergyman of the Ritualistic party being a Pope to
himself, and the embodiment of ecclesiastical anarchy.1

The English Church Union has been the best friend to
the Church of Rome seen in England since the Reforma
tion. It has, indeed, in only too many instances, been the
Preparatory School for Rome. In how many it is impos
sible for me to say. But I have discovered that the
78 clergymen in the Church of England, mentioned in the
Appendix on the next page, were members of the English
Church Union when they seceded to Rome. I challenge
the Ritualists to produce a list of those who have seceded
to Rome direct from the ranks of the Church Association.
I do not think they could find even one.

Here for the present I must close, reserving for a future
occasion my general comments on the Romeward Move
ment, and what ought to be the Evangelical policy towards
it. We can learn many things even from our opponents,
and it may be well if the Evangelical party were to learn from
them the wisdom of paying more attention to the outward
organisation of the Church. Those, on the other hand,
who value some of the Romanising changes introduced by
the Ritualists, would do well to remember that it is pos
sible to pay too heavily for even good things. To secure
musical services, and histrionic performances, by a sacri
fice of our Christian liberty to priestly bondage, is at best
a poor bargain.

1 Further information on the attitude of the E.C.U. towards Ecclesiastical
Prosecutions may be found in the pamphlet, Ecclesiastical ProseciUions, Origin
ated and Advocated by the English Church Union. By Walter Walsh, pp. 8.
London : Church Association, 141 Buckingham Street, W.C.

APPENDIX

A LIST OF CLERICAL MEMBERS OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH
UNION WHO HAVE SECEDED TO ROME.

Akers, Rev. George
Andrews, Rev. Septimus
Angus, Rev. George
Barlow, Rev. T. W.
Barnes, Rev. A. S.
Barnes, Rev. Thomas
Bennett, Rev. Morden
Boothby, Rev. Herbert
Briggs, Rev. H. C.
Bromage, Rev. R. R.
Camm, Rev. J. Brooke
Camm, Rev. R. P.
Cane, Rev. V. C. B.
Chase, Rev. C. H.
Clarke, Rev. A. G.
Conder, Rev. R. F. R.
Cooke, Rev. W. A.
Corrance, Rev. H. C.
Darlington, Rev. Joseph
Davis, Rev. T.
Donaldson, Rev. A. M.
Duthie, Rev. C. J.
Duthoit, Rev. W.
Egerton, Rev. J.
Eskrigge, Rev. J.
Farman, Rev. S.
Fawkes, Rev. A.
Filmer, Rev. J. H.
Fletcher, Rev. Philip
Foster, Rev. C. G.
Fownes, Rev. J. E. C.
Godley, Rev. R. J. D.
Gorman, Rev. G. T.
Greene, Rev. Joseph J.
Grindle, Rev. E. S.
Grisewood, Rev. H.
Hardy, Rev. H. J.
Hickman, Rev. H.
Hoare, Rev. J. W. D.

Hodson, Rev. C. E.

Hope, Rev. Douglas

Hunnybun, Rev. W. M.

Jackson, Rev. Edmund

Kennard, Rev. C.

King, Rev. Owen C.

Lord, Rev. F. B.

Lyall, Rev. W.

Madan, Rev. J. R.

Mather, Rev. F. H. V.

Maturin, Rev. B. W.

Milton, Rev. A. T.

Newdegate, Rev. A.

North, Rev. H. W.

Osborne, Rev. Lord T. Godolphin

Paine, Rev. A. H.

Parker, Rev. H. M.

Phillipps-Treby, Rev. E. M.

Powell, Rev. A. H.

Rivington, Rev. Luke

Russell, Rev. H. P.

Sankey, Rev. R. B.

Sharpe, Rev. A. B.

Shipley, Rev. Orby

Sperling, Rev. J. H.

Sproston, Rev. S.

Stanley, Rev. the Hon. A. G.

Tatlock, Rev. W.

Tatum, Rev. G. B.

Theed, Rev. E. A.

Tydd, Rev. T. H.

Walls, Rev. C. J.

Watson, Rev. E. J.

Wedgwood, Rev. R.

Westall, Rev. A. St. L.

White, Rev. J. B.

Wilson, Rev. H. L.

Wood, Rev. R. S.

Wyndham, Rev. F. M.

INDEX

ACTON, Cardinal, startlingJetter to, 196,

197
Adapted Roman books, quotations

from, 242-244

Newman's opinion of, 241

Bishop Hamilton on, 241

— Bishop Wilberforce on, 242

— Bishop Blomfield on, 245

Dr. Hook says they "will make

men infidels," 242
Alderson, Baron, 307
Allies, Rev. T. W., 239
pays " a sacred debt to the Roman

Church," 305
writes in defence of a Church he

"thoroughly hated," 304

— exercises a " laudable subtlety,"

305

claims to hold Roman doctrine,

307

his interview with the Pope, 308

and Bishop Wilberforce, 304-308

extracts from his Journal in

France, 305, 306
Altars, condemned by the Judicial

Committee of Privy Council, 264,

359
- Bishop Gilbert on, 291

Apostolic succession, accepted by
Froude, Keble, Palmer, and New
man, 9

Argyll, Duke of, on Protestant unity,

Arnold, Rev. Dr. Thomas, his Prin
ciples of Church Reform^ 26-28

on the rights of laymen, 26

on Tract X., 44

— on Tract XC., 154

Ashley, Lord, and the Jerusalem

Bishopric, 202-205, 210.
Association of Friends of the Church,

33-37

its real objects, 34, 35

Association for the promotion of the
Unity of Christendom, The, 349-357

its founders' traitorous and secret

message to the Pope, 356

Auricular Confession, Pusey's Protes
tant notes on, 133-135

Auricular Confession, Pusey afraid to

practise, 132
Pusey goes to, for first time,

133

Bishop Blomfield denounces a

preacher of, 271

and Clerical Retreats, 282, 283

Episcopal inquiry into, at St.

Saviour's, Leeds, 321-325

wives and, 321

questioning women on the Seventh

Commandment defended, 324, 325,

378, 379

a Plymouth inquiry concerning,

337, 338

— Puseyite identical with Roman,

351

charges against the Rev. Alfred

Poole as to, 374-380

BAGOT, Bishop, on the Tracts for the

Times, 107, 108, 222, 223
and the Oxford Martyrs Memorial,

112, 119

on Tract XC., 166-168, 222.

on the proposal to prosecute

Pusey, 233
Barnabo, Cardinal, De Lisle's startling

revelations to, 352-354

reply from to De Lisle, 354

Barnes v. Shore, 273-276

Bateman, Mr. James, and Theological

Colleges, 388, 389
Bath Judgment, The, 344-346
protest against, 348

Beckett, Rev. H. F., on the Confessions

of wives, 323
Belaney v. Totton, 234
Bellasis, Mr. Serjeant, 139
Bennett, Rev. W. J. E., 317-320

the Bishop of London and the,

317-320
Bickersteth, Rev. E., on the Library of

the Fathers, 90

Bird, Bishop, replies to Protestant pro
tests, 237

Blachford, Lord, on Cranmer, in, 217
Blackburn, Protest against Puseyism
from, 237

421

422

INDEX

Black Gown in the Pulpit, The, de
clared to be legal, 248

at Exeter, 268, 269

Blomfield, Bishop, prosecutes the Rev.
F. Oakeley, 141-143

censures Tract XC., 179

on "Adapted" Roman books,

245

denounces a preacher of Auricular

Confession, 271

the Romanising party severely

censured by, 316, 317

Bloxam, Rev. J. R., 186

his traitorous and secret negotia
tions with De Lisle, 186-191

"a living and moving secret,"

187

Bolton, Protest against Puseyism from,

237

Bowden, Mr. J. W., 25, 89

Boyle, Dean, on the effect of Pusey's
Confessional work, 280

Brawling in Church, case of Burder v.
Langley, 235, 236

B reeks v. Woolfrey, 125-127

Bricknell, Rev. W. S., his Judgment
of the Bishops upon Tract arian Theo
logy cited, 178, 179

Brighton Protestant Defence Commit
tee, 23

Bristol Church Union, The, 326-
330

a " Statement of Principles " of,

328, 329

opposed by Pusey and Keble, 328,

330

Bull, Rev. Henry, 400, 401
Bunsen, Baron, on Hampden's election,

80, 81

and Pastor Sporlein, 117, 118

and the Jerusalem Bishopric, 201-

204, 211

Burder v. Langley, 235, 236
Burgon, Dean, 396
Butler, Dean, on Clerical Retreats, 282,

283

CAMBRIDGE, Holy Sepulchre Church,
restoration of, 251-253
— judgment in case of, 252, 253

Camden Society, denounced by

Dr. Close, 254

Camoys, Lord, on the Puseyite Move
ment, 234

Candlesticks and Candles, judgment of
Judicial Committee on, 359

Cardwell's Doctrinal Annals, 42

Church, Dean, on the Evangelical
Movement, 4

on the Reformers, ill

Church, Dean, on the contest for the

Poetry Professorship, 215
Church Unions, 326
Church and State, views of the early

Tractarians on, 24-26
Clerical Retreats, 282, 283
Close, Rev. Dr. , on The Restoration Oj

Churches is the Restoration of Popery,

254, 255
Collette, Mr. Charles Hastings, on

Newman's ordination as a Roman

Catholic priest, 261, 262
Coloured Cloths on Communion Table,

judgment of Judicial Committee on,

359

Confession (see ' 'Auricular Confession ")
Copleston, Bishop, censures Tract XC,,

179
Corporate Reunion with Rome, 115-

117, 159-164
Pusey on the basis of, 144, 145

— secret negotiations with Romanists
for, 184-200

Cowley Fathers, The, on priests as

peacemakers, 10
Credence Tables, 252, 253, 359
Cross, The, on the Communion Table,

288, 289

judgment of Bishop Phillpotts,

288

Mr. B. Whitehead on the law as

to, 289

Crosses, judgment of Judicial Com
mittee on, 360

Cuddesdon Theological College, 389-
392, 394, 396, 404

DALGMRNS, Mr. J. D., 160, 257

De Lisle, Mr. Ambrose Phillipps, on

Tract IV., 43
on Tract XC., 165, 166

— becomes a secret emissary to
Oxford, 185

— Newman opens his heart to, 185

promises to bring some foreign

Theologians to Oxford, 186

his secret negotiations with the

Oxford leaders, 184-200

his first visit to Oxford, 187

— letter to Cardinal Barnabo, 352-

354
Denison, Archdeacon, 330

— Bishop Spencer's correspondence
with, 341-342

the Rev. Joseph Ditcher pro
secutes, 342-346

Ditcher v. Denison, 342-346
Dodsworth, Rev. William, exposure of

Pusey's Confessional practice by, 309,

310, 313

INDEX

423

Dominic, Father, his narrative of New
man's reception into the Church of
Rome, 257, 258

Dublin Review ^ 115, 136

on Froude's Remains •, 20, 104

EAST GRINSTEAD Convent, 363-374

Egerton v. All of Rode, 129, 130

Elphinstone v. Purchas, 289

Embroidered Lace on Communion
Table, judgment of Judicial Com
mittee on, 359

English Churchman, The, started by
the Puseyites, 238

recommends the prosecution of

Evangelicals, 246, 247

denounces public praying in an

unconsecrated place, 271, 272

wishes to reduce the distance to

Rome, 289
English Church Union, The, 408-420

the first founders of, 408

and Prayer Book Revision, 409

and services in theatres, 411, 412

attempt to prosecute Evangelical

clergy by, 411, 412
and Essays and Reviews, 412,

413
praises the prosecution of the Rev.

Dr. Rowland Williams, 413
wants to prosecute Archbishops

and Bishops, 415

demands the prosecution of the

Evangelical Bishop of Carlisle, 414

obedience to the Courts promised

by the President of, 418
list of Clerical Seceders to Rome

from the ranks of, 420
Episcopal Veto, The, denounced by

Bishop Phillpotts, 77

judgments of Justices Hill and

Wightman on, 385, 386

Evangelical Churchmen and the
Puritans, 3

the real descendants of the Pro
testant Reformers, 2

Puseyite anxiety to expel, 246-248

Evangelical Movement, The, Canon

Liddon on, 3

— Mr. Gladstone on, 4
Mr. H. O. Wakeman on, 4

Dean Church on, 4

Lord Shaftesbury on, 5

Earl of Selborne on, 5

- Rev. W. H. B. Proby on, 5
Mr. Lecky on, 6, 7

not a supplement to the Oxford

Movement, 7-10

— Its spiritual and philanthropic
blessings, 3-7

Exeter Surplice Riots, 268, 269

FABER, Rev. F. W., his Sights and
Thoughts in Foreign Churches, 218-

220

how he deceived the public, 218

Faber, Rev. G. Stanley, 102, 181,

224
Fasting, Pusey's Tract on, 42

— Homily on, 42

Fathers, The, Pusey's quotations from,

234

Tractarians and, 90, 91, 133

Faussett, Rev. Dr., on The Revival oj

Popery, 99, 100
denounces Dr. Pusey's sermon on

the Eucharist, 227
Freelandv. Neale, 291, 292
Freemantle, Dean, 401
Froude, Rev. R. H., 109

on Apostolic Succession, 9

on Tradition and the Bible, II

— on Church and State, 24, 25

— Extracts from his Remains, 96, 97,

Newman on the opinions of, 92

Dr. Hook on his Remains, 106, 107

Fust, Sir Herbert Jenner, Judgment in
the Oakeley Case, 142, 143

— Judgment in Breeks v. Woolfrey,
126

Judgment in Faulkener v. Litch-

field, 252, 253

Judgment in Barnes v.

275, 276

Judgment in Freelandv. Neale, 291

Shore,

Judgment in Gorham v. Bishop of

Exeter, 294

GARBETT, Rev. James, The, contest
for the Poetry Professorship at Ox
ford by, 212-217

attempt to prosecute for heresy,

250

Gilbert, Bishop, and Sackville College,
290-292

and St Margaret's, East Grin-
stead, 365, 366

Girdlestone, Rev. G, 37

Gladstone, Mr. W. E., on Evangelical
Churchmanship, 4

describes the services at Margaret

Chapel, 140

— and St. Saviour's, Leeds, 287

Golightly, Rev. C. P., exposes the
Romahisers, 181, 182

and the Lavington case, 385, 386

and Cuddesdon College, 389-392

on the Alarming State of the

Diocese of Oxford, 393-404

424

INDEX

Golightly v. the Bishop of Chichester,

385-386

Goode, Dean, n, 91, 220-223, 301
Gorham Case, The, 292-303
• Judgment of Sir H. Jenner Fust

in, 294

Judgment of the Judicial Com

mittee of Privy Council in, 295-297
Clerical Declaration in support of

judgment in, 336
Griffiths, Rev. John, 154, 156

HADLEIGH, Tractarian Conference at,

29-31

Newman's report of, 31

Hamilton, Bishop, on Pusey's "Adap
ted " Roman books, 241
Hampden, Rev. Dr. R. D., the case of

the, 46-85
appointed Regius Professor of

Divinity, 50
Lord Melbourne on opposition to,

51, 63

Dean Stanley on opposition to, 54

his Letter to the Archbishop of

Canterbury, 64
appointed Bishop of Hereford, 67

— protest of thirteen Bishops, 67

reply of the Prime Minister, 68

Archdeacon Hare's reply to the

critics of, 69, 70
• Pusey and Keble try to prosecute,

72-77

Election of, as Bishop of Hereford,

77-79, 82, 83

protest at Bow Church, 80

— • addresses of sympathy with, 83, 84
Hare, Archdeacon, 69, 70
Hawker, Rev. John, 275
Hawkins, Rev. Dr., 55, 56, 84, 231,

232

Heath, Rev. D. I., 416
Homilies, The, on Prayer for the Dead,

126

Homily on Fasting, 42
Hook, Rev. Dr., on the Tracts for the

Times andFroude's Remains, 106, 107
subscribes to the Jerusalem

Bishopric Fund, 206
the Romanisers denounced by the,

207, 250, 322

thinks Pusey under Jesuit influ
ence, 268

charges Pusey with Jesuitism, 285

refuses to join the Yorkshire

Church Union, 330
Hope-Scott, Mr. James R., 169, 238,

260
opposition of, to the Jerusalem

Bishopric, 205, 206

ISLINGTON Clergy and High Church
principles, 101

JELF, Rev. William Edward, on Con
fession, 281

Jelf, Rev. Dr. W. J., 159
Jerusalem Bishopric, The, 201-212

- Dr. Hook supports, 206-208

Mr. Gladstone supports, 21 1

Pusey's bitter opposition to, 209,

210

— Lord Ashley and, 202-205, 210
Newman's protest against, 211,

212

Jesuitism, Pusey charged with, by

Hook, 268, 285
Jowett, Professor, prosecuted by Dr.

Pusey, 417, 418
Judicial Committee of Privy Council,

The, Archbishop Tait on, 331
Judgment of, in Liddellv. Wester-

ton, 253, 264, 359, 360
Judgment of, in B ureter v. Lan^Iey,

236

— Judgment of, in Gorham v. the
Bishop of Exeter, 295-297

— Judgment of, in Barnes v. Shore,
276

- Lord John Russell on, 332

— Judgment in Ditcher v. Denison,
346

Judgment in Martin v. Mac-

konochie, 361

KEBLE, Rev. John, author of the Ox
ford Movement, 12

his sermon on National Apos
tasy, 22

— tries to prosecute Dr. Hampden,
72-77

— on the Reformers, ur

— on Catholic Subscription, 172-176

LANGLEY, Rev. W. H., suspended for
Brawling in his own Church, 235,
236

Lavington Case, The, 381-387
Lay Address to the Queen, 332-334

— Royal action on the, 334

— to the Archbishop of Canterbury,

335

Lecky, Mr., on the Evangelical Move
ment, 6, 7
Leeds, St. Saviour's, 262-264, 284-287

the Rev. Richard Ward and, 285,

286

— Hook terms it "a semi-Papal
colony," 286

traitorous resolution by clergymen

at, 321

INDEX

425

Leeds, St. Saviour's, Confessional in
quiry at, 321-325
scandalous Statement by the clergy

of, 323-325

secessions to Rome from, 325

Library of the Fathers, 90, 133
Lichfield Theological College, 388
Liddell v. Westerton, 253, 264, 357-

361

Liddell, Dean, 53
Liddon, Canon, on the Evangelical

Movement, 3, 7

and Cuddesdon Theological Col
lege, 391, 392

Littledale, Rev. Dr., on the Protestant
and Catholic Religions, 8

on Prayer Book revision, 409, 410

Lushington, Dr., 307, 343, 358
Lyne, Mr. Francis, 44

MACLAGAN, Archbishop, on Episcopal
prosecutions, 143

Macmullen, Rev. R. G., 65, 66
— secedes to Rome, 284, 285, 287

Mai, Cardinal, 193, 195

Manning, Archdeacon, on the real ten
dency of Puseyism, 286

Marriott, Rev. Charles, demands the
prosecution of Rev. J. Garbett, 250,

305

on Clerical Retreats, 282

Marshall, Nathaniel, D.D., his Peni
tential Discipline of the Primitive
Church, 281

Martin v. Mackonochie, 361
Maskell, Rev. W., letters on Pusey's

Confessional practice, 309-312
Maurice, Rev. Peter, on Popery in Ox
ford, 101, 102

Metropolitan Church Union, 326, 327
Monk, Bishop, censures Tract XC.,

178

Moresby Faculty Case, The, 130, 131
Mozley, Rev. J. B., 34, 89, 114, 238,

239

his Review of the Baptismal Con
troversy, 303

Mozley, Rev. Thomas, 54, 63, 91,
no

Musgrave, Bishop, censures Tract XC.,
I78

NEALE, Rev. J. M., and Sackville Col
lege, 290-292

the Rev. John Scobell's charges

against the, 363-374

sly and cowardly Confessional prac
tice of the, 363-374

Bishop Gilbert's stern censure of

the, 365, 366

Neale, Rev. J. M., sad condition of
young lady penitent of the, 371,
372

Newman, Mr. F. W., 15, 16, 24, 55
Newman, Rev. J. H., was he ever an
Evangelical? 13

— • on Scripture, tradition, and pri
vate judgment, 10. n, 14

— on Rome as Babylon and Anti
christ, 14, 15

- on the First Prayer Book of
Edward VI., 16

on the essence of sectarian doc
trine, 9

Lectures on Popular Protestantism

quoted, II

on the need for a second Refor
mation, 1 6

— his secret interview with Wiseman
at Rome, 18-21

— its effect upon Wiseman, 19, 20
on Church and State, 25

• on subscription to the Thirty-Nine

Articles, 47, 48
his Elucidations of Dr. Harnpdens

Statements, 53-57
on the worship of images, 104

— and Tract XC, 147-168

— withdraws his censures of the
Church of Rome, 168, 169

— " not to be trusted," 239

— his secession to Rome, 256-258

— his visit to Rome, 259-262

— when was he ordained a Roman
Catholic priest ? 259-262

OAKELEY, Rev. Frederick, 138-146

— at Margaret Chapel, 138-141

— on the work he did there, 138,

139

— claims the right to hold all Roman
doctrine, 140, 142

prosecution and deprivation of,

141-145

on his idea of a loyal Churchman's

work, 146

— his secession to Rome, 146
Oxford, Alarming state of the Diocese

of, 393-404
Oxford Martyrs' Memorial, 109-113

— Pusey objects to it as " unkind to
the Church of Rome," no

Oxford Movement, The, its founders
not sound Protestants, 12

was it born in Oxford or Rome ?

the Rev. William Palmer's narra
tive of its birth, 29

Oxford Protestant Magazine, ill, 112

Overton, Canon, 89

426

INDEX

Overton, Canon, on the difference be
tween Evangelical Churchmen and
Puritans, 3

PALMER, Rev. William (of Magdalen
College) anathematises Protestantism,

183
Palmer, Rev. William (of Worcester

College), 19
his Narrative of Events quoted,

240, 241
Papal Aggression, the, 314-317. 332>

333

Parker Society, the, 224, 225
Percival, Hon. and Rev. A. P., 9, 32
defends the Tracts for the Times,

171, 172

Phillpotts, Bishop, denounces the Epis
copal Veto, 77

censures 7'ract XC., 178

orders the use of the surplice in

the pulpit, 248

withdraws his order, 248

and the Exeter Surplice Riots,

269, 270
prosecutes the Rev. W. G. Parks

Smith, 288, 299

and the Gorham Case, 292-303

threatens to excommunicate the

Archbishop of Canterbury, 300

— Goode's reply to, 301
Piers, Rev. Octavius, prosecuted for

"publicly praying in an unconse-

crated place," 271, 272
Pius IX., his opinion of Dr. Pusey and

his work, 245, 308
secret and traitorous message from

founders of A.P.U.C. to, 356
Poetry Professorship at Oxford, The,

contest for, 212-217
Pusey's indiscreet interference

with, 214, 215
Pollen, Rev. J. H., 321
Poole, Rev. Alfred, the Confessional

case against the, 374-380
Pope, the, Oxford Tractarians wish to

be " in active communion" with, 187
Prayer Book revision, 138, 409
Dr. Littledale advocates, 409,

410

Prayers for the Dead, 125-131
Proby, Rev. W. H. B., on the Evan
gelical Movement, 5
Protestantism, anathematised by Rev.

W. Palmer, 183
Purchas, Rev. John, 387, 388
Puritans, The, difference between and

Evangelical Churchnjen, 3
Pusey, Rev. Dr., 40, 41, 42
joins the Oxford Movement, 41

Pusey, Rev. Dr., tries to prosecute Dr.
Hampden, 72-77

his early Protestantism, 87, 88

founds a Theological Society, 88,

89
his pamphlet on Tendencies to

Roman ism , 119-125
his Protestant notes on Auricular

Confession, 133—135
on the basis of Union with Rome,

144, H5

— his double dealing about Purgatory
and Invocation of Saints, 145

— his sermon on The Holy Eucharist
a Comfort to the Penitent^ 226-234

— suspended by the University of
Oxford, 230

rejects Transubstantiation, 228

— his veracity challenged, 230-232

challenges a prosecution, 233

Bishop Bagot says it was not "a

straightforward proceeding," 233

— his quotations from the Fathers,

234

— his "Adapted" Roman books,
241-245

— extracts from these books, 242-
244

Pope Pius IX. 's opinion of, 245,

308

— thinks God is "drawing" Newman
to Rome, 256

his remarkable correspondence

with Bishop Wilberforce, 265-268

his sermon on Entire Absolution

of the Penitent, 277-279

— Dean Boyle on the effect of Pusey's
Confessional work, 280

— Dr. Hook says that he is under
Jesuit influence, 268

Hook charges him with Jesuit
ism, 285

— will do everything for Roman
Catholics, 287

— exposure by Allies, Dodsworth,
and Maskell of the Confessional
practices of, 309-313

Bishop Wilberforce inhibits, 314

Professor Jowett prosecuted by,

417, 418

in praise of ecclesiastical prose
cutions, 418

RANDALL, Dean R. W., and the Laving-

ton Case, 381-387
Reformation, The, and Justification by

Faith, i, 2
Reformers, Dean Church on, 1 1 1

Lord Blachford on, ill

Rev. Thomas Mozley on, lio

INDEX

427

Reformers, The, Keble on, 1 1 1
Reserve in Communicating Religious

Knowledge, 34, 132

Extracts from, 213

Bishop Wilberforce on, 216, 217

Restoration of Churches, The, Dr.

Close on, 254, 255
Rickards, Rev. S., 35
Rivington, Rev. Luke, 48
Robinson Wright v. Tugwell, 248
Romeward Movement, The, Newman's

subtle plan for promoting it, 115-117

— secret negotiations with Roman
ists to promote the, 184-200, 352-357

Rose, Rev. H. J., 148

Russell, Lord John, on the Hampden

Case, 67-69
the Oxford Movement distrusted

by, 3H

— the Durham Letter by, 315
Russell, Rev. J. F., 88

SACKVILLE COLLEGE, East Grinstead,

290-292

Salisbury (Bishop of] v. Williams, 413
Scobell, Rev. John, case of, against the

Rev. J. M. Neale, 363-374
Secret negotiations with Romanists,

184-201, 352-357
Selborne, Earl of, on the Evangelical

Movement, 5

— on the Fathers, 91

Seventh Commandment, The, question
ing women on, defended by Puseyites,
324, 325, 378, 379

Shaftesbury, Earl of, on the Evangelical
Movement, 5

Shore, Rev. James, case of the, 273-
276

Shrewsbury, Lord, 195

Smith, Rev. W. G. Parks, prosecuted
by Bishop Phillpotts, 288, 289

Society of the Holy Cross, its secret
birth, 349

Solicitors'1 Journal, on Prayers for the
Dead, 128

Sporlein, Pastor, scandalous and traitor
ous advice to, 117, 118

St. Barnabas', Pimlico, 340

St. George's in the East, Riots and
Disturbances at, 405-409

St. Margaret's, East Grinstead, 363-374

Starkey, Rev. Samuel, prosecution of,
for " publicly praying in an unconse-
crated place," 271, 272

Startling and Treacherous Proposal, A,
187-194

particulars sent to Rome, 192-196

Stone Altars, condemned as illegal, 252,
253, 359

Stone Altars, in the Diocese of Oxford,

394, 397, 401
Stuart, Rev. Edward, says we are not

to " go direct to God," 10

— refuses to obey his Bishop, 361,
362

Sumner, Archbishop, on Non-Episco
pal Orders, 23

Sumner, Bishop, suspicious application
to, 281, 282

Surplice in the Pulpit, The, Bishop
Phillpotts orders its use, 248

withdraws his order, 248

disturbances at Exeter, 268, 269

Symons, Rev. Dr., Dr. Pusey's oppo
sition to, 249

Dr. Hook refuses to vote against,

250

failure of the attack on, 250

Tablet, The, on Newman's ordination as

a priest, 260

Tait, Archbishop, on Tract XC., 154
on the Judicial Committee of

Privy Council, 331
a Declaration in favour of the

Gorham Judgment signed by, 336
and the Rev. Alfred Poole's Case,

374-3^0

Taylor, Rev. Rowland (Martyr), 30
Theological College, A, founded by Dr.

Pusey, 88, 89

Theological Colleges, 388-392
Thiny-Nine Articles, The, Newman on

subscription to the, 47, 48

— Keble on Catholic Subscription to,
172-176

Tracts for the Titties, 24, 31, 34, 35,

38, 135, 167, 171, 172
names of the writers of the, 40

— extracts from, 137-139

Mr. John Adolphus, Q.C., on, 44

Dr. Hook on, 106

— Bishop Bagot on, 107, 108
Tract XC., 147-168

— list of pamphlets on, 147-149, note
Newman's object in writing, 149

— extracts from, 150-152

Romanists delighted at the publi
cation of, 152
letter of the Four Tutors on, 152,

153

Dr. Arnold on, 154

resolution of the Heads of Houses

on, 155

how their decision was arrived at,
I56

— Roman Catholic comment on,
164-166

Bishop Bagot and, 166-168, 222

428 INDEX

Tract XC., Pusey's defence of, 176,

177

Manning's opinion of, 177

Episcopal condemnations of, 178,

179
Tucker, Rev. J., 398, 399

WAKEMAN, Mr. H. O., on the Evan
gelical Movement, 4, 8
Ward, Rev. Richard, and St. Saviour's,

Leeds, 285, 286
Ward, Mr. Wilfrid, 159, 188
Ward, Rev. W. G., The, 182, 248
the treasonable letter of, to the

Univers, 160-164

defends Tract XC., 170, 171

double dealing in the Church of

England by, 199

on deception, 220

list of pamphlets on the case of,

248, 249, note

Wells Theological College, 388
West v. Shutlleworth, 127
White, Rev. Blanco, his early warning

to Newman, 16
Wilberforce, Bishop Samuel, and the

liampden case, 55-57, 65, 72-77
on the perils from Puseyism, 239,

240
and the Rev. T. W. Allies, 304-

308

Wilberforce, Bishop Samuel, on Pusey's
"Adapted" Roman books, 242
his remarkable correspondence

with Pusey, 265-268

Dr. Pusey inhibited by, 314

and Cuddesdon Theological Col
lege, 389-392
— and the State of the Diocese of

Oxford, 393-404
Williams, Rev. Isaac, 29

his contest for the Poetry Pro

fessorship at Oxford, 212-217

— extracts from his Reserve in Com
municating Religious Knowledge,
213

Wiseman, Cardinal, his secret interview
with Newman and Froude in Rome,
18-21, 261

its powerful effect on his after

life, 19, 20

— on Froude's Remains, 20, 104

— on Tract XC., 165

— visits the Tractarian leaders at
Oxford, 191, 192

— secret negotiations with the
Romanisers by, 191

Wright, Rev. Dr. William, 387

YORKSHIRE CHURCH UNION, The,
Hook refuses to join, 330

THE END

Printed by BALLANTYNE, HANSON 6* Co.
Edinburgh & London

i 5098
.W29

2fij«#"

IN THE CHURCH '

To0,?*'

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The history of the Romeward movement in the Church of England, 1833-1864"

See other formats