II 
 
 
y/ ?ymnb 
 
SIX LECTURES 
 
 ON THE 
 
 OXFORD MOVEMENT. 
 
SIX LECTURES 
 
 ON THE 
 
 OXFORD MOVEMENT 
 
 AND ITS RESULTS ON THE 
 CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 C. T. CRUTTWELL, M.A., 
 
 Rector of Kibworth, Rural Dean of Gartree II., Hon. Canon of Peterborough, sometime 
 Fellow and Tutor of Merton College, Oxford. 
 
 AUTHOR OF " A LITERARY HISTORY OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY," ETC. 
 
 LONDON : 
 SKEFFINGTON & SON, PICCADILLY, W. 
 
 PUBLISHERS TO H.M. THE QUEEN AND TO H.R.H. THE PRINCE OF WALES. 
 
 1899. 
 
8X50<j8 
 C8 
 
 (preface 
 
 The present volume was put together in the form of 
 Lectures in connection primarily with the Communicants' 
 Guild of St. Peter's, Leicester, and subsequently with the 
 Branches of the Church Reading Union in Leicester and 
 Northampton, formed at the instance of the Lord Bishop 
 of Peterborough. 
 
 A strong desire was expressed that the Lectures should 
 be published, and I have to thank many Church people in 
 the Diocese, and more especially the Venerable J. E. Stocks, 
 Archdeacon of Leicester, and the Rev. F. N. Thicknesse, of 
 All Saints', Northampton, for putting me in a position to 
 comply with this request. 
 
 Under these circumstances, I have thought it right to print 
 the Lectures almost exactly as they were delivered. I am 
 aware that there are disadvantages attending this method of 
 setting forth a subject. But, on the other hand, I am not 
 without hopes that what proved interesting in oral delivery 
 may not be thought unworthy of attention in a continuous 
 shape. 
 
 I cannot pretend to have brought to light any new facts, 
 nor, indeed, to have travelled in any respect outside the 
 beaten track. What I have endeavoured to do is to place 
 in a clear light, and with all the fairness of which I am 
 capable, the principles which underlay the Movement, the 
 designs of its originators, and the broad results of their 
 
 501 
 
VI. 
 
 work. In a case where personal characteristics counted for 
 so much, I have tried my hand at sketching the characters 
 of the principal agents, striving to be sympathetic even 
 where I could not agree. If I have obtruded my own 
 opinions somewhat freely, this was difficult to avoid in a 
 series of popular lectures, intended to guide and influence 
 as well as to instruct, and on this ground I hope it will be 
 condoned. 
 
 The profound interest attaching to the subject may not 
 unreasonably be held to justify the addition of another 
 contribution to the extensive literature already given to the 
 world. Much of this literature consists of original documents 
 of the highest historical value. My humbler object has been 
 to provide a plain, easily-grasped survey of the great Church 
 Revival, which may help the average Churchman to form a 
 correct judgment on the issues, vast and often perplexing, 
 which it has bequeathed to our religious life. 
 
(Content*. 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 ORIGIN OF THE MOVEMENT (1833). 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Influence of Oxford on the religious life of England. State 
 of religious and political feeling in the Church at the time of 
 the Reform Bill. Attitude of the Government towards the 
 Establishment. Bill for the suppression of ten Irish Bishoprics. 
 Feeling at Oxford. Oriel College and its Fellows. Keble's Assize 
 Sermon. Mr. Sikes, of Guilsborough. Hugh James Rose. The 
 Hadleigh Conference. Beginnings of the Movement. A re- 
 assertion of admitted Church principles, not the introduction of 
 novel ideas. Addresses of Clergy and Laity to the Primate. 
 The Church aroused to a consciousness of its strength. Hopeful 
 signs ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 1 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 PROGRESS OF THE MOVEMENT IN OXFORD (1833-1841). 
 
 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. 
 
 Newman starts the Tracts. Estimate of Newman's character 
 and genius. His defects as a party leader. Want of early training 
 in Church principles. Adherence of Dr. Pusey to the Movement. 
 His qualifications for leadership. His hostility to Rationalism. 
 Dr. Hampden. Controversy with Dr. Wiseman. Growing 
 suspicions. Froude's Remains. Isaac Williams's Tract on 
 Reserve. Newman's first misgivings. " What is the Church ? " 28 
 
Vlll. 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 SECESSION OF NEWMAN AND COLLAPSE OF THE 
 MOVEMENT IN OXFORD (1841-1845). 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Fundamental positions of Anglicanism, as stated by Newman. 
 The Thirty-nine Articles. Tract 90. Received with widespread 
 indignation. Protest of the four Tutors. Suppression of the 
 Tracts. Attitude of the University Authorities. Condemnation 
 of Dr. Pusey's sermon. The Jerusalem Bishopric. Junior 
 Tractarian School. Pusey on Ritual. Ward's " Ideal of a 
 Christian Church." Condemnation of it and degradation of 
 Ward. Secession of Ward, Oakley, and Newman. Explanation 
 of Newman's position. Close of the Movement in Oxford ... 57 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 SPREAD OF CHURCH PRINCIPLES IN THE 
 COUNTRY AT LARGE. 
 
 Defeat of the Movement in its original home. Triumph of 
 Liberalism in the University. Pusey the acknowledged leader 
 of the party. Three classes of minds chiefly influenced by it. 
 No Bishop at first among them. Gorham controversy. Second 
 secession to Rome. Typical propagators of early Tractarian 
 principles. Dr. Hook. Archdeacon Denison. Butler of Wantage. 
 Bishop Wilberforce. Extraordinary influence of his Episcopate 84 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 ORGANIZATION OF THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION. 
 
 Anglicanism finally placed on a spiritual basis apart from 
 Establishment. Synodical action of the Church. Revival of 
 Convocation. Houses of Laymen Home organization. Diocesan 
 Conferences. Church Congress. Increase of Colonial Churches. 
 American and Colonial Episcopate. The Colenso controversy. 
 The Pan-Anglican Conference. Women's work in the Church. 
 Sisterhoods. Revival of Gothic architecture ... ... ... 112 
 
ix. 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 INFLUENCE OF THE MOVEMENT ON CEREMONIAL 
 AND DISCIPLINE. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 At first a learned Movement. Methods of popularizing it. 
 Preaching. Ceremonial reverence. The rise of Ritualism. 
 Causes of its increase. Doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. 
 Question of the Church Courts. Attitude of the English Church 
 Union. The so-called Court of the Archbishops. The practice 
 of Confession. The national Protestantism. Summary of results 
 of the Movement. Mr. Walsh's " Secret History." The outlook 138 
 
 POSTSCRIPT 170 
 
Origin of t$t (fllovttnent 
 
Lectures on the Oxford Movement. 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 &t\%in of tU (Wlowmenf. 
 
 HE subject of these Lectures will be the history 
 of the Oxford Movement, its guiding principles, 
 and its resulting influence upon the Church of 
 England. It is a subject full of interest at the 
 present time. One may almost say that every Churchman 
 who claims to form an opinion on the great controversy 
 now being carried on, ought to make himself acquainted 
 with its main outlines. I shall endeavour to bring it before 
 you in the spirit of sympathy, but not of partisanship ; to do 
 justice to its ideal, without denying its elements of weakness. 
 My object will be attained if some of those who hear me are 
 induced to study its history for themselves, and so to bring 
 to their practical preferences a judgment instructed and 
 disciplined by the impartial evidence of facts. 
 
 Before proceeding to the origin of the Movement I am led, 
 in the first place, to make one or two reflections upon the 
 influence in our national life of that famous University from 
 which it takes its name. 
 
 From the Middle Ages onward the learning of Oxford has 
 
(right of tf)e $lobement. 
 
 invariably been made subservient to practical aims. Its 
 object, or, at any rate, its result, has been not so much the 
 advancement of scientific knowledge as the training of public 
 men. Oxford has devoted herself not so much to pure 
 scholarship and pure theology as to making scholars and 
 theologians. She has been pre-eminently a school for 
 Statesmen and Churchmen, and, as such, she has made 
 her mark upon the religious history of the nation. Ideas 
 generated in her lecture-halls have made their way into the 
 arena of public life, and have been tested, not only by their 
 scientific or theological accuracy, but by their power to 
 guide or thwart the dominant religious tendencies of the 
 time. 
 
 At least four important religious movements owe their 
 origin to Oxford. The first was that of Wiclif, a genuine 
 popular leader, who carried the profoundest sacred learning 
 of his day from the professor's chair in the University to the 
 parsonage of Lutterworth : and with no higher vantage 
 ground than that of a rural clergyman confronted the serried 
 ranks of a hierarchy armed with position, wealth, and spiritual 
 prestige, and was not worsted in the struggle. To Wiclif 
 we owe the inheritance of the Bible in our native tongue, 
 the most precious gift ever made to England since the faith 
 of Jesus Christ was first planted on our shores. As a 
 political and social reconstructor, as well as a great religious 
 reformer, he will ever be closely associated with mediaeval 
 Oxford, whose intellectual restlessness and many-sided 
 activity he so strikingly represents. 
 
 The second Movement that issued from Oxford was the 
 systematized Churchmanship of Laud. Laud was, doubtless, 
 inferior to Wiclif in genius and learning, but he possessed 
 great qualities of ecclesiastical statesmanship, to which, 
 
<$rtgm of tf)e iftlobement. 
 
 after long disparagement, due recognition has at last been 
 given. As President of St. John's College he began the 
 work of Anglican reconstruction within a limited field. 
 When raised to the See of London, and afterwards of 
 Canterbury, he was able to use his high position for 
 enforcing Church doctrine and discipline by a system of 
 government, which, if based on somewhat narrow and 
 vexatious lines, and often unconstitutionally carried out, 
 was nevertheless strong enough to survive his personal 
 defeat, and to reappear under the great Caroline divines as 
 the guiding principle in the final revision of the Book of 
 Common Prayer. 
 
 The third Oxford Movement, though to some of you the 
 term may sound strange in such a connection, was that 
 inaugurated by the Wesleys; yet nothing is more certain 
 than the fact that Wesley's earliest ideal of Christian life 
 was, in the strictest sense of the word, that of a Churchman, 
 and a High Churchman, such as one expects to emanate 
 from Oxford. It was an effort to rise to holiness through 
 a faithful use of the means of grace prescribed by our 
 Church. The lack of sympathy shown by a latitudinarian 
 Episcopate, and the popularity of Whitefield's methods, 
 both combined to divert the missionary zeal of the great 
 Evangelist into channels not recognized by Church authority. 
 Yet there can be no doubt that his sacramental teaching, 
 which has done so much to retain the Wesleyan body within 
 the orthodox Christian confession, was directly due to those 
 Anglican principles which he had learned from his father, 
 and which nourished and matured his own spiritual life in 
 Oxford, and, indeed, long after he had left it. 
 
 The fourth Oxford Movement is that which will form the 
 subject of these Lectures. So exclusively is this associated 
 
<rtgtn of t!)e $lobement. 
 
 with Oxford that it has appropriated the name to itself. 
 Whether in praise or condemnation, all alike confess that 
 the great Church revival amid which we live, which is one 
 of the marvels of the Nineteenth Century, is rightly credited 
 to Oxford, rightly affiliated to the Movement. 
 
 Oxford University is popularly regarded as the historic 
 home of Toryism and High Churchmanship. Like all 
 widely-spread beliefs, this belief has a strong foundation of 
 truth. The traditions and atmosphere of the place for the 
 last two centuries have undoubtedly leaned strongly that 
 way. And even now, when the dominant influence of the 
 resident authorities tends in another direction, the old asso- 
 ciations still exercise immense force. Yet it is worth 
 remarking that both Wiclif and Wesley, widely though 
 they departed from the more obvious tendencies of Oxford 
 teaching, are nevertheless faithful representatives of another, 
 and not less genuine, element in Oxford thought, namely, a 
 strong sympathy with the claims of the individual reason or 
 conscience, which made itself felt in mediaeval, and has 
 been still more conspicuous in recent times. Moreover, the 
 modern Oxford Movement, while reverting in its principles 
 to an older form of Churchmanship, and so far rightly called 
 Conservative, has broken away altogether from any political 
 alliance with Toryism. So far as its doctrines react upon 
 the secular sphere, it is rather tending to become radical, 
 and even socialistic in its ideals. I throw out this point by 
 the way, as outside the scope of my proper subject, and 
 therefore not necessary to dwell on. But it contains such 
 important matter for reflection in estimating the larger issues 
 of the Movement that I do not feel justified in altogether 
 passing it by. 
 
 We may now proceed to enquire what were the causes 
 
<rtgm of tfoe $flo&ement. 
 
 that led to the Movement. The immediate occasion of its 
 taking shape was the danger which threatened the Church 
 in 1833, through the proposal of the Government to suppress 
 ten Irish Bishoprics. For several years past the policy of 
 the State had been antagonistic to the Church. The Repeal 
 of the Test and Corporation Acts in 1828 ; the Roman 
 Catholic Emancipation Act, passed in 1829, avowedly in 
 concession to threats of revolution, had in succession shaken 
 the confidence of Churchmen in the governing powers. Then 
 came the Reform Bill of 1832, and the predominance of 
 democracy in our constitution. It had become evident that 
 Parliament could no longer be held to represent the laity of 
 the Church. How could an assembly which might contain 
 a majority of Dissenters, Unitarians, and Roman Catholics, 
 be fitly entrusted with Church legislation ? 
 
 Anxious thoughts had for years filled the minds of many 
 earnest men. It seemed as if the Church was in a state of 
 torpor, conscious of her peril, but utterly unable to rouse her 
 energies to meet it. 
 
 On the one side there was the prevailing liberalism, of 
 which the inspiring idea was the secular character of the 
 State, and its indifference or impartiality with regard to all 
 forms of religious belief. Consequently, the Church was 
 regarded by it simply as an Establishment, whose laws, 
 ritual, and doctrines must be interpreted in accordance with 
 the decisions of State jurists. The guiding principle in the 
 relations between Church and State it affirmed to be that 
 of public utility ; and no considerations of the spiritual 
 weakening of the Church by what were held to be acts of 
 justice to other bodies were allowed to have any weight. 
 
 On the other side there was the great ecclesiastical body, 
 consisting then, as now, of different schools of thought, 
 
<SMgfn of tf)e jHo&tmtnt. 
 
 which claimed to be the sole legitimate representative of the 
 Church of Christ in England ; but smarting under a sense of 
 wrong, conscious of disunion and weakness, doubtful of its 
 own principles, uncertain whether it still retained the loyalty 
 of the people, and almost afraid to inquire how far the nation 
 as a whole believed its doctrines. 
 
 The late Dean of St. Paul's, in his most sympathetic 
 history of the Movement, has sketched with a master's hand 
 the varieties of religious opinion among the clergy during 
 the period preceding the Reform Bill. There were, first of 
 all, the old-fashioned Anglicans, the High and Dry, as they 
 were sarcastically called. These represented the orthodox 
 High Church School, the tradition that had come down 
 through Hooker and Jewel and Laud and Bull. They 
 were, perhaps, the most numerous body ; but their political 
 and ecclesiastical influence was by no means in proportion 
 to their numbers, owing partly to their scanty representation 
 in the high places of the Church, partly to their own declining 
 zeal in the performance of their sacred duties. Confined 
 mostly to the country districts, where they mixed freely in 
 county society and county business, they filled an indis- 
 pensable place in the national life, but they were out of 
 touch with the deeper religious needs of the people, and 
 confined their ministry to a somewhat barren orthodoxy on 
 the one hand, and a somewhat lifeless routine of practice 
 on the other. There existed, however, among them a far 
 larger proportion than is commonly imagined of men who 
 carried out, in obscure spheres but with genuine loyalty, the 
 ideal of ministerial life presented in the Prayer Book, who 
 read the daily office in Church, visited all their parishioners, 
 and faithfully taught the Church's sacramental system. Such 
 was John Keble, father of that true saint and graceful 
 
<@rtgm of tje JHobement. 
 
 Christian poet, who is perhaps the purest embodiment of 
 the Oxford Movement, and whose poetry has given a voice 
 that will last as long as the English language, to the calm 
 and steadfast religious ideal which the Prayer Book incul- 
 cates, and which the poet first learned in his father's 
 country parsonage. 
 
 But although what are called High Church principles were 
 professed by a majority of the clergy, the weight of influence 
 was decidedly on the side of the Evangelical or Low Church 
 school. They had inherited from Wesley and his disciples, 
 and had developed within the Establishment, the recognition 
 of personal conversion to Christ as the supreme claim of 
 religion upon man's soul. Insisting upon this, they had 
 come to set less store by the outward means of grace, and 
 in many cases disregarded both the letter and spirit of the 
 Prayer Book. But the lofty piety and genuine unworldli- 
 ness of their noblest representatives had won to their side 
 not only a large proportion of the most active and eloquent 
 preachers, but an important following among the highly- 
 placed laity, whose political influence had secured to the 
 clergy of this school a great preponderance among the more 
 prominent positions in the Church. 
 
 This gave them the ear of the educated classes, and an 
 opportunity, had they been equal to it, of coping with the 
 crisis of the time. There were, however, two weak points 
 in their defensive armour, which materially impaired their 
 influence. The first was the decline in their own strictness 
 of life. Formerly they had stood forth as the champions of 
 Christian self-sacrifice and separation from an ungodly 
 world. And this had been the secret of their strength. 
 This had drawn to them the adhesion of earnest statesmen, 
 serious men of business, and devotionally minded women of 
 
8 (agin of tf)t fHoftement. 
 
 high position. But with popularity had come laxity. The 
 claims they made upon professing Christians became less 
 exacting. Fashion brought in compromise. Their eloquent 
 and inspiring appeals no longer corresponded with their 
 lowered and more worldly practice. The inevitable result 
 followed. Their power over the hearts of the people was 
 greatly diminished. 
 
 The second weak point was their defective theology, which 
 appealed too much to the emotions and too little to the 
 intellect and imagination. It could rouse the sinner, but it 
 could not so well build up the saint. It needed to be supple- 
 mented by a larger system of doctrine, which could rest 
 upon the voice of antiquity, the wisdom of scholarship, and 
 the authority of the Catholic Church. The lack of these 
 requisites was bringing Evangelical theology into discredit, 
 and making it impotent to stem the rushing tide of liberal 
 thought. 
 
 Then, lastly, there was a rising school of liberal theology, 
 which represented the tradition of Burnet, Tillotson and 
 Tenison, and which had already produced two names of the 
 highest intellectual eminence, both of them Fellows of Oriel 
 College. I allude to Archbishop Whateley and Dr. Arnold. 
 
 Whateley, in the " Letters of an Episcopalian," published 
 in 1826, brought out with great force the conception of the 
 Church as an organized body, introduced into the world by 
 Christ, endowed with definite spiritual powers and with no 
 other, and whether connected with the State or not, having 
 an independent existence and inalienable claims, with its 
 own objects and laws, its own moral standard, spirit, and 
 character. This was a remarkable position for a liberal 
 Churchman to adopt. It seems to have been the result of 
 Whateley's powerful insight into the realities of things. It 
 
(right of tlje ifffiobenunt. 
 
 does not appear to have had any permanent influence upon 
 his subsequent religious development. It was rather a 
 theory, thrown off, but afterwards abandoned, by a powerful 
 mind in its search for truth. But it had one important result. 
 It aroused in the mind of Newman, then one of his pupils 
 and friends, that conviction of the Church's essential char- 
 acter, which first led him away from the paths of Liberalism . 
 
 Dr. Arnold's view was simpler and more practical. He 
 divided the nation into the two sections of Christians and 
 unbelievers. All were Christians who accepted the Divinity 
 of Christ. Church organization and Sacraments were 
 questions of order, not of life and death. He wished to 
 widen the basis of Churchmanship, so as to include within 
 the National Establishment all those, whether Dissenters or 
 Churchmen, who were orthodox in their confession of Christ. 
 This revolutionary proposal met with no response at the 
 time. But it has been revived in our day by a small section 
 of Church Reformers, though it has gained but little hold on 
 the great body of religious people. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the prospects of the Church 
 after the Reform Bill were far from reassuring. The Bishops 
 were on the whole Erastian : that is, they acted as though 
 their office was conferred by the State, as administrators of 
 its Ecclesiastical Department. The word Erastian has a 
 bad name in these days. But one should remember that it 
 does not properly imply anything insincere, corrupt, or 
 depraved. All it means is that the religious aspect of public 
 life is viewed as a function of government, and so is brought 
 under the same principles of administration as prevail in 
 secular things. Erastianism is an exaggeration of the rights 
 of the laity, made more emphatic by the selection of politi- 
 cally-minded Bishops. Its great danger lies in ignoring 
 
io <@rtgm of tfjc JHobement. 
 
 the spiritual character of the Church's organization, and 
 endeavouring to substitute for her spiritual methods the 
 external agencies of wealth, position, or local influence. It 
 sees that such things are all-powerful in matters of this 
 world, and it fails to see why they should not be sufficient 
 in religious matters also. This habit of mind is far from 
 extinct now. It was rampant sixty years ago. The Bishops 
 in those days associated almost entirely with public men ; 
 they were wholly out of touch with the clergy whom they 
 ruled. The Church was full of pluralities, wealthy dignities, 
 and sinecure appointments. Its abuses were many, its seem- 
 ing weakness great. Its enemies felt encouraged to strike 
 a telling blow. 
 
 One cannot wonder at their confidence. A widespread 
 suspicion existed that the Establishment was doomed. After 
 carrying the Reform Bill, Lord Grey had proceeded to call 
 upon the Bishops to set their house in order. Men's minds 
 were in a state of uncertainty, indignation and dread. They 
 fully expected some sweeping measure of Church Reform, 
 which would so cripple the Church's resources as practically 
 to destroy its position. To the surprise of most observers, 
 the attack was made not on the English but on the Irish 
 Establishment. A Bill was brought in for the suppression 
 of ten Irish Bishoprics in order to provide a source of 
 revenue to take the place of the highly unpopular Church- 
 tax (or " cess," as it was called), which it was now determined 
 to abolish. Viewed in the light of modern liberal opinion, 
 this measure can hardly be stigmatized as revolutionary. 
 Unquestionably, the number of Sees in Ireland was out of all 
 proportion to the number of the clergy, and still more of the 
 Protestant population. A determined resistance, however, 
 was made on the part of the entire Irish Episcopate. They 
 
<rtgi'n of tf)e jHobtment. n 
 
 offered to reduce their incomes to a sufficient extent to pro- 
 vide the revenue (about ^70,000) affected by the Bill. This 
 offer was rejected. The Bill was proceeded with, and finally 
 carried, against the protest of the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 but with the consent of the Bishop of London, and, naturally, 
 to the great satisfaction of Irish Roman Catholics and 
 English Liberals (1833). 
 
 It was during the conflict of opinion produced by this Bill 
 that John Keble was appointed to preach the Assize Sermon 
 in the University Pulpit. To this sermon the man who of 
 all others was best able to judge, 1 always attributed the 
 origin of the Oxford Movement. 
 
 It is necessary, therefore, to pause for a moment, and say 
 a few words about Keble, his genius, his Churchmanship, 
 and his influence. 
 
 And to do this in an intelligible manner it will be advisable 
 to go back a little, and describe the institution which did so 
 much to mould the minds of great men, and which for many 
 years was identified with all that was in Oxford most 
 intellectually progressive, and in Churchmanship most 
 learned and devout. 
 
 Oriel College is one of the smaller Colleges in the 
 University, and by no means one of the wealthiest. It 
 gained its pre-eminence through the skilful administration of 
 its Head or Provost, Dr. Copleston, afterwards Bishop of 
 Llandaff. This gentleman is one of the best examples of 
 the old-fashioned Head of a College. An able administra- 
 tor, decidedly autocratic, but devoted to the welfare of the 
 institution over which he presided, he identified himself with 
 the policy, then first coming into vogue, of raising the position 
 of his College by throwing its fellowships open to competi- 
 
 1 J. H. Newman, in his Apologia. 
 
12 <rtgtn of ti)e fSUktmni. 
 
 tion from members of the other Colleges, and refusing to 
 elect as fellow any candidate who failed to come up to a very 
 high standard, either of learning or of intellectual originality. 
 A simple device, but pre-eminently successful. Early in the 
 century Oriel already boasted of being the most intellectual 
 College in the University. The Common Room, i.e., the 
 society of fellows which met every evening for dinner and 
 conversation, became renowned for the brilliancy of its talk, 
 the daring originality of the ideas circulated, and the 
 unsparing criticism to which every established custom and 
 doctrine, whether secular or religious, was subjected. Men's 
 powers of reasoning, already trained by the severest methods 
 of logic, were developed by the still severer process of open 
 discussion, in which every argument was sifted, without fear 
 or favour, and no conclusion was allowed to pass that could 
 not stand the ordeal of acute and merciless cross-examination. 
 
 Such an atmosphere was not favourable to the spirit of 
 reverence, nor to acquiescence in opinions which, however 
 valuable, had been inherited, not reasoned out. Mr. T. 
 Mozley has remarked that to one class of minds truth is 
 valued as a possession, something which we already have, 
 and which only needs to be carefully understood, clearly 
 enunciated, and drawn out by inference to its various applica- 
 tions and conclusions. To another class of minds truth is 
 something that has to be obtained by search : its value is not 
 so much in the fact that we possess it as in the discipline 
 that we have gone through in attaining it ; and every age 
 and every individual, if they are to rise to truth that is 
 worthy of the name, must go through this process, and win 
 their way to sure conviction. 
 
 The former class of mind is conservative or orthodox ; the 
 latter innovating or sceptical. Now both types of mind were 
 
#rfgfa of tf)t Jftobtment. 13 
 
 found in the Oriel Common Room. But inasmuch as the 
 Christian system was accepted as a first principle by all, the 
 differences lay rather in their method of arguing from it than 
 in their attitude towards its fixed dogmas. 
 
 In 181 1 two men were admitted to the Society in whom 
 respectively these two tendencies found their highest embodi- 
 ment. The one was Whateley, afterwards Archbishop of 
 Dublin, the other was Keble. Whateley was the ablest 
 logical reasoner in all that able company. His boldness of 
 ideas equalled his exactness of argument. Confident in 
 himself, awed neither by age nor reputation, claiming for 
 himself an ascendency justified by his powers, he rose almost 
 at once to the first place. 
 
 Keble was a complete contrast to Whateley. While a mere 
 boy he had gained the highest honours that the University 
 had to bestow, and at the age of nineteen found himself 
 elected to a fellowship, already, so far as Academical distinc- 
 tions went, the most notable young man in the University. 
 But his temperament was not in accordance with these 
 brilliant gifts. He was by nature shy and retiring, without 
 push or ambition to shine. He was unwilling to argue for 
 argument's sake. He was wholly wrapped up in the solemn 
 responsibilities of the ministerial life, for which he had already 
 begun to prepare. He took Holy Orders in 1815, and for 
 the next two years resided mainly out of Oxford, though 
 retaining his rooms in College. In 181 7 he was recalled to 
 residence as College Tutor, an office which he held for six 
 years. During these years of quiet, unobtrusive work, he 
 obtained a great and lasting influence, not only over his 
 pupils, who loved him with rare affection, but also over the 
 brilliant society of the Common Room, which fully appre- 
 ciated his intellectual gifts, and reverenced his purity of 
 
14 (Bviqin of tf)e jttobement. 
 
 Christian example. While Keble was Tutor, three men 
 were elected to Fellowships who have left their mark for 
 ever upon the English nation and Church. The first was 
 Thomas Arnold, founder of the modern Public School. 
 The two others were John Henry Newman and Edward 
 Bouverie Pusey. To Arnold himself we shall not have 
 occasion to refer again, though indirectly he was concerned 
 with several passages in the history of the Movement. His 
 own mind was radically antagonistic to its principles, and 
 being incapable of entering into the views of its authors, he 
 became not only the severest, but the most unfair of all 
 their critics. Nevertheless, the fact that for a short period 
 he enjoyed their friendship, makes a brief reference to him 
 appropriate. The work he did for religion was on lines as 
 opposite to theirs as it is possible to Conceive. But it is 
 the glory and privilege of the Church of England to be so 
 much broader in her comprehensiveness than the particular 
 grasp of truth which even the most gifted of her children 
 can attain, that we can thank God equally for the moral 
 enthusiasm and spiritual simplicity of the one, and for the 
 saintly purity and intellectual constructiveness of the others. 
 We can rank them as alike loyal members of the English 
 Church. We can claim them as alike true to her Spirit. 
 We can and do believe that in spite of the divergence of the 
 aims for which they strove on earth, there is a higher sphere 
 of being, in which these seeming opposites are reconciled, 
 and in which souls, who have striven according to their 
 light, are able to appreciate each other's faithfulness, and to 
 discern clearly, what here we can but dimly imagine, the 
 vast manysidedness of truth. 
 
 Of Newman and Pusey I shall speak in my next lecture* 
 I now return to the part taken by Keble. 
 
<$rtgm of tf)t fflobtmtnt. 15 
 
 Even among his academic duties Keble's heart was in 
 pastoral life. Already, in 1 819, he had thought of leaving 
 Oxford, but was persuaded to remain. In 1823 his mother 
 died. The solitude of his father, whom he loved with the 
 warmth of a most affectionate nature, decided him to resign 
 his Tutorship, and accept a curacy in Gloucestershire, near 
 his father's living. Fairford was a rustic village, yet not so 
 distant from Oxford as to prevent frequent visits from his 
 friends. Some of his Oriel pupils read with him during the 
 vacations, and a few select men from other Colleges. 
 
 Among those who were thus admitted to his intimate 
 intercourse were three young men of promise, all of whom 
 made their mark in the Church, Robert Wilberforce, Isaac 
 Williams and Richard Hurrell Froude. It was natural that 
 Keble's influence should produce a profound effect upon 
 these men. It was hardly to be expected that one of them 
 should scarcely less profoundly influence Keble. Yet so it 
 was. The character of Froude was one of great originality 
 and of the rarest gifts. An aristocrat both in birth and 
 intellect, of brilliant imagination, strong powers of reasoning 
 and the utmost boldness of mind, he was at once captivated 
 and subdued by the simple sweetness of Keble's religion, and 
 throwing himself with unreserved trust upon his master's 
 confidence, he laid open to him all the questionings of his 
 intellect, all the tempest of his hopes and fears. 
 
 As I have said, Keble's own temper was that of a poet, 
 contemplative, reverent, joyous, unargumentative. But to 
 Froude argument was everything. Flashes of wit, bordering 
 on irreverence, roused Keble to gentle reproof, all the more 
 penetrating from its loving humility. By constant searching 
 for the grounds of rational faith in the company of these able 
 companions, Keble was led to investigate more deeply his 
 
1 6 tfMgin o! tf>e fffio&enunt. 
 
 own ecclesiastical principles. Brought up in the teaching of 
 the Prayer Book, imbued with the conviction of the perfection 
 of its sober standard of piety, which he has brought home to 
 every Churchman's heart in his exquisite Christian Year, he 
 distrusted the sentimental Evangelicanism of his day, while 
 he positively loathed the cold utilitarian school of theology 
 which made the Church little more than the guardian of the 
 nation's morals. In the words of the writer I have already 
 referred to, he declared that " it neglected the feelings as 
 Evangelicalism neglected the character, and his mind craved 
 for a religion which should affect the whole man, and keep 
 both feelings and intellect under the control of the will. To 
 enforce this he fell back upon the conception of the Church 
 which he had inherited from his father, as a body independent 
 of the State, founded by the Lord Himself, perpetuated by 
 direct succession from the Apostles, one in continuous history 
 and doctrine with the Primitive Church, filled with a super- 
 natural and sacramental life, witnessing to a high moral 
 standard before the world. This conception of the Church 
 laid hold of his pupils, and through them passed into a power 
 at Oxford. To make that conception a reality he devoted 
 his entire life with a chivalry that nothing could daunt ; for 
 that he sent forth his pupils as a band of missionaries." 
 Both Froude and Williams, on their return to Oxford a year 
 or two later, 1 looked to Keble as the friend, guide and 
 counsellor of their lives. 
 
 It is true no immediate result was produced. But the 
 Oxford Movement was prepared. The train was laid; in 
 due course the moment came for firing it, and the hand was 
 not wanting that should apply the light. 
 
 Meanwhile there were influences outside Oxford making 
 
 i Froude was appointed Tutor of Oriel in 1826. 
 
<rtgm of tJ)t f&obtmmL 17 
 
 towards the same end. The truth of the old proverb, " Man's 
 extremity is God's opportunity," was again to be made good. 
 In various parts of England a spirit of zeal for the Church 
 was beginning to arise. A conviction was struggling into 
 shape that the force needed to cope with the situation 
 was belief in that long neglected article of the Creed, " the 
 Holy Catholic Church." There is a very remarkable record 
 of a letter or conversation, it is not quite certain which, 
 emanating from Mr. Sikes, Rector of Guilsborough in 
 Northamptonshire, which is almost of prophetic import. 
 The document is so extremely interesting that I shall make 
 no apology for bringing it before you. Mr. Sikes was one 
 of the old-fashioned school of Churchmen, of the type of the 
 elder Keble. These are his words (1833) : " I seem to think 
 I can tell you something which you who are young may 
 probably live to see, but which I, who shall soon be called 
 away off the stage, shall not. Wherever I go, all about the 
 country, I see amongst the clergy a number of very amiable 
 and estimable men, many of them much in earnest and 
 wishing to do good. But I have observed one universal 
 want in their teaching, the universal suppression of one 
 great truth. There is no account given anywhere, as far as 
 I can see, of the One Holy Catholic Church. I think that 
 the causes of this suppression have been mainly two. The 
 Church has been kept out of sight partly in consequence of 
 the civil establishment of the branch of it which is in this 
 country, and partly out of a false charity to Dissent. Now 
 this great truth is an article of the Creed ; and if so, to 
 teach the rest of the Creed to its exclusion must be to 
 destroy the proportion of the Faith. This cannot be done 
 without the most serious consequences. The doctrine is 
 of the last importance, and the principles it involves of 
 
 B 
 
1 8 <@rtgm of tf)t JfWobemmt. 
 
 immense power ; and some day, not far distant, it will 
 judicially have its reprisals. And whereas the other articles 
 of the Creed seem now to have thrown it into the shade, it 
 will seem, when it is brought forward, to swallow up all the 
 rest. We now hear not a breath about the Church. By- 
 and-bye, those who live to see it will hear of nothing else ; 
 and just in proportion, perhaps, to its present suppression 
 will be its future development. Our confusion nowadays is 
 chiefly owing to the want of it ; and there will be yet more 
 confusion attending its revival. The effects of it I even 
 dread to contemplate, especially if it come suddenly. And 
 woe betide those, whoever they are, who shall, in the course 
 of Providence, have to bring it forward. It ought especially 
 of all others to be matter of catechetical teaching and 
 training. The doctrine of the Catholic Church and its 
 privileges cannot be explained from pulpits, and those 
 who have to explain it will hardly know where they 
 are or which way they are to turn themselves. They 
 will be endlessly misunderstood and misinterpreted. There 
 will be one great outcry of Popery from one end of 
 the country to the other. It will be thrust upon minds 
 unprepared. Some will take it up as a beautiful theory 
 unrealized; others will be frightened and scandalized, and 
 reject it; and all will want a guidance which one hardly 
 knows where they will find. How the doctrine will be first 
 thrown forward we know not, but the powers of the world 
 may any day turn their backs upon us, and these will lead 
 to the effects I have described." 1 
 
 Never were words uttered more full of prophetic truth. 
 They were fulfilled to the very letter, and in the very year in 
 
 1 " From a conversation with Rev.W. J. Copeland, preserved in Mr. Copeland's 
 handwriting in his copy of Sikes' Parochial Communion." (Lock's Keble, p. 76.) 
 

 <&rigm of ti)e ifflofcement. 19 
 
 which he uttered them the fulfilment began. Hugh James 
 Rose, a wealthy clergyman and brilliant Cambridge scholar, 
 held for some years the post of Christian Advocate in that 
 University. In 1832 he started a Church paper called the 
 British Magazine, for the express purpose of advocating 
 Catholic principles. Joshua Watson, the Secretary of the 
 Christian Knowledge Society in London, united cordially 
 with him as a layman for the same object. These two 
 Churchmen had publicly expressed their conviction that 
 something must be done, and done immediately, if the Church 
 life of England was not to be irreparably injured (1833). 
 At this very moment Keble was called upon to preach the 
 Assize Sermon at Oxford, to which I have already alluded. 
 The occasion was in many ways notable. The sermon was 
 held in the Summer Term, when not only His Majesty's 
 Judges of Assize, and their retinue, but many distinguished 
 visitors from the political and social leaders of London were 
 in Oxford. Religious feeling was deeply stirred. The whole 
 University came as one man to hear the preacher. Never 
 was a great opportunity more greatly used. The sermon 
 was listened to with marked attention, and immediately 
 published under the significant title of National Apostasy. 
 The gentle spirit of the poet was kindled into terrible indigna- 
 tion. He declared that the action of the Government was 
 at bottom nothing less than a treason to the Christian 
 religion, and an abandonment of the Church's faith. His 
 appeal went straight home to the hearts of men whom a 
 Divine impulse had touched. 
 
 A meeting was immediately arranged to be held at Hadleigh 
 Rectory, in Essex, where Hugh James Rose lived, to con- 
 sult on the steps to be taken. There the celebrated gathering 
 took place, from July 25th to 29th, which was the actual 
 
20 (rt'gm of tfye ifMobement. 
 
 beginning of the Movement. Keble and Newman were 
 unable to attend, but they wrote signifying their agreement 
 with its object. Four friends of the Church met together, 
 and for four days discussed the situation. They were Mr. 
 Rose, Mr. Perceval (a friend and pupil of Keble's), Mr. 
 Froude, and Mr. Palmer, an Irish Churchman, who had 
 migrated to Oxford, and had gained considerable credit by 
 his learned work on the origin of the Prayer Book 
 entitled Origines Liturgicce. 
 
 The Conference broke up without arranging any definite 
 plan, but all pledged themselves to take some action. Mr. 
 Rose was of opinion that Associations of Churchmen, 
 somewhat similar in character to the English Church Union 
 of later days, would be the best method of leavening public 
 opinion. Mr. Palmer agreed with this, and was further of 
 opinion that addresses to the King and the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury should be signed, declaring the fixed loyalty of 
 Churchmen to the principles of the Church. Froude 
 believed that popular tracts, or leaflets, would be more 
 efficacious, and all were of opinion that this method should 
 be tried, as well as that recommended by Mr. Palmer. 
 
 Mr. Palmer and Mr. Froude then returned to Oxford, and 
 carried on their deliberations with the residents there, among 
 whom Mr. Newman had now emerged as the leading spirit. 
 Newman had been brought into communication with Keble 
 some five years before this through the instrumentality of 
 Froude, and the acquaintance then begun had gradually 
 ripened into a most intimate friendship, in which the mind of 
 the younger man received and assimilated the Church ideas 
 of the elder. A spirit so bold and original as Newman's can 
 hardly be spoken of as indebted for its conclusions to any 
 single master. And yet there can be no doubt that Keble's 
 
<$rtgtn of tf)e f&obtmtnt. 21 
 
 influence on Newman was profound and lasting. Only, as I 
 shall try to explain in my second lecture, Newman's early 
 training in religion had been so radically different from 
 Keble's, and his convictions had been formed by processes so 
 diverse, that the development of the one was almost bound 
 to run a different course from that of the other. Newman 
 received Keble's ideas first through the medium of Charles 
 Hurrell Froude, whose impetuous and logical mind was 
 more congenial to him than the calmer and more imaginative 
 spirit of Keble. 1 Nevertheless, we are justified in asserting 
 that Newman, no less than Froude and Isaac Williams, may 
 truly be spoken of as Keble's disciples. 
 
 A word must be said about the two men to whom I have 
 just alluded, William Palmer and Isaac Williams. The 
 former, as I mentioned, was a man of deep learning, and of 
 firmly held but by no means extreme Church views. He 
 represented with Rose and Perceval what one may call the 
 conservative element in the Movement. Isaac Williams is a 
 remarkable and very beautiful type of character. A refined 
 scholar, with a true vein of tender poetry, delicately organized 
 both in body and mind, he owed (as he himself tells us) his 
 whole religious life under God to Keble ; and when he 
 returned to Oxford as Tutor, he made it his chief effort to 
 spread Keble's influence and propagate his ideas. His 
 saintly purity at once gained the admiring love of Newman, 
 who made him his curate at St. Mary's, Oxford, 2 and admitted 
 
 1 One of Froude's remarks was that he had done one good thing in his life in 
 bringing Newman and Keble to understand one another. 
 
 2 The Parish Church of St. Mary's, notable for the exquisite beauty of its spire, 
 is used twice every Sunday for the preaching of the University Sermon. It 
 therefore possesses an academical as well as a parochial character, and indeed 
 the latter aspect is quite overshadowed by the former. And its incumbents have 
 generally been men eminent for their learning, spiritual influence, or high standing 
 in the University. 
 
$rigm of tf)t fflobtmtnt. 
 
 him to the closest friendship. And all through this critical 
 time we find him at Newman's side, taking a modest but 
 very influential part in all discussions, and balancing to 
 some extent the more aggressive influence of Froude. 
 
 One point, however, must be insisted on most strongly in 
 connection with the first launching of the Movement. Every 
 one of those concerned in it was firmly resolved to teach 
 nothing new. Their first and foremost object was to bring 
 to light old but forgotten truths. Never for a moment did 
 Keble, Newman, or even Froude design to introduce any 
 doctrine except those which had been proved to be taught 
 by the Church of England in her authorized formularies, 
 interpreted by her most orthodox divines, and enunciated 
 long ago by those early Fathers, to whom our Church again 
 and again refers her members as the truest exponents of the 
 faith originally received. 
 
 This is clearly shown in the two forms of address which 
 were drawn up and presented to the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury. As these addresses were the first united action 
 taken by the founders of the Movement, and were 
 unanimously approved by the whole number, I think it 
 worth while to transcribe them. They will serve to show 
 what the original principles of the Oxford Churchmen were, 
 and how truly they expressed the feelings of an immense 
 majority both of the clergy and laity of England. The first 
 was signed by Clergy only, and was as follows : 
 
 " To the Most Rev. Father in God, William, by Divine 
 Providence, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all 
 England. 
 
 " We, the undersigned Clergy of England and Wales, are 
 desirous of approaching your Grace with the expression of 
 our veneration for the sacred office, to which, by Divine 
 
(rtgtn of tfoe tfHofcenunt. 23 
 
 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 especially 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-rooted 
 attachment to that venerable Liturgy, in which she has 
 embodied, 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 con- 
 viction 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 
 carrying into effect any measures that may tend to revive 
 the discipline of ancient times, to strengthen the connection 
 between Bishops, clergy, and people, and to promote the 
 purity, efficiency, and unity of the Church." 
 
 Early in February, 1834, this document, with the signa- 
 tures of 7,000 clergy, was presented to Archbishop Howley 
 at Lambeth, by a deputation consisting of members of the 
 Lower House of Convocation, including many Deans, Arch- 
 deacons, Proctors of Chapters and Diocesan Clergy, Professors 
 and Heads of Houses from Oxford and Cambridge. 
 
 An address to the Archbishop from the laity of England, 
 
24 Origin of tfje iffiobement. 
 
 drawn up by a layman, and signed by 230,000 heads of 
 families, was also presented, which embodies the grounds 
 of attachment to the Church which then, as now, held the 
 laity to their allegiance, and should be most carefully weighed 
 by all those with whom rests the direction of the Church's 
 present policy. It is as follows : 
 
 " At a time when the clergy of England and Wales have 
 felt it their duty to address their Primate with an expression 
 of unshaken adherence to the doctrines and discipline of the 
 Church of which they are ministers, we, the undersigned, 
 as lay members of the same, are not less anxious to record 
 our firm attachment to her pure faith and worship, and her 
 Apostolic form of government. 
 
 " We further find ourselves called upon, by the events 
 which are daily passing around us, to declare our firm con- 
 viction that the consecration of the State by the public 
 maintenance of the Christian Religion is the first and para- 
 mount duty of a Christian people; and that the Church 
 Established in these realms, by carrying its sacred and 
 beneficial influences through all orders and degrees, and into 
 every corner of the land, has for many ages been the great 
 and distinguishing blessing of this country, and not less the 
 means, under Divine Providence, of national prosperity than 
 of individual piety. 
 
 " In the preservation, therefore, 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 accordingly 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, and 
 
<&rtgin of tlje tfHobement. 25 
 
 desire to hand down as the best inheritance of our posterity." 
 
 In addition to these steps associations of Churchmen were 
 started in various cities and towns, which proved the attach- 
 ment to the Church's system to be more widespread than 
 was believed. 
 
 In fact, the extremity of the danger aroused all that latent 
 enthusiasm for the Church which, because it slumbers or 
 fails to speak, is so often supposed to have died out. " At that 
 time it appeared as if revolutionary principles in religion 
 were all but universal. Scarcely a voice of any authority 
 was uplifted on behalf of truth, or if uplifted it was unheard." 
 The entire press was in favour of liberalism in religion ; so 
 were the leaders of public opinion, the fashionable prophets 
 of the age. But in the address drawn up by Palmer, and 
 corrected by Newman, a pledge was given to the world that 
 the vast majority of the clergy, and no inconsiderable body 
 of lay-people, were determined to maintain the principles and 
 essential discipline of the Church as against the spirit of 
 revolutionary change then current. 
 
 " The Church at once rose from her deep depression, and 
 found to her astonishment that the nation was nearly unani- 
 mous in devotion to the old and established faith and 
 worship ; that it was of the same Creed which had for three 
 centuries placed England at the head of the reformed and 
 believing Christianity of the world." 
 
 It is worthy of remark that the Movement originated not 
 among the Bishops or any dignitaries of the Church, but 
 among a few priests little known beyond the bounds of Oxford. 
 As in the cases of Wiclif, Wesley and Whitefield, it was 
 the inferior clergy that met the attacks on faith, organized 
 resistance, and woke the nation's conscience. The higher 
 clergy are always hampered by the position of the Establish- 
 
26 ghrigfa of tbe JHobnrunt. 
 
 ment, and the constant timidity and caution which the 
 situation requires. In those days a far larger proportion of 
 them than at present were out of touch with the rank and 
 file of the priesthood. Bishops were appointed, as a rule, 
 from considerations either of family or political support or 
 classical scholarship, comparatively seldom because they 
 had successfully worked for the salvation of souls. The 
 high social consideration of a Bishop in those days kept him 
 at an almost impassable distance from his clergy. His 
 associates were county magnates, judges and politicians, 
 and, except the favoured circle whom he took into his 
 immediate surroundings, few of the clergy had much chance 
 of opening their minds to him. As to the common people 
 of the Diocese, they saw little of their Bishop. An occa- 
 sional Confirmation, attended with much pomp and cere- 
 mony, brought home to their minds the fact that the Church 
 was episcopally governed. But if the popularity of the 
 Establishment had depended upon the Bishops, the blow 
 so widely dreaded would have fallen long ago. This 
 was the reason why almost all the prominent Statesmen 
 of the day miscalculated the real feeling of the people. 
 They could see their indifference to the Church authorities, 
 frequently betokening something stronger than indifference. 
 But they could not see the quiet pervading influence in every 
 parish of clergy who, whatever their faults, were in true 
 sympathy and touch with their parishioners. 
 
 Thus the influence that saved the Establishment and re- 
 awakened the spiritual power of the Church of England was 
 that of the parish clergy. Keble and Newman and their 
 friends did not create a Church enthusiasm. It was already 
 there, but timid and voiceless, until they gave it form. As 
 Newman truly says, "The Movement was in the air." The 
 
<rigtn of tf)* ^Hofcement. 27 
 
 clergy saw clearly, and thousands of the laity saw almost as 
 clearly, that liberalism in theology meant destruction of the 
 faith. And when the Oxford School boldly predicted this 
 result, and set themselves to avert it, a vast spiritual 
 impulse stirred the length and breadth of the land, and the 
 Church roused herself and knew her strength. 
 
 In these days of hard-working, pious and devoted Bishops, 
 chosen almost always for their Christian character and 
 power over men, we can hardly realize the chasm that then 
 parted the two orders of the ministry. This is indeed one 
 of the direct results of the Movement, and one that we may 
 feel confident will be maintained. Whatever the clergy may 
 be in the future, it is certain that those who are appointed to 
 rule over them will be the best and strongest of their number. 
 It is no doubt the fashion in some quarters to criticize the 
 Episcopate as wanting in firmness and afraid to speak out. 
 I myself doubt altogether the justice of this charge. I 
 believe that our Bench of Bishops represents, as nearly as a 
 body chosen by statesmen of different parties and different 
 religious views can be expected to represent, the wisest, best 
 informed, and most temperate level of opinion in the Church 
 as a whole. Still, we must render all honour to the clergy 
 of those days for stepping into the breach, without one 
 thought of the consequences to themselves, and recalling 
 the torpid spiritual sense of the people to a living conscious- 
 ness of what the Church really is. In my next lecture I 
 hope to discuss the great crusade waged by means of the 
 Tracts for the Times t and with it the life and character of 
 their chief author, who from this time forward became the 
 actual head of the Movement, and whose illustrious name 
 will ever be accorded a high place in the roll of English 
 Saints. 
 
LECTURE II, 
 
 tract* for ffc Zimt*. 
 
 (1833-1841.) 
 
 T will be remembered that neither Keble nor 
 Newman had attended the Hadleigh Conference 
 in July, 1833. Though they were in full sympathy 
 with its object, they did not approve of the means 
 suggested to effect it. Their absence prevented any unani- 
 mous line of action. Palmer prepared his addresses, and 
 Rose continued his British Magazine. But the action that 
 arrested the attention of the careless world was set on foot 
 by Newman. He had no intention of shackling his liberty 
 by associating with beneficed dignitaries or persons in 
 official position. His idea was to circulate short pithy 
 tracts, written anonymously, without supervision, without 
 responsibility to others, on those subjects on which the 
 general ignorance was most profound, and the need of clearly 
 announced principles most imperative. The idea of a tract 
 in those days did not suggest anything intellectual. It was 
 associated with respected elderly ladies and irreproachable 
 young gentlemen, who stood at the corners of the streets 
 and offered pious leaflets to all passers-by. It is needless to 
 say the Tracts for the Times were of very different metal. 
 They were addressed to Churchmen, specially to the clergy, 
 
CractaJ for tje Ctmea. 29 
 
 and depended for their effect, not on appeals to the feelings, 
 but on learning and argument. They had nothing in 
 common with the ordinary tract but the name. Yet the 
 name was wisely adopted. It suggested broadcast diffusion, 
 and so excited curiosity. Viewed in the light of the event, 
 the method was amply justified, and to Newman, above all 
 others, the credit of it is due. 
 
 Perhaps this is the place to introduce some account of this 
 remarkable man, whose spiritual personality is in some 
 respects the most striking in the whole annals of the Church 
 of England, at any rate, since the Reformation. To him, as 
 to Wesley, it happened to be separated from the Communion 
 of his birth, not as in Wesley's case, against his intention 
 and desire, but by a deliberate though long-delayed act of 
 his own choice. The process by which he was led first to 
 question, then to distrust, and finally to disbelieve altogether 
 the claim of the Church of England to be the true Church 
 Catholic in this country, is delineated with matchless grace 
 and power in his Apologia pro vita sua, published in 1864, * n 
 answer to Charles Kingsley's embittered charges of dis- 
 ingenuous conduct. It is already a classic of English litera- 
 ture, from the purity of its style, the importance of the 
 ground it covers, and the deep interest of its psychological 
 revelations. It at once effected the object for which it was 
 written. It proved beyond dispute the conscientiousness of 
 the writer, it exhibited a character of rare delicacy and 
 extraordinary, if over-subtle, intellectual penetration, and by 
 its sternly checked though everywhere discernible pathos 
 enlisted the sympathies of those who most strongly dis- 
 approved of its views. 
 
 Newman was one of two brothers, both highly endowed 
 with mental gifts. It is curious how many of the Trac- 
 
30 Cracta for tfje Ctmetf. 
 
 tarians ran in pairs of brothers : Thomas and John Keble, 
 Thomas and James Mozley, Hurrell and Antony Froude, 
 Robert and Henry Wilberforce, and the two Copelands. 
 But Francis Newman was never a Churchman. Early in 
 life he pursued that sceptical path which led him at last to 
 deny the whole fabric of revealed religion. John Henry 
 Newman's first impressions of Christianity were strongly 
 Evangelical. At the early age of fifteen he passed through 
 that spiritual experience which is known as conversion, and 
 to the end of his life he never doubted either its reality or its 
 permanence. When he first came to Oxford he still inclined 
 to the same religious views. He was well read in the abler 
 works of Calvinistic theology, and was for a time imbued 
 with its characteristic spirit. He became a keen supporter 
 of the British and Foreign Bible Society, and was filled with 
 a strong conviction that the Church of Rome was the Anti- 
 christ of the Revelation. 
 
 His undergraduate days were spent at Trinity College, 
 where, long years after, he was elected to what was then the 
 rare distinction of honorary membership of the Common 
 Room. In 1822 he stood for an Oriel Fellowship, and was 
 successful. Brought thus suddenly into contact with the 
 foremost men of Oxford, he was compelled to throw aside 
 much of his native reserve, and to give and take in the daily 
 intellectual conflict. His disposition was restless, inquiring, 
 argumentative, full of poetry and imagination, qualities as 
 yet but partially developed ; he was eager to impress himself 
 on others, and yet more eager to learn from them. He was 
 not slow to acknowledge the spell of Whateley's power. 
 He himself tells us that through Whateley's influence he 
 was drawn for a time in the direction of Theological 
 Liberalism. He became Vice -Principal of St. Edmund's 
 
fractal for tl)e tme$. 31 
 
 Hall under Whateley's Headship, and for some years was 
 understood to be one of his adherents. This accounts for 
 the fact that though acquainted with Keble he did not 
 become intimate with him, for Keble had imbibed from his 
 earliest years such a horror of liberal ideas in politics, and 
 still more in religion, as effectually prevented any close 
 companionship with those who held them. It was not until 
 1829, seven years after Newman's election, that the two 
 men were brought to understand one another through the 
 agency of Hurrell Froude, an act which Froude regarded as 
 the most meritorious of his life. From that time forward 
 until the great break in 1845 the two names are linked 
 together in the closest spiritual friendship. 
 
 It is remarkable that Newman, whom we are accustomed 
 to regard as pre-eminently a leader of men, should himself 
 confess how deeply he was influenced by others. He was 
 indebted for important elements in his belief to Hawkins, 
 the Provost of his College. 1 He received what afterwards 
 became the root idea of his theology from Whateley, as I 
 have already pointed out. He learned much from Froude, 
 whose masculine intellect shrank from no conclusion to 
 which the premisses logically led. Above all, he was in- 
 debted to Keble, whose principles he studied for some years 
 at second hand through conversations with Williams and 
 Froude. Williams, it will be remembered, had been a pupil 
 of John Keble. He had also served as Curate to Thomas 
 Keble, Rector of Bisley. While acting as Newman's Curate 
 
 1 It is interesting to observe in the light of subsequent events that when on 
 the removal of Dr. Copleston to the See of Llandaff, Keble and Hawkins were 
 brought forward as candidates for the Provostship, Pusey, then Fellow of Oriel, 
 supported Hawkins against Keble. This was afterwards a source of poignant 
 grief to him. Had Keble been elected, the position of the Tractarians in 
 Oxford must have been very different from what it was. Keble himself never 
 received any preferment in the Church. 
 
32 Cracts for tfye Ctmeg. 
 
 in Oxford he used to report to him the conversations he 
 had held with the two brothers. Their ideas took such hold 
 of Newman that they appeared in a new dress, Sunday 
 after Sunday, in his sermons. Williams noted this with 
 lively satisfaction. " It was Thomas Keble (he says) teach- 
 ing Oxford by Newman through me." 
 
 It is necessary to point out this feature in Newman's 
 character, because it helps us to understand his habit of 
 searching for ideas from every source, and giving them a 
 home in his mind, without considering whether or not they 
 were capable of reconciliation. 
 
 Newman has often been spoken of as above all things a 
 party leader. Whateley thought this of him when New- 
 man broke away from his influence and turned towards 
 High Church views. And the charge was repeated with 
 still greater emphasis when his Oxford following had become 
 numerous, when his lightest words were quoted as oracles, 
 and his very costume, gestures, and unconscious tricks of 
 habit, were all carefully noted and reproduced by a hundred 
 imitators. 
 
 Yet Newman himself earnestly denies the charge. He 
 declares that he never had any wish to form a party in the 
 Church. He insists that all his arguments with equals or 
 pupils were undertaken in the first place to clear his own 
 thoughts and to satisfy his own craving for definite truth. 
 He also points out with great force his actual unfitness to 
 be a party leader, because just at the time when the Move- 
 ment needed the most unflinching firmness of guidance, he 
 himself was unsettled, and to use his own expression, let the 
 reins drop from his hands. 
 
 It is well, I think, to make this point clear, because the 
 opinion we form on it will affect our judgment of Newman's 
 
Cracta for tlje Ctmea. 33 
 
 moral character as well as of the real tendency of the Move- 
 ment. That Newman on starting the Tracts felt confident 
 of his ability to de-protestantize, or if the term be preferred, 
 to re-catholicize, the Anglican Church, is certain. He com- 
 pares himself to Luther. He speaks of the need of a new 
 Reformation. 
 
 His confidence in himself and in the soundness of his cause 
 was absolute. By insisting that the Tracts should be written 
 by independent and irresponsible writers, he shook off all 
 control from lesser minds, and secured for himself an open 
 field. He fully realized the greatness of the task he had set 
 before him ; but he believed himself able, with the help of 
 Keble and Froude, to fulfil it. Unfortunately, he had 
 counted without his host. It was that very confidence in 
 his cause that blinded him to the true tendency of his views. 
 The logic of authority in religion, if pressed to its legitimate 
 conclusion, can have but one result. And the first breath of 
 misgiving swept across his mind as early as 1839. It is true 
 the impression passed, but only to return again, and refuse 
 to be exorcised. For six long years he found himself in the 
 distracting position of acknowledged guide and leader of 
 many noble and aspiring minds, while yet secretly mis- 
 trusting the counsel he was compelled by his position to 
 give them. Yet he felt he dared not change that counsel, 
 for though his faith in the Church of England was waning, 
 his reason was not as yet convinced of the duty of leaving 
 her for Rome. Consequently he continued to inculcate 
 loyalty long after he himself had lost it. And it was the 
 very natural, but, as he thought, unjustifiable, impatience 
 of a young priest who, against his promise, joined the 
 Roman communion while Newman's guest, that finally 
 opened his eyes to the real extent of his responsibility. 
 
34 Cracta for tlje Ct'me*. 
 
 Now had he been a practical party leader he would surely 
 have acted very differently. He would have faced his 
 doubts, and made up his mind whether he could resist them 
 or not. In the one case, he would have crushed them then 
 and there, and resolved that nothing should tempt him to 
 betray them to those who clung to him for guidance. In 
 the other case, he would have taken a bold line for Rome, 
 regardless of the risk of convulsing the Church of his birth. 
 
 He did neither the one nor the other. He still continued 
 to write and advise others against joining the Roman Church, 
 even while contemplating the probability that he himself 
 might have to join it. One cannot wonder that writers of 
 an opposite School accuse him of disingenuousness. Even 
 those who recognized the sanctity of his character and his 
 purity of purpose openly avowed their distrust of his quali- 
 fications as a religious teacher. Among these was Archbishop 
 Tait, whose conspicuous sense of justice must be set against 
 his want of sympathy with Tractarian views. As late as 
 1877 he referred to the estimate of Newman's mind he had 
 formed in the Oxford days : " I have always regarded him 
 as having a strange duality of character. On the one side 
 is a wonderfully strong and subtle reasoning faculty ; on the 
 other a blind faith, raised almost entirely by the emotions. 
 It seems to me that in all matters of belief he first acts on 
 his emotions, and then brings the subtlety of his reason to 
 bear, till he has ingeniously persuaded himself that he 
 is logically right. The result is a condition in which he 
 is practically unable to distinguish between truth and 
 falsehood." l 
 
 If a criticism thus measured but severe was made at the 
 time of the conflict by one of his antagonists, and repro- 
 iTait's Life, L, p. 89. 
 
Cractg for tje Ctmesf. 35 
 
 duced forty years after with deliberate approval by the 
 same critic, when chief Bishop of the Anglican Church, we 
 shall not be surprised to find that other less balanced and 
 impartial natures advanced the bitterest charges against 
 Newman's sincerity. They do not pretend to judge him as 
 an individual, they do not enter into the difficulties which 
 encompassed his own mind ; but they look at him as one 
 whom multitudes acknowledged as their religious guide, and 
 who himself posed as such. They think of his extraordinary 
 influence. They look at the admiring disciples who were 
 proud to call themselves his School, who professed to be 
 guided by his lightest word. And they naturally regard 
 Newman as consenting to this relationship, and therefore 
 rightly held responsible for the action of his followers. And 
 yet if we desire to be just to one whose character is in many 
 respects that of a true saint, we must disabuse our minds 
 of the idea that he chose for himself the position of a leader. 
 He tells us it came to him unsought, that he never liked it, 
 and that when his own mind became unsettled it embarrassed 
 him so much that for some years he shut himself up in a 
 sort of mysterious reserve in the hope that he might thus 
 avoid its responsibilities. This was a very unfortunate 
 course to adopt. It laid him open to the most serious of all 
 charges, that of disloyalty to the Church of which he pro- 
 fessed to be a member, and of want of straightforwardness in 
 not avowing openly his position. But on careful study of 
 the Apologia I think this conduct only proves that he was 
 not by nature fitted to be a party leader, otherwise he could 
 not have failed to see the bad effect of his policy ; nor, had 
 he been a practical man, could he have imagined for one 
 moment that after leading so many souls a certain way he 
 could retard their adoption of the logical result of his example 
 
36 Cracttf for tt)e Ctme*. 
 
 by any individual scruples of his own. It is always extremely 
 difficult for ordinary minds to understand original minds, and 
 to gauge the sensitive temperament of genius. It is neces- 
 sary to approach the task of criticizing such men with the 
 utmost possible diffidence. There is always the temptation to 
 put down actions that appear to us inconsistent as the result 
 of ambition or dishonesty. At the same time, we have an 
 undoubted right to form an opinion on their conduct, and 
 when the events have become matters of history, we need 
 not shrink from examining them in the light of ordinary 
 human motives. Of all Newman's friends there was not 
 one that knew him better or loved him better than his 
 Curate, Isaac Williams, and he was almost the only one 
 whose affectionate intercourse was never interrupted even 
 by the disasters of 1845, and who saw him and talked freely 
 to him till his own death in 1865. Yet this is what Williams 
 tells us was the impression made on him by Newman's 
 character at the time of his first acquaintance : " I became 
 at once very much attached to Newman, won by his kind- 
 ness and delighted by his good and wonderful qualities, and 
 he proposed that I should be his Curate at St. Mary's. 
 This brought me into still closer intercourse with him. I 
 have lately heard it stated by one of his oldest friends, 
 Dr. Jelf of Christ Church, that his mind was always essen- 
 tially Jesuitical. In endeavouring to account for this state- 
 ment, I can remember a strong feeling of difference I first 
 felt in acting together with Newman from what I had been 
 accustomed to ; that he was in the habit of looking for 
 effect, for what was sensibly effective, which from the School 
 of the two Kebles I had long been habituated to avoid. I 
 had been taught there to do one's duty in faith, and leave 
 the effect to God, and that all the more earnestly because 
 
Cracttf for t$e Zimti. 37 
 
 there were no sympathies from without to answer. There 
 was a felt but unexpressed dissonance of this kind, but 
 perhaps it became harmonized as we acted together." Here 
 we see most delicately indicated an impatience, an egotism, 
 if we may so call it, which craved for personal appreciation 
 in an outward form. And in another passage this saintly 
 friend of Newman's speaks thus of him: "The domestic 
 and poetic and social element in Newman's character 
 appeared to me providentially intended to correct that con- 
 stitutional restlessness of intellect, that want of balance and 
 repose in the soul, which appears the malady of both the 
 brothers. But our Newman, partly from circumstances 
 and partly under the false guise of mortification, has stifled 
 those domestic affections, thereby greatly increasing his 
 intellectual malady ; whereas I never thought so highly of 
 him, and he never seemed to me so saint-like and high in 
 his character, as when he was with his mother and sisters. 
 The softness and repose of his nature then came out, and 
 so corrected that restless intellect to which he has been a 
 prey." 
 
 These gentle but searching criticisms from the friend on 
 earth who knew him best reveal to us certain imperfections 
 of character, which ought not to be disregarded in ,our 
 estimate of what he was. One more quotation from the 
 same author will, I am sure, be of interest. " I watched 
 from the beginning, and saw among ourselves greater 
 dangers than those from without, which I attempted to 
 obviate by publishing the ' Plain Sermons.' I attempted in 
 vain to get the Kebles to publish, in order to keep pace with 
 Newman, and give a more practical turn to the Movement. 
 I remember C. Cornish coming to me (in 1834) anc * savm g 
 as we walked in Trinity Gardens, * People are a little afraid 
 
38 Crart* for tty Ctmea. 
 
 of being carried away by Newman's brilliancy ; they want 
 more of the steady sobriety of the Kebles to keep us 
 safe. We have so much sail : we want ballast.' " Again : 
 " Nothing had as yet impaired my friendship for Newman. 
 We lived daily very much together; but I had a secret 
 uneasiness, not from anything said or implied, but from a 
 want of repose about his character, that he would start into 
 some line different from Keble and Pusey, though I knew 
 not in what direction it would be." 
 
 It is evident from these and similar early testimonies that 
 even his friends and fellow labourers did not clearly under- 
 stand Newman's mind. In fact, he was a man apart, a man 
 of subtle genius, originally gifted with social affection, poetic 
 imagination and intellect, but driven by an inner impulse 
 to subordinate the two former to the latter, and to follow 
 its guidance exclusively, as he himself confesses. 
 
 But the most important difference between Newman and 
 the other Tractarian leaders was not of temperament or 
 genius, but of early training. It used to be commonly 
 reported that most of the original Tract writers had joined 
 the Church of Rome. As a matter of fact, only one of the 
 entire number of fourteen J did so, and that one was Newman. 
 
 It was also commonly said that most of them had been 
 brought up in the Evangelical School. As a matter of fact, 
 this is true of only one of them, and that one was Newman. 
 
 Now it is worth while to notice this point. Newman 
 himself mentions it. He tells us that at the age of fifteen 
 the idea was borne in upon him that in all the universe 
 there were but two supreme and luminously self-evident 
 beings, himself and his Creator ; and that he was pre- 
 
 1 The others were H. Froude, John Keble, Thomas Keble, Arthur Perceval, 
 T. Mozley, I. Williams, E. B. Pusey, Benjamin Harrison, W. Palmer, Sir G. 
 Prevost, Antony Buller, R. F. Wilson, and John Bowden. 
 
Crafts for ti)* tme$. 39 
 
 destined to eternal life. This idea, he says, gradually faded 
 away ; but the inward conversion which came with it he 
 regarded ever after as the most certain fact of his life. All 
 his early religious impressions came from the School of 
 Calvin. They were profound, they were real ; but they 
 were not the teaching of the Anglican Church. When he 
 first awoke to that Church's teaching as embodied in the 
 Prayer Book, the Homilies, the Canons, and the great 
 Caroline Divines, it came to him with the force of novelty ; 
 his mind was not prepared for it. It was, therefore, not to 
 be wondered at that a second change of conviction should 
 come upon him, inasmuch as the first had no deep roots in 
 the associations of his childhood. On the other hand, those 
 who shared with him the first responsibilities of the Move- 
 ment had all received an early training in the principles of 
 the Prayer Book. To them the Movement was not the 
 introduction to new truth, but the setting forth in a new 
 form of truths they had always believed, though they had 
 not always realized them. I do not wish to base any general 
 argument upon this fact. It would be unfair and unwise to 
 do so. But in justice to the tendency of the Movement, 
 we have a right to make it perfectly clear that not one of 
 those originators of it, who had from infancy been taught 
 the principles of Anglican Churchmanship, left the Church 
 of his birth. 
 
 We pass now from Newman himself to the fortunes of 
 the Movement of which he was the inspiring influence. 
 Within a short time the authors and disseminators of the 
 Tracts came to be known by the name of Tractarians. 
 This epithet is frequently applied to the whole School ; but, 
 strictly speaking, the Tractarians were only its original 
 supporters, who differed in very important respects from the 
 
40 Gfracttf for tl)e Ct'metf. 
 
 later so-called Tractarian School. The reception of the 
 earlier Tracts both in and out of Oxford was encouraging. 
 The first Tract dealt with the Apostolic Succession, and 
 made a stirring appeal to the clergy to rest all their claims to 
 respect on this basis, and not on those of wealth, family, 
 position, or State support. " Do this," he says, " now, 
 before you are forced to it. For a time will come when you 
 will have no other outward title to reverence." Others 
 followed in quick succession ; some on religious duties 
 enjoined in the Prayer Book, but generally neglected ; 
 others on points of doctrine ; others contained passages 
 from Anglican divines, justifying the principles of the Move- 
 ment. All were short, pithy, and to the point. They at 
 once aroused the attention of the public, as well as of the 
 Church. The attitude of the three Church parties was on 
 the whole what we should have expected. The Low Church 
 dreaded them. The Liberal or Broad Church disliked 
 them. The High Church welcomed them. At first, how- 
 ever, the Evangelical opposition was not very pronounced, 
 though several leading men took part in it. There was a 
 disposition to wait and see what would happen, and par- 
 ticularly to watch for any sign of a Romeward tendency. 
 
 The leaders, however, were full of hope. To them, and 
 particularly to Newman, it was a campaign against Religious 
 Liberalism, in which he would neither give nor receive 
 quarter, and which he hoped would end in the complete 
 discomfiture of his enemy and its banishment from the 
 Anglican Church. To Newman Liberalism or Broad 
 Churchism was simply Rationalism in disguise. It must 
 inevitably lead to the destruction of all dogma, and in so 
 doing remove the only barrier to absolute Infidelity. In 
 Newman's opinion the Protestant element in our Church 
 
Cracta for t!je Ct'mea. 41 
 
 was purely negative. It lived by opposition to the claims 
 of Rome, and was in no respect a positive body of faith. If 
 our Church was to hold her own as a system of truth, against 
 Romanism and Rationalism alike, it must be by resting 
 all her weight on the Catholic doctrines she had inherited 
 from antiquity, and rejecting all the Lutheran and Calvinist 
 elements that had intruded themselves into her. With the 
 first Reformers he had no sympathy whatever. But our 
 Reformation was a process that extended over a century 
 and a half, and included, not only nor chiefly the divines of 
 Edward VI., but much more those of the later Elizabethan 
 and Caroline times, and last, but not least, the Non-Jurors 
 under William III. Newman's aim was to bring the Church 
 back to at least the position it held under Bramhall, Bull, 
 Warburton, or Ken. In all this his purpose was doctrinal 
 and disciplinary ; that of the theologian, not of the ecclesi- 
 astical statesman. The connection of Church and State had 
 but a secondary interest for him. It was not essential to 
 the well-being, far less to the being, of the Church. But 
 he did not attack it. He contented himself with pointing 
 out that the Church is a spiritual body, whose laws and 
 government are derived from Christ, and that with these 
 the State has no right to interfere. 
 
 It was towards the close of 1833 that he made his first 
 attempt to gain the adherence of Dr. Pusey. This great 
 man, as remarkable for stern holiness of life as for a depth 
 of theological learning unique in the Church of his day, well 
 deserves the title of the second head of the Movement. He 
 was a year older than Newman, and well fitted by his 
 aristocratic birth, high position, abilities, and weight of 
 character, to assume an authoritative part. Himself a 
 former Fellow of Oriel, he had known Newman, but not 
 
/ 
 
 42 Cracta for tf)e Citrus*. 
 
 intimately ; and having applied himself with prodigious 
 industry to Oriental studies, he had been appointed before 
 the age of thirty to the high post of Regius Professor of 
 Hebrew and Canon of Christ Church. Already he had 
 become one of the leading men of the University. He had 
 twice visited Germany, and there, while attending theo- 
 logical lectures at Gottingen and Berlin, had become inti- 
 mately acquainted with the most famous professors. Pusey's 
 experience of German Universities opened his eyes to the 
 defects of English scholarship. In the first place he saw 
 with amazement the enormous range of study and the 
 colossal knowledge which German theologians thought 
 necessary before they posed as teachers. And the lesson of 
 laborious work learned among them he utilized to the 
 utmost. No German scholar is more conscientiously 
 thorough in studying all that is anywhere written on a 
 subject than he. Caring nothing for style, nothing for 
 imaginative appeals, he wields the sledge-hammer of an 
 erudition which even his bitterest enemies admitted to be 
 without a rival in England. But this was by no means the 
 only impression he derived from his sojourn in Germany. 
 He brought back with him the alarming conviction that 
 German theological criticism was sapping the foundations 
 of Christian belief with weapons so insidious and so powerful 
 that, except God should specially prepare our English Church 
 to resist them, the result would probably be the collapse of 
 the nation's faith. Actuated by this overwhelming anxiety 
 Pusey returned to England fully determined to vindicate for 
 the Church of England the whole of that Catholic theology 
 which in ancient days had withstood the heresies that 
 assailed the early Church, and which alone, so he believed, 
 could stem the tide of rationalistic criticism in the future, 
 
Cracta for tlje Ctmea. 43 
 
 whenever it should come. The brilliance of German theology 
 was not without some influence upon his judgment. And a 
 book he wrote on it was misjudged by some critics, including 
 Rose, as showing a dangerous sympathy with its methods. 
 Pusey himself withdrew the book, and expressed sorrow for 
 having written it. But, strictly speaking, it was not subject 
 to the accusation made against it. Pusey grasped quite 
 clearly from the first the position which he held to the end. 
 And though he approached nearer in many points to Rome 
 as years went on, there is no indication that his judgment 
 ever wavered on the Catholicism of our Church, or that any 
 decision of the Privy Council, short of unmistakeable denial 
 of the Creed, would ever have driven him out of it. 
 
 Such was the man to whom Newman appealed to throw 
 in his lot with the Movement. Pusey did not at first con- 
 sent. Newman begged him at least to write a Tract, that 
 Oxford might know him to be in general sympathy with the 
 writers. This Pusey, after some hesitation, promised to do, 
 but on the condition that he should be allowed to append 
 his initials to it. He then wrote the Tract on Fasting, 
 which, being the only one bearing signature, was at once 
 identified as Pusey's, and this led to the name of Puseyite 
 being affixed to the Movement by the public. In Oxford its 
 nickname was Newmania, which proves that the University 
 regarded Newman as the chief author. But in the world at 
 large Puseyite was the name that stuck. Not only in England, 
 but on the Continent and in America the new opinions were 
 watched with interest, and Pusey, almost before he had 
 endorsed them, was held to be their author. 
 
 In this matter, as in so many others, the popular instinct 
 was on the whole right. If there is one man who can be 
 called the presiding genius of the Movement from first to 
 
44 Cracte for tf)e Ctme*. 
 
 last, that man is Pusey. He alone had the weight of 
 character, the governing qualities, the inflexibility of will, 
 the ever available knowledge, the diplomatic dexterity, that 
 are as necessary to guide a religious as a political party. 
 In spite of his seclusion from society, Pusey was neverthe- 
 less a genuine man of affairs, as those who desired to thwart 
 him frequently found to their cost. Neither Keble nor 
 Newman, even had they been placed in Pusey 's position, 
 could have steered the party as he steered it, for neither 
 possessed the gift of rule, which Pusey possessed in a very 
 high degree. 
 
 We may therefore regard the accession of Pusey in 1834 
 as an epoch in the Movement. As Newman says, he was 
 a very awful person. Not only was he on an equality with 
 the Heads of Houses, that close oligarchy which governed 
 Oxford, and so raised far above a mere College Fellow, but 
 it was still more his personal character that made men stand 
 in awe of him, his austerity, his uncompromisingness, his 
 severe detachment from the world. No wonder Newman 
 rejoiced at gaining him. He thought things must needs go 
 well in such company. 
 
 Pusey entered into the Movement with views of his own. 
 He had always felt great sympathy for the Evangelical 
 School, not so much for its doctrinal tenets as for its in- 
 sistence upon personal holiness and its detachment from the 
 world. This sympathetic attitude remained unchanged 
 through all the conflicts and misunderstandings of the years 
 that followed. It gave him the sincerest pleasure to find 
 himself able to co-operate with the leaders of Evangelical 
 thought. It gave him real pain to be obliged to act in 
 opposition to them. To Pusey, therefore, the Movement 
 appeared not only as a reaction of Christian belief against 
 
Cractg for tje Ct'nu*. 45 
 
 the negative position of Liberalism, but also as the appro- 
 priate completion of the earlier Evangelical movement, by 
 adding to it that element of Church authority which alone 
 could give coherence to the truths it preached. If this were 
 not accepted, then he feared that Evangelical truth itself 
 might be lost. 
 
 Again, Pusey was not satisfied with the short Tracts that 
 had been issued. They did not indicate with sufficient 
 clearness the body of learning upon which their conclusions 
 rested. In his hands a Tract became a ponderous theo- 
 logical treatise. His three Tracts on Baptism make up a 
 book of nearly 500 pages, bristling with scholarly quotations 
 and crammed with severe argument. He at once com- 
 municated to the Movement a learned and antiquarian tone, 
 and aimed at turning the occasional Tracts into a systema- 
 tized body of Anglican theology. 
 
 It is now time to ask the question, What was the attitude 
 of the rulers of the Church towards the Movement ? At 
 first they made no sign. Archbishop Howley and the 
 Bishops of London and Oxford, 1 from respect for the men, 
 were friendly to the Movement. The University authorities, 
 on the other hand, distrusted it from the first, though 
 several years elapsed before they took open action against it. 
 
 There was an ex-Fellow of Oriel named Hampden, who 
 had been Bampton Lecturer in 1832. 2 His subject had 
 been the theology of the Schoolmen. He had endeavoured 
 to prove that all dogmatic creeds are the product of scholas- 
 ticism, (by which he meant the reasonings of human 
 philosophy,) and therefore ought not to be binding on any 
 
 1 Drs. Blomfield and Bagot. 
 2 A series of sermons preached annually before the University, in accordance 
 with the provisions of Dr. Bampton's foundation, for the defence of the Christian 
 faith. 
 
46 Cracttf for tfje Ctme*. 
 
 man's belief. In 1836 the Regius Professorship of Divinity 
 fell vacant, to which the Crown appoints. Lord Melbourne, 
 after consulting the Archbishop, appointed Dr. Hampden. 
 At once there was a commotion in Oxford. A protest was 
 raised, and Pusey and Newman took the lead in it. It 
 must be remembered that Oxford was then the professed 
 nursery of Church doctrines. Hampden's views appeared 
 to Newman, and to many besides him, subversive of the 
 Catholic position. Not only the entire High Church con- 
 tingent, but many Evangelicals also, united to resist his 
 appointment. They were not successful. He was made 
 Professor, but, contrary to expectation, exercised little or 
 no influence in the University. Some years later he was 
 appointed to the Bishopric of Hereford in the face of a 
 still stronger protest, but apparently without the result 
 which was feared, of his using his office to propagate his 
 views. 
 
 It had always been Pusey's dominant apprehension that 
 of all the dangers which threatened our Church the inroads 
 of infidelity were the greatest. It was against these that 
 he desired to re-erect her fortress of Catholic doctrine. It 
 was these that in the person of Hampden he persistently 
 and inflexibly withstood. In thus estimating the quarter 
 from which peril was likely to arise, Pusey was in agreement 
 with a Churchman of a very different school, Archbishop 
 Tait, who on more than one occasion declared that excesses 
 of ritual were less to be dreaded than the spread of rational- 
 izing views. This has not been so commonly admitted, 
 even by far-seeing men, as to make it irrelevant to call 
 attention to the point. Pusey's outlook was so wide, and 
 his spiritual sensitiveness so delicate, that a view thus 
 tenaciously held by him demands the most serious attention. 
 
Cracttf for tfje Ctmea. 47 
 
 In his letters at the time he makes an interesting classifica- 
 tion of the different kinds of infidelity, which in regard to 
 the disquieting developments that have since appeared I 
 think you will wish me to record. 
 
 i. There is the infidelity of the Latin nations, Italy and 
 France, which springs from a reaction against the tyranny 
 and superstitions of modern Romanism as popularly taught 
 and practised. This takes the form either of total indiffer- 
 ence to revealed religion, or of fierce opposition to its dogmas 
 and restraints on conduct. 
 
 2. There is the speculative infidelity of Germany, pro- 
 duced by the self-confident and over-bold criticism of Holy 
 Scripture, as if it was to be treated exactly as any other 
 book. This leads to Rationalism, or the idea that human 
 science can explain, not indeed the inner mysteries them- 
 selves, but the way in which people have come to believe 
 them ; and that this psychological explanation of dogma is in 
 truth the only one possible to us. In Pusey's day this form 
 of infidelity was almost unknown in English society, but has 
 now firmly established itself. 
 
 3. There is the infidelity to which Englishmen are most 
 prone, which arises from their love of freedom and dislike of 
 all definite spiritual authority. In England there is not (or 
 was not) the intellectual opposition to the Christian Revela- 
 tion that we find elsewhere, but there is a decided preference 
 for an easy, undefined, general belief in God and Christ, 
 without acceptance of the intellectual conditions on which 
 that belief is declared to save us. This is what is now so 
 popular as Undogmatic or Undenominational Religion. It 
 had no name in those days, but it was practically what 
 Hampden preached. Pusey does not go so far as to call 
 this infidelity, for, of course, it is not. But he declares that 
 
4 8 CracW for tje Ctmeg. 
 
 it necessarily leads to infidelity. And this is why he so 
 sternly opposed it. 
 
 The opposition to Dr. Hampden had divided the University 
 into two parties, the orthodox and the liberal. But so far 
 the Tractarians had not been thrown into opposition to the 
 great body of Churchmen. Nevertheless, much uneasiness 
 was already felt as to their teaching in many quarters. It 
 was quite evident that what the Tracts pronounced to be 
 the teaching of our Church was very different from what the 
 University authorities regarded as such. The work of the 
 Reformers they cried down as unfortunate and mistaken, 
 and men were directed to the primitive Fathers as the true 
 exponents of the mind of our Church. In order to impress 
 this the more unmistakeably, Pusey started the gigantic task 
 of translating the chief works of all those Fathers who are 
 accepted as authorities alike by the Churches of England, 
 of Rome, and of the East. This colossal undertaking was 
 commenced in 1838, and continued from time to time by 
 various translators until 1885, under the title of the Library 
 of the Fathers. It has had a profound influence upon 
 Churchmanship. It has excited a widespread interest in 
 the history and doctrines of the undivided Church, and has 
 become a strong weapon in our hands against the inno- 
 vations in faith and practice introduced by the Church of 
 Rome. Its influence has extended itself far beyond the 
 limits of the High Church section; and, indeed, both in 
 Germany and America, some of the profoundest Patristic 
 scholars are found among those most opposed to the Anglo- 
 Catholic idea. Up till then the Fathers had been, as it 
 were, given away to Rome, and it was taken for granted 
 that they favoured the Roman position. Yet the Convo- 
 cation of 1 57 1 had sanctioned the Canon of our Church 
 
Cractg for tf)e Cuius. 49 
 
 which refers all doctrine to Holy Scripture and the Fathers, 
 together with the Thirty-nine Articles. At the same 
 time, it appealed to the Fathers, not as authorities, but 
 only as witnesses, i.e., so far as they attested the sense of 
 Scripture which had been always received in the early 
 Church. 
 
 About this time the Roman Catholic authorities became 
 alive to the importance of taking advantage of the revival of 
 Church feeling in England to further the interests of their 
 own body. In 1836 Monsignor Wiseman, Principal of the 
 English College in Rome, was sent to England in the hope 
 that his great abilities and wonderfully persuasive personality 
 might bring anxious inquirers within the attractions of the 
 Roman system. Wiseman delivered a series of lectures in 
 London, which attracted general attention. The lecturer 
 took advantage of his popularity to enter into controversy 
 with the Tractarian School. He accused its leaders of 
 teaching Roman doctrines, while refusing to take the step 
 which logically followed from holding them. Both New- 
 man and Pusey were ready to accept his challenge. Newman 
 tells us that at this time (1837- 1839) ^ s Anglican position was 
 at its height, and his confidence in the Church of England 
 unshaken. He was therefore able to devote his whole power 
 to meeting Wiseman's attacks, without the depressing con- 
 sciousness of any possible weak points in his armour. His 
 answer was embodied in a book called " The Prophetical 
 Office of the Church viewed relatively to Romanism and 
 Popular Protestantism." The ideas of the book had taken 
 shape in the form of lectures delivered in a side-chapel of 
 St. Mary's, Oxford, on the history of the Church. They 
 had been carefully prepared, much discussed, and so far 
 definitely adopted as to be available for a systematic work. 
 
50 Cracttf for tf)e Ctmeg. 
 
 The Prophetical Office is one of Newman's most important 
 writings. It sets forth very clearly the difference between 
 Anglicanism and Romanism. While allowing that Rome 
 has been more successful in preserving Catholic unity, it 
 shows that she has in many respects broken away from the 
 faith of antiquity. Newman claims for ourselves the right 
 to bring into prominence all those features of our Church 
 which display its Catholicity, while he calls upon Rome to 
 review her authorized teaching in accordance with the faith 
 once delivered to the saints. He vindicates for the English 
 Church a middle position, which he calls the Via Media, 
 between the extremes of Romanism and Protestantism. He 
 asserts that this is no merely negative attitude, no mere 
 receding from excess or defect ; but that it embodies a 
 constructive religious process, an objective and real faith, 
 with a threefold basis, viz., dogma, the sacramental system, 
 and opposition to Rome. 
 
 The controversy was continued during 1837 by W. Palmer 
 in his able " Treatise on the Christian Church," a polemical 
 work, which Newman informs us was highly considered by 
 his Roman Catholic opponents, and taken in hand by Father 
 Perrone. Palmer was successful in showing that Wiseman 
 had rested important parts of his case upon inaccurate 
 quotations. Wiseman's strongest point was his largeness 
 of view, his noble enthusiasm, and his many-sided culture. 
 Palmer was a man of much more limited capacity, but 
 within his limits extremely learned and accurate. He has 
 expressed himself with great severity as to the controversial 
 methods permitted by Roman Catholics. Undoubtedly his 
 advice, founded on his own practice, is excellent, never to 
 accept a quotation from an opponent until you have verified 
 it yourself from the original source. 
 
v&tt& for t\)t Cime*. 5r 
 
 These publications, however, did but little to allay the 
 growing uneasiness. By way of putting the sincerity of the 
 leaders to a crucial test, a proposal was made in 1838 by 
 leading University men to erect in Oxford a memorial to 
 the three chief Reformers, Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, 
 as having suffered death for their faith. Pusey was at first 
 not unwilling to subscribe. But Newman and Keble held 
 aloof. Pusey would not separate himself from them. He 
 proposed as an alternative that an inscription should be set 
 up acknowledging the value of the Reformation, but not 
 identifying it with any particular names. This, however, 
 met with little or no support. In the end a handsome 
 cross was raised in one of the finest sites in Oxford, with 
 statues of the three Reformers, called the Martyrs' Memorial. 
 The refusal of the Tractarian leaders to support this naturally 
 raised fresh suspicions. Hostility gathered fast. Bishop Bagot, 
 of Oxford, whose truly Christian kindness and generosity of 
 heart Newman always gratefully acknowledged, mentioned 
 the Tracts in his Charge in a manner which, though 
 balanced, seemed to Newman to imply disapproval. This 
 was in 1838. 1 Newman felt deeply aggrieved. He wrote 
 to the Bishop offering to stop the Tracts. His feelings may 
 be gathered from the following words, written afterwards to 
 Pusey : " My Bishop was my Pope. I knew no other : the 
 successor of the Apostles, the Vicar of Christ . . . and he 
 had charged against me." It seemed to him as if he was 
 condemned. He thought of resigning his vicarage, but was 
 dissuaded from doing so by Pusey. An idea, however, 
 entered his mind, which he carried into effect a year or two 
 later, of retiring to Littlemore, a village three miles from 
 Oxford, of which he held the cure, and there erecting a 
 
 1 The incident is mentioned in the Apologia, p. 157. Edition of 1864. 
 
52 Cracta {or tty Ctmea. 
 
 small monastery, 1 where, in company with like-minded 
 friends, he might devote himself entirely to the religious 
 life, and retire from his position as leader of the Movement. 
 There were other signs of storms ahead. The publication 
 about this time of Froude's Remains 2 by Newman and 
 Keble gave great displeasure to many leading High Church- 
 men. As I have already said, Froude was second to none 
 of the leaders of the Movement, either in ability or earnest- 
 ness. But he died before his mind had acquired the 
 temperance of expression advisable in a religious contro- 
 versialist. His extreme, almost reckless, outspokenness on 
 every subject, though valuable from his sincerity, and 
 important from his great talents, was liable to misconstruc- 
 tion. It was from his diary, written in 1833, that the 
 following sentence was taken, which has been more than 
 once quoted with damaging effect by opponents as a frank 
 admission of disloyalty to our Church. He mentions having 
 when in Rome called on Dr. Wiseman, " who has en- 
 lightened Newman and me on the subject of our relations to 
 the Church of Rome. We got introduced to him to find 
 out whether they would take us in on any terms to which 
 we could twist our consciences, and we found to our dismay 
 that not one step could be gained without swallowing the 
 Council of Trent as a whole." 8 On the surface these words 
 appear to have but one meaning. They appear to declare 
 with suicidal frankness that at the very time when Newman 
 
 1 He calls it a fiovrj, the same word that is used in St. John's Gospel, and 
 translated mansion in our Bible. 
 
 2 Froude died of consumption in X836, and left a large number of mostly un- 
 finished writings, which were edited in four volumes by Newman and Keble 
 some years afterwards. 
 
 8 Froude's Remains, Vol. I., p. 307, quoted in Palmer's Narrative of Events, 
 p. 41. 
 
CracW for tije Cuius. 53 
 
 and Froude were writing the hardest possible things of 
 Rome, they were actually intriguing to be received into the 
 Roman Communion. No wonder that the publication of 
 such sentiments shocked the feelings of Englishmen. No 
 wonder that they surrounded not only the memory of Froude 
 himself, but the names of the two clergymen who had 
 deliberately chosen to give them to the world, with an 
 atmosphere of deep-seated mistrust. And yet there can be 
 little doubt that the obvious interpretation is the wrong one. 
 There was that in Froude which all who knew him agree 
 would never have allowed him to join the Roman Church. 
 Strange as it may appear, I believe the true meaning of his 
 impulsive and misleading words was this He wished to 
 find out on what conditions the Roman Church would admit 
 our Church to communion. He expected some of these 
 conditions to be difficult, which he expresses by the highly 
 improper term of "twisting our consciences." But when 
 he found, as all have found, that Rome never wavers in her 
 demands, and will accept nothing less than absolute sub- 
 mission, he realized that the idea was hopeless. But though 
 I have no doubt he meant this, the written language remains, 
 and in the eyes of an opponent it must ever bear a construc- 
 tion unfavourable to his sincerity. Dean Church, who is 
 throughout the staunchest friend of the Movement, admits 
 that the publication of Froude's Remains was an unwise 
 step, and alienated many from it. 
 
 Another serious shock was given to Church people at the 
 same time by the title of one of the Tracts, published in 
 1838 by Isaac Williams, who, it will be remembered, was 
 Newman's Curate. The title was, " On Reserve in Religious 
 Teaching," and a year later a second Tract appeared with 
 the same title. It would hardly be too much to say that 
 
54 Crafts for tfte ime$. 
 
 the Church at large was scandalized. Not only the religious 
 press, not only numbers of Evangelical clergymen, but the 
 bench of Bishops also were now thoroughly roused. Nearly 
 all of them condemned the Tract, as contrary to the prin- 
 ciples of the Gospel and to the declaration of the Apostle 
 Paul that he had not shunned to declare to his converts the 
 whole counsel of God. The idea of putting forward one 
 teaching for the multitude and another for the initiated is so 
 repugnant to the mind of our Church, and, as we believe, to 
 the New Testament, that there can be no question about 
 condemning it with the most unsparing severity. Yet even 
 so, it was hard that the Tract should be condemned unread. 
 And a very large number of those who condemned it con- 
 fessed that they had not read it. The fact is, the title was 
 misleading. Isaac Williams had not considered fully the 
 shock it would give to people's minds. And although I am 
 willing to grant that the title, whether justified by the 
 contents or not, is a sufficient ground of censure, 1 do not 
 believe from the portion I have read that Williams intended 
 to keep back any part of the message of salvation, but 
 merely wished to follow the caution of the early Fathers in 
 accommodating spiritual truth to the capacities of those to 
 whom it was addressed, giving milk to babes and strong 
 meat to full grown men. But, in truth, there was a ground 
 of weakness deeper and far more serious than any mere 
 mistake or chance imprudence. Newman's own mind was 
 becoming unsettled. He had begun to doubt whether the 
 Church of his birth was really, as he had so strongly 
 asserted it to be, a branch of the Catholic and Apostolic 
 Church of Christ. The first misgiving had come to him 
 when studying the Monophysite controversy early in 1839. 
 11 1 saw (he says) my face in the mirror of the early Church, 
 
(Eracts for tf)e Cuius. 55 
 
 and I was a Monophysite." * But the misgiving passed, 
 only to reappear again later in the same year through an 
 article in the Dublin Review by Bishop Wiseman on the 
 Roman claim. The subject was the controversy between 
 St. Augustine and the Donatists, with an application to Angli- 
 canism. The Donatists, by persisting in their schismatical 
 views, had cut themselves off from the body of the Church. 
 The argument that Wiseman triumphantly brings to bear 
 against Anglicanism is the same that Augustine launches 
 against Donatus " Securus judicat orbis Terrarum " : 
 " Impartial mankind is the judge." The entire world 
 persisted in regarding St. Augustine as representing the 
 Catholic Church, and Donatus as representing a sect. So 
 now (he says) the indifferent world acknowledges Roman 
 Catholicism to be the genuine representative of Christianity, 
 and Anglicanism as a mere local modification of it. This 
 Latin phrase kept ringing in his ears. He compares it to 
 the " Turn again, Whittington," or the " Tolle lege " which 
 St. Augustine heard, both of them prophetic voices which 
 altered the whole future of those that heard them. " It was 
 as if I had seen a ghost. The heavens had opened and 
 closed again. My thought had been, The Church of Rome 
 will be found right after all : and then it had vanished." 
 
 It is evident that Newman could not now escape from re- 
 opening the whole question What is the Church ? Wherein 
 does its unity consist ? And to this he applied himself with 
 all earnestness. He published his views in an article in the 
 British Critic in 1840 (of which he was editor) " On the 
 
 1 By this he does not mean that the Anglican Church teaches identically the 
 doctrine of the Monophysites, but that the doctrinal and disciplinary attitude of 
 Rome with regard to Anglicanism is similar to that of the Orthodox Church 
 towards the ancient heresy. " It is difficult to make out how the Monophysites 
 were heretics, unless Anglicans are so too. But the former are heretics. There- 
 fore the latter must be." Cf. Apologia, p. 209. 
 
56 Cracta for tlje Ctme*. 
 
 Catholicity of the English Church." In this he put forward 
 the marks of our Church which unite it in doctrine and 
 discipline with primitive Christianity, and also with such 
 features in the Church of Rome as are not exclusively 
 Roman, but primitive and universal. The great stumbling- 
 block to the convincingness of his argument was the existence 
 of the Thirty-nine Articles in the Prayer Book, which were 
 generally understood to be directed, not only against the 
 popular corruptions of Romanism, but against its formal 
 decrees ; and also were believed to lay down as essential 
 portions of the Church of England's faith, doctrines on the 
 sufficiency of Scripture, justification, and election, which were 
 newly delivered at the Reformation, and opposed to the 
 tradition of the Catholic Church. 
 
 Newman therefore set himself to examine the Articles, 
 and find out whether the popular interpretation is the only 
 one admissible. As the result of this examination is the 
 turning-point of the whole Movement, I propose to defer it 
 till my next lecture, which will include the period from the 
 publication of Tract 90 to the withdrawal of Newman from 
 communion with our Church. 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 jfrom Zvact 90 to tt ^eceeeion of (Ytewmam 
 
 (1841-1845.) 
 
 HOSE who have followed me thus far will re- 
 member that the main object of the Tractarian 
 writers was to bring clearly into view those 
 ultimate principles on which the Church of 
 England rests her claim to speak to the nation with 
 authority, as the accredited representative in this country of 
 the faith of Christ. 
 
 Newman, as the guiding spirit of the Movement, had 
 faced this problem with the utmost precision. He had 
 compared the system of our Church with that of Rome on 
 the one hand, and of the Protestant sects on the other. 
 And he believed he had disengaged from the multitude of 
 controversial arguments three main sources of authority, to 
 which the Church of England was content to appeal. The 
 first was Antiquity, i.e., the decisions of the Councils and 
 consent of the Fathers of the undivided Church in matters 
 of doctrine and worship. The second was the Apostolical 
 Succession, i.e., the unbroken transmission of Orders from 
 the times of the Apostles through the historic Episcopate, 
 for the administration of the Sacraments. The third was 
 the Appeal of the National Conscience against the unfounded 
 
58 dfrom Cract 90 to tty Stttiiion of flefoman. 
 
 claims and unscriptural abuses of the Church of Rome. 
 This was the special element introduced by the Reforma- 
 tion. It is embodied in that part of the Prayer Book 
 which alone is of contemporary origin, viz., the Thirty-nine 
 Articles, which lay down the position of our Church towards 
 the leading controversies of the day. 
 
 Let us endeavour to illustrate these principles in a simple 
 and intelligible manner, (i) First, that of Antiquity. The 
 watchword of the Catholic Church is admirably given in the 
 words of St. Vincent of Lerins, so often quoted, " Quod 
 semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus," i.e., It teaches that 
 which has been taught always, everywhere, and by all. This 
 is the Catholic idea, viz., a nucleus or deposit of doctrine, 
 once for all delivered to the Apostles, and ever since taught 
 with authority by those who occupy their seat. This deposit 
 can never be altered, never added to, nor diminished. In 
 its substance it is absolutely unchanging. But it admits of 
 expansion, as the bud expands into the flower. It is 
 capable of continuous restatement from age to age, in terms 
 corresponding to successive forms of human thought, accord- 
 ing as the controversies of the time bring into prominence 
 one or other of its essential elements. 
 
 For example, the doctrine of the Trinity, though implied 
 in the New Testament, is not explicitly laid down there. It 
 was not until three centuries after the Apostles' time that 
 this great doctrine received its final shape. But it is 
 undoubtedly part of the Apostolic deposit. Though not 
 explicit, it is implicit in Scripture. It is not an addition to 
 the Apostles' teaching, it is an amplification or unfolding of 
 it, just in the same way as St. Paul's doctrine of justifi- 
 cation is not an addition to the teaching of Christ, but only 
 an expansion or systematization of it. 
 
dfrom vact 90 to tt)t &ttti*itm of Jlefoman. 59 
 
 Now as long as the Church was really one and undivided, 
 her original doctrine is easy to identify. She was able to 
 purge herself of discordant elements. She cast out those 
 who denied the Trinity, or the Divinity of Christ ; they 
 could not maintain their position in the Christian body. All 
 those who remained in that body held substantially the 
 same doctrine. Consequently, speaking generally, up to 
 the sixth century the formula of St. Vincent can legitimately 
 be applied " Always, everywhere, by all." And Newman 
 thought he could apply it successfully also to the Anglican 
 Church. We appeal to antiquity, and on the whole we are 
 true to antiquity. There may be some differences, but not 
 on vital points. Speaking broadly, the worship and teach- 
 ing of our Prayer Book and our great divines is based on 
 that of the Church of the first five centuries. 
 
 (2) In the second place, Newman pointed out that we had 
 retained the Apostolic ministry, which we put forward as a 
 guarantee, and which he held to be the only guarantee, for 
 valid sacraments. Historically speaking, we had clung to 
 Episcopacy when all the other Reformed Churches had cast 
 it away. The line of Anglican orders is unbroken. What- 
 ever powers Christ's commission to the Twelve and their 
 successors bestowed, those powers remain with us, so far as 
 their historical transmission from hand to hand can guarantee 
 them. Moreover, the intention of the Church of England 
 is to retain the sacramental endowments which were claimed 
 by the undivided Church. No one can read the Services for 
 Consecration of Bishops and Ordering of Priests and 
 Deacons, bound up with the Prayer Book, without seeing 
 that they deliberately profess to retain the custom and the 
 intention of the primitive Church. There is absolutely 
 nothing new about them. They are entirely built on 
 
60 dfrom Craft 90 to tfje deafttott of #etoman. 
 
 primitive Christianity. And the administration of the 
 sacraments is based upon them. No sacrament is allowed 
 to be administered except by a lawful minister, i.e., one 
 episcopally ordained. What is called high sacramental 
 doctrine is plainly taught in every service. The Lord's 
 Supper is the communication of Christ's Body and Blood. 
 Baptism is spiritual regeneration. Marriage is a lifelong 
 vow, which no human authority can dissolve. Confession, 
 either in sickness or before Holy Communion, is followed 
 by Absolution, or the authoritative declaration by the 
 Priest of forgiveness of sins by God. Confirmation is no 
 mere profession of Christianity, but the gift by laying on of 
 hands of the Holy Ghost. So far Newman felt he was 
 on sure ground in claiming for our Church true Catholicity, 
 i.e., essential unity, both in doctrine and discipline, with the 
 one mystical body of Christ. 
 
 (3) But when he came to the third court of appeal, the 
 Thirty-nine Articles, he was startled to find in them a great 
 deal that appeared to have a different character. Popular 
 religious opinion regarded the Articles as furnishing the 
 latest and most trustworthy summary of the faith of our 
 Church. It therefore insisted that the rest of the Prayer 
 Book should be interpreted in subordination to them, and 
 not that they should be interpreted in subordination to the 
 rest of the Prayer Book. The Articles were popularly 
 viewed as the stronghold of our Protestantism. They were 
 directly aimed at those Roman errors which the Reforma- 
 tion cast aside, and they formed, so to speak, the special 
 and differentiating element in our Church. They were 
 required to be signed by all undergraduates of the Uni- 
 versity at their matriculation, and again by all those who 
 were admitted to any office either of instruction or adminis- 
 
dfrom Cract 90 to tfce &wteion o( Hefoman. 61 
 
 tration in it. Newman himself had signed them when he 
 took Holy Orders. He was bound, if he was an honest 
 man, to be willing, when called upon, to sign them again, 
 or else he could not hope to justify his retention of a place 
 in the ministry of our Church. 
 
 When, therefore, he came to consider the position of the 
 Articles in connection with the other two tests of Catholicity 
 before mentioned, he came to them with a prepossession 
 already formed, that inasmuch as our Church was indeed a 
 branch of the Church Catholic, her Articles must of necessity 
 be in agreement with the other two tests. And the task he 
 set himself was to prove that they were in such agreement. 
 
 This task he performed to his own satisfaction in Tract 
 90. It is important we should clearly understand what was 
 the spirit in which he approached this problem. In the 
 first place he brushed aside, as of no value at all, the popular 
 interpretation of the Articles. It might be right, or it 
 might be wrong. But, in his opinion, it was a mere un- 
 scientific impression or prejudice, founded not on argument, 
 but on custom, repeated from mouth to mouth by superficial 
 and often ignorant persons, who were fitted neither by 
 temper nor by learning to lay down the true canon of inter- 
 pretation. He attached no weight to the mere numbers of 
 those who supported it. The majority of mankind had been 
 on the wrong side before ; they might be on the wrong side 
 again. That remained to be seen. 
 
 Then again, Newman did not conceive himself to be 
 bound by a strictly historical or literary interpretation. This 
 is an important point. Most critics, when they set them- 
 selves to explain the meaning of a literary document, begin 
 by investigating the actual circumstances amid which it 
 arose. They estimate the influences which acted upon the 
 
62 dfrom Cract 90 to tfje dectdtft'on of Jlefaman. 
 
 writer's mind. They endeavour to enter into his thought, 
 and to ascertain exactly the sense in which he wrote, and if 
 that sense is found to be in accordance with the grammatical 
 construction of his words they have no hesitation in declaring 
 this to be the true signification. I do not say that Newman 
 under-estimated, far less neglected, this portion of his task. 
 He was abundantly qualified by his wide reading and practice 
 in historical studies to understand the exact questions which 
 those who drew up the Articles had before them. In several 
 cases he did understand them thoroughly, and in others, 
 where his prejudices led him wrong, he undoubtedly threw 
 an original and suggestive light upon the different influences 
 that moulded the language of the Reformers. 
 
 But his main argument was this. I am putting it into 
 my own words, but believe that I am fairly representing the 
 problem that was before his mind. " I do not care to go 
 too minutely into the original sense of the Articles. What 
 they meant to those who drew them up is not the chief 
 question for me. I want to know what I mean by them. 
 They are required of me as a test of my orthodoxy. Nor 
 are they required only of me and such as think as I do. 
 Other persons, holding widely different views from mine on 
 some of the most important questions in religion, are also 
 required to subscribe to them, and to teach in accordance 
 with their doctrines. Now can it for a moment be con- 
 ceived that these persons and I, in accepting the Articles, 
 mean to accept precisely the same thing ? Most certainly 
 we do not. And I claim the right to show that the Articles 
 admit of a very wide latitude of construction ; that what I 
 mean by them has as good a right to be counted a fair and 
 honest subscription as what they mean has. But if this be so, 
 it will be necessary to put aside all prepossessions, all preju- 
 
dfrom Cract 90 to tije ffrtateion of llefoman. 63 
 
 dices, all historical helps and elucidations ; everything, in 
 short, which does not bear upon their actual literal signifi- 
 cation at the present day. We must construe the Articles 
 just as we should construe an Act of Parliament, not accord- 
 ing to what the framers intended, but according to what the 
 words will bear. And if the wording of the Articles is so 
 vague as to tolerate, not only a distinctively Protestant, but 
 also a Catholic interpretation, then it is fair to take advantage 
 of that vagueness, and insist on our right to whichever of the 
 two interpretations we prefer." Such were the exegetical 
 principles that Newman applied in general to all the Articles, 
 and in detail to a considerable number of them. 
 
 The conclusions he drew were sufficiently startling to the 
 average Churchman. Several of the very Articles that had 
 always been quoted as condemning Roman doctrine were 
 now shown to be quite compatible with it, as being directed, 
 not against the authoritative teaching of the Roman Church, 
 but only against its prevalent and widely tolerated abuses. 
 This was the case with the Articles on General Councils, 
 the Sacrifices of Masses, Purgatory, and the Invocation of 
 Saints. In this way Newman satisfied himself that all the 
 Articles could be brought into harmony with primitive 
 Catholicity, and he went so far as to express his gratitude 
 that God should so have over-ruled the intention of the 
 writers that, although they intended to condemn Catholic 
 doctrine, their words turn out to be susceptible of an inter- 
 pretation in perfect harmony with it. 
 
 Such was the origin of Tract 90, the most celebrated of 
 all the Tracts. Newman himself had not the slightest 
 suspicion of the storm it was to evoke. It is characteristic 
 of his mind that when a course of reasoning led him to any 
 conclusion he at once accepted it, even though opposed to 
 
64 dfrom Cract 90 to tfje Sttmion of Ottoman. 
 
 his former convictions. Until now he had considered the 
 Articles a difficulty. After writing Tract 90 he considered 
 them a difficulty no longer. 
 
 But the great majority of people, both in the University 
 and in the Church, viewed the matter in a very different 
 light. To them Newman's principles of interpretation 
 appeared more like sophistry than honest argument. One 
 of the Bishop's chaplains voiced the common feeling when 
 he said that read in this way the Articles might mean any- 
 thing or nothing. A perfect storm of indignation arose. 
 The half-stifled, long repressed suspicion of the Academical 
 world burst forth. Four Tutors, headed by Tait, of Balliol, 
 afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, issued a protest, calling 
 upon the author to avow his name, and declaring that his 
 reasonings cut at the root of all bond fide subscription. 
 Newman accepted the challenge. He avowed himself 
 responsible for the Tract, and undertook to defend his 
 views, only asking a few days' grace in which to prepare 
 his vindication. The authorities, however, did not wait for 
 this, but took immediate steps against him. The Hebdo- 
 madal Board, which then governed the University, passed a 
 vote of censure upon the Tract, which they posted up in 
 every College, to the following effect : " 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 a due observance 
 of the University Statutes." 
 
 This, of course, amounted to a declaration of war. Hence- 
 forth the University was divided into two rival camps, and 
 hostile pamphlets ceased not to pour forth day by day, 
 
dfrom Cract 90 to tije & tuition of Sfcefoman. 65 
 
 arraigning or defending the honesty of the Tract. The 
 whole Church was profoundly moved. The Bishops took 
 up the matter. First the Bishop of Oxford wrote to New- 
 man that in his opinion the Tract was dangerous, and 
 recommended that the series should be discontinued. In 
 this recommendation Newman acquiesced, and the Tracts 
 came to an end. Other Bishops followed. A special 
 interest attaches to the utterance of Bishop Philpotts, of 
 Exeter, whose uncompromising High Churchmanship had 
 led a large section of the public to identify him with the 
 Tractarian School. Yet in his Charge the following words 
 occur, which are among the severest strictures ever passed 
 upon the Tract : " The tone of the Tract as respects our 
 own Church is offensive and indecent ; as regards the 
 Reformation and our Reformers absurd, as well as incon- 
 gruous and unjust. Its principles of interpreting our 
 Articles I cannot but deem most unsound ; the reasoning 
 with which it supports its principles sophistical ; the aver- 
 ments on which it founds its reasoning at variance with 
 recorded facts. It is far the most daring attempt ever yet 
 made by a minister of the Church of England to neutralize 
 the distinctive doctrines of our Church and make us symbolize 
 with Rome." 
 
 But those who opposed or condemned the Tract were 
 not the only persons who appreciated its tendency. Some 
 of Newman's warmest supporters were equally clear-sighted. 
 Among the younger Tractarians was a Fellow of Balliol 
 named Ward, whose powers of logical reasoning, combined 
 with great readiness of wit, had brought him into notice as 
 one of the ablest men in the University. He had at first 
 been a disciple of Arnold, but on perusing " Froude's 
 Remains " was so struck by it that he determined to make 
 
 B 
 
66 dfrom Crart 90 to tfje totcyMUtn of flefoman. 
 
 advances to the Tractarian School. This brought him 
 under the fascination of Newman's influence, and he at 
 once threw all the impulsive energy of a most ardent nature 
 into the loyal devotion of discipleship. Ward hailed the 
 Tract as an epoch-making document. He defended New- 
 man's reasoning on every point ; the only fault he allowed 
 in it was that it did not go far enough. He pressed Newman 
 to carry out the same principles of interpretation in other 
 departments of the Church's formularies, and continually 
 urged him to be more explicit in stating exactly what he 
 believed. Newman had never quite trusted Ward, and was 
 displeased at such persistent endeavours to force his hand. 
 He withdrew more and more into seclusion. Though still 
 retaining his benefice he resided mainly at Littlemore, in the 
 society of one or two intimate companions, studying theology, 
 corresponding with friends, or facing in solitude the perplex- 
 ing questions that engrossed him. The coming change in 
 his spiritual life already began to loom on the horizon. The 
 presentiment had come upon him that he would not long be 
 able to continue in our Church. At times he thought of 
 retiring into lay communion. Meanwhile he withdrew from 
 the guidance of the Movement, and left its direction mainly 
 in the hands of Pusey, with whom he kept himself in almost 
 daily correspondence. 
 
 During the next two or three years the interest of the 
 history shifts from Newman to Pusey. It will be remem- 
 bered that Pusey's chief contribution to the Tracts had been 
 an Essay on Baptism, which had strongly enforced the 
 doctrine of Regeneration in its loftiest form, and empha- 
 sized the early Christian teaching as to the extreme peril of 
 post-baptismal sin. Those who are familiar with the liter- 
 ature of the primitive Church will remember the prolonged 
 

 dfrom Cract 90 to t^e &utteian of fiefoman. 67 
 
 controversy which gathered around the question of forgive- 
 ness of sin after Baptism. Some refused it altogether. A 
 larger number allowed one restoration after public penitence. 
 Only a few ventured to plead for a second reception to the 
 Church's grace, and none for more. The consequence of 
 this was that many persons put off their baptism till they 
 thought they had outlived or escaped from temptations to 
 carnal sin ; and others deferred it till the hour of death, 
 hoping that then, at any rate, there could be no danger of a 
 relapse. It is ordinarily supposed that Infant Baptism was 
 the rule in the early Church. It is difficult to be certain of 
 the fact, because the writers of the period speak much more 
 of the doctrine of baptism than of its practical use. Ter- 
 tullian, writing about 200 years after Christ, advises a 
 sparing administration of Infant Baptism, deeming it safer 
 for men at any rate, to postpone the rite till early youth was 
 past. But we know that Tertullian's rigorist views influenced 
 him contrary to the general sense of the Church in many 
 things, and probably also in this. 
 
 Still, the bare fact that such a theory of Baptism was 
 possible shows how awful a mystery surrounded it in those 
 times of primitive purity, and at the same time proves how 
 easily reverence for a means of grace might turn into a 
 superstitious worship of it. 
 
 Now Pusey's mind was steeped in the early Fathers. 
 Moreover, his austere nature had a most utter horror of 
 carnal frailty. Consequently, in depicting the supernatural 
 grace of Baptism, he had seemed to many to dwell too 
 much on its awfulness, and too little on its aspect of help 
 and comfort. 
 
 Pusey set to work to correct this impression, not by 
 detracting one jot from the claim of Baptism upon man's 
 
68 dfrom Cract 90 to tf)e &tctiteion of flefoman. 
 
 regenerate life, but by putting side by side with it the power 
 of the other Sacrament to restore the soul that has fallen 
 from baptismal grace. He preached a sermon in the Uni- 
 versity pulpit in 1843, entitled " The Holy Eucharist a 
 source of comfort to the Penitent." The doctrine of the 
 sermon did not go at all beyond the language of the early 
 Fathers and of our own greatest divines ; but Pusey, guided 
 by his own strong convictions, so marshalled his authorities 
 that he appeared to several of his hearers to draw conclusions 
 at variance with the accepted view of our Church's teaching 
 on the subject of confession and absolution. 
 
 All Oxford was startled at hearing a few days afterwards 
 that the sermon had been condemned by the Board of 
 Divinity. I need not go into the rights or wrongs of the 
 condemnation, for as the judges positively refused to hear 
 Pusey in his own defence, their action is wholly destitute of 
 judicial value. The sentence pronounced was that the 
 sermon was unsound, and Pusey was suspended for two 
 years from preaching before the University. This con- 
 demnation was a very foolish act. For Pusey was a 
 dangerous man to meddle with. Not only had his holiness 
 of life made him universally reverenced at Oxford, but his 
 position gave him powerful friends. And many of the fore- 
 most Churchmen in England protested against the treatment 
 he had received. Men of widely different views from him- 
 self felt that he had been unfairly dealt with. And one 
 result of his suspension was the weakening of the authority 
 of the heads of houses, and the first call for the dreaded 
 remedy of University Reform. He himself made strong 
 efforts to appeal to some higher court ; but in those days 
 the University authorities were virtually self-governing, and 
 Pusey was advised by the best legal opinion that there 
 

 dfrom Cract 90 to tfce dece&tfton of Jiefomau. 69 
 
 would be great difficulties in retrying the case. He there- 
 fore submitted, though under protest, and continued his 
 labours so far as exclusion from the pulpit permitted. 
 
 Meanwhile a fresh complication had arisen, this time not 
 in Oxford, but in high political circles of the Court. The 
 King of Prussia, influenced by Bunsen, who was then 
 ambassador at St. James', made overtures to the English 
 Crown in the form of a proposal to found conjointly with 
 our Government a Bishopric of Jerusalem, which was to be 
 held alternately by a Bishop of the Anglican Church and a 
 German Lutheran, the latter to receive Episcopal conse- 
 cration from an English source. This was in 1842. From 
 its first promulgation Newman had condemned the scheme. 
 In his eyes it involved two radically false principles. In 
 the first place, it committed our Church to joint spiritual 
 action and intercommunion with the Lutheran body, which 
 was Erastian in its discipline, and schismatic in its consti- 
 tution, even if not actually heretical in doctrine. In the 
 second place, it proposed to intrude a Bishop into a See 
 which was already episcopally governed by a Prelate of the 
 Eastern Church, and so violated the Canons of the Council 
 of Nicaea. 
 
 Newman wrote to Pusey, expressing these views. Pusey 
 had been at first inclined to approve the scheme, but 
 eventually he came round to Newman's opinion, and 
 opposed it. The protest of the High Church party was 
 unavailing, as the Archbishop lent the measure his support, 
 and in 1843 the Bishop was appointed. This Newman 
 declares was one of the strongest influences which detached 
 him from the English Church. The march of events justi- 
 fied Newman's attitude ; for the plan proved unworkable, 
 and on the resignation of the first Bishop, after a few years, 
 
7p dfrom Cract 90 to tf) &tct$tiion of Uttoman. 
 
 only one other appointment was made, which was again 
 followed by an early resignation. At present there is an 
 English Bishop in Jerusalem, Dr. Blyth, late of the Church 
 Missionary staff. But he was appointed under quite different 
 conditions. He is not Bishop of Jerusalem, but Bishop of 
 the Anglican congregation in Jerusalem, a title which is in 
 harmony with the precedents of the primitive Church, gives 
 no offence to the Eastern Christians, and enables the Bishop 
 to work in perfect harmony with other religious bodies. 
 
 We must now trace briefly the progress of the Movement 
 under what may be called its junior development, the two 
 foremost champions of which were Oakley and Ward. 
 Oakley was a Tutor of Balliol, and intimate friend of Tait 
 throughout his life. He was a man of very beautiful 
 mind, fervent piety, and great sweetness of character. He 
 left Oxford before 1840 for London, where he held the 
 post of minister of St. Margaret's Chapel, and did much to 
 spread the new Church principles among cultivated London 
 society. Oakley alone among all the Tractarians possessed 
 what we may call a craving for aesthetic worship. He was 
 the first to concern himself with matters of ritual. He 
 introduced several changes in the mode of conducting 
 Divine Service, which alarmed Pusey. In 1840 he wrote 
 an article in the British Critic, advocating a return to the 
 more splendid ceremonial of the pre- Reformation period. 
 Already he and Mr. Russell, of St. Peter's, Walworth, had 
 given their attention to the now celebrated Ornaments 
 Rubric, and had contended that the vestments were legal 
 and ought to be restored. Pusey's attitude on this question 
 is very instructive. He wrote to Oakley to this effect : 
 " Anything that attracts notice from singularity is to be 
 avoided. Gorgeous vestments ought not to be revived in 
 
dfrom Craft 90 to tb* dfcettton of fiffomau. 71 
 
 the present humiliation of our Church. The understanding 
 of the Rubric is doubtful. If the Bishop disapproves, the 
 vestments ought not to be used. The beauty of the Church's 
 fabric and of the Altar should come first. Then painted 
 windows, plate, and the like. Even the cross should be 
 carefully used, and only as the real sign of a crucified life. 
 Practice is the very condition of privilege. People may 
 take up shreds and patches of the Catholic system without 
 its realities, self-denial, reverence. Do not think that you 
 are by their means teaching anything new. It is all in the 
 Catechism and the Liturgy. Any act that has the party 
 stamp should be avoided." 
 
 I believe that even to the end of his life, when the question 
 of ritual had overshadowed all others, Pusey still retained 
 the same unwillingness to encourage it. Partly, no doubt, 
 this arose from the cast of his mind, which was concerned 
 entirely with doctrine and the inner life, and shrunk with 
 English reserve from any display of enthusiasm or cere- 
 monial beyond what accurately conveyed the inward feelings 
 of the heart. But we may discern another cause for his 
 want of sympathy with ritualistic splendour. He regarded 
 our Church as suffering humiliation, as heavily chastened 
 for her sins, and therefore not in a suitable position to 
 assume the trappings of victory. To Pusey the fact that 
 Latitudinarian views about the Trinity and other mysteries 
 of the faith were tolerated. in our Church was a deep reproach 
 to our Christianity. The ruined fabrics, the laxity of dis- 
 cipline, the disuse of daily service, the rarity of Holy Com- 
 munion, the neglect of spiritual ministrations, which were 
 then so common, seemed to him to be crying evils which 
 called for a Church in sackcloth and ashes, and made 
 gorgeous ritual an unreality if not a mockery. And this 
 
72 dfrom Ctract 90 to tlje &ect&4ion of fldoman. 
 
 feeling, branded into his mind in these early years, he never 
 quite shook off, though there was much reason afterwards 
 why he might have done so. 
 
 If Oakley's bent was towards symbolism and outward 
 reverence, that of W. G. Ward was towards the hardest, 
 boldest, most thorough-going logic. We owe to the filial 
 piety of his gifted son a very full account of this singular 
 character, whose pre-eminence in intellect gave him a greater 
 influence at Oxford than perhaps he would have obtained 
 on the more varied stage of London life. He is best known 
 to Churchmen by his book called " The Ideal of a Christian 
 Church," which was published in 1844, but he had come 
 into notice four years previously by his defence of Tract 90, 
 already alluded to. In defending Newman he had gone far 
 beyond Newman himself. He willingly admitted that the 
 Articles were Protestant in spirit, but this did not prevent 
 him from subscribing them in a Catholic sense. "I am 
 doing no more," he retorts in effect upon his opponents, 
 " than the Low Church and Broad Church do when they 
 read the Service of Baptism or when they receive Holy 
 Orders." As long as our formularies are imposed upon 
 men of different and, indeed, opposing views, one side or 
 the other must subscribe some of the tests in a non-natural 
 sense. " For myself," he said, " I subscribed the Eleventh 
 Article in a non-natural sense, and I am willing to do so 
 again. No one can prevent my holding the whole cycle of 
 Roman doctrine while remaining a priest of the Church of 
 England, just as no one can prevent others from holding 
 the whole cycle of Calvinist or Socinian doctrine while still 
 professing to be bound by the same formularies." 
 
 It will be seen that Ward's argument is of the nature of a 
 retort, what logicians call an " argumentum ad hominen." 
 
dfrom Cract 90 to t\)t &tctteio\\ of Jlefoman. 73 
 
 It comes to this, " Why can you not leave me liberty to do 
 what you claim the liberty of doing yourself ? If you may 
 be a Calvinist, Lutheran, or Socinian in all but the name, 
 why may not I be a Roman ? " If I am correct in putting this 
 line of reasoning into Ward's mouth, which I believe I am, 
 you will see that his argument is academical rather than 
 practical, that of the logician bent on discomfiting his 
 opponent rather than that of the anxious inquirer seeking to 
 be guided into truth. Ward was himself a man of un- 
 questionable sincerity, devoid of the fear of man, and fully 
 prepared to accept the consequences of his acts. Even 
 those who most strongly disapproved of his methods, could 
 not but admire his unflinching courage and generosity of 
 heart. Yet there can be no doubt that the part he took at 
 this time proved injurious to the fortunes of the Movement. 
 He concerned himself but little with historical studies, and 
 not at all with popular religious prejudice. His object was 
 always to press every admission of an opponent to the 
 utmost, to drive every argument to its extreme conclusion. 
 While Newman and Pusey really believed that the 
 Articles did not intend to disown Catholic truth or to 
 enforce Protestant opinions, except in condemnation of 
 Roman abuses, Ward seems to have thought it quite imma- 
 terial whether the Articles did or did not hold with Catholic 
 tradition. The question for him was, Can they now be 
 used to deny it ? This question he answered triumphantly 
 in the negative. If, he argues, I can hold, as I make no 
 secret of holding, every Roman doctrine, why am I left in 
 undisputed possession of my post in the English Church ? 
 Consequently, he believed that until such time as the 
 authorities of our Church should decide otherwise he was 
 entitled to attach to the Articles a distinctly Catholic 
 
74 dfrom Cract 90 to tl)* Smteion of flrimnan. 
 
 meaning, whether the words appeared to admit it or not. 
 The position thus indicated he shortly afterwards de- 
 veloped in a still bolder form. In 1843 Mr. William 
 Palmer had written a severe pamphlet, 1 accusing the 
 Tractarian School of trying to Romanize our Church, and 
 defending his charges by quotations from the works more 
 especially of Newman and Ward. Ward determined to 
 reply. But his projected pamphlet grew into a ponderous 
 treatise of 600 pages, which was published in 1844, under 
 the title, " The Ideal of a Christian Church." This work, 
 which I suppose no one now thinks of reading, created a 
 perfect storm of passionate feeling when issued. Its ability 
 was great ; its thoroughness unquestionable ; its boldness 
 attractive ; and its conclusions, to say the least, remarkable. 
 There are two main ideas in the book. The first is its 
 violent opposition to Luther's doctrine of justification, which 
 it declares to be worse than atheism, and the cause of nearly 
 all the defects of English Christianity. I need not go into 
 his reasons. It is sufficient to say that Ward's mind was 
 altogether unhistorical. What he attacked was not the 
 real, practical belief of the Evangelical Church, or of 
 Luther himself, but the system which his logic discovered 
 to be the necessary outcome of Luther's words. No doubt 
 there are many expressions of Luther's which are highly 
 reprehensible, and perhaps almost blasphemous, if taken by 
 themselves ; but they are paradoxes or violent outbursts of 
 controversial feeling, and not deliberate dogmatic statements, 
 meant to stand the test of cross-examination. Those of us 
 who believe that justification by faith is the teaching of the 
 
 1 This pamphlet was reprinted in 1883, and incorporated into a longer work, 
 entitled "A Narrative of Events connected with the publication of Tracts for 
 the Times," with an introduction and supplement extending to the present time, 
 published by Rivingtons. 
 
dfrom Craet 90 to tfte &tcvteio\i of ficfoman. 75 
 
 great Apostle, will not be dislodged from their adherence to 
 it by any imperfections of temper or of statement in Luther 
 or anyone else. But Ward evidently did not believe the 
 doctrine. He founded religion on moral fitness to receive 
 it, on the testimony of a pure conscience. And the de- 
 velopment of this principle is the second idea of his book. 
 The question arises, How is moral fitness for religion to be 
 produced ? how is a pure conscience to be created ? And 
 his answer is practically by a comprehensive standard or 
 ideal of holiness inculcated by a sufficient authority. This 
 authority and this ideal are both found, and found only, in 
 the Catholic Church. The Church is at once the type of 
 holiness and the means of it. It is in every way the opposite 
 of the world. It gives man the only knowledge he can 
 ever have of God's will and of his own destiny. Mere 
 human reasoning has no part whatever in this ideal. All 
 the virtues and graces of the Church are supernatural, 
 communicated to man through the Sacraments. He pro- 
 ceeds to enumerate the signs or notes of this supernatural 
 holiness, and in every one of them he finds that the Church 
 of Rome stands the test while our own Church fails. 
 Happily for us, he thinks, we need not leave the Church of 
 England on this account, for there is room for every Roman 
 doctrine in our communion. " We find, oh ! most joyful, 
 most wonderful, most unexpected sight ! we find the whole 
 cycle of Roman doctrine gradually possessing numbers of 
 English Churchmen. Three years have passed since I said 
 plainly that in subscribing the Articles I renounce no one 
 Roman doctrine, yet I retain my fellowship, which I hold on 
 the tenure of subscription, and have received no ecclesiastical 
 censure in any shape." 
 
 Such a challenge as this could not be expected to go 
 
76 Jprom Cract 90 to tf)e &ttt&*ion of Ottoman. 
 
 unanswered. The heads of houses met, and gave notice 
 that in February, 1845, they would bring three important 
 resolutions before the University (1) that Mr. Ward's book 
 be condemned ; (2) that Mr. Ward be deprived of all his 
 University degrees, and reduced to the position of an under- 
 graduate ; and (3) that the University authorities should 
 have the power of requiring at any time subscription to the 
 Articles in the sense in which they themselves, as repre- 
 senting the University, imposed them. 
 
 This notice was issued in December, and once again the 
 whole University, resident and non-resident, was convulsed 
 by the bitterness of theological strife. But an unexpected 
 result happened. While most Churchmen, even including 
 Ward's friends, were in favour of condemning his book, and 
 a considerable number were willing also to consent to his 
 degradation, a widespread and powerful opposition was at 
 once aroused against the third resolution, which appeared to 
 be, and indeed was, the imposition of a new test. Even 
 the party most hostile to the Tracts, that containing Arnold, 
 Stanley, and Tait, was uncompromising in its antagonism 
 to such a course. Great statesmen, judges, and lawyers 
 united with Churchmen in reprobating what they justly 
 held to be an odious and tyrannical act. So general was 
 the indignation that even the heads of houses were moved 
 by it. Shortly before the day arrived they announced that 
 the third resolution was withdrawn. Yet in their infatuated 
 blindness to the tone of public opinion they actually gave 
 notice of another resolution, condemning the principles of 
 Tract 90, thus making Ward's case an excuse for wounding 
 Newman, though he had long retired from the scene, and 
 was known to be likely at any moment to secede from the 
 Church. 
 
dfrom Cract 90 to tije &ut&&ion of fiefoman. 77 
 
 The eventful day arrived, ushered in by a piercing wind, 
 with sleet and snow. The theatre was crowded to suffo- 
 cation. The rulers of the University took their seats. Accord- 
 ing to the statutes, all proceedings had to be conducted in 
 the Latin tongue. But an exception was made in favour of 
 Mr. Ward, who was allowed to make his defence in English. 
 He spoke, as all his hearers acknowledged, with signal 
 ability, for more than two hours. However, the vote 
 against his book was carried by an overwhelming majority, 
 and his own degradation by a smaller though still consider- 
 able one. But when the motion against Tract 90 was put, 
 the Proctors, Mr. Guillemard and Mr. Church (afterwards 
 Dean of St. Paul's and historian of the Movement) came 
 forward and interposed their veto, which, by an old custom 
 of the University, puts a stop to further proceedings. This 
 determined action was cordially approved of by all but a 
 small minority. The result of the contest was practically 
 to close the history of the Movement in Oxford. 
 
 Hardly had the din of battle subsided when Mr. Ward 
 announced that he had been received into the Roman 
 Communion. He was accompanied or followed by Oakley, 
 Dalgairns, and others of less note. In October of the same 
 year came the anxiously expected termination of Newman's 
 long conflict. He also was received, by Father Dominic 
 the Passionist, into the Roman Catholic Church. Of his 
 secession it was remarked by a great statesman, thirty years 
 after it occurred, that it had struck a blow at the English 
 Church from which she still reeled. If this could be said 
 with any semblance of truth a generation after the event, 
 well might his contemporaries believe such a disaster to be all 
 but irretrievable ! Well might those who loved the Church 
 of England tremble for her future ! Well might they be 
 
78 dfi'om Craft 90 to tije ftettttfoti of fltfomau. 
 
 excused for doubting whether she were able to weather such 
 a storm ! 
 
 The event proved that all these misgivings were ground- 
 less. Keble and Pusey never for a moment wavered in their 
 allegiance to the Church of their birth. The great body of 
 the Oxford School stood firm. Not more than fifty clergy- 
 men, out of more than 19,000, followed Newman to Rome. 
 It is true this number included names pre-eminent for personal 
 holiness and devotion to work. These carried into their new 
 communion, not only the spiritual graces and trained intelli- 
 gence of England's best Churchmanship,but also a knowledge 
 of our position from the inside, and in especial of its weak 
 points, which gave them a great advantage in the con- 
 troversies in which they soon engaged. It is only fair to 
 our Church to remark that Rome owes to us a very large 
 proportion of her ablest champions in this country, both in 
 the field of argument and in the work of proselytizing. She 
 has received from our ranks accessions of learning, of wealth, 
 of social influence, of the choicest piety, which have un- 
 questionably done much to extend her prestige. Moreover, 
 the exigencies of political strife have called forth a disposition 
 among successive Governments to conciliate, if not to favour, 
 the Roman Catholic interest, a disposition which the Roman 
 authorities have known how to utilize to the full. If ever a 
 Church had a fair field for winning converts, the Church of 
 Rome has had it in England. 
 
 But this is a digression. I wish to conclude this Lecture 
 with a brief comment on Newman's change of faith as con- 
 trasted with the steadfastness under the same influences of 
 such men as Keble and Pusey. 
 
 We may at once dismiss all explanations of an uncharitable 
 or depreciatory character either towards Newman or towards 
 
dfrom Crart 90 to tl)t $tctMion of flrfumau. 79 
 
 his opponents. To say, for instance, that Newman was 
 " hounded out of the Church " is absolutely untrue. He 
 himself assures us that the force which drove him out of 
 Anglicanism was not from without but from within. No 
 one who reads the Apologia can have any doubt on this 
 point. Again, to say that Newman's intellect was strong, 
 but his judgment weak, is to say what is extremely difficult 
 to prove. For my own part, I can detect no inferiority in 
 Newman's judgment to that of Pusey or Keble, except on 
 that very point which is the one we want to explain, viz., 
 his inferior loyalty to the Church of England. Others, 
 again, there are who believe him to have been a Romanist 
 at heart from the first, and to have for many years used 
 language against Rome and in favour of Anglicanism which 
 he did not believe, simply to gain time for maturing his 
 design of unprotestantizing our Church. This view of his 
 conduct, however politely it may be expressed, makes him 
 out a traitor. And I utterly refuse to believe that any 
 impartial person who reads his correspondence, and tries to 
 follow the progress of his mind, will ever be found to endorse 
 it. The only tenable explanation is that Newman was con- 
 strained by the logical result of the principles he espoused, 
 much against his will, and for a long time without being 
 aware of it, to drift steadily Romewards. I do not mean to 
 imply that his attitude during the period of hesitation was 
 perfectly straightforward. The simultaneous expression of 
 two sets of opinions, one in his public utterances, the other 
 in his private correspondence, though it can be explained by 
 his desire to put into an objective form the two counter- 
 influences which distracted his mind, gives some colour to 
 the strictures passed upon him by the opponents of the 
 Movement. There seems good ground for believing that 
 
80 Jfrom Cract 90 to tije Sttminn of Jlefoman. 
 
 his character had two serious flaws in it. One I have 
 already referred to, and have ventured to describe as egoism, 
 a sort of amour-propre, which led him to treat our Church as 
 he thought she had treated him, and so to reconcile himself 
 too readily to despairing of her. This feeling comes out in 
 that mournful and touchingly pathetic discourse which he 
 delivered from the pulpit of Littlemore as his farewell 
 sermon, and which we are told few of those who were 
 present heard without tears. 
 
 The second defect was the result of his unparalleled subtlety 
 of intellect, and that tendency to casuistry or fine moral 
 distinctions, which to most Englishmen looks like a defective 
 sense of truth. But these faults, supposing them to have 
 existed, would only affect our judgment on his moral char- 
 acter, not on the soundness of his reasonings. To my 
 thinking, Newman is undisputably the most intellectual 
 man and the clearest reasoner of all the party of the 
 Movement. No one could equal him in drawing a con- 
 clusion from his premisses. Consequently, the mere fact 
 that this gifted man felt driven by the irresistible force of 
 reasoning, against his will and against his interest, into 
 the Church of Rome is a very strong argument that his 
 course was right. 
 
 He declares most positively that the Church of Rome 
 gave him perfect peace, that he was never troubled by any 
 further doubt or misgiving, and that he wished it were 
 possible to make his old friends who had remained behind 
 understand the comfort of soul he now enjoyed. Do I 
 imply, then, that the whole Movement was really, as its 
 enemies said, a Romeward Movement, and that all who 
 were honest enough, or clear-sighted enough, to act up to 
 their principles, ought to have followed Newman ? By no 
 
dfrom ftract 90 to t\)t frtttttfton of Jlefoman. 81 
 
 means. I believe the Movement was from the first two- 
 fold that it contained two different principles, which for a 
 long time were confused together, and only very gradually 
 came to be distinguished as not merely separable but diverse. 
 What Newman was seeking for from the very first was an 
 infallible guide, some visible authority on this earth which 
 could claim to rule his conscience. 
 
 And, if I may express my individual opinion, the only 
 Church that professes to give this guidance is the Church 
 of Rome. Newman betrayed a craving for such guidance 
 long before he had any thoughts of leaving our Church, 
 when he wrote, after some words of his Bishop which he 
 thought unfavourable to him, " He was my Pope." A 
 man whose mind thus instinctively revealed its bent was 
 already in spirit a Romanist. Pusey tells an interesting 
 story how Newman said to him in 1845, " O Pusey; I 
 have leaned upon the Bishops, and they have failed me." 
 Pusey adds, " I thought as he spoke, I at any rate have 
 never leant upon the Bishops. I have always leant upon 
 the Church of England.' " 
 
 This is the real difference between the two men. To 
 Pusey the Church of England represented Apostolical 
 Christianity. To him its Catholic character was not an 
 open question at all. It was the most certain thing about 
 it. What he had to do was to prove this to those who 
 unhappily doubted or denied it. If in doing this he went 
 perilously near to adopting the methods of Rome, and 
 sanctioning some points of its teaching which our Church 
 had rejected, he nevertheless remained firm in his original 
 conviction, and it is for his unshaken steadfastness in this 
 conviction, through evil report and good report, that we 
 honour his memory, even though some of us may strongly 
 
 F 
 
82 dfrom Cratt 90 to tl)e &ttt&4\on of Jiefoman. 
 
 disapprove of many features of his system. Newman's 
 problem was, " How am I to be sure that I am safe ? " He 
 worked this out, and the answer came " Rome." Pusey's 
 problem was, " How am I, being sure of the safety of my 
 own position, to make others who feel the same anxiety that 
 Newman feels, see that all they need is already theirs in 
 their own Church ? " Newman could see no sure alternative 
 between absolute scepticism and an infallible Church. Pusey, 
 whose horror of scepticism was even greater than Newman's, 
 felt that English infidelity must be combated by England's 
 Christianity, and that the primitive faith, as held by our 
 Church, was the best and strongest safeguard against the 
 assaults of modern as formerly of ancient unbelief. 
 
 The great power of Rome lies in her adaptability to the 
 successive cravings of the human spirit. Under the out- 
 ward profession of unchanging dogma she is really in a 
 perpetual flux. This Newman afterwards justified in his 
 Essay on Development and Grammar of Assent. English 
 theology keeps to the old lines. If any modern doctrines 
 have been introduced into our system, it was done by 
 inadvertence or error, and, according to Pusey, the Church 
 must be purged of these elements, and revert to the 
 original Apostolic system, including those parts of it which 
 are most repugnant to modern ideas, and most difficult to 
 revive from long and general disuse. Hence Pusey re- 
 mained when Newman departed. He was not in the least 
 shaken by his friend's defection. He only mourned over 
 it as one of God's judgments upon our Church. 
 
 In proceeding to sketch briefly the subsequent history 
 of the Movement in the wider field of the country at 
 large, I shall keep in the foreground the principle that 
 Pusey contended for, that is, Given the Church of England 
 
dfrom Cratt 90 to tfje &tctteion of JJtfomatt. 83 
 
 as the form of Apostolical Christianity for this land, how 
 is it to be brought back again to the full richness of its 
 original heritage, and to recover those elements of discipline 
 and piety which the long Protestant ascendency has 
 obscured ? 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 Ztyt Qttovemettf in ffle 0urc <xt JJarge. 
 
 (jTSHSiljE have now traced the history of the Oxford 
 I%Va VflH Movement from its commencement to its close 
 |A/A4Jq| so far as Oxford is concerned. In respect of its 
 main object it had been a failure. So far had 
 it been from stamping its character upon the religious 
 teaching of the University that the most influential officials 
 were more opposed to it than ever. The march of Liberalism, 
 which Newman had hoped to stem, advanced with quickened 
 pace, and soon carried all before it in the University. 
 
 I have already remarked on the frequent generation of 
 ideas in Oxford which afterwards take hold on the country 
 at large. This was true of Anglo- Catholicism, it was also 
 true of the Liberalism which succeeded to it. 
 
 Now the secret of the early Tractarians' influence was the 
 transparent purity of their motives and self-denial of their 
 lives. Their doctrines might be right or wrong, but there 
 was no mistaking the whole-heartedness with which they 
 held them. Englishmen always think more of the evidence 
 of a man's life than of his creed. And such lives as those of 
 Newman, Pusey, Williams, and their friends, roused the 
 eager enthusiasm of young men, full of generous impulses, 
 
Cfje Ptobemettt in tfje Cfcurd) at Harge. 85 
 
 asking to be led, not to wealth or pleasure, but to the stern 
 self-sacrifice of the service of humanity. In these men they 
 found the guides they sought : men holier, purer, greater 
 than themselves : and what wonder if they followed them 
 perhaps too blindly ? 
 
 To such a mighty attraction as this the old Liberals could 
 oppose nothing that could compete with it for a moment. 
 The sensational philosophy of Mill, which was gradually 
 winning its dominion over English thought, was not calcu- 
 lated to arouse moral enthusiasm. The leading Liberals 
 were conspicuous for their chilling superiority of demeanour, 
 their lofty contempt of the unintellectual, and their hard un- 
 sympathetic temper. Whateley, Hampden, and to some extent, 
 Hawkins, are types of what I mean. But when Arnold went 
 to Rugby he set himself to create a new School of Liberals, 
 men who should take life in grim earnest, should regard com- 
 fort as incompatible with duty, should be unworldly in the 
 real sense, that is, should make it the first object of their lives 
 to help forward the moral and intellectual enfranchisement 
 of their fellow-men, utterly indifferent whether their own 
 career were counted a success or a failure. The young 
 men he sent year after year to Oxford came fired with these 
 ideas. To them Arnold represented the highest pinnacle of 
 human virtue. The University Professors and Tutors could 
 never produce in their hearts such a sentiment of rever- 
 ential discipleship as their Headmaster had won in their 
 most impressionable years. Consequently, Arnoldism soon 
 became a force in Oxford. When Stanley, its most brilliant 
 though not its truest representative, came to Balliol, he was 
 at once able to take a commanding position, and to hold up 
 the standard of a new and nobler Liberal creed. 
 
86 Cf)t fHobenunt in ti)e Cf)urcf) at argt. 
 
 This was the school of thought which profited most by 
 the collapse of the Oxford Movement. For some ten years 
 it filled the vacant place of inspirer of moral enthusiasm, 
 and with what success may be judged by the University 
 Commission of 1855, which laid down the lines of Reform 
 on a liberal basis, and whose initiative has been followed by 
 all subsequent legislation, by Parliament as well as within 
 the University itself. 
 
 All the principles that Newman so keenly fought for have 
 been surrendered. The University is practically secularized. 
 No offices are confined to Churchmen, except those of the 
 Divinity School ; though, on the other hand, there are no 
 clerical disabilities. But the organic connection between 
 the Church and the University has been rudely shaken, 
 though, happily, not entirely severed. If, then, the Church 
 is to issue from Oxford as strong in the future as in 
 the past it will be from the power of her inward life, not 
 from any outward advantages, for there are none left. Never 
 was reorganization more complete. Old names are continued, 
 old customs observed ; but the spirit of Reformed Oxford 
 since i860 is as different from that of 1833, when the Move- 
 ment began, as if the two epochs had been three hundred 
 instead of thirty years apart. At the same time, though 
 outwardly defeated, the great principles of the Movement 
 settled down into the spiritual inheritance of the place ; and 
 with Pusey and J. B. Mozley as their interpreters, no 
 one could say that they had sunk into obscurity. 
 
 But it is time to take a larger view of the question. 
 Oxford is no longer the true centre of interest. She has 
 done her part ; she has sown the seed. We must not forget 
 that the field is the world, the great world of ordinary men 
 
f)t fHobrment in tfjt Cfiurcf) at fcargt. 87 
 
 and women. Henceforth the development of the Move- 
 ment is to be watched, not in academical discussion, not in 
 theological treatises, but in the pulpit, on the platform, in 
 Parliament, in the architect's study, in a thousand parishes 
 through the length and breadth of the land. 
 
 From the very first the Tractarian leaders had been in 
 constant touch with High Churchmen everywhere, who 
 looked to them to lay down the lines of policy, which they 
 were prepared in their smaller spheres to carry out. Palmer, 
 an unexceptionable witness, speaks of the very large number 
 of rural clergy who took their Church views from the British 
 Magazine and British Critic, There can be no doubt of the 
 great and steadily growing influence of Tractarian ideas until 
 the increasing tendency towards Rome began to alarm the 
 readers of the British Critic. But by that time some of the 
 chief principles were firmly established. The necessity for 
 Church restoration, for reverent services, for the weekly 
 Eucharist, for the daily office, for pastoral ministrations as 
 well as mere friendly visits, for the offertory as part of 
 divine worship, for the observance of fast-days and generally 
 of the Rubrics and the Calendar all these had by the time 
 of Newman's secession been instilled with great success into 
 the minds of a vast number both of clergy and laity. And 
 it must be remembered that every year the loftiest and most 
 earnest spirits of Oxford were receiving Holy Orders in 
 different dioceses, and carrying with them reminiscences of 
 Newman's and Pusey's words, as well as referring to the men 
 themselves in all matters of difficulty and doubt. Pusey, in 
 one of his letters, defends himself against the charge of seek- 
 ing to be a director of consciences. He declares that the office 
 was thrust upon him simply by the daily influx of requests 
 
88 i)t JHobrment tn tf)e Cfourdf) at Harge. 
 
 for his spiritual advice. In a time of storm and stress it 
 cannot be expected that the rank and file should rely on 
 their own judgment. They must have recourse to some 
 master-mind from whom to take their orders. Those who 
 amid the thickening perplexities of 1843 and the years that 
 followed needed a strong guide found him in Pusey. There 
 can be no doubt that such work was highly congenial to him. 
 He was, as I have remarked, by nature well fitted to rule. 
 And his industry was as indefatigable as his power of enter- 
 ing into another's conscience was remarkable. The number 
 of letters of advice (most of them unquestioningly obeyed) 
 which he wrote every day, in addition to his public labours, 
 will never be known. But I believe it to have been enor- 
 mous. When attending his lectures in 1868, 1869, and 
 again in 1871, I was often present when the post came in, 
 and the pile of correspondence, which he would lay with a 
 sigh on a little table near him, suggested by itself a hard 
 day's work. I cannot doubt that in this way for nearly 
 forty years he exerted a private but most powerful and 
 widespread influence over no inconsiderable proportion of 
 the Church-people of England. 
 
 The Oxford following, however, was confined mainly to 
 three classes in the country. First, to the more earnest of 
 the parochial clergy ; secondly, to a considerable number 
 of eminent public men, who had as a rule been educated at 
 Oxford such as Gladstone, Coleridge, Roundell Palmer, 
 Hope Scott, Page Wood, Beresford Hope, and Heathcote, 
 together with a fair sprinkling of professional men, especially 
 the great Church architects, who saw in the Oxford principles 
 a magnificent field for the exercise of their special gifts. 
 Thirdly, the Movement profoundly affected religiously- 
 
J)e IHofctment tit tije Cfcurcb at Harge. 89 
 
 minded ladies in the higher circles of society. I question 
 whether among all its results the greatest is not the re- 
 establishment of female spiritual work on the basis of 
 religious communities. But this will be discussed more 
 fully afterwards. I now merely advert to it to show how 
 deeply the Oxford ideas had taken hold of three sections 
 of society, each in its respective sphere, exercising a most 
 potent influence. 
 
 From the first they found a powerful and earnest supporter 
 in Mr. Gladstone. The lives of Dr. Pusey, Bishop Wilberforce, 
 and Cardinal Manning afford abundant evidence of the pro- 
 found interest he felt in the progress of the Movement, and 
 how ready he was, even amid the most absorbing cares of 
 State, to give his best thoughts to the consideration of every 
 difficulty, and to help by his powerful advocacy what he 
 believed to be the highest interests of the Church. The 
 Church of England owes a heavy debt of gratitude to this 
 illustrious Statesman for helping to steer her course through 
 many a shoal and breaker, and especially in the earlier days, 
 when his political entanglements were not so embarrassing, 
 and when his ecclesiastical correspondents were friends and 
 equals to whom he could speak without fear of being mis- 
 understood, and who on their side could approach him 
 without consciousness of any parting of the ways. 
 
 Gladstone must always be identified with the Oxford 
 School. But he was only the ablest and most conspicuous of 
 a considerable number of public men, whose adhesion supplied 
 the element of masculine intellect and disciplined judgment, 
 which the ecclesiastical and academical mind so often lacks. 
 
 It will be observed that I do not include any of the 
 Bishops among the party of the Movement. Bishop Bagot, 
 
90 fti)* flfilobtmmt in ti)t Cijurd) at Earge. 
 
 of Oxford, was considered a High Churchman, and he most 
 sincerely tried to enter into the mind of Newman, as 
 Newman himself testifies, with truly Christian sympathy and 
 noble generosity of heart. But his abilities were not equal 
 to grappling with the subtle intellects of the Oxford leaders, 
 and it was a great relief to him when the vacancy of the 
 See of Gloucester enabled him to quit a field to which his 
 power of generalship was inadequate. Blomfield, of London, 
 in some respects the foremost man on the Bench, was also a 
 High Churchman. But he had no taste for theology, and 
 was more than fully occupied with the tremendous practical 
 problems that pressed for settlement in London. Thus, 
 though he more than once gave his countenance to the 
 Oxford party, he did not really go with their views, and on 
 the crucial question of the Jerusalem Bishopric was opposed 
 to them. Archbishop Howley was perhaps more disposed 
 to sympathize. But Pusey, whose friend and pupil Harrison, 
 one of the original Tract writers, became the Archbishop's 
 chaplain, was greatly disappointed at his failure to bring the 
 Archbishop into more general accordance with his views. 
 There remained the Bishop of Exeter, Dr. Philpotts, whose 
 Churchmanship was of the most uncompromising type, and 
 to whom the Oxford party confidently looked for something 
 more than sympathy, for active support. This, however, 
 the Bishop only gave up to a certain point. When Tract 90 
 appeared he took a very decided line of condemnation, and 
 entirely disavowed all connection with those who defended 
 it. Thus it may be said that the whole Bench of Bishops 
 stood aloof, for the others were mostly Evangelical or 
 Latitudinarian appointments, who would naturally be 
 opposed to it. 
 
i)e fHobement m tf)e CfourcJ) at Harge. 91 
 
 I ought perhaps before describing the men who trans- 
 lated the Oxford Movement into a national movement to 
 mention the celebrated Gorham case, which occurred, indeed 
 at a later date, but is connected in character with these 
 disastrous defeats of High Church principles which I have 
 already recorded. In the year 1849 Bishop Philpotts of 
 Exeter refused to institute the Rev. J. C. Gorham to a living 
 within his diocese on the ground that he publicly denied the 
 doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration taught in the Prayer Book. 
 Mr. Gorham had recourse to the Court of Arches, which 
 decided against him. He then appealed to the Judicial 
 Committee of the Privy Council, which reversed the decision 
 of the lower Court, and held that the Bishop was bound to 
 institute. This decision came as a shock to the Church 
 party. The Bishop was so confident of the strength of his 
 position that he refused to accept the judgment. He not 
 only persisted in refusing to institute Mr. Gorham, but he 
 declared that he would renounce communion with any 
 prelate, even the Archbishop, who should consent to do 
 so. The Archbishop, who had been one of the majority 
 on the Judicial Committee, instituted Mr. Gorham, and 
 Bishop Philpotts renounced communion with him as he 
 had threatened. 
 
 One result of this judgment was the secession of Arch- 
 deacon Manning to the Roman Church. Certain other 
 clergymen of note followed him, among whom was Arch- 
 deacon R. Wilberforce, and one of my predecessors at 
 Kibworth, the Rev. S. Bathurst, who I believe still survives, 
 the one solitary relic of what we may call the heroic age of 
 secessions. 
 
 The Gorham judgment is regarded by many Churchmen 
 
92 i)e iffloftratent in tfoe $ttrc$ at Earge. 
 
 as the most disastrous event in recent Church history. 
 They represent it as the over-riding by a secular court of a 
 spiritual obligation. They consider it to decide that a 
 minister of the Church of England need not teach the 
 doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, though that doctrine is 
 explicitly laid down in the Prayer Book . If this were really 
 its purport, Churchmen would have an undoubted ground, 
 not only of complaint, but of opposition. 
 
 So far, however, as I understand the point at issue, this 
 is not what the judgment affirms. A lay court cannot pro- 
 nounce on the soundness or unsoundness of any clergyman's 
 doctrine, but only on the question whether any expression 
 or act which can be proved to have been said or done by 
 him is or is not legally compatible with the terms of the 
 formulary by which he is bound. 
 
 The way in which the Bishop brought the charge was 
 partly responsible for the result of the judgment. The 
 Court complained that by the course he had thought fit to 
 adopt he had made it impossible for them to try the case on 
 strictly legal principles. They were compelled to ask Mr. 
 Gorham to state in exact language what was his interpre- 
 tation of the Baptismal Service. And the answer he made 
 was such that the Judges did not think it possible to con- 
 vict him. They therefore decided to give him the benefit of 
 the doubt. 
 
 But in doing this they were not deciding that Baptismal 
 Regeneration was an indifferent matter, which might be 
 affirmed or denied with equal security in the Church of 
 England. On this point they pronounced no opinion. They 
 merely declared that Mr. Gorham's particular interpretation 
 could not be condemned. 
 
!)* ^Ho&enunt in tfje Cijurcf) at Earge. 93 
 
 It is always difficult for lawyers and theologians to under- 
 stand one another's methods. The lay judge resolutely 
 keeps out of sight the question of truth or falsehood of 
 doctrine, which is the one thing the theologian cares about. 
 He confines his attention solely to the question what legal 
 interpretation the given words will bear, and whether the 
 words or actions of the accused party are reasonably com- 
 patible with such interpretation. Consequently, Manning 
 went too far in concluding that the Church of England was 
 committed to the toleration of heresy. Pusey disapproved 
 of the judgment as much as Manning, but he saw more 
 clearly the limits of its application. 
 
 This case is important as being the first of a long series 
 of judgments delivered by the Privy Council in the disputes 
 about doctrine and ritual, which have resulted in widespread 
 dissatisfaction among the High Church party with the 
 existing Court of Appeal. At first their attitude was 
 different. Pusey had more than once expressed a desire 
 to have the questions between him and the Heads of 
 Houses brought before the Courts. So confident was he of 
 establishing his contention that he evinced keen disappoint- 
 ment at the failure of his attempts for a trial. Even when a 
 discussion arose between himself and his Bishop he urgently 
 pressed for a legal hearing, offering to bear the expense of 
 it himself, as the only satisfactory method of ascertaining 
 what the Church really taught. 
 
 It was the unfavourable result of this, their first test-case, 
 which opened the eyes of many High Churchmen to the 
 unsatisfactory character of the highest ecclesiastical tribunal. 
 As Sir R. Phillimore, the Dean of Arches, admitted, what 
 Bishop Philpotts and those who sided with him really desired 
 
94 &$* J&obtmmt tn tty Cijurd) at Harge. 
 
 was to expel the party who explained away the doctrine of 
 Baptismal Regeneration from the Church. Then, as now, 
 the lay tribunal was the chief security for the Church's 
 comprehensiveness. Theologians, by the very necessity of 
 their opinions, cannot be tolerant. Each party in turn, so 
 soon as it becomes dominant, is impelled by an irresistible 
 impulse to reject opinions which clash with its view of the 
 true faith. If the inclusion of the three historic parties in 
 our Church is really worth retaining, if it is in truth 
 essential to an Established Church, then the only security 
 for maintaining it is a Supreme Court, whose decisions are 
 guided by legal and not by ecclesiastical considerations. We 
 shall recur to this subject again in our last lecture. 
 
 The secession of Archdeacon Manning was the last serious 
 blow on the side of Romanism. It concludes the first and 
 disastrous chapter of the Movement. Since that time no 
 first-rate leader of our religious thought has lapsed to Rome. 
 Threats have indeed been uttered more than once by eminent 
 divines that, in the event of certain decisions being given, or 
 certain measures passed, they might be compelled to seek a 
 refuge in another communion. But happily the circum- 
 stances contemplated have not arisen, and the Church has 
 been saved from so perilous a strain. 
 
 Nor does it seem likely that any future leader will carry 
 with him a more influential Church following than such 
 men as Newman, Manning, and Pusey. Hence we may 
 perhaps regard the attractive force of Romanism over the 
 highest spiritual minds of our Church as having reached its 
 zenith about forty-five years ago, and since then showing a 
 tendency, though a gradual one, to decline. It has no 
 longer the force of novelty, nor the advocacy of such power- 
 
i)t iHobement in tf)e Cfjurrf) at Harge. 95 
 
 ful characters. It was then a perplexing, incalculable 
 phenomenon. It has become a familiar institution, like the 
 other forms of religious dissent. 
 
 We are now in a position briefly to review the work of 
 the great practical pioneers of Catholic Churchmanship in 
 the country at large. This work of theirs is directly con- 
 nected with the Movement, though some of its developments 
 have gone into other channels, and some have been actually 
 opposed to the original Oxford principles. I will connect 
 my illustrations with three familiar names, one in a great 
 manufacturing city ; one in a country parish, half 
 town, half village ; and one on an episcopal throne, and in 
 the centre of the national life. The three names are those 
 of Dr. Hook, Mr. Butler of Wantage, and Bishop Samuel 
 Wilberforce. I hardly like to omit so well known a name 
 as that of George Anthony Denison, the militant Archdeacon 
 of Taunton, the champion of unbending Toryism and un- 
 compromising Churchmanship in Convocation and on public 
 platforms. But I think that Mr. Butler is on the whole a 
 more all-round example of the power of the Movement, and 
 all the more striking because he was a Cambridge man 
 working in the diocese of Oxford. 
 
 With this passing tribute to the character of a noble- 
 hearted if somewhat intolerant champion of the Oxford 
 School, I proceed to say a few words about my three 
 selected types. 
 
 It should be stated that Hook, whom I am first to men- 
 tion, began his clerical career before the period of the 
 Movement, and had already arrived at mature years before 
 he was brought into close connection with its leaders. But 
 their influence upon him, and in particular that of Pusey, 
 
96 i)e iHobemntt tn tfoe Cljurdj at Earge. 
 
 was so deep and lasting that, though he cannot justly be 
 called a disciple, he affords a pre-eminent example of what 
 the Movement was able to effect on an independent-minded 
 High Churchman brought into contact with it. 
 
 Among all the Churchmen of this century there is not one 
 who is at once more masculine and more original than Walter 
 Farquhar Hook. Sprung, like so many of our foremost men, 
 from the country gentry, educated in the severest discipline 
 of our public school life, himself a magnificent specimen of 
 the typical Englishman, burly, genial, outspoken, strong in 
 his likes and dislikes, a born fighter, delighting in giving 
 and taking hard blows : yet withal the kindest and tenderest 
 hearted of men, without one grain of malice or ill-will, simple 
 as the day, though fancying himself a highly astute diplo- 
 matist : passionate, impulsive, masterful, ill-brooking the 
 slightest opposition, and often decidedly unjust, yet always 
 atoning for his fault by the most sincere repentance, always 
 ready to make amends by the amplest apology : gifted with 
 a strong, healthy brain, which took at once a firm grasp of 
 principle, and was able to pilot it safe through all manner 
 of apparent inconsistencies, and to erect it in triumph at last 
 on the enemy's stronghold : lacking, it may be, in delicacy of 
 spirit, in theological learning, and in refinement of sym- 
 pathies, but straightforward and honest to the core, and 
 bold with a courage nothing could daunt. Such was the 
 man to whom God's Providence assigned the momentous 
 task of planting the revived Churchmanship in the huge, 
 neglected, uneducated, but wealthy and prosperous, city of 
 Leeds (1837). Never did workman gird himself more man- 
 fully to his task. He found the great manufacturing town 
 indifferent if not hostile to the Church. He left it one of 
 
fltije JSflo&tmtnt in tf)e Cfcurd) at fUrge. 97 
 
 the chief strongholds of loyal Churchmanship : and his 
 work has outlived him : for to this day there is no city in 
 England in which the Church is stronger, more popular, 
 and more intelligently served than in the Yorkshire capital. 
 
 The difficulties of the Church in the North of England 
 were enormous. In the early days of the century the bitter- 
 ness of feeling between masters and men was such as happily 
 we can now realize only through the literature that describes 
 it. The hateful doctrines of Political Economy reigned 
 supreme. Man was regarded as created solely for the 
 purpose of producing wealth. Unrestricted competition was 
 the Gospel of human life. Interference by Government 
 with the grasping methods of amassing wealth was regarded 
 with anger, and often resisted with success. The life of the 
 operatives differed in little but the name from that of slaves. 
 Women and children, as being the most defenceless, 
 were ground to the dust by severe and protracted labour. 
 Health, decency, and morality were alike impossible. Com- 
 fort, refinement, and education were Utopian ideas, not 
 meant for the sons and daughters of toil. Small wonder 
 that the down-trodden masses groaned in sullen indignation, 
 and while they vented their sense of injustice in ignorant 
 agitations and ferocious outbreaks, were disposed to regard 
 the Church and its ministers with angry mistrust, as part of 
 the machinery of legalized oppression, which the upper 
 classes know, so well how to handle in order to keep down 
 the poor. 
 
 Hook, with the quick intuition of genius, discerned the 
 situation. At Holy Trinity, Coventry, where he had worked 
 as Vicar for several years, he had perceived that the new 
 Churchmanship must capture the towns if it meant to get 
 
 G 
 
98 i)e fHobement fa tty Cfmrri) at Harge. 
 
 any hold over the national life. Rural England had once 
 been the strength of the nation. A new era had dawned. 
 Henceforth English civilization was to be transferred to the 
 towns. The Church must begin at once the same work in 
 them that it had carried on for two hundred years in the 
 country. But though it was the same work, its methods 
 must be new. The town population was essentially a 
 democracy. The social superiority that counted for so 
 much in village life was a hindrance rather than a help in 
 these huge centres. The Church must no longer pose as 
 the Church of the noble, the rich, the genteel. She must go 
 back to her origin. She must rest her claim on her spiritual 
 character as the Divine proclaimer of human salvation. 
 And she must show that she meant this by going straight to 
 the homes of the poor, and helping them to better their 
 outward circumstances, and so leading them on to trust her 
 in her higher message. 
 
 I do not for a moment mean to imply that good and 
 earnest men before Hook had not approached their work 
 in this spirit. Unquestionably there were many such. But 
 they had not Hook's opportunity nor Hook's strength. To 
 him must be given the credit of inaugurating the modern 
 conception of the advanced Churchman's standard of town 
 work. All that is sound and durable in it follows from 
 Hook's principles. What he demanded for the Church was 
 a fair field. On his part he dropped the aristocratic props, 
 the social privileges, the use of his income for his own needs : 
 he lived among the people and for the people, and gave him- 
 self and his fortune for their good. On their part he claimed 
 that they should drop their prejudices, forget the past, and 
 take, like brothers and sisters, the hand that he as Christ's 
 
J)t iffiobement in tl)e Cf)urd) at ILarge. 99 
 
 ambassador held out to them, to improve their life in this 
 world and to bring them back to their hopes for another. 
 But in this picture of Hook's ideal we must not imagine 
 there was the slightest tinge of liberalism, still less of 
 socialism. Hook was the gentleman quite as much as the 
 Churchman, and the methods of Dissent were even more 
 odious to him than its doctrines. He was really uncom- 
 promising in his demands for submission to Church 
 authority and surrender of private judgment. It is amusing 
 to see from his correspondence how he wavered between 
 the ideal Churchmanship which Pusey wished him to 
 enforce and the less perfect alternatives which alone prac- 
 tical life permits, and which he well knew must receive their 
 final justification at the hands of common-sense. Hook 
 when in Pusey's presence was under the spell of his genius : 
 but when he found himself once more at Leeds he was fain 
 to excuse himself for apparent lukewarmness, for he found 
 it impossible to rise to the height of Pusey's views without 
 mystifying if not frightening the people, who were just 
 beginning to think the Church might do them some good. 
 After the troubles of 1845 Hook became more guarded in 
 his advocacy of the Tractarian views : and gradually settled 
 into a type of Churchmanship more like that of his early 
 days, such as was that of Keble's father, sober, temperate, 
 and consistent, but not innovating or revolutionary. 
 
 In estimating Hook's work, we must remember that all 
 the intelligence of our nation is now concentrated in the 
 great towns, one may say in a few of them. For them life 
 is ruled by business principles, and in public questions by 
 party organization. If the Church is to take hold of this 
 life, it must have a concrete shape, a business-like character, 
 
ioo f)e JMobtment m tf)e Cfyurcf) at Harge. 
 
 an organization of its own. And this involves a set of 
 principles what we may call a programme. This the 
 Oxford Movement supplied', therein surpassing the old 
 Evangelical party in its adaptation to modern needs. The 
 form which this programme took was the restoration of the 
 externals of religion. It included the building and restoring 
 of Churches, and the formation of fresh parishes, the revival 
 of disused services, the building of schools, and, most urgent 
 of all, the carrying out of Divine worship on the strict lines 
 of the Prayer Book. Hook set an example which has been 
 followed and improved upon, not only by his own section of 
 the clergy, but by many of the most earnest Evangelicals, 
 who have moved with the times and engrafted on their 
 system of individual conversion the emblems of a widely 
 different school of thought, thereby undoubtedly strengthen- 
 ing their own popularity and removing some grave causes of 
 misconception. 
 
 We turn now to watch the Movement at work in a country 
 district. We select the parish of Wantage in Berkshire, a 
 small isolated townlet of about three thousand souls, known 
 to students of English History as the birthplace of King 
 Alfred and of Bishop Butler. For some generations the 
 living had been held by non-resident Incumbents, who had 
 been contented to appear twice a year to collect their tithes, 
 and had left the cure of souls in the hands of stipendiary 
 Curates. As in Leeds, so in Wantage, Dissent had stepped 
 in where the Church had failed to do her duty. Neverthe- 
 less, the old principle of loyalty to the Church was by no 
 means extinguished. All it needed to kindle it into a new and 
 vigorous life was a loving, earnest guidance, that should 
 combine definite dogmatic teaching with practical wisdom 
 
f)e iKobcmeitt tn tfje Cijurrf) at Itarge. 101 
 
 and patient sympathy. This was supplied by the appoint- 
 ment of William John Butler in 1846. Educated at West- 
 minster School and Trinity College, Cambridge, he was 
 ordained in 1842 to the curacy of Dogmersfield, Hants, the 
 Vicar, Mr. Charles Dyson, being an Oxford contemporary 
 and intimate friend of his neighbour, John Keble, Vicar of 
 Hursley. To this circumstance Butler was indebted for the 
 clearness of his Church views. Keble felt strongly attracted 
 by the earnest young clergyman, who on his part used his 
 opportunity with ardent zeal, and cultivated a reverent but 
 independent discipleship of Keble, which led him in every 
 difficulty to consult his opinion, and to ask for a sympathy 
 which was ever most wisely and most ungrudgingly bestowed. 
 Within a short time of his appointment to Wantage, 
 the Vicar was recognized as a man of mark. A parish 
 machinery was quickly organized, and a parish life set on 
 foot, which has proved the model for hundreds of other 
 parishes, and a conspicuous evidence of the power for good 
 of our parochial system. Butler was a man of very strong 
 individuality, stern to himself and perhaps to others, abso- 
 lutely indifferent to popularity, bringing everything to the 
 test of practice, impatient of compromise, thoroughly con- 
 vinced of the soundness of his principles, and not always 
 presenting them in the most persuasive manner, with a 
 strongly combative nature, but withal full of tenderness, and 
 of a singularly large heart. His activity was extraordinary, 
 and continued almost unimpaired until his death. Not a 
 learned man, nor exactly eminent in intellect, but yet 
 original in the truest sense, he may almost be said to be 
 the founder of our Religious Sisterhoods, perhaps the most 
 important creation of the Oxford Movement. It is true that 
 
102 Cfje JfHofJtment m ti)t Cijurcl) at Harge. 
 
 the earliest instance of community life was that founded by 
 Dr. Pusey at Park Village, Regent's Park, as early as 1845. 
 But Butler introduced into his scheme of Sisterhoods a definite 
 Church commission to engage in various departments of 
 Church work. His first idea was that of an educational 
 community, which he actually planted in Wantage in 1848. 
 But the attraction of penitential work proved stronger, and 
 its need even more urgent. In 1850, the Sisters of Wantage 
 were transferred to this branch of Christian ministry, just a 
 year after the other great Sisterhood of Clewer had been 
 started for the same object. After many difficulties, and in 
 the face of widespread prejudice, the work continued to 
 increase, until at the time of his death, in 1893, the Wantage 
 community was undertaking no less than thirty-four branches 
 of the work ; nine of a penitentiary character, thirteen educa- 
 tional, and eight parochial. 
 
 Next to his foundation of the Sisterhoods, Butler's chief 
 title to the gratitude of the Church lies in his unrivalled 
 power of training faithful men for her ministry. Rarely, if 
 ever, has a comparatively small parish furnished so many 
 clergymen eminent for success in the ministry and for holi- 
 ness of life. His system was one of strict discipline, tempered 
 by loyal trust. It has been said of him, that had he not been 
 the most successful of Vicars, he might have been the most 
 eminent of Head Masters. At any rate his colleagues, some 
 of them men of greater gifts than himself, invariably submitted 
 to his judgment, and when they left him, were, as a rule, fully 
 resolved to carry out his system in their own spheres of 
 work. The system that he impressed upon them was that 
 of the original Tractarianism in all its stern thoroughness, 
 just where it grated most upon the prejudices of English 
 

 Cfte f&obtmtnt in tfte Cfyurrf) at ICarge. 103 
 
 Protestantism. In his own words, he was a Sacerdotalist. 
 He regarded this as the essential difference between Church- 
 manship and Nonconformity. " Are you a Sacerdotalist or 
 a Plymouth Brother ? " he would say, jestingly, implying 
 that there was no logical stopping-place between the two. 
 With this principle went its counterpart, the Real Presence 
 in the Sacrament external to the communicant. These two 
 doctrines he taught unflinchingly, though well aware of their 
 unpopularity. 
 
 To Keble, preferment never came at all. To Butler it 
 came comparatively late in life, and from a quarter wholly 
 unexpected. In 1880, he was offered by Mr. Gladstone, 
 whose political views he had uniformly opposed, a Canonry 
 in Worcester Cathedral. Here he continued his services to 
 the cause of Christian education by founding the Church 
 High School for Girls. He was blamed for admitting a 
 conscience clause in the sphere of higher education, while 
 opposed to it in elementary schools. But the difference of 
 conditions in the two sets of schools was the reason of his 
 apparent inconsistency. Where parents have the right of 
 withdrawing their children, the teacher is at liberty to give 
 definite Church teaching ; but where this is not the case, he 
 is perpetually hampered by the fear of teaching what the 
 parents would disapprove, and finds himself on the horns of 
 a dilemma, untrue either to himself or to them. In 1885 he 
 was transferred, again by Mr. Gladstone, to the Deanery of 
 Lincoln, where he spent the last years of his life, in a posi- 
 tion worthy of his merits, but evidently less congenial than 
 that of a parish priest. 
 
 Butler differs from Hook in that he is entirely a product 
 of the Oxford Movement, and, in my opinion, second to 
 
 i/ 
 
104 Wi)t fflobtmtwt in tbe CfcurcJ) at Harge. 
 
 none in the fidelity with which he represents its tendencies. 
 No man could be more loyal to the Anglican ideal. Never, 
 except once for a moment after the Gorham judgment, was 
 his allegiance shaken ; and even then he never turned in the 
 direction of Rome. English to the core, he stands forth as 
 a practical witness for the power of our Church system to 
 cope with all spiritual difficulties, and to triumphantly vindi- 
 cate a place for unpopular aspects of her doctrine in English 
 religious life. 
 
 The third, and by far the most striking example of the 
 success of the Movement in the Church at large, is Samuel 
 Wilberforce, son of the great philanthropist, Vicar of Brigh- 
 stone and Alverstoke, Archdeacon of Surrey, Dean of West- 
 minster, Bishop of Oxford and Winchester, perhaps the most 
 brilliant Bishop that ever sat on the bench, and with all his 
 faults, the most powerful preacher and speaker, the greatest 
 ecclesiastical administrator, and most influential spiritual 
 counsellor of the nineteenth century. Wilberforce enjoyed 
 the inestimable advantage of a home sanctified by the purest 
 graces of Evangelical religion, as well as the loftiest moral 
 righteousness, brightened with an affection so ardent and 
 tender as to unite all its inmates in a bond of love that the 
 most bitter separations never for a moment impaired, 
 decorated with talent of the highest order, surrounded by 
 the noblest and most refined influences that a society 
 strikingly rich in gifted men and women delighted to con- 
 tribute to the inmates of a home honoured by Englishmen of 
 every party and every shade of thought. Never, I imagine, 
 was any young man sent forth to his work in life under circum- 
 stances more favourable to the fulfilment of every hope that 
 a fond parent might indulge or a discerning friend encourage. 
 
QLty i&obtmtnt m tije Cfjurcf) at Harge. 105 
 
 It is quite impossible in a cursory sketch to do more than 
 just call your attention to the main features of his life's 
 work as briefly as is compatible with clearness. In order, 
 however, to understand it, I must pause to enquire what 
 direct effect the Tractarian Movement had upon him. You 
 are probably aware that his two brothers, Robert and 
 Henry, both Oriel men, both gifted with very high ability, 
 both Tractarian leaders, as well as his only daughter and 
 her husband, seceded to the Church of Rome. His brother- 
 in-law and bosom friend Manning, whom he had appointed 
 Vicar of his own parish of Lavington, also left our Church. 
 These successive trials were not merely the cause of the 
 acutest personal sorrow, but they not unnaturally added to 
 the suspicion with which a large section of the Church 
 regarded his religious views, and undoubtedly made the 
 course he had marked out for himself, already far from easy, 
 exceptionally perplexing and difficult. 
 
 When Wilberforce came to Oriel, Pusey and Newman 
 were both resident. There does not, however, appear to 
 have been much intimacy between them. And Wilber- 
 force's departure from Oxford, his early marriage, and 
 immediate immersion in pastoral work, separated him from 
 personal contact with the men who were leavening Oxford 
 thought. Yet there can be no question that he was dis- 
 tinctly impressed though never fully identified with what I 
 may call the Keble element in the Movement. His father's 
 evangelicalism remained with him to the last as the fountain 
 of his deepest spiritual life. But as a system he left it 
 behind. As Vicar of an important Parish in the Isle of 
 Wight at the age of twenty-five, he had already matured 
 that decided high Anglican Churchmanship, tempered on 
 
106 ty Jf&obement tit tfte Cfjutff) at Harge. 
 
 the one hand by evangelical pietism, on the other by a 
 strong conviction of the connection of Church and State, 
 which he first advocated as a preacher and writer, and 
 subsequently enforced as a Bishop ; and which, containing 
 as it did several complex elements, caused him to be often 
 misunderstood, and sometimes involved him in conflicts with 
 those who expected his unqualified support. 
 
 His extraordinary eloquence is known by report to all. 
 Some of those present may, like myself, have had the privilege 
 of listening to that matchless voice, and being carried out 
 of themselves by the spell of that earnest, concentrated 
 oratory, which seemed so conscious of its mastery over the 
 intellect and will of the audience, and so convinced that that 
 mastery was due, not to the talent of the speaker, but to the 
 truth of his message. 
 
 But though he was widely known as the ablest of the 
 younger ecclesiastics, and perhaps the most effective of all 
 public speakers, it was not until he was made Bishop of Oxford 
 in 1845 that his full powers came into play, and during the 
 twenty-four years that he held that See they were main- 
 tained and developed with each succeeding call upon them 
 with a concentrated and unresting activity that was nothing 
 short of prodigious. It is no exaggeration to say that he 
 revolutionized the English Episcopate. Appointed to what 
 was then the most difficult of all the Sees, at the very moment 
 of the crisis which lost Newman to the Church, he seized the 
 first opportunity of taking action of so pronounced a character 
 that skilled as he was in reading human nature he must 
 have known it could not but entail very grave consequences. 
 
 Dr. Pusey had opened a correspondence with him on the 
 state of the Church, and more than hinted that in his own 
 
{)e fHofctment tn tf)C Cljurd) at ILarge. 107 
 
 hands rested the power of retaining a large section of dis- 
 tressed minds in their allegiance. The Bishop, rightly or 
 wrongly, understood Pusey's letter as an overture of alliance, 
 covering something like a threat. He at once refused to enter 
 into any negotiations, and gave Pusey to understand very 
 clearly that he meant to rule the Diocese according to his 
 own convictions, and in addition to this he expressed strong 
 disapproval of the tendency of Pusey's teaching. Pusey 
 enjoyed a very peculiar position at Christ Church. Within 
 its precincts he was independent of his Bishop, and the 
 Bishop was not one to attempt to exercise an authority he 
 could not enforce. He was therefore unquestionably wise 
 in declining a correspondence with one so difficult to 
 persuade and so controversially expert as the great Doctor. 
 But I think the Bishop's courage in taking so prompt and 
 vigorous a stand is worthy of commendation. It was sure 
 to make him liable to misconstruction, and to alienate many 
 devout minds, while in no way conciliating the other side. 
 
 The Bishop's idea of his office was, like that of St. Cyprian, 
 to overlook and direct every form of Church work in the 
 diocese, to be the inspiring source of all enthusiasm, the real 
 practical controller of the whole machine, knowing every- 
 thing that was done, and making his approval or displeasure 
 felt by every clergyman or lay official placed under his rule. 
 His personal gifts fitted him admirably for the task. He 
 hardly ever forgot a face he had once seen, and, what is 
 more extraordinary, the name and the circumstances of first 
 meeting were promptly recalled, so that people who had met 
 him once at some large gathering were astounded to find 
 years afterwards that he not only knew who they were, but 
 almost always could bring back to their memory some 
 
108 Cfje Plobtment m t^e Cfjurd) at Harge. 
 
 incident of the occasion proving the genuineness of his 
 friendly greeting. Then again, such was the force of his 
 spirit and such the charm of his manner that it was almost 
 impossible to resist him. He had the rare power of not 
 merely feigning, but actually feeling a heartfelt interest in 
 the difficulties of his parish clergy, and whenever he saw a 
 man really earnest in his work, he placed the whole force of 
 his immense spiritual personality at that man's disposal, and 
 so lifted him above his ordinary self that many of his clergy 
 owed the whole success of their ministerial life to one inter- 
 view with him. The devotion of his clergy to him was 
 absolute. A minority of extreme Protestants of course dis- 
 agreed with him. The Latitudinarians disliked him. But 
 the vast majority feared, loved, and trusted him ; and when- 
 ever he wanted the backing of his diocese, he could almost 
 always get it. The machinery of his government was the 
 old-fashioned one of Archdeacons, Rural Deans, and 
 Examining Chaplains. Only he took care that these 
 offices should be no sinecures. He expected his officers 
 to work as ungrudgingly as he worked himself, and they 
 rose to his expectation. No diocese has surpassed, if any 
 has ever equalled, that of Oxford during the years 1848-60. 
 It at once set a standard to the English Church, to which 
 we still do and probably shall always point. And the only 
 reward the Bishop had to give was his favour. His patron- 
 age in the diocese when he came into it was ridiculously small, 
 and although he increased it tenfold, through the confidence 
 he succeeded in inspiring into patrons, yet to the last it 
 remained but moderate, and never included more than one 
 of the six canonries of Christ Church. 
 
 The two great features of Bishop Wilberforce's spiritual 
 
!)e JKobement w tlje Cfourcf) at Harge. 109 
 
 administration were his Ordinations and his Confirmations. 
 In both these his originality and earnestness made an epoch 
 in the Church. Before his time Ordinations had been, as a 
 rule, perfunctory and utterly unimpressive. The candidates 
 lodged where they could, went through their papers of 
 examination at the end of the week, met the Bishop at 
 dinner once before the Sunday, received their titles, and 
 departed immediately after the Ordination. The greatest 
 spiritual opportunity in their lives was in nine cases out of 
 ten missed. Bishop Wilberforce at once changed all this. He 
 first made the examination a reality. To the astonishment 
 and often to the anger of wealthy but lazy young men, he 
 studied carefully the chaplain's report of the papers, and if 
 it was unsatisfactory he refused to. ordain them. In this 
 matter he was inflexible. Just as he expected, in four or 
 five years his Ordination candidates were the best prepared 
 in the whole province. Here again he created a standard 
 for the Church, which has not been allowed to drop. And 
 then he wisely separated the intellectual preparation from 
 the spiritual. The few days before the Ordination were 
 entirely given up to spiritual addresses, devotions, and 
 private interviews. The Bishop with his penetrating ques- 
 tions sifted each candidate's heart. Few indeed could bear 
 the ordeal unmoved. To many it was the crisis of their 
 life. The Bishop was never more powerful as a preacher, 
 more august as a ruler of men, than when he sent forth 
 labourers into the vineyard of the Lord. 
 
 His Confirmation Addresses, being more public and popular, 
 were still more famous. In them he was at his very best. 
 Those who accompanied him on a Confirmation tour were 
 amazed at the energy which could deliver day after day 
 
no Cije if&obement m tf)e Cfturri) at Harge. 
 
 three most intensely earnest and moving addresses, followed 
 by the manual labour of confirming hundreds of candidates, 
 and every single address so completely independent that one 
 clergyman says that out of fourteen in one week not a single 
 sentence that he could remember was repeated twice. 
 
 I shall speak in my next lecture of those great revivals of 
 Church life, the Diocesan Conferences, the Church Congress, 
 and, above all, the Houses of Convocation, which were due 
 to his initiation, perhaps, more than to any other single 
 cause, They belong, indeed, less to the man than to the 
 general life of the Church. But before I conclude this 
 hurried and imperfect sketch of his activity, I must not omit 
 that sphere of it which he always put in the forefront of all 
 his public duties, namely, a regular attendance at the House 
 of Lords. If he was the Bishop par excellence in his Diocese, 
 he was the Prelate par excellence in Parliament. One Bishop, 
 and one only, attained to greater influence, a man as different 
 from him as one man can be from another, Archbishop Tait. 
 Tait was not eloquent or versatile : he committed at least one 
 fatal error. But he was a statesman of the highest calibre. 
 And in this capacity Wilberforce must rank second, but only 
 second to him. No one else can compare with him. Arch- 
 bishop Magee was perhaps even more eloquent. But he 
 was above all things an orator, whereas Wilberforce had 
 from his youth been trained in the affairs of public life, 
 and had the immense advantage of being the recognized 
 mouthpiece of the entire High Church party, not in England 
 only, but throughout the Empire. He almost directed the 
 policy of the Colonial Church, such was the confidence 
 reposed in him. And it was his persistency, adroitness, and 
 persuasive power that made it possible to secure from Parlia- 
 
f)e ^Wobenunt m tty Cf)tircf) at Earge. in 
 
 ment the great and unexpected concession of the right of 
 Convocation to debate. 
 
 He might well have aspired to an Archbishopric. No 
 doubt he was deeply disappointed at being passed over both 
 for Canterbury, on Longley's death, and for York on Mus- 
 grave's. It was expected that he would go to London, but 
 his Church views stood in his light. He was finally trans- 
 lated to Winchester, the Diocese in which his beloved wife had 
 died, and to which he was bound by so many old and precious 
 spiritual ties. But the work of his life was done at Oxford, 
 and in London in the great assemblies of the Church, and 
 when his death came suddenly by an accident, in the sixty- 
 seventh year of his age, it was felt that a man had passed 
 away of the old heroic mould, who had crowded into forty- 
 four unresting years of almost superhuman activity an 
 amount of original work that had stamped itself for ever 
 upon the Anglican Communion, and had left a name which 
 would add new glory to that of his venerated father, and 
 reflect the most imperishable lustre upon the Episcopate of 
 England. 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 Zfyt Ov%an\}<xtiQn of t$t <Hngican Communion* 
 
 |N this and the following lecture I propose to deal 
 
 with some important features of the religious 
 
 development of our day, which have arisen in 
 
 connection with the Oxford Movement, though 
 
 not in all cases directly traceable to it, but requiring a 
 
 somewhat comprehensive survey of its influence in order 
 
 to set them in their proper historical perspective. 
 
 I shall notice first of all those aspects of our Church's life 
 which concern its organization, its outward mechanism, its 
 capacity for action as a communion, not confined to these 
 Islands, but co-extensive with the spread of the Anglo- 
 Saxon race over the earth's surface. This will be the 
 subject of the present lecture. In the next and concluding 
 lecture I shall treat of the influence of the Oxford principles 
 upon Divine Worship, of its effect on ceremonial and 
 discipline. 
 
 It must be remembered that the keynote of Tractarianism 
 was the Divine constitution and spiritual character of the 
 Church. It drew a sharp distinction between the Church and 
 the Establishment. It claimed for the Church the right of free 
 action within her own lines. Its problem was, How are we 
 
Cije <rgam'$atton of ti)e fhtgltcaii Communion. 113 
 
 to enable her members to utilize their spiritual heritage ? 
 
 Newman's solution of this problem was, in one word, to 
 make them realize the Apostolic Succession, i.e., to feel 
 their unity with the Catholic Church of the ages, in and 
 through the historic Episcopate. He held it as a first 
 principle that the collective Episcopate, as representing the 
 Apostolic College, chosen by Christ, is the one guarantee of 
 continuity and the centre of organic life. But how is the 
 Episcopate to reveal this life in action ? Only by returning 
 to the old constitutional methods, to those forms of assembly 
 which have existed from the earliest ages, and, though for a 
 time suffered to fall into practical abeyance, have never been 
 wholly discontinued. 
 
 Quite early in the progress of the Movement an earnest 
 desire arose for the revival of Synodical action in the Church 
 of England, which is the one constitutional expression of her 
 spiritual life. 
 
 As all here present are no doubt aware, the Church of 
 England for many centuries possessed her own deliberative 
 assembly, consisting of the two Houses of Convocation, in 
 either Province, the Upper composed of all the Bishops, the 
 Lower containing elected representatives of the inferior 
 clergy. In order that a Church ordinance should have the 
 force of ecclesiastical law, it was necessary that it should 
 have been approved by the two Houses of Convocation, 
 have been ratified by Act of Parliament, and have received 
 the Royal assent. This was the basis of the Reformation 
 settlement, the final stage of which was reached when the 
 Act of Uniformity was passed (1661). 
 
 Since the year 1716, however, the power of deliberation 
 had been withdrawn from Convocation by Act of Parliament. 
 
 H 
 
ii4 Ci)e (rgam^attcm of tty gfoglfcan Communion. 
 
 The two Houses had been allowed to meet, year by year, 
 simultaneously with the meeting of Parliament, but had 
 been prorogued immediately after meeting, and had been 
 refused permission to transact business. The formal machinery 
 of corporate Church life still existed : but it had become a 
 dead letter, a mere sham. The Church Parliament had 
 lost its voice. There was no legal means by which the 
 corporate sentiments of the Church could be expressed, far 
 less by which, if expressed, they could be carried into effect. 
 In plain words, our Church had no power of self-government. 
 As far back as 1840 a Society was started for the revival of 
 Convocation and the restoration of some at least of its 
 ancient privileges. The originator and first president of 
 this Society was Mr. Henry Hoare, whose efforts were 
 ably seconded by Archdeacon Harrison, the pupil and friend 
 of Pusey, Mr. Denison, afterwards Archdeacon of Taunton, 
 and Bishop Wilberforce. For several years the Society 
 contented itself with holding meetings, issuing pamphlets, 
 and endeavouring in other ways to influence opinion within 
 the Church. This was no easy matter. A strong body of 
 prejudice existed not only among members of the legislature, 
 and in still higher quarters, but also among the majority of 
 the Bishops themselves, together with a large proportion of 
 the clergy and laity of the Church. From time to time 
 attempts were privately made to induce those Statesmen 
 who were favourable to the idea to introduce a Bill, but 
 none of them were successful. 
 
 It was the Gorham judgment that gave the opportunity 
 for a more definite departure. That event had clearly 
 revealed to many Churchmen, not only the unsatisfactory 
 character of the Court of Final Appeal on doctrinal ques- 
 
Cfye <rgamation of tfoe Anglican Communion. 115 
 
 tions, but the impotence of the Church as a whole to make 
 its voice heard. In the year 1851 petitions were presented 
 to both Houses of Convocation by the clergy and laity of 
 the Province of Canterbury that letters of business, as they 
 were termed, might be sent by the Sovereign to the two 
 Houses, empowering them to discuss general questions 
 affecting the Church. Lord Redesdale undertook to present 
 these petitions before the House of Lords. At the ensuing 
 meeting of Convocation Bishop Wilberforce proposed that 
 permission should be asked from the Crown to discuss the 
 definite subject of a Clergy Discipline Bill. The Arch- 
 bishop, however, refused to put the question, and prorogued 
 the Houses. Shortly after this a change of Government 
 took place, and the new Prime Minister, Lord Derby, 
 expressed himself favourably disposed towards the action 
 suggested. The result was that in November, 1852, Con- 
 vocation met for the despatch of business for the first time 
 for 135 years. An address to the Crown was drafted, and a 
 Committee on Clergy Discipline that should report to Con- 
 vocation was asked for and obtained. Considerable diffi- 
 culties, however, still remained before the formal authoriza- 
 tion to transact business could be obtained from the Crown. 
 It was not until i860 that this obstacle was finally sur- 
 mounted. In that year a Royal Letter, authorizing the 
 transaction of business, was issued : and since that date the 
 two Houses of Convocation in either Province have met 
 regularly as a Church Assembly for deliberation, passing 
 resolutions, forming committees, and sending communi- 
 cations to Parliament. The Clerical Houses have been 
 supplemented by a representative House of Laymen in each 
 Province, who deliberate concurrently with their clerical 
 
n6 5TI)e <@rgani$atton of t\)t Stagltcan Communion. 
 
 brethren, but have not yet acquired statutory authority. 
 Eventually, no doubt, this authority will be obtained, and 
 we may hope at no distant date to see a fully organized 
 expression of the Church's mind, including both orders, 
 constitutionally complete and formally sanctioned. 
 
 It is true the functions of Convocation are limited to 
 deliberation. But when we remember that we owe to it 
 the successful initiation of three great Church measures 
 which have now become law, the Revised Lectionary, the 
 Uniformity Amendment Act, and the Revised Version of the 
 Scriptures, we must admit that a vast stride has been made 
 towards the goal of united action, and that the revival of 
 our Church Assembly has been one of the most important 
 developments that have taken place in our day. 
 
 No doubt its usefulness is seriously hampered by two 
 defects. The first, which has been already referred to, is its 
 want of legislative power. The second is its unsatisfactory 
 representation of the clergy. In the schemes of Ecclesiastical 
 Reform advocated by the Church Reform League, and by 
 Canon Gore and other eminent Churchmen, provision is 
 made for the removal of both these hindrances. The pro- 
 posal that measures for securing the greater efficiency of the 
 Church, when passed by Convocation, should be allowed to 
 be laid on the table of the House of Commons for a certain 
 time, and, if unopposed, be entered on the Statute Book, is 
 one of such provisions. And it does not seem beyond the 
 range of possibility that if the spheres of Church and State 
 could be subjected to Parliamentary revision by a friendly 
 Government, sufficient freedom of action to satisfy High 
 Churchmen could be obtained without sacrificing the principle 
 of Establishment. 
 
&f)e <rgamatton of tfje Anglican Communion. 117 
 
 Next in importance to the revival of the Church's consti- 
 tutional action at home is the extension of it throughout the 
 Empire, and even beyond those limits, by the Colonial and 
 Missionary Episcopate. To treat this subject at all fully 
 would demand a separate lecture. Not only are the facts 
 numerous and intricate, but the principles involved are 
 extremely complex. All that I can attempt to do is to draw 
 your attention to that aspect of the question which is specially 
 illustrated by the principles of the Tractarian School. These 
 principles, as I have more than once had occasion to remark, 
 are as follows : 
 
 1. The inherent right of the spiritual authority to deter- 
 mine all questions of doctrine, worship, and discipline in 
 accordance with its own laws. 
 
 2. The necessity of Episcopacy to the existence of a 
 Church, and not merely to its well-being, and, by conse- 
 quence, the duty of sending out a Bishop in the first 
 instance to organize the work of Christian ministration in 
 a missionary district. 
 
 In the case of Crown colonies or our Indian dependency 
 the Church enjoyed, and in some cases still enjoys, certain 
 legal privileges similar to those which she enjoys at home. 
 There was no question there about the Royal Supremacy 
 being operative in exactly the same way as in England. But 
 in the case of the self-governing colonies the case was 
 different. In those cases where Parliament granted a con- 
 stitution to a colony, the Royal Letters Patent under which 
 Sees had been founded in such a colony lost their signifi- 
 cance. This was tested in the case of Bishop Colenso. He 
 had been consecrated in England under letters patent as 
 Bishop of Natal, but subject to the Metropolitan rights of 
 
n8 ije <&rgam'$atum of tije Anglican Communion. 
 
 the Bishop of Capetown, Dr. Gray, out of whose original 
 Diocese that of Natal had been formed. Colenso fell into 
 heresy, and was put upon his trial by the Provincial Synod 
 of South Africa after the custom of the Primitive Church. 
 He was found guilty, and deposed from his ecclesiastical 
 rights as Bishop. The Court of Appeal at home, however, 
 found that owing to the fact that the Cape was a self- 
 governing colony the Crown had had no power to confer upon 
 the Metropolitan any jurisdiction over his Suffragan. There- 
 fore by English law Colenso, though he might be considered 
 morally bound by his oath of allegiance to Capetown, and 
 therefore without ground for resisting the deposition, was 
 still legally Bishop of Natal, so far as his temporal rights in 
 the See were concerned. Nothing daunted by this decision 
 Bishop Gray determined, if Colenso should attempt to exer- 
 cise Episcopal functions, to excommunicate him ; and this 
 he actually did, believing that the Bishops at home would 
 support his action and consecrate another Bishop. It was 
 found, however, that there were many difficulties in the way. 
 And eventually, after a controversy extending over seven 
 years, the consecration of Bishop Macrorie to the See of 
 Maritzburg was performed in South Africa, and Colenso 
 retained the empty title of Bishop of Natal until his death. 
 In this great conflict the two champions of opposing 
 principles were the two ablest men in the English Church, 
 Tait, Bishop of London, and Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford. 
 Tait was resolved to make the Royal Supremacy in ecclesi- 
 astical causes as much of a reality in the Colonial Churches 
 as it was in our own. Wilberforce vindicated the right of a 
 Colonial Church to independent spiritual action through its 
 Provincial Synod, with an appeal in the last resort to Canter- 
 
Ei)t (Organisation of tfy ^ngltcau Communion. 119 
 
 bury. In this resolve he was influenced more than he knew 
 by the superior earnestness and strength of will of the Bishop 
 of Capetown, and eventually he withdrew to some extent 
 from the position with which he started, and withheld his 
 full support from Bishop Gray's proposals. 
 
 The ultimate issue of the contest is very instructive. The 
 principle contended for by Bishop Gray is evidently destined 
 in the end to prevail. And this no one knew better than his 
 great antagonist, Bishop Tait. But Tait's object was to 
 allow the Colonial Churches time to organize themselves 
 upon the lines of the English Communion before they should 
 be compelled to approach the difficult task of independent 
 self-government. And this object he achieved. At present 
 the Churches of Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New 
 Zealand are completely organized, and able to deal with 
 such problems as that which confronted Bishop Gray without 
 any conflict with the Queen's Supremacy or the Privy 
 Council. Nevertheless, while the main principles of primi- 
 tive Church government are fully established in each of our 
 great daughter Churches, the links that bind them to the 
 chair of St. Augustine are not broken, and the possibility of 
 Synodical action by the entire Anglican Church is always 
 kept in view. 
 
 Great as is the debt the English Communion owes to 
 Bishop Tait for his unflinching courage and far-reaching 
 statesmanship, the obligation it owes to those who, like 
 Bishop Gray, represented the principles of the Oxford 
 Movement, is equally important. Viewed in the light of 
 history, the South African dispute was a test case of the 
 first magnitude. It reveals the inestimable value of pre- 
 serving to our Church the Royal appointment of its Bishops. 
 
120 J)e <@rgantattoti of t\)t Anglican Communion, 
 
 For it may safely be said that by no other means could men 
 have been selected capable of such wide statesmanship and 
 such tolerant justice : nor in my opinion would any other 
 arrangement have availed to prevent that most disastrous 
 result of a purely spiritual autocracy existing side by side 
 with the secular power, and proceeding on principles often 
 misunderstood by, and sometimes opposed to, the principles 
 of secular justice. This danger, which from the experience 
 of the Middle Ages cannot be called imaginary, is happily 
 averted from the Anglican Communion, which, except so far 
 as limited by the conditions of Establishment in this country 
 and India, is wholly unfettered by the State, and yet has 
 gained this freedom without any break in the continuity of 
 its constitution. 
 
 A few words must be added on the extension of the 
 Anglican Communion beyond the borders of the Empire. 
 One of the most evident signs of its growing vitality is the 
 establishment of Missionary Bishops consecrated at Canter- 
 bury to take charge of Dioceses of heathen inhabitants, or 
 of congregations of English Church-people under foreign 
 temporal jurisdiction. This is now a well established element 
 in the Church's organization. Here again we owe a very 
 real debt to the pioneers of the Oxford Movement, who 
 emphasized from the first the necessity of sending out a 
 Bishop as the rallying-point of Christian activity, and not 
 leaving the mission work of the Church to be done by 
 scattered clergymen acting under home committees which 
 might prescribe methods of teaching narrower than those of 
 the Church. By this agency, not merely have large dis- 
 tricts of uncivilized Africa been placed under Episcopal 
 supervision, but Bishops have been appointed in countries 
 
f)e Organisation of tlje Stogltcan Communion. 121 
 
 of ancient civilization, such as China and Japan, which 
 offer a most promising field for evangelical effort. The old 
 State-aided Bishopric of Jerusalem has been replaced by a 
 Bishopric in Jerusalem, with authority over Anglican con- 
 gregations, endowed by voluntary contributions, in accordance 
 with Catholic precedent. 
 
 We have thus briefly surveyed the extension of the 
 Anglican Communion properly so called, i.e., the Church 
 of England, the Colonial Churches, which originally were 
 parts of it, and which are now self-governing though still 
 bound by their allegiance to the See of Canterbury, and 
 those Missionary Bishoprics, or Churches, as they are 
 now calling themselves, which have emanated from Canter- 
 bury, and continue to look to it as their centre of spiritual 
 life and fountain of spiritual jurisdiction. 
 
 But there is a yet wider outlook. Not only is the Anglican 
 Church as a whole thus conterminous with and even tran- 
 scending the limits of the British dominion : but there are 
 other great Churches wholly independent of it, which yet 
 are proud to share in its communion, and to acknowledge 
 it in some sense as their spiritual head. The Anglican 
 Church proper has but one Liturgy, and one rule of dis- 
 cipline. These Churches have adopted Liturgies in some 
 respects diverging from our Prayer Book, though in no way 
 altering its doctrine, or varying from its liturgical spirit. 
 Such are the Church of Ireland, disestablished about thirty 
 years ago, and once united with our own : the Episcopal 
 Church of Scotland, representing the ancient hierarchy, a 
 voluntary body, with a large and flourishing Episcopate, 
 and a wealthy, highly intelligent, steadily advancing laity : 
 and last, but not least, the Protestant Episcopal Church of 
 
122 Cf)e (realisation of tf)e Anglican Communion. 
 
 the United States, with eighty resident and five Missionary- 
 Bishops, and over three and a half millions of adherents. 
 All these bodies are in full communion with our own, and 
 what is more, are evidently feeling their way towards some 
 closer unity of organization. This tendency has found visible 
 expression in those vast gatherings of Bishops every ten 
 years at Lambeth, which are known by the name of the 
 Pan-Anglican Conference, or, less accurately, the Pan- 
 Anglican Synod, and are perhaps the most significant religious 
 phenomenon of the day. But in order to understand their 
 origin, and to appreciate the peculiar limitations under which 
 they act, it is necessary to go back again to our own island, 
 and to trace the various steps in home development which 
 have made these great assemblies possible, and of which they 
 are rightly regarded as the fruit and crown. The features of 
 Church development, which we have hitherto considered, 
 are what I may call the strictly constitutional movements of 
 the Church, its organized life in the Houses of Convocation 
 at home, and in the Colonial and Missionary Churches, and 
 the constitutional relations of these with the Primatial See. 
 Side by side with this Movement there has been going on 
 another of scarcely less importance for ecclesiastical organi- 
 zation, and of even greater importance as a factor in the 
 general religious life of the nation. I refer to the revival of 
 the Diocesan organization of Rural Deaneries, which, after a 
 long stagnation, has been aroused into vigorous life, and 
 forms a most influential factor in the system of the Church. 
 The Rural Dean, who has the supervision of a certain 
 number of parishes under the Archdeacon, is an officer 
 appointed as a rule by the Bishop, though in some cases 
 elected by the clergy of his Deanery, but always acting 
 
f)i &rgam$atton of tfie Snglican Communion. 123 
 
 under the Bishop's authority. He is not only in minor 
 matters the Bishop's channel of disciplinary communication 
 with the clergy, but he has the power of calling together at 
 least once a year the Chapter of Clergy within his area, as 
 as well as a joint conference of clergy and laity for delibera- 
 tion on subjects of importance suggested by the Bishop. 
 The clergy are ex-officio members of the Chapter, the laity are 
 elected by the Church members of each parish. From these 
 various ruridecanal conferences are again elected clerical 
 and lay members of the Diocesan Conference, which meets 
 once a year for discussion and resolutions under the 
 presidency of the Bishop. The constitution of these bodies 
 varies slightly in the different Dioceses, but they all agree in 
 the position they hold as representative gatherings of 
 Churchmen, lay and clerical, for passing resolutions after 
 discussion, and for appointing committees to assist the 
 Bishop and Archdeacons in carrying on the business of 
 the Diocese. From these conferences are elected delegates, 
 lay and clerical, who meet once a year in London at a 
 Central Council, whose president is a layman of high rank. 
 At this Council subjects suitable for deliberation are 
 suggested to the various Dioceses, and great Church 
 movements organized or recommended. This Council also 
 collects and tabulates the resolutions of all the Diocesan 
 Conferences year by year, thus gathering together a varied 
 body of general Church opinion, which is no doubt informal, 
 but none the less valuable as a record. 
 
 These assemblies that I have mentioned, though including 
 the laity, have a more or less distinctively clerical character. 
 Their discussions do not attract much public notice, though 
 their influence has probably been wider than is generally 
 
124 &?)* <rgam'$atton of tfje ftngltcan Communion. 
 
 supposed. But some forty years ago an effort was made to 
 bring together Churchmen of all shades of opinion in a more 
 public manner for purposes of discussion and reading of 
 papers, after the manner of the great scientific and business 
 associations, in order that the tendencies of thought and 
 action within the Church might be clearly indicated to the 
 nation at large, and that the Church itself might, as it were, 
 become animated with a common consciousness, and speak 
 with a living, though still informal, utterance. To Arch- 
 deacon Emery, of Ely, more than to any other individual, 
 must be assigned the credit of carrying this idea into 
 realization, and bringing about what is by far the most 
 popular embodiment of ecclesiastical discussion, the Church 
 Congress. 
 
 The idea is of course not new. The present is an age of 
 Congresses. In every department of art, letters and science 
 it is found advantageous to collect together, either annually 
 or at longer intervals, the most prominent exponents of each 
 branch, in order to sum up in a comprehensive manner the 
 progress that has been made, and to set before the public 
 such new discoveries and suggestions as may claim its 
 attention or support. 
 
 The Church Congress in some respects resembles these 
 intellectual reunions, of which the British Association may 
 be taken as the type. But it also has affinities with those 
 great practical gatherings of the Democracy, such as the 
 Trades Union Congress, the Co-operative Congress, and 
 the Congress of Friendly Societies, which the genius of the 
 working classes has so successfully established for the satis- 
 faction of their own special needs. 
 
 Taking its stand upon the claim of the Established Church 
 
f)e <$rgam'$atton of tf)t STngluan Communion. 125 
 
 to be the expression of the national Christianity, the Church 
 Congress concerns itself not only or chiefly with resolving 
 questions of Church organization and discipline, but still 
 more with defining the attitude of the Church towards 
 pressing questions of spiritual need at home and abroad, 
 with popularizing her work, with familiarizing the working 
 classes with her history, and showing her sympathy with 
 those social difficulties which are the acutest problem of 
 the age. The Congress is held annually, by invitation of 
 one of the Bishops, in some prominent centre of industrial 
 life, more rarely in one of the historic seats of Churchman- 
 ship. A Committee is appointed to make arrangements for 
 choice of subjects and invitation of readers and speakers. 
 The proceedings are inaugurated by special sermons preached 
 by well-known divines or prelates ; the opening address is 
 always given by the presiding Bishop. The sessions consist 
 of short papers read by experts on the different subjects, 
 followed by one or two selected speakers, after which the 
 discussion is thrown open to all the members. The object 
 is to combine the greatest amount of instructed information 
 with the greatest amount of free discussion. Neither of 
 these can safely be neglected. Of the two I am of opinion 
 that the second, as a safety-valve for grievances and mis- 
 apprehensions, is on the whole the more important. 
 
 The tendency has been of late years towards a perhaps 
 undue preponderance of elaborate papers and speeches by 
 experts, which has had the effect of somewhat weakening 
 the popular element. This tendency, if carried further, 
 would be a subject of regret. For it is of the highest 
 importance that the freest possible expression of lay opinion, 
 even of lay prejudice, should be encouraged. In no other 
 
126 Cl)e <rgam'$att'on of tf)e Slngltcan Communion. 
 
 way can misunderstandings be so well avoided and miscon I 
 ceptions cleared up. This is an age in which, while every 
 body reads widely, few read deeply. The mass of men and 
 women prefer to form their opinions from short articles in | 
 magazines or reviews, or from oral lectures conveying well- 
 digested information, or from the speeches and counter- 
 speeches of able disputants advocating their rival views. 
 So long as the Church Congress makes this its first object 
 it is certain to retain its popularity, and to be a most 
 powerful engine for influencing the public mind. There 
 can be no doubt that of all the methods of Church organiza- 
 tion in our time none has been so valuable in bringing people 
 of opposite schools of thought together, of enabling them to 
 enter into and appreciate views antagonistic to their own, 
 and to realize how vast is the field of agreement in com- 
 parison with the points of difference. 
 
 Questions of doctrine, ritual, and discipline are wisely 
 excluded from Congress deliberations. But it does not 
 follow that great light is not thrown upon these subjects by 
 incidental references, and still more by the personality of the 
 great representative speakers. To take one example. The 
 progress of Biblical criticism was for a long time regarded 
 with deep suspicion by a very large section of the clergy and 
 the faithful laity. But by the wise policy of the Congress 
 Committees this thorny subject was allowed to be brought 
 forward and popularly treated in open discussion. The 
 result has been highly beneficial. Relief has been given to 
 many anxious minds, and the exponents of critical science 
 have been brought into direct touch, in a manner that would 
 otherwise have been impossible, with the spiritual rights of 
 the unscientific, and so have been . taught the much-needed 
 
Cf)e (5h*gantatton of tf)e Anglican Communion. 127 
 
 lesson that sacred criticism requires reverent treatment, and 
 that though the Bible can be treated as any other book it 
 must not be so treated, if criticism aspires to guide within 
 its own province the religious opinion of the English people. 
 
 I am afraid I have dwelt at too great length on this 
 particular feature of our Church's life. And yet I hope 
 that its importance will plead as my excuse for doing so. 
 Though the Church Congress is in no sense a party organ- 
 ization, but as broad as the limits of our Communion, yet 
 I do not think I am in error in regarding it as the legitimate 
 outcome of that craving for organized expression which in 
 its first clear pronouncement was due to the leaders of the 
 Oxford Movement. 
 
 We are now in a position to return to that magnificent 
 result of the Anglican revival to which I referred a short 
 time ago, the Lambeth Conference, sometimes, but in- 
 accurately, called the Pan-Anglican Synod, which is the 
 seal of our spiritual unity and the earnest of a higher 
 corporate organization to come. 
 
 The exciting cause of this development was the con- 
 troversy in the South African Church. But the idea did 
 not originate with Bishop Gray. It originated in the far 
 West, in the year 1866, with the Metropolitan of Canada. 
 This prelate, with the concurrence of his Episcopal brethren, 
 sent a memorial to Archbishop Longley begging him to 
 summon a Conference of Anglican Bishops. It was the 
 opinion of the Canadian Episcopate that such a Conference 
 would be the most effective mode of dealing with questions 
 such as now convulsed the Church in South Africa. The 
 Archbishop was at first unwilling to sanction the proposal, 
 but after consulting with other Bishops, and more especially 
 
128 l)e <rgam$atum of tlje Anglican Communion. 
 
 with Bishop Tait, he was inclined to give it his countenance. 
 Tait had already taken an independent line of action in the 
 matter of Colenso by writing in his own name to all the 
 Colonial Bishops, Archdeacons, and Deans, to ascertain 
 their opinion on various questions affecting the relations 
 between the Colonial Churches and the See of Canterbury. 
 
 The result was that on February 22nd, 1867, the Arch- 
 bishop issued invitations to 144 Bishops, including those 
 of the United States as well as of our own Church. Some 
 few English Bishops for various reasons declined the 
 invitation, and some were absent from illness. But when 
 the time arrived a goodly proportion from all parts of the 
 world appeared. No less than seventy-eight Bishops joined 
 in the Conferences which took place from September 24th to 
 27th, on various matters affecting the Church's welfare. 
 The burning question of the Natal Diocese was kept out of 
 the discussion, greatly to the disappointment of Bishop 
 Gray, who had come to England fully expecting to carry a 
 resolution at the Conference repudiating Colenso's doctrines 
 and endorsing his excommunication. The omission of this 
 subject from the prospectuses issued seems at first sight to 
 betoken indifference or timidity. But such was not in 
 reality the case. As Archbishop Longley wrote to Bishop 
 Wilberforce : "I cannot think it reasonable to write as 
 though nothing had yet been done, as regards the Con- 
 ference, in repudiation of Dr. Colenso, and its support of 
 the judgment against him. No words can more significantly 
 express the mind of the Conference than his absolute 
 exclusion from it." 
 
 In the end Bishop Gray was induced to agree that the 
 question should be referred to a committee, and to rest 
 
Cfce <rganfattoit of tf)e ^ngltcan Communion. 129 
 
 satisfied with the resolution of sympathy passed by Convoca- 
 tion. The united utterance of the Conference took the form 
 of an Allocution or Pastoral Letter, conspicuous for its 
 moderate tone and its calm, dignified and affectionate spirit, 
 which was mainly the work of Bishop Wilberforce, and is a 
 good example of his statesman-like mind. 
 
 The precedent set on this occasion has been followed at the 
 three subsequent Lambeth gatherings, the last of which, cele- 
 brating the 1300th anniversary of the planting of the English 
 Church, is fresh in all our memories. In each case a Pastoral 
 Letter, emanating from the entire body of Bishops, has been 
 given to the members of the Church. As a rule, it has been 
 thought well to avoid a definite pronouncement on questions 
 where there is a deep-seated or violent divergence of opinion, 
 and to concentrate on those topics which admit of a 
 unanimous, or nearly unanimous, decision. In process of 
 time, as the advantages of united action become more 
 manifest and the need of it more keenly felt, the necessity 
 for a more authoritative constitution of the assembly will 
 also be rendered apparent. At present the utterances of the 
 Bishops have no binding force. However, morally authori- 
 tative, they are not Synodical decrees, and cannot therefore 
 be incorporated into the Church's law. A strong current of 
 opinion is setting in towards the restoration of the Synod as 
 the governing body of the Church. In the Synod not only 
 the Bishops, but the clergy and laity are present. It is, 
 emphatically, the assembly of the whole Church, not only 
 of the governing portion of it. Even the most unqualified 
 supporters of the power of the Episcopate to decide all Church 
 questions admit the right and, indeed, the duty of the Bishops 
 to summon to their assistance not only clergymen eminent for 
 
 1 
 
130 Cfje <rgam$atton of t^e SnglCcan Communion. 
 
 piety or learning, but lay persons specially qualified to give 
 advice. Until the revival of Synodical action is found to be 
 possible, the Pan-Anglican Conferences, held every ten years, 
 are a most valuable contribution towards the higher organiza- 
 tion of the Anglican Church. No doubt it is true that other 
 strains of influence, Imperial as well as spiritual, have had 
 much to do with this important step forward. Yet it can 
 hardly be denied that the first definite impulse towards it 
 was due to the Oxford Movement. Among all the disciples 
 of that Movement there is not one more genuine, more whole- 
 hearted, more historically important, than Bishop Gray. And 
 it is to his bold stand for the independence of his spiritual 
 jurisdiction that we are indirectly indebted for the Pan- 
 Anglican idea. 
 
 Hitherto we have considered the effects of the Movement, 
 direct and indirect, within the limits of our own Communion. 
 But they have also operated beyond those limits. From an 
 early period in Tractarian history, the idea of reunion between 
 the separated branches of the Catholic Church floated as a 
 vision before the minds of its leaders. The sense of our 
 isolation weighed heavily upon the spirits of Newman and 
 Pusey. The former in his " Prophetical Office of the Church," 
 and the latter in his carefully reasoned " Eirenicon," con- 
 templated the possibility of healing the deadly wound of 
 separation between us and the Roman Church as a legiti- 
 mate object of prayer and of practical effort. The idea took 
 shape in an Association for the Promotion of the Unity of 
 Christendom (A.P.U.C.), founded about 38 years ago, in 
 which priests of the Anglican, Roman, and Eastern Churches 
 agreed to use a certain form of intercession, and to meet 
 occasionally for united consultation and prayer. An organ 
 
f)e (realisation of tf)e Anglican Communion. 131 
 
 called the Reunion Magazine was started, and the society- 
 increased its membership to a considerable figure. The 
 association still exists, but attracts less public notice than 
 formerly. The spread of its principles has been somewhat 
 injuriously affected by the confusion of it in many minds with 
 a very different organization, the Order of Corporate Reunion, 
 which, so far as its aims are made public, certainly appears 
 to work for the complete mutual recognition of the Anglican 
 and Roman Churches. The basis of union suggested by 
 this body would involve the recognition of Anglican Orders 
 by the Roman See, and the acknowledgment of the Pope's 
 primacy by the Anglican Church. 
 
 The attitude of the Vatican, however, has not been such 
 as to encourage the slightest hope of a rapprochement on these 
 lines. The celebrated letter of the Pope, addressed, not to 
 the English Church, but to the English people ; the attempt 
 of Lord Halifax to obtain from the Vatican a fresh investiga- 
 tion as to the validity of our Orders with a view to their 
 recognition ; the Papal manifesto on the subject ; the 
 very able and exhaustive reply of the English Archbishops ; 
 and the attempt by Cardinal Vaughan to change the point 
 at issue, are all fresh in our memories. It is obvious that the 
 desire for reunion on equal terms is confined to one of the two 
 parties, and meets with no response whatever from the other. 
 
 Foiled in this direction, the Catholic party in our Church 
 has turned with better prospects of success towards the 
 great Eastern Communion, which, in spite of some miscon- 
 ception of our position, has for several years evinced a most 
 friendly attitude towards us, and is evidently inclined to go 
 to considerable lengths in the direction of brotherly sympathy, 
 if not to some closer connection still. 
 
132 f)e <rgam'$atton of tlje Anglican Communion. 
 
 As you are well aware, the desire for reunion is not con- 
 fined to one party in the Church. The Evangelical Section 
 desire it too, but their advances are addressed to the 
 Evangelical Churches of Continental Europe and the Free 
 Churches (as they are styled) at home. As, however, these 
 bodies regard the form of Church organization a matter of 
 secondary importance, the reunion desired by them is rather 
 that of joint action in religious enterprise and interchange of 
 pulpit ministrations than any corporate solidarity. The 
 Oxford School, on the other hand, holds the central principle 
 of the Apostolic Succession. It cannot, therefore, be satisfied 
 with its existing relations to the Historic Churches of East 
 and West. It craves for visible unity, and, at the risk of 
 misinterpretation, holds out its hand to them both. The 
 issues of this development are yet in the womb of the 
 future, and he would be a bold prophet who ventured to 
 forecast them. Still, there can be no doubt that the great 
 spiritual wave of reunion which swept across the religious 
 mind of England so forcibly a few years ago, was to a large 
 extent generated by the forces of the Oxford Movement. 
 
 I have now surveyed briefly and sketchily, but I hope not 
 otherwise than clearly, the entire field of Anglican organiza- 
 tion, and have endeavoured in a few words to point out the 
 connection between the Movement which forms the subject 
 of these lectures and the extraordinary, almost miraculous, 
 extension of the Church's vital energy. Nor do I believe 
 that my estimate is in any way exaggerated. If anything, 
 I believe that posterity will credit the Oxford triumvirate 
 and their School with an even larger share in this great 
 ecclesiastical resurrection than I have assigned to them. 
 I shall conclude this lecture by noticing two other effects 
 
I)e <rgam$ation of tf)e Anglican Communion. 133 
 
 of the Movement, one of which, though not at present a 
 constituent feature of ecclesiastical organization, is not 
 unlikely to become so, while the other is an adjunct to 
 religion of great and enduring significance. I allude to the 
 re-establishment among us of religious communities and to 
 the revival of Gothic architecture. 
 
 Community life includes, of course, the monastic system 
 as well as the conventual. It is founded upon the idea that 
 the celibate life is the higher form of self-dedication to God. 
 The celibate ideal had been for some centuries repugnant to 
 Anglican traditions. The Reformation had left the question 
 of clerical marriage to the conscience of the individual, but 
 the words of the Ordinal and the overwhelming preponderance 
 of public opinion distinctly implied its general desirability. 
 Of late years two influences have conspired to modify this 
 view. The first is the heightened conception of the mystery 
 of the priesthood, emphasized by the first Tractarians, which 
 has once more raised the idea of clerical celibacy to a position 
 of spiritual attractiveness. The other is the fact that owing 
 to the pressure of poverty at home and the demands of 
 Mission work abroad, the marriage of a considerable pro- 
 portion of the clergy has become practically impossible. 
 
 The ideal of the celibate life necessarily leads on to that of 
 the religious community. The words, " It is not good for 
 the man to be alone," remain, and will always remain, true. 
 Several tentative steps have been taken to introduce lay 
 brotherhoods, bound by temporary vows. Keble was the 
 first to apply himself to the task, but without success. The 
 idea exists, and has vitality, but it has not yet found an 
 appropriate sphere of development. Within the priesthood 
 community life has been brought to a more successful stage 
 
134 &*)* <rgamatton of tije Anglican Communion. 
 
 of organization. Perhaps the best known of such com- 
 munities is the Society of St. John, with its headquarters 
 at Oxford, commonly called " the Cowley Fathers." These 
 societies have taken root in our Church, and are doing a 
 work which it seems hard to believe could be done by any 
 other means. Everything points to a large extension of the 
 principle in the near future. As a preliminary step, discus- 
 sions are being held in Congresses and Conferences, in which 
 the difficulties are pointed out and the prejudices which 
 undoubtedly exist are endeavoured to be met. It is probable 
 that if communities of celibate priests or lay brotherhoods 
 are to enter on anything like their former scale into the 
 corporate action of the Church, they will have to be 
 arranged in accordance with the forms of modern life, and 
 worked in subordination to Episcopal authority. 
 
 With sisterhoods the case stands on a somewhat different 
 footing. Woman's work is, thank God, now fully recognized 
 as an integral and most precious element of Christian minis- 
 tration. At the same time it is certain that such work, if it is 
 to be efficient, cannot be confined within the opportunities 
 which family life affords. The Bishop's wife, the clergy- 
 man's wife and daughters, the wives and daughters of devoted 
 lay Churchmen, the public-spirited single women who labour 
 in many fields of spiritual work, the deaconesses, the Bible- 
 women, nurses, district visitors and teachers of all kinds, are 
 all provided with a recognized status in the field of Church 
 life. But there is still a large and important class of ministra- 
 tions that can only be efficiently performed by women set 
 apart and trained by long spiritual discipline. The rise of 
 sisterhoods in England is one of the most undoubted and most 
 important effects of the Oxford Movement. To Pusey's 
 
CI)e <rgantattoii of tfje Sngluan Communion. 135 
 
 initiative it is almost entirely due. It was through contact 
 with Pusey that Mr. Butler of Wantage, and Mr. Carter of 
 Clewer, drew the strength of enthusiasm which enabled 
 them to face the suspicion and unpopularity which met 
 their first efforts. It was natural that a revival of 
 Community discipline should provoke the hostility of the 
 public. An institution which had been associated with, 
 the invasion of family life, had proved liable to grave abuse, 
 and had been (so it was fondly believed) discarded for ever 
 at the Reformation, was now reappearing in our midst, in 
 humbler proportions it is true, but with the same ideals, the 
 same methods, the same mysterious attractiveness as of old. 
 In spite of all discouragement, the work grew. Its two 
 objects, on the one hand dedication to a purely devotional 
 life, on the other works of mercy among the sick, the outcast, 
 and the fallen, possess an eternal attraction for the self- 
 sacrifice of womanhood. And amid the complex elements 
 of our modern life it was soon found that a place was open 
 for this particular form of it, and within twenty years of the 
 commencement of the Movement, the position of sisterhoods 
 in our Church was recognized and secure. And from that 
 time forward it has been steadily advancing, and will beyond 
 doubt assume ii. the future still larger proportions. 
 
 When first the work was started in the Diocese of Oxford, 
 it found a congenially-minded, though prudent champion in 
 Bishop Wilberforce. In the Diocese of London, Bishop 
 Tait was of course in far less sympathy with the movement. 
 Yet so fully did he recognize its necessity as well as its 
 value, that, contrary to the expectation of many of his 
 friends, he accorded it his guarded, but powerful support. 
 The main difficulty has always been the relation of the 
 
136 J)e <&rgant$ation of tift Anglican Communion. 
 
 Mother-Superior, and to a less extent of the Chaplain or 
 Warden, to the Bishop. Where the Bishop is visitor and 
 the Chaplain holds his license, there is a check upon the 
 abuse of power. But where this is not the case, an Imperium 
 in Imperio is in danger of being erected, which has not only 
 disadvantages from a general point of view, but is calculated 
 in the end to bring trouble to the Church. It is not only 
 the difficulties that arise about life-long vows, or the dis- 
 turbance of family harmony, but questions of property are 
 also involved, which demand the most careful supervision by 
 the authorities of the Church, if the system is to obtain 
 undisputed recognition by the nation as one of the accepted 
 branches of its Church's work. 
 
 The last point to which I would direct your attention 
 to-day is the immense and far-reaching stimulus given to 
 Church art, and especially to architecture, the grandest of 
 all the arts. The enthusiasm for all that is mediaeval, which 
 was and still is a most remarkable sign of our time, is 
 primarily due not to any directly religious impulse, but, 
 more than anything else, to the genius of Wordsworth, 
 Coleridge, and, above all, Sir Walter Scott. It was Scott's 
 poetry and novels that awoke the slumbering imagination 
 of England, and inspired the national mind with aesthetic 
 ideals which have revolutionized taste and feeling, and after 
 being developed in other directions by Ruskin and his 
 disciples and the pre-Raphaelite School of Art, have reacted 
 no less strongly upon the spiritual and religious tendencies 
 of the age. Strictly speaking, the Oxford Movement was 
 primitive and not mediaeval in its aims, that is to say, so far 
 as it was conscious of itself. But there lay within it a very 
 strong mediaeval bias from the first, which soon asserted 
 
J)e <@rgant$atfoti of tf)e Anglican Communion. 137 
 
 itself in the impulse given to the revival of Gothic archi- 
 tecture. To Pugin is due the first thorough-going display 
 of this tendency. He was followed by Barry, who has left 
 in the Houses of Parliament an imperishable witness of its 
 grandeur. The genuinely artistic impulse at once allied 
 itself with the religious element, and the two speedily 
 became inseparable. The old pseudo-classical style was 
 discredited, and the hosts of Churches that were erected, 
 rebuilt, or repaired were all subject to the dominant passion 
 for reproducing mediaeval types. In a few cases the model 
 was sought in the basilicas of Italy, rather than in the pure 
 Gothic of Northern and Central Europe. But this exotic 
 form has never made itself at home in England. Almost all 
 the great names, Street, Scott, Burgess, Jackson, Butterfield, 
 Pearson, have done their best work in the Gothic sphere. 
 And though it is fair to admit that the genius displayed by 
 most of them is of a secondary and imitative rather than of 
 an original character, yet the results are such as any nation 
 may regard with pride, and are even of higher than merely 
 artistic interest because they spring from a genuinely devo- 
 tional impulse. 
 
 I reserve for the final lecture the most conspicuous and 
 obtrusive of all the effects of the Movement, that extra- 
 ordinary revival of the externals of Divine worship, which is 
 summed up in the much-abused word Ritualism, together 
 with the doctrinal and disciplinary controversies that have 
 centred around it. I shall endeavour to treat this thorny 
 subject as impartially and luminously as I am able, and shall 
 conclude by estimating the net results of the Movement upon 
 the Anglican Church, upon other religious bodies, and upon 
 the Church at large. 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 Zt Jnffuence of flte (Wlovemenf on tmmoniat 
 anb iectpftne* 
 
 T must not be forgotten that the Tractarian 
 Movement was primarily doctrinal and contro- 
 versial. As Newman declares in his Apologia, 
 " Its object was to hurl back the aggressive force 
 of the human intellect." True to its profession, it began 
 the conflict with the weapons of learning and argument. 
 The present Bishop of London, in an address to his clergy 
 delivered this year, makes the remark that the distinctive 
 basis of Anglicanism is sound learning. He does not imply 
 that this is its only basis, but he holds that learning is the 
 special bulwark of our branch of Christ's Church, as 
 authority is of the Latin and orthodoxy of the Greek 
 Church. If this criticism be just, as I believe it is, the 
 Oxford Movement may take the benefit of it. Beyond question 
 it rests upon learning, not derivative or second-hand learn- 
 ing, but the true learning of original research and laborious, 
 accurate scholarship. This learning from the first went 
 hand in hand with a systematic method of spiritual dis- 
 cipline which, though not obtruded on public attention, 
 was inseparably joined with the Church principles advo- 
 
jfafltutttt of tty jfflo&ement on Ceremonial anU SfectpUne. 139 
 
 cated, and was, in fact, indispensable to their vitality. 
 
 But a learned movement can never be a popular move- 
 ment. To influence the people as a whole it must bring its 
 principles into touch with their life. It must give them 
 something of which they feel the need. It must enter into 
 their conception of practical religion ; in other words, it must 
 assert itself in the domain of public worship. 
 
 The Church's worship recognizes two methods of speaking 
 to the human spirit firstly, preaching ; secondly, the cere- 
 monial of Divine Service, and especially Holy Communion. 
 At the beginning of the Movement the readiest and most 
 congenial means of teaching was through the pulpit. It is 
 strange how little account is taken at the present day of the 
 extraordinary effect of the first Tractarian sermons. A 
 writer in the Guardian in February last rightly drew 
 attention to this oversight. He claimed that the prin- 
 ciples of the Movement in their original purity may be 
 better studied in the published sermons of Keble, Pusey, 
 Newman, Williams, and Manning than anywhere else. It 
 may safely be affirmed that with the exception of F. D. 
 Maurice no preacher in this century has had a profounder 
 effect upon thoughtful minds than Newman. We possess 
 the testimony of Mr. Gladstone that of all the preachers he 
 had heard none equalled him in the power of inspiring con- 
 viction, in that impressiveness which arises from the sense 
 of absolute reality. Not that he was eloquent. Oratory was 
 wholly alien to his temperament. But he had the power of 
 making his hearers feel the nearness of the spiritual world, 
 and the awfulness of its demands upon them, as few have 
 ever had. His sermons were continued, with rare breaks, 
 for a period of fifteen years, during which hundreds of the 
 
140 &ty Influence of ti)t JEobement 
 
 acutest intellects, the most chivalrous and earnest natures, 
 the most high-bred and aspiring spirits among our rising 
 men, drew from him their convictions of what their Church 
 taught, and of what their Saviour expected them to be 
 Besides the original hearers, a very wide circle of genera 
 readers has been reached by the eight volumes of Parochia 
 Sermons, of which successive editions have appeared, happily 
 not forbidden by the changed conditions of their author's 
 religious life. 
 
 Dr. Pusey's sermons have also obtained a tolerably wide 
 circulation. In his case the difference between the spoken 
 and written word would not, perhaps, be so keenly felt, for 
 Pusey's manner and delivery were by no means popularly 
 attractive. Yet, speaking for myself, I may say, never 
 having heard Newman, that no preacher to whom I have 
 listened has ever equalled Pusey in that peculiar power over 
 the hearer's soul, which breaks down all resistance and 
 makes it a willing recipient of the sternest, most uncom- 
 promising presentation of gospel truth. The same quality I 
 apprehend to have belonged to both the Kebles, and to 
 Manning also, though in his case, as in those of Church 
 and Liddon, there was a strong infusion of oratorical art, 
 which, however, did not at all detract from the impression 
 of reality. It is necessary to insist on this point, because 
 a widespread notion prevails that the Oxford Movement 
 depends for its success on external ceremonial and is weak 
 on the pulpit side, a notion which, in the earlier portion of 
 its history at any rate, is quite erroneous. During the last 
 twenty or thirty years it may be granted that preaching has 
 not been its most effective instrument. But I cannot admit, 
 even with this reservation, that it has neglected preaching, 
 
on Ceremonial anti fiterfplmt. 141 
 
 or that the average of its preaching power is below the 
 Anglican level either in argument or earnestness, though 
 perhaps the scope of the sermons has been somewhat narrowed 
 by a predominant reference to the claims of the Church. 
 
 But beyond question the popularizing of the Oxford 
 Movement is due to the expression of its principles in public 
 worship. The first care of the Tractarians was for reverence 
 in the Divine Office. In point of ceremonial they made no 
 innovations. The black gown was not discarded. The 
 simple ritual until then in use, was adopted in all particulars. 
 The only difference lay in the manner of rendering it. Even 
 among reverent-minded men, a certain laxity had prevailed in 
 the conduct of worship. The tone of voice in which the prayers 
 were read, the mannerisms of the pulpit, the method of 
 administering Holy Communion, were all such as failed to 
 a great extent in what ought to be their first object, to make 
 the officiating priest himself and all who join him in worship, 
 realize that they are in God's presence, united in adoration 
 of the Supreme Being, separated for the time from all 
 worldly surroundings, from all merely human associations. 
 This defect Keble set himself to remedy by concentrating 
 every effort upon such a rendering of the whole service as 
 should impress the minds of those present that they were 
 offering a sacrifice to God. The desired impression was 
 made. We know from the testimony of Isaac Williams 
 that Keble's awestruck reverence in the House of God not 
 only made an indelible mark upon his own religious ministra- 
 tions, but subdued into reverence the proud and naturally 
 rebellious spirit of Hurrell Froude. Through him it came 
 to Newman, and, fastening upon a congenial element in 
 Newman's soul which had never before been touched, 
 
142 Cl)e influence of tlje i&obement 
 
 wrought itself into his very nature, and bore fruit in that 
 strange, almost mysterious detachment of manner, which, 
 while it quenched every sign of merely human emotion, 
 produced in those who saw it, the impression of a spirit in 
 visible touch with the unseen. Newman's disciples seized 
 upon the outward signs of their leader's conception of 
 worship, even reproducing his abstracted look, his tone of 
 voice, his gestures, his use of a small-sized Office Book. 
 There soon arose a style of conducting the service which 
 proclaimed the infusion of a new element, that of adoration, 
 as distinct from edification ; not that the former had been 
 wholly absent, but that the latter had been made too 
 predominant. 
 
 But thus far no tendency had been shown towards an 
 advance in ritual. Questions of ritual could have had little 
 interest for men like Keble, Newman, Froude, Williams, or 
 even W. G. Ward. Pusey's attitude on this subject has 
 been already stated, and there is no reason to think he ever 
 departed from it. To him ritual was only valuable as the 
 faithful expression in worship of a daily realization in 
 practice of the mysteries which it symbolized. He did not 
 approve of teaching through the senses spiritual truths to 
 which the heart had not been converted. 
 
 It seems to me that this is an important distinction, if we 
 desire to form a just judgment on the value of symbolism in 
 worship. What is called a high ritual may be the spon- 
 taneous, the inevitable expression of doctrines firmly held 
 and believed to lie at the root of Christian worship, so that 
 those who hold them cannot without a sense of grievous loss 
 dispense with their outward expression. This use of ritual, 
 I take it, Pusey would have sympathized with and approved, 
 
on Ceremonial anti Biitiplittt. 143 
 
 even though he himself did not feel the need of it. But the 
 popular object of ritual is held to be not only the embodi- 
 ment of truths already held, but the inculcation, through an 
 easier medium than the intellect, of truths which must be 
 taught to those who as yet have not reached them. It 
 proceeds on the maxim of the great Roman poet 
 
 " Segnius irritant animos demissa per aurem 
 Quam quae sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus." 1 
 
 " We must teach through the eye." Such is the oft- 
 ; repeated precept. As I mentioned in a former lecture, the 
 first of the Tractarian leaders to desire a revival of the dis- 
 used vestments and the more elaborate ceremonial of the 
 pre- Reformation Church was Herbert Oakley, minister of 
 Margaret Street Chapel. I am not at all sure that he went 
 as far as to regard high ritual as an instrument of teaching, 
 but he certainly thought it a necessary accompaniment of 
 intelligent and reverent worship. There can be no doubt 
 that some changes were needed. The Bishop of London, 
 Dr. Blomfield, one of the most practical and clear-headed 
 of men, deemed it necessary to issue a pastoral to his clergy, 
 enjoining the use of the surplice in the pulpit and the reading 
 of the Prayer for the Church Militant wherever the Ante- 
 Communion Service was held. Strange as it may seem, 
 this order was received with genuine alarm by the whole 
 Low Church party, clergy as well as laity, as tending in a 
 Romeward direction. A well-known story is told of Bishop 
 Wilberforce, on the occasion of the consecration of a Church 
 in 1848, meeting a large number of his clergy, who were to 
 
 1 " Things instilled through the ear are less powerful in impressing the mind 
 than things that are brought before the faithful eyesight." Horace, Ars 
 Poetica, i8o, 181. 
 
144 f)* influence of tf)e iftlo&enunt 
 
 walk in procession to the Church from the Vicarage. All 
 but two were in surplices, as requested. These two appeared 
 in the black gown, which they refused to discard. The 
 Bishop, with that tact which never failed him, begged the 
 two black-robed clerics to favour him by reading respectively 
 the first and second lesson in the service. They could not 
 decline so great a compliment, and at once exchanged the 
 offending garment for one which brought them into con- 
 formity with the rest of their brethren. I mention these 
 facts to show how strong was the prejudice fifty years ago 
 against even that minimum of decoration prescribed by the 
 undisputed law of the Church. 
 
 We must now consider briefly the development of Ritualism 
 in connection with the Oxford Movement. Of course, it is 
 impossible within the limits of a lecture like this to go at all 
 fully into its history. This can easily be studied by such as 
 desire it in such text books as the Student's English Church 
 History, or other easily accessible works. All that is neces- 
 sary for my purpose is to show that the Tractarian School, 
 though not the authors of the Ritualistic movement, ar< 
 unquestionably responsible for it. It follows necessaril 
 from their principles. Their conception of the Church i 
 essentially that of Latin Christianity, that of St. Cyprian, 
 St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas. The Church is 
 conceived of as a supernatural body, existing independently 
 of its members, represented by a Divinely-appointed hier- 
 archy, who are entrusted by its Founder with the deposit 
 of truth and the sacramental machinery of salvation. Its 
 prime function is to save souls, to bring within its fold such 
 of those outside as are willing to enter, and to provide the 
 daily supply of grace for such as are already within it. 
 
on Ceremonial anto Stocipliiu. 145 
 
 The first of these two functions is fulfilled by the Sacra- 
 ment of Baptism, the second by that of the Holy Eucharist. 
 It follows, therefore, that for the members of the Church the 
 essential condition of growth in spiritual life is participation 
 in the Sacrament of the Altar. The direct result of the 
 Tractarian teaching is to concentrate all the elements of 
 devotion upon the administration, or, in Catholic language, the 
 celebration of this Holy Mystery, which is admitted by all 
 to be the central act of Christian worship, the only service, 
 properly so called, expressly commanded by our Lord. The 
 problem set before them was how to bring this truth home 
 to English Churchmen in a manner that none could mistake. 
 Direct oral teaching was the first stage in the process. But 
 obviously there were thousands of baptized Christians for 
 whom this was not enough. To begin with, many absented 
 themselves from the house of God, and could not be reached 
 by sermons, still less by other methods of instruction. Then 
 again, many were ignorant, unaccustomed to theological 
 doctrine, or indisposed to receive it without criticism. For 
 these the necessary arguments and exhortations were hardly 
 suitable, or, if suitable for them, they would not edify the 
 faithful who desired more advanced teaching. Evidently, 
 the only effective means of gaining their attention was to 
 make the service itself attractive to them, to draw them 
 within the sphere of its influence, and to leave the impression 
 to work. And this end could only be obtained by a vivid 
 sensible presentation of spiritual truths, partly by music, but 
 still more by an elaborate ceremonial, in which every detail 
 should be carefully framed to symbolize a doctrinal fact. 
 Such, I apprehend, is the origin of Eucharistic ritual 
 wherever found. And Tractarianism, in its popular develop- 
 
146 Cfce influence of tfye ffflo&ement 
 
 ment, is no exception to the rule. There was no hesitation 
 about the duty of enforcing high Sacramental views. The 
 only doubt that arose was, whether the formularies of the 
 Church of England, construed according to the spirit as well 
 as the letter, permitted the use of a ceremonial sufficient to 
 achieve this end. As early as 1841, Oakley and others drew 
 attention to the Ornaments Rubric, as capable of an interpre- 
 tation favourable to the reintroduction of the ritual in use in 
 the second year of Edward VI., which there was good reason 
 to think, approximated far more closely to that of the un- 
 reformed Church than was popularly believed. 
 
 But it was not until several years after that the ritual 
 question aroused public attention. Its emergence in what 
 may be called the acute stage, is thus accounted for by the 
 present Bishop of Winchester in his instructive Life of 
 Archbishop Tait. 1 I will quote his words : " The famous 
 Gorham judgment of 1850 had seemed to give a signal 
 triumph to the Evangelical party. But in the reaction 
 against that judgment the pendulum swung the other way. 
 Old-fashioned Churchmen, who had no liking for the Oxford 
 Tracts, were shocked at a sentence which seemed to them 
 a flat contradiction of the plain language of the Prayer 
 Book, and the result among High Churchmen was a wider 
 tolerance for the vehemence, and even the vagaries, of men 
 who now set themselves to emphasize, by outward act as 
 well as spoken word, the Sacramental doctrines which had, 
 as they thought, been unjustly assailed. With this 
 encouragement there took place an advance in outward 
 ritual, which had been discouraged as unnecessary or 
 inexpedient by the early Tractarians, but which commended 
 iTait's Life, Vol. I., p. 214, 
 

 on Ceremonial antt iStoctplme. 147 
 
 itself to some among their followers as the necessary and 
 logical outcome of what had gone before. Foremost among 
 these Ritualists,' as they now began for the first time to be 
 called, was the Rev. W. J. E. Bennett, Vicar of St. Paul's, 
 Knightsbridge. He was indefatigable as a preacher and a 
 pastor, and the result of his appeals to a wealthy congrega- 
 tion was the erection of the District Church of St. Barnabas, 
 Pimlico, which was consecrated by Bishop Blomfield on 
 June nth, 1850. Mr. Bennett's ritual in the Parish Church 
 had been of so advanced a type as to call for several 
 remonstrances from the Bishop, but St. Barnabas, it was 
 evident, was to be the scene of much more development, 
 and the storm began in earnest. It was the year of the 
 ' Papal Aggression,' and when Lord John Russell, in his 
 famous * Durham Letter,' fanned the anti-Papal fury by 
 denouncing the * unworthy sons of the Church of England ' 
 who were * forward in leading their flocks step by step to 
 the very verge of the precipice,' he gave the signal for a 
 clamorous outcry against Mr. Bennett, to whom he was 
 known to be referring, and a series of disgraceful disturb- 
 ances began. 'The Protestant cause' (says Bishop Blom- 
 field's biographer) 'was taken up by those to whom all 
 religions were equally indifferent, and all excuses for a 
 riot equally acceptable, and every Sunday saw the Church 
 doors besieged by a mob of disorderly supporters of the 
 Reformation, and the services interrupted by their groans 
 or hisses.' " 
 
 Such is the account given by one of the ablest, most 
 moderate, and most statesmanlike of our Bishops. It points 
 out what in the heat of controversy men are so apt to 
 forget, that there is in ritualism something of a necessary 
 
148 Je influence of tlje JHobenuut 
 
 current of thought, something of a natural reaction. One 
 cannot expect partisans on either side to realize this. But 
 those who rule, whether in Church or State, will do well 
 to take account of the laws which prevail in religious 
 as in political development, and to mould their policy 
 on larger lines than those of present expediency or present 
 alarm. 
 
 The disgraceful scenes above described went on for some 
 time, until Mr. Bennett, unwilling to cause his Bishop any 
 further anxiety, resigned his living. He was immediately 
 appointed to the Vicarage of Frome Selwood, where he 
 became equally conspicuous, Mr. Liddell being appointed 
 to St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, in his room. This gentleman 
 carried out his predecessor's policy, and in due time was 
 prosecuted under the Clergy Discipline Act for irregularities 
 of ritual. Meanwhile a change had taken place in the See 
 of London. Dr. Blomfield resigned, and Dr. Tait succeeded 
 to a legacy of controversy which lasted not only during the 
 whole period of his tenure of the See, but with only a few 
 years of respite, to the day of his death. The ritual cases 
 that obtained the greatest public notoriety were those of 
 St. George's-in-the-East, the most troublesome and violent 
 of all, in connection with which the name of Father Lowder, 
 one of the saintliest of our Parish Clergy, comes into 
 notice, and the still more famous name of Alexander Heriot 
 Mackonochie first emergies into light. Then follow in 
 succession the cases of Mr. Stuart, of St. Mary Magdalene's, 
 Munster Square ; Mr. Mackonochie, of St. Alban's, Hol- 
 born ; Mr. Arthur Tooth, of St. James', Hatcham, and Mr. 
 Pelham Dale, of St. Vedast's, all in the Diocese of London : 
 those of Mr. Purchas and Mr. Wagner, in the Chichester 
 

 on Ceremonial an* 29i$ripltne. 149 
 
 Diocese, that of Mr. Bennett, in Bath and Wells, 1 Mr. 
 Enraght, in Worcester, and Mr. Green, of Miles Platting, 
 near Manchester, the history of all which is doubtless 
 familiar to every member of my audience. 
 
 It is not my purpose to attempt even the briefest summary 
 of this prolonged, hotly contested, and still fiercely burning 
 controversy. All I shall do will be to endeavour to dis- 
 entangle the great principles involved, and to indicate as 
 clearly as I am able to real point at issue. 
 
 The first thing that strikes a student of the Ritual Con- 
 troversy is the strange misapprehension of its real import, 
 which prevailed for many years among that large section of 
 the laity, who were indifferent, or opposed to it, and also 
 among many of the occupants of the Episcopal Bench. 
 The attitude assumed by them was that of an impatient, I 
 may say, contemptuous disapproval. Men of great influence 
 in the Church spoke of the Ritual movement as if it were 
 a kind of man-millinery, an eccentric personal taste for 
 gorgeous habiliments, a frivolous and culpable insistance 
 upon external ceremonies, which gratuitously scandalized 
 the religious feelings of the average Churchman, and 
 grievously injured the incomparably more serious and im- 
 portant duty of Christian charity and fellowship. To men 
 trained in the older school of moderate or Evangelical 
 Churchmanship, it was at first inconceivable that devoted 
 and earnest parish priests should be willing to injure their 
 own usefulness, and discredit the Church of their birth, by 
 insisting upon things in themselves so absolutely indifferent 
 as the colour of a vestment, the swinging of a censer, or the 
 
 1 This was, strictly speaking, a case of disputed doctrine, though involving, 
 of course, the corresponding ritual observances. 
 
150 i)t Influence of tbe fftobtrntnt 
 
 lighting of a candle. This was at first the frame of mind 
 in which Bishop Tait approached the question. He was too 
 just not to recognize in the most ample terms the self- 
 sacrificing work of the men with whom he remonstrated : 
 at the same time he could not understand why in matters of 
 Ritual they should not accept his ruling, and shelter them- 
 selves, if they felt aggrieved, under his responsibility. It is 
 true he moved far beyond this point of view, as years rolled 
 on, and he became better acquainted with the inner signifi- 
 cance of Ritualism. But undoubtedly, his want of sympathy 
 for the Eucharistic views of those whom he opposed blinded 
 him to their motives in resisting his pressure, and caused in 
 his mind that conviction of their contumaciousness which 
 led him to introduce the Public Worship Regulation Act of 
 1874, which the Prime Minister, Mr. Disraeli, in giving it 
 his support, declared to be a Bill for putting down Ritualism. 
 
 The same thing is true of two other Bishops who became 
 involved in Ritual prosecutions, Philpott of Worcester and 
 Fraser of Manchester. The latter declared, with regard to 
 Mr. Green, that he could not understand on what principle 
 he declined to modify his ceremonial in obedience to the 
 Bishop's request, and therefore refused to veto the prosecu- 
 tion under the Act, which led to the scandal of Mr. Green's 
 imprisonment. 
 
 Now, whatever may be our individual attitude towards 
 what are called excesses in Ritual, we shall, I suppose, all 
 be ready to confess that the above explanation of them is 
 entirely inadequate and superficial. The mere love of 
 gorgeous ceremonial, of the sensuous accessories of worship, 
 may have its place in securing the popularity of Ritualism. 
 But it is not the root of it. It is an accidental feature which 
 
on Ctremontal anfc Sh'tttpluu. 151 
 
 commends it to numerous minds, and must not be confounded 
 with its essence. The root and essence of Ritual is the doc- 
 trine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, as the true oblation by the 
 Priest of the real Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ 
 upon the Altar under the species of Bread and Wine. So 
 long as this doctrine was generally regarded as foreign to 
 our Church, there could be no Ritual question. There 
 might be certain survivals of mediaeval ceremonial, as in 
 some of the Cathedrals on great occasions, which, historically 
 speaking, required for their interpretation a pre- Reformation 
 view of the Eucharist. But these created no controversy, 
 because they were accepted in an antiquarian spirit, for their 
 historic associations, not as instruments of inculcating dogma. 
 But the Eucharistic teaching of Newman and Pusey and 
 their followers aimed at re-establishing in our Church a 
 view of the Sacrament which would necessarily carry with 
 it the re-establishment of pre-Reformation Ritual. No 
 doubt Pusey was fully justified in claiming for those who 
 thought with him the right to emphasize that sacrificial 
 aspect of the Holy Communion which has been vindicated 
 by some of the greatest divines of our Church, and which 
 is certainly never disowned by any of its formularies. 
 And it is also true that he believed the way to do this most 
 effectively was not by ritual but by oral teaching. Never- 
 theless, it is certain that Pusey's judgment on this point was 
 at fault, and that the men who were occupied in grappling 
 face to face with neglected populations and bringing them to 
 what they held to be the Church's teaching, were better 
 judges of the best means of doing this than he was. Men's 
 minds have been moving fast in these days. And not only 
 have their minds moved forward, but their character has 
 
152 Cf)e influence of tfte jftobement 
 
 been profoundly modified by the spirit of the age. The Tract- 
 arians belonged to a man to the old, aristocratic regime. 
 They believed in the teaching of the public by those whose 
 attainments and character fitted them for teachers. They 
 viewed with suspicion what we may call demonstrativeness 
 in religion. Self-control and reserve were habitual to them. 
 But the younger generation had grown up under the influence 
 of democracy, which had inspired it with a different temper. 
 In spiritual things as in political, the masses have become 
 impatient of being taught by their superiors. What they 
 learn they like to learn in their own way. And this is mainly 
 through the eye and the outward sense. As in political 
 matters, great ideas have to be brought home to them through 
 great demonstrations and spectacular effects, so too in religion, 
 it is by sensuous presentation far more than by oral instruc- 
 tion that religious impressions are made familiar. The 
 Roman Catholic Church has always understood this element 
 in human nature. The ceremonial of the Mass, by concen- 
 trating every point of Ritual upon the one central feature of 
 adoration of the present Christ, has succeeded in attaching 
 to itself a perfectly unique popular devotion. No Roman 
 Catholic would dream of placing any other act of worship 
 on the same level as that on which is wrought the great 
 miracle of the Altar. Other services may have their special 
 uses, their special attractiveness, but the Mass is the one 
 central service, the Church's great tribute to God. 
 
 If, therefore, it be a legitimate object of endeavour to 
 replace the service of Holy Communion in that central 
 and unique position which the Mass occupies in the Roman 
 Church, the obvious means of attaining this object must of 
 necessity be employed. A ritual must be used approxi- 
 
on Ceremonial antJ fitorfpitne. 153 
 
 mating as nearly as local and national customs will permit 
 to that which has been so successful in the Roman com- 
 munion. It becomes, therefore, a matter of vital necessity 
 to those who have this object before them, to be at liberty 
 to avail themselves of the means of effecting it. So long 
 ago as 1 84 1 Oakley perceived this, and pleaded for the 
 legality of the ornaments referred to in the well-known 
 Ornaments Rubric. And it is around this Rubric that the 
 controversy has been waged for nearly fifty years, and is still 
 going on, with unabated vigour. The ostensible dispute 
 has been concerned with chasubles, lighted candles, wafer- 
 bread, incense, what are called the Six Points of Ritual : 
 but the true subject of conflict is whether a doctrine of the 
 Eucharist, undistinguishable, except for the dogma of Tran- 
 substantiation, from that of the Roman Church, may, or 
 may not, be legitimately taught in the English Church. 
 " The hands are the hands of Esau, but the voice is the 
 voice of Jacob." 
 
 If, therefore, the foregoing analysis be correct, the funda- 
 mental point at issue is not really one of Ritualism, but of 
 doctrine. Is the sacrifice of the Mass, to give it its real 
 name, a permissible view of the Holy Sacrament in the 
 Church of England ? Is it fairly to be reconciled with our 
 Prayer Book or our great High Church Divines ? Can it 
 claim to be legitimately comprehended within the broad 
 limits of our Communion ? If it can, then the legalization 
 of the ritual that symbolizes it must of necessity follow. It 
 may not come at once, it may not come without a severe 
 struggle, but it will have to come at last. 
 
 I do not know that I am called upon to pronounce one 
 way or the other on this momentous question. To do so 
 
154 Cfoe fnfluence of tfte ifWobenuitt 
 
 would require far greater theological knowledge, far greater 
 reliance on my own judgment, than I possess. Personally, 
 I am quite unable to accept the Sacramental theory which 
 I have now been characterizing. Personally, I shall feel the 
 sincerest sorrow of heart if it succeeds in making good its 
 claim to be the true teaching of the Anglican Church. I 
 shall regard such a result as a disastrous step backward, 
 as a return to a less spiritual form of religion, from which 
 we believed we had for ever emerged. 
 
 At the same time, I wish to put before you as just and 
 impartial a view as I am able of the contention of the 
 extreme High Churchmen. It cannot be denied that a large 
 body of admittedly-orthodox authority strongly upholds the 
 doctrine of a Eucharistic sacrifice. As the Archbishop so 
 clearly and temperately expressed it in his Visitation Charge, 
 there is a very wide latitude of permissible opinion on this 
 subject. Only two theories are expressly or virtually 
 excluded, on the one hand, that of Zwingle, which regards 
 the Eucharist as merely a commemorative rite, and on the 
 other, that of Trent, which declares it to be a real propitia- 
 tory sacrifice for sin. The localization of the Divine 
 Presence in the elements is not only not affirmed by our 
 Church, but in one particular aspect of it is emphatically 
 denied. But the Privy Council in the case of Mr. Bennett 
 refused to condemn his teaching of an Objective Presence, 
 thus admitting that there is a sense in which it may legiti- 
 mately be held. At the same time, my own opinion strongly 
 inclines to the view taken by Hooker, and by Keble in his first 
 edition of the Christian Year, that the mind of the Church of 
 England is most truly expressed by saying that the Body 
 and Blood of the Lord are received in the heart by faith, 
 
on Ctrtmonial antt Stgctpline. 155 
 
 and not that they are received in the hands by manual 
 delivery of the priest. 
 
 And I am persuaded that this is in substance the belief 
 of a large majority of our Church people. So long as this 
 belief is not superseded, so long as what many of us believe 
 to be a materialistic view of the Real Presence is not 
 attempted to be substituted for it, I do not think that a 
 gradual increase of outward ceremonial will be greatly 
 resented. In an age like this, when refinement and splendour 
 are becoming general in all branches of our life, I do not 
 think that religious people would disapprove even of 
 splendid vestments or stately ceremonial, provided they 
 were satisfied that these were not intended as a cover for 
 introducing the Roman theory of the Mass. Here again, I 
 set personal predilections on one side. For myself, what is 
 called high Ritual has no attraction whatever. On the 
 contrary, I dislike it, and infinitely prefer the unadorned 
 impressiveness of the old-fashioned simple service. Yet I 
 cannot but feel that this extreme simplicity, when contrasted 
 with the rich musical adornments of Matins and Evensong, 
 may be liable to be misunderstood by uninstructed persons, 
 who measure the importance of a service by its external 
 grandeur. How comes it, I have heard it said, that you 
 affirm the Holy Eucharist to be the Church's greatest act 
 of worship, when you bestow all your methods of attraction 
 not upon it, but upon other services which you hold to be 
 of lesser obligation, lesser solemnity ? If, therefore, it be 
 right to use every means of presenting the Holy Communion 
 to our people as the central act of worship, is it wrong to 
 surround it with at least equal splendour to that which is 
 lavished upon Morning and Evening Prayer ? It seems to 
 
156 Clje Influence of tf)e tfHobement 
 
 me only just to men who are placed in a difficult position, 
 to put before you the considerations that must inevitably 
 be present to their minds. 
 
 And this fact, I cannot help thinking, gives the key to 
 what appears the very inconsistent attitude of the Tractarian 
 School to the Church Courts. At first they hoped great 
 things from them. So convinced was Pusey that his doctrine 
 was the true teaching of the Church of England that he 
 repeatedly challenged his opponents to submit the points in 
 dispute to the Court. He desired to appeal to the Courts 
 from the condemnation of his sermon by the six doctors, 
 and was only dissuaded from his purpose by the extreme 
 technical difficulty of getting the case heard. He desired 
 to refer the questions between himself and his Bishop to 
 legal decision, and offered to bear all the expenses of the 
 proceeding, out of regard for the great advantage that would 
 accrue to the Church if the points were once for all settled. 
 Some years later, when the case of Westerton v. Liddell 
 was decided by the Committee of the Privy Council, the 
 judgment was on the whole very favourably received, and 
 neither Mr. Liddell nor his advisers showed any disposition 
 to disobey it. It was when the decisions of the Courts 
 became less favourable, and more especially, after the pass- 
 ing of the Public Worship Regulation Act, that the attitude of 
 the advanced party underwent a change. This change was no 
 doubt occasioned by what seemed to them the unsatisfactory 
 character of the judgments: but it only brought clearly to 
 light a principle which was inherent in the Movement from 
 the first, and which was bound to assert itself sooner or 
 later, viz., the incompetence of a temporal Court to define 
 the sacramental teaching of the Church of Christ. 
 

 on Ceremonial antt Stoct'plfiu. 157 
 
 It is in this connection above all others that the English 
 Church Union has assumed a leading part. This important 
 organization, which numbers among its members several 
 Bishops, over 6,000 clergy, and 24,000 laity, was started in 
 i860 to defend the doctrine and ceremonial of the Church of 
 England against attacks from any quarter, and to assist with 
 legal advice such clergymen as were involved in difficulties 
 on account of adherence to what the Union believed to be 
 the Church's law. From the first it expressed dissatisfaction 
 with the existing Courts, as being deficient in spiritual 
 authority. It objected altogether to State-made law being 
 imposed upon the Church. It affirmed as a first principle 
 that no Court is competent to decide a question of Church 
 doctrine or discipline, except one that emanates from the 
 Church itself in its spiritual aspect. The judge in the first 
 instance is the Bishop, the appeal from him is to the Bishops 
 of the province sitting in Synod, and the final appeal is to 
 a Council of the Patriarchate, or ultimately of the entire 
 Church. The function of the Civil Court is merely to see 
 that justice has been done. The only appeal allowed to this 
 Court would be that known as tanquam ah abusu, i.e., on the 
 ground that it has not legitimately exercised its authority, 
 and that therefore a new trial must be held. This has been 
 explicitly laid down by a circular of the Union, which was 
 known to emanate from its President, and must therefore be 
 considered authoritative. On this point, it was asserted, no 
 compromise is possible. The position was still further eluci- 
 dated by the Rev. T. A. Lacey speaking at a great meeting 
 of the English Church Union on March 7th, held at the 
 Church House. After remarking that the recent action of 
 the Union had swept away all side issues, and brought the 
 
158 Cije Influence of tfje 4f&obemeut 
 
 main issue clearly to the front, he is reported to have said : 
 " The object for which they had taken the field was to 
 maintain the independence of the Ecclesiastical Courts. 
 Their independence of what, or of whom ? Their inde- 
 pendence of any external authority whatever. The Courts 
 of the Church of England were competent to deal with 
 all spiritual matters, without dictation from any external 
 authority, whether Pope or King. This was what they 
 meant to fight for and win. It was for that cause they 
 were accused of disloyalty. They claimed to be among the 
 most law-abiding of the people of England. They were 
 fighting for the independence of the Bishops' Courts. Was 
 that disloyalty to the Bishops ? He thought they were 
 more loyal to the Bishops than the Bishops were to them- 
 selves. It was the duty of the Crown to restrain civil persons 
 from interfering in ecclesiastical matters." 
 
 The speaker here indicates what is unquestionably the 
 logical outcome of the whole Oxford Movement. He is 
 putting into a practical shape and bringing to a practical 
 issue what Newman had laid down as a doctrinal principle, 
 viz., that the Church is a spiritual body, existing by its own 
 constitution, and governed by its own laws, unable to admit 
 any jurisdiction in things spiritual at the hands of the secular 
 power. 
 
 Stated in this extreme form, the position is incompatible 
 with Establishment, as we have it in England. But neither 
 did Newman, formerly, nor does the Church Union as a body 
 now, profess to desire Disestablishment. It is evident, there- 
 fore, that some concession, short of logical consistency, is 
 contemplated by the Union as a possible solution of the 
 existing difficulty. There are two parties that must be 
 
on Ceremonial anti Biiciplint. 159 
 
 satisfied if the alliance between Church and State is to con- 
 tinue. There is the one, which insists upon the Supreme 
 Court of Appeal in all questions being a lay tribunal. There 
 is the other, which insists with equal emphasis on the right 
 of the spiritual authority to decide the doctrine and cere- 
 monial of the Church. Notice was given of a Bill to be 
 brought before Parliament this session, for the amendment 
 of the Law relating to the Ecclesiastical Courts, of which 
 the main feature was the retention of a Committee of Privy 
 Council as the Court of Final Appeal, but with a provision 
 that in all cases where a question of doctrine was involved, 
 an assembly of Bishops of both provinces should be con- 
 sulted, and that their opinion should be considered by the 
 Court before giving judgment, though not necessarily held 
 to be decisive. x 
 
 In the present tension of feeling, it is as well that any 
 attempt at legislation should be postponed. In the first 
 place, it is desirable that when it comes, it should be backed 
 by the virtually unanimous support of the Church. In the 
 second place, it is by no means certain to what extent a 
 section of the clergy are disposed to refuse obedience to the 
 rulings at present in force. The Bishops, who ought to 
 know, are almost at one in declaring that the number of such 
 clergy is extremely small. 
 
 Meanwhile, it is important that time should be given for 
 estimating the result of the action of the two Archbishops, 
 who have taken a new departure of the utmost possible 
 significance. They have so far recognized the necessity of 
 
 1 If this latter condition could be accepted, the Catholic party would probably 
 be satisfied. It is not an ideal solution from their point of view, but it would 
 give them substantially what they want. It does not, however, appear likely 
 to be conceded. 
 
160 Qfl)t Jfnfluence of tl)* jKefcURtnt 
 
 satisfying the demand for purely spiritual jurisdiction as to 
 offer a joint hearing of any disputed question of ritual, each 
 acting as the other's assessor in his own province. This 
 hearing, as they have been careful to explain, is not a Court 
 of Law, not, strictly speaking, a Church Court. It has, 
 however, the advantage of being an extension of a procedure 
 already laid down in the Book of Common Prayer, and 
 therefore unexceptionable in character in the eyes of all true 
 Churchmen. The provision referred to in the Prayer Book 
 is that to resolve all doubts as to the interpretation of the 
 Rubric recourse shall be had to the Bishop of the Diocese, 
 and that, if he is unable to decide, he shall refer the matter 
 to the Archbishop, whose decision shall be final. It will 
 thus be seen that by the Constitution of our Church each 
 Archbishop, sitting as Metropolitan in his own Province, 
 has the right, under certain conditions, of deciding the 
 Church's Law. In the present instance, this right is claimed 
 jointly by the two Archbishops as representing the entire 
 Church of England, and it is difficult to see what objection 
 can be made to its exercise. Their joint Session as heads 
 of their respective Synods, whatever be the legal aspect of 
 their decisions, is so undeniably a spiritual tribunal that no 
 clergyman, consistently with loyalty to the Church, can well 
 refuse to plead before it. And as a matter of fact, we 
 observe with satisfaction that the President of the Church 
 Union has advised its clerical members to do so. Already 
 a hearing has been granted on the important questions of 
 Incense, Lights, and Reservation, which have been fully 
 argued both by counsel and by experts, though judgment 
 has not yet been pronounced. 
 
 Whatever the decisions may be, we cannot but believe 
 
on Ceremonial anto Btectpltne. 161 
 
 that the clergy affected by them will, in spite of some 
 individual utterances which have seemed to imply the 
 contrary, loyally accept and obey them. At the same time, 
 it must be borne in mind that lay persons who felt aggrieved 
 by them, might not necessarily hold themselves precluded 
 from prosecuting in similar cases, on the ground that the 
 pronouncements did not emanate from a Court constituted 
 by the law of the land. 
 
 For to the great mass of the nation, the first principle of 
 duty, as they understand it, is obedience to the law, saving 
 only where the law is contrary to the supreme duty of 
 obedience to God. To the nation at large there can be no 
 courts but the Queen's Courts, for the Sovereign is the 
 fountain of justice, supreme in all causes ecclesiastical as 
 well as civil. I do not, therefore, see how the Archbishops' 
 Tribunal can be accepted as a permanent settlement, though 
 we may hope that its moral authority will be such as to 
 induce both parties to acquiesce in its decisions. 
 
 With all respect to the conscientious convictions of the 
 advanced party, I cannot but think they are in error in 
 attributing to the Privy Council any claim to settle disputed 
 points of doctrine, still less to make doctrine, as has been 
 said of them. As I understand it, Christian doctrine can 
 only be determined in one way, which is by the voice of 
 the assembled Church sitting in Council or Synod, and 
 guided in its decision by the Spirit of God. All that falls 
 short of this is concerned with the correct interpretation of 
 formularies, and demands not only theological but legal 
 knowledge. No doubt the Court of Appeal, which tries 
 such questions, should consist of Churchmen. And this is 
 provided for in the Draft Bill which has been submitted to 
 
1 62 Cije influent* of tfje jHobement 
 
 Convocation in the present year. But granting this point, 
 I do not believe that the laity will concede the legal 
 interpretation of their religious formularies to a body of 
 ecclesiastics. There is a letter of Dean Hook's, quoted in 
 Mr. Walsh's (so-called) " Secret History of the Oxford 
 Movement" (p. 347), which gives the view of an old-fashioned 
 High Churchman on this point, which seems to me worth 
 reproducing. 
 
 " I see no objection to the Committee of Privy Council 
 being our Final Court of Appeal : they do not form a Synod, 
 and here is the mistake so often made. In an ancient 
 Synod the members were legislators as well as judges. If 
 they decided that such or such a thing was contrary to law, 
 they might say, ' The law is a bad one, therefore we will 
 make a new law.' The Committee of Privy Council does 
 nothing of the kind. I wish to obey the Law. You say 
 that the law means one thing, I say that it means another 
 and who shall decide ? It is a question not of opinion, but 
 of fact ; and who can deal with such a subject so well as 
 lawyers? Who could be worse judges than ecclesiastics, 
 who would endeavour to bend the law to their opinions ? 
 The old High Churchman was wont to say, I will do what 
 the Church orders me to do.' I like (he might say) lights 
 upon the altar : but if you dislike it, let us see what the law 
 says. To ascertain that point, I go not to parsons but to 
 lawyers, who are not to make the law, but to discuss what 
 it was made by ecclesiastics." 
 
 I know the opinion has prevailed among many persons 
 that the Committee of Privy Council have been guided in 
 their decisions, not by considerations of strict evidence, but 
 by considerations of expediency. But I can see no ground 
 

 on Ceremonial antf JBtectptme. 163 
 
 whatever for this opinion. It is true their decisions have 
 been hesitating, and sometimes inconsistent. But this is 
 owing to the great complexity of the subject, and the 
 continual discovery of fresh historical evidence. And it 
 may safely be affirmed that no other body of judges, with a 
 confessedly imperfect legal training, would be likely to 
 arrive more nearly at the truth than the most learned and 
 experienced members of the very profession whose business 
 it is to interpret written formularies. I must now leave this 
 subject and pass on to the last topic on which I shall touch, 
 and that only in the briefest possible way, namely, the 
 influence of the Oxford Movement on the practice of 
 Confession. 
 
 And here I shall only say that the growth of Confession 
 in our Church, though due in great measure to the teaching 
 of Pusey and his followers, is also a spontaneous impulse of 
 the human heart, which must be accounted for by larger 
 and more permanent causes. The essential element in the 
 Reformation was not ecclesiastical, but spiritual. The 
 casting off of the Papal supremacy, was but the outward 
 and visible sign of the inward grace of freedom of the con- 
 science. Protestanism, if it means anything at all, means 
 the right of the individual soul to carry its burden of sin 
 straight to its Divine Redeemer, and to obtain direct from 
 Him on repentance and confession the assurance of His 
 free pardon. If this is taken from us, it matters little 
 whether we acknowledge the Pope's supremacy, or that of 
 the Bishop, or that of the Priest. Our Protestantism is 
 gone for ever. 
 
 Now it cannot be denied that this doctrine is one that 
 mtails upon him who holds it a tremendous responsibility. 
 
164 "f)e Influence cf tlje JHofcement 
 
 It is an ideal of religious life so lofty, so arduous, that our 
 Church recognizes the impossibility of making it universal. 
 She has never forbidden confession. To do so would be an 
 outrage upon the human soul. It would be to make sad 
 those whom God has not made sad. It would drive many 
 a true penitent to despair. 
 
 But though our Church has not forbidden confession, she 
 distinctly regards it as the exception, not the rule. As has 
 been well said, she prescribes it as a medicine, not as a food. 
 To insist upon it as of universal obligation, or even as a 
 condition of the highest spiritual life, is directly contrary to 
 the spirit of our Church. But if persons feel that without 
 confession they cannot come to Communion, or obtain the 
 sense of peace with God, what is the priest to do if they 
 apply to him for it ? This was Pusey's answer to those who 
 taxed him with enjoining it. It may have been his teaching 
 that first stirred up the craving for this relief : but when it 
 arose, how could he refuse his aid ? And the same argument 
 applies to countless other cases. The tendency of modern 
 life is to weaken the parental responsibility for religious 
 teaching, and to leave it more and more in the hands of the 
 priest. And where this is so, the encouragement of con- 
 fession naturally follows. If the laity who dislike and fear 
 the confessional, would only devote themselves, as their 
 forefathers did, to the thorough training of their children in 
 the principles of religion, the danger of the nation's moral 
 fibre being weakened would be less than it is. While, there- 
 fore, we cannot acquit the Movement of a direct tendency to 
 encourage confession, more particularly in connection with 
 the Holy Sacrament, we must also confess that the relaxa- 
 tion of religious strictness, the desire for spiritual comfort, 
 
on Ceremonial antt 29tactpline. 165 
 
 and most of all, the weakening of the old family religion, 
 have been powerful contributors to the wide-spread use of 
 the confessional. Unfortunately, on this point more than 
 any other, there is a cleavage visible between laity and 
 clergy ; not that a very large number of the clergy hear 
 confessions, but that the average Protestant Churchman has 
 such a complete horror of the system, that nothing would be 
 so likely to harden him against all clerical influence what- 
 soever, as the thought that his wife and children might be 
 led to transfer to the priest that moral trust which he believes 
 God intended them to repose in him. 
 
 I have now concluded the task to which at your Vicar's 
 invitation I applied myself. I have endeavoured from the 
 standpoint of historical Churchmanship to place before you 
 the main features in the progress of the most remarkable 
 religious Movement of the century. I have striven to be as 
 nearly impartial as I can, and often more than impartial, 
 sympathetic. I have tried to do justice to the purity of 
 aim, the saintliness of character, the loftiness of intellect, 
 which characterized the leaders of the Movement. I have 
 endeavoured to bring out the spiritual principles that under- 
 lay the edifice of Tractarian Churchmanship, and to follow 
 them in their development first in the life of individuals, 
 then on a grand scale in the Church at large. I have 
 connected many of the greatest and most far-reaching 
 elements in our Church's revived organization with the 
 impulse that flowed from Oxford, and have implied that in 
 my opinion they form a goodly heritage, full of value at the 
 present, full of promise for the future. And I have also 
 traced to the same original source other elements in the 
 Church's life which are equally prolific of discord and 
 
166 Zi)t influence of tlje JHobement 
 
 anxiety, elements which I believe to be alien from the 
 spirit of our reformed Christianity and distasteful to the 
 great majority of English Church people, but which are 
 welded so firmly into the framework of advanced Church 
 opinion that nothing short of an explosive force seems likely 
 to dislodge them. The attention of the English people has 
 not unnaturally been concentrated exclusively on these con- 
 tentious points and diverted from the larger and more con- 
 structive work of the Oxford Movement to which I devoted 
 my fifth lecture, and which an impartial judge must ever 
 regard as its chief title to our gratitude. Mr. Walsh, in his 
 widely-read book, entitled, " The Secret History of the 
 Oxford Movement," brings a very serious indictment against 
 the loyalty and good faith of its original promoters and their 
 present followers and successors. I cannot say that his 
 imputations are false, because he brings documentary 
 evidence in support of nearly all of them. But I think he 
 is open to the charge of taking a narrow and one-sided view 
 of the Movement as a whole. As a writer in the Times justly 
 remarked, he has confounded the incidental results and sequela 
 of the Movement with the main stream of its history. His 
 very title proclaims that his view is incomplete. There is not 
 only a secret history of the Movement, but an open history 
 too. And the open history is the more genuine, the more 
 important, and the more beneficial to the Church. It is 
 visible to England and to the world. It is a history of 
 Churches built, re-built, beautified, and restored : of services 
 multiplied in number, heightened in reverence, rendered 
 attractive to ever-increasing congregations : of an Episco- 
 pate strengthened considerably in numbers, immeasurably 
 in efficiency and vigour : of a parochial clergy devoted 
 

 on Ceremonial anfc tsctpltne. 167 
 
 on the whole with self-sacrificing zeal to the duties 
 of their sacred office : of a people whose interest in 
 religion and in their Church is intensified to a degree 
 that may well astonish those who remember the apathy 
 of fifty years ago : of an ecclesiastical organization instinct 
 with ardent life, grappling hopefully with the most 
 difficult problems of the age, fitting itself with extraordinary 
 versatility to the new conditions of a democratic society : of 
 a Church that can no longer be contemptuously called the 
 Church of a class, but is becoming, and will become still 
 more indubitably, the Church of the people. These are the 
 true fruits of the Oxford Movement, and who can doubt 
 that they are on the whole the fruits of the Spirit of God ? 
 I willingly allow that there are baser elements mixed with 
 the pure ore of truth. I grant that some of the principles 
 advocated by the Tractarian School have no genuine place 
 within the reformed Church of England. These must be 
 disentangled from the rest, and disavowed by loyal Church- 
 men. It is not fitting that a section, however devoted, 
 should be allowed to drag the whole body of Churchmen 
 along a path they disapprove. These latter should make 
 their voice heard, and emphatically repudiate the extremists' 
 lead. It is not to be conceived of for a moment that the 
 laity of the Church of England will suffer themselves to be 
 committed through the silence of the Clergy to a policy 
 which they believe tends towards re-union with the Church 
 of Rome, even though its advocates sincerely disclaim any 
 such ulterior object. 
 
 All that the successors of the Tractarian School can justly 
 claim is that their position shall be recognized as legitimate 
 within our Church, provided that what they contend for can 
 
1 68 STije influence of tfye jHobement 
 
 be proved to be lawfully included within the limits of her 
 comprehensiveness. This opportunity is now being given 
 them in the fullest and freest manner. The rulers of the 
 State as well as of the Church have shown themselves more 
 than impartial towards a party, which, whatever its excesses, 
 has set a splendid example of devotion to the cause of Christ 
 and the salvation of souls. But it is clear that some line 
 must be drawn. It is clear we cannot tolerate the Oxford 
 tutor's boast that he could teach the whole cycle of Roman 
 doctrine unmolested as a priest of the English Church. 
 While, therefore, I strongly disapprove of the spirit of Mr. 
 Walsh's book, and disagree with many of the inferences he 
 draws from his facts, I am not without hope that its publi- 
 cation may be overruled for good : that it may act as a 
 needed warning to those clergy who are recklessly advancing 
 along a dangerous path, and by the very violence of its in- 
 vective may induce the intolerant Protestant faction to pause 
 and ask themselves whether such an attitude is justified, 
 whether the cause of righteousness can be served by driving 
 out of the Church men conspicuous for their love of Christ 
 and souls. 
 
 If our Church is still to be the Church of the nation, she 
 must learn to " bear and forbear." She must recognize the 
 very wide diversities of theological opinion within her fold, 
 and be prepared for these to express themselves with cor- 
 responding differences of ceremonial. There have existed 
 since the Reformation three great tendencies of thought, 
 which have never been able to sympathize with one another. 
 Yet history proves that each of them corresponds to a very 
 large and vital element in the national Christianity. It will 
 be an irreparable disaster, if through the influence of panic 
 
on Ceremonial antt 29t*ripltne. 169 
 
 and the anti- Roman prejudice, a course of action should be 
 adopted, which should expel from our Communion men and 
 women who were at heart loyal to it. This error was com- 
 mitted once, when the Methodist movement was disowned 
 by the Church. May a similar experience, though from 
 opposite tendencies, not again be so unwisely used ! Let us 
 plead for patience, justice, charity. If these are forth- 
 coming, I cannot doubt that the Divine Guardian of the 
 Church will grant us a favourable issue out of our present 
 distress, and in the end strengthen that great and venerable 
 Institution, which more than any other is identified with the 
 spiritual history and moral progress of our land. 
 
(poafecripf. 
 
 INCE the foregoing lectures were delivered, the 
 anxiously awaited decision of the Archbishops on 
 two out of the three questions submitted to them 
 has been given to the world. The processional 
 use of lights and the liturgical use of incense have been 
 declared unlawful. It is not unlikely that a similar con- 
 clusion will be arrived at on the still more important question 
 of Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament. 
 
 The Archbishops have grounded their decision upon the 
 Act of Uniformity of 1559, which provides that the ministers 
 of the Church of England shall use the ceremonies pre- 
 scribed in the Book of Common Prayer, and no other. 
 From the outset it was made apparent that they would be 
 guided entirely by considerations of legal evidence. Their 
 intention in granting the hearing was not to make new law, 
 but to ascertain the existing law. In pronouncing judgment, 
 they confined themselves to the strictly judicial function of 
 interpreting a legal document. They took no account of 
 expediency nor of what was ideally best. Their personal 
 opinion, one cannot doubt, was in favour of the suitability 
 of incense as an adjunct of public worship. But they found 
 no warrant for it in the formularies of our Church, and so 
 they decided against it. 
 
iPo^tampt. 171 
 
 Their action has on the whole been very favourably 
 received. The majority of Church people are satisfied that 
 sufficient evidence was produced to admit of a conclusive 
 decision ; that it was sifted with the utmost thoroughness 
 and weighed with complete impartiality. Nevertheless, 
 there are signs that the dispute is very far from being laid to 
 rest. In the first place, the Church Times, which is the organ 
 of the advanced party, draws attention to the fact that the 
 basis of the Archbishops' judgment is an Act of the Secular 
 Legislature, neither previously prepared by the Church's 
 Convocation nor afterwards ratified by it, 1 and therefore not 
 binding upon the consciences of Churchmen. In the second 
 place, Mr. Kensit, as the mouth-piece of aggressive Protes- 
 tantism, declares that now the law has been laid down he 
 shall expect the Bishops to enforce it in their several 
 dioceses ; and that unless they do this, he shall continue his 
 agitation with the object of stamping out all ceremonies 
 declared to be illegal. 
 
 Both these pronouncements have an ominous ring. If 
 the English Church Union should adopt the argument of 
 the Church Times, which a considerable number of its mem- 
 bers have declared themselves ready to do, there can be 
 little doubt that Disestablishment will be brought not one 
 but many steps nearer the possibility of accomplishment. 
 If Mr. Kensit and his friends should be supported by public 
 opinion in their persecuting policy, it seems more than 
 likely that the extreme party will be driven out of the 
 Church. 
 
 1 This of course does not apply to the Act of Uniformity of 1661, which had 
 the complete sanction of the Church as well as the State. As Canon Gore has 
 pointed out, the Archbishops were careful to insist on the fact that this Act 
 fulfils all the conditions necessary to bind the consciences of Churchmen. 
 
172 $oS tempt. 
 
 If the view of the situation taken in the foregoing 
 lectures be sound, both of these results would be disastrous 
 in the highest degree, not only to the Church of England 
 but to the Christianity of the nation. 
 
 I have all along proceeded on the assumption that 
 the maintenance of the national Christianity is the 
 ideal which the Church of England should keep 
 steadily before her. As the organization which exists to 
 compass this ideal, she is no longer co-extensive with the 
 nation. And this is not her fault. The nation as such has 
 unquestionably surrendered some important elements of 
 historic Churchmanship which the Church has never ceased 
 to teach. It no longer holds Episcopacy to be a divine 
 institution. It no longer accepts the sacerdotal conception 
 of the Christian ministry. It no longer believes in the 
 necessity of the doctrine of Sacramental life. These facts 
 are undeniable. But on the other hand, the nation has 
 never rejected its belief in the Divine Sonship of Christ. 
 It has never repudiated its faith in His Person as the only 
 channel of eternal salvation. It has never called in question 
 any of the principles He laid down, or denied the universal 
 efficacy of His life, death and example. This being so, it 
 cannot be justly affirmed that the nation has repudiated 
 the religion of Jesus Christ or cut itself adrift from His 
 Church. 
 
 And, unless it should do these things, either through its 
 representatives in Parliament or by a decisive turn of public 
 opinion, the Church, which it has made the guardian of its 
 faith and worship, will incur a grave responsibility if she 
 takes the first step to sever her connection with those for 
 whose sake she exists. Circumstances might easily be con- 
 
postscript. 173 
 
 ceived to arise, which might not only justify but oblige the 
 Church to seek disestablishment and to court disendowment. 
 She herself in such a case might be all the stronger and 
 purer for the change. Her organic life might be richer : 
 her witness for Christ might be more telling. She would 
 certainly have nothing to dread which could interfere with 
 her spiritual vitality. Poverty, unpopularity, tribulation, 
 would be more than balanced by increased devotion, 
 patience and unworldliness. But she ought to be very 
 sure that God was calling on her to make this experiment 
 before she took the first step to bring it about. For it 
 would be equivalent to disowning the nation as an Apostate 
 from the faith of Christ. It would be surrendering not only 
 the privilege, but the obligation which now lies upon her of 
 bringing the Gospel message to every household that will 
 receive it throughout the land. To justify so vast a sur- 
 render, she would require a very clear indication of the 
 Divine Will. 
 
 But, still, it might come. Perhaps (who knows ?) it may 
 come sooner than many think. But I cannot myself believe 
 that it has come yet. And, therefore, I hope the Church 
 will not allow herself to be prematurely committed by one 
 of her parties to the disastrous policy of obtaining present 
 relief by resigning duties which she might still retain to the 
 advantage of those who look to her for guidance. 
 
 And here, I think, we touch on the weak spot in the 
 Oxford Movement. I do not allude to such men as Keble, 
 or Pusey, or Butler, who were strong in patience, the most 
 necessary of all virtues to the religious reformer : but to 
 those who like Froude, Newman, Ward and Manning, 
 demanded all that the logic of their convictions required, 
 
174 :PoSt3cript. 
 
 and, still more, to many later representatives of the Oxford 
 School, who have accepted the principles of these eminent 
 men without their previous training. 
 
 The disciples of the Movement have been too much 
 occupied in asserting the rights of the Church. They have 
 done splendid service in setting forth these rights, both as 
 against the State and as against the individual. And yet 
 Luther's profound saying that we may leave God Almighty 
 to take care of His Church, may have a special meaning 
 for these days as it had for his own. The highest right of 
 the Church, after all, must be to bear witness for her Lord. 
 And this, for all we know, may often best be done in ways 
 incomprehensible to us, and only fully recognizable after 
 the events. 
 
 That the Church has indefeasible rights to some measure 
 of self-government is certain. That some of those rights 
 are infringed or curtailed under our present system is almost 
 undeniable. That such curtailment is not unavoidable is 
 evident from the case of Scotland. Therefore the desire of 
 High Churchmen for greater freedom of self-government is 
 both natural and just. Nevertheless, it may be the highest 
 wisdom, the finest loyalty, to refrain from insisting upon its 
 being granted. 
 
 For, as more than one of our leaders has reminded us, the 
 withdrawal of establishment might mean disruption, and 
 the only resulting liberty might be that of two or more 
 separate bodies being left free to organize themselves on 
 the basis of rival claimants to be the Church of the Nation. 
 And then, who would be the gainer ? 
 
 But if we deprecate any hastening of disestablishment 
 from the side of the Catholic party, we disapprove no less 
 
i9ost3mpt. 175 
 
 of the bigoted attempt to eject that party from the Church 
 by a tyrannical employment of the Act of Uniformity. It 
 is utterly futile in an age so full of life and creative energy 
 as this, to attempt to bind more tightly the trammels which 
 a policy proved impotent by the event fastened three cen- 
 turies ago round the activities of the Church. To insist on 
 regarding the Prayer Book as a complete expression of the 
 mind of our Church is to falsify the experience of every day 
 we live. A Book that provides no office for Missions, that 
 does not recognize our Spiritual relations to our Colonial 
 Empire, that does not explicitly allude to the Queen's 
 executive government, that never hints at the possibility of 
 reunion with the Eastern Church, can hardly be said to be 
 an ideal manual for the present day. If there is one thing 
 more certain than another, it is that spiritual forces cannot 
 be held in check by material. The theory that coercion is 
 no remedy has been accepted in a sphere far less unfavour- 
 able to its truth than that of religious zeal. It is hard to 
 believe that those who advocate it can really expect it to 
 achieve its proposed object. What it may and probably 
 will achieve is to drive those who are subjected to it into 
 self-imposed banishment, and perhaps to seek a refuge in 
 the arms of another communion. If this is the result 
 contemplated by Mr. Kensit and his friends, we do not 
 congratulate the Church or the nation. 
 
 For our own part, we are sure that those who hurry it on 
 are no true friends of the Church of England, no safe guides 
 for religious men to follow. A Church dethroned and per- 
 secuted might well remain as the nation's better angel, 
 pleading, not without avail, for its misguided charge. But 
 a Church that consented to limit its spiritual energy by the 
 
176 postscript. 
 
 hard and fast regulations of a State department has already 
 sold its birthright and must forfeit its claim to be a guide 
 of souls. 
 
 This is an age of extreme statement in all matters of 
 controversy. All parties profess to believe in the Catholic 
 Church. Only the word Catholic contains two different 
 and in the last resort incompatible elements, that of uni- 
 versality and that of organic unity. The Oxford School 
 have taken their stand upon the latter element. To them 
 Catholicity means external continuity through Episcopal 
 succession, as the guarantee for unbroken tradition of the 
 faith. It is therefore necessarily exclusive. To the other 
 party Catholicity suggests inclusion, not exclusion. It 
 makes for union, not of organization, not even of doctrine, 
 but of spirit, of effort, of moral and social ideals, limited 
 only by loyalty to the supreme claim of Christ. 
 
 This is the problem that the Churches in the coming 
 century will have to meet. I do not say to solve, for the 
 day of its solution is not yet. But the Church of Christ is 
 ideally the whole human race, coextensive with that nature 
 which He took upon Him and redeemed. And Christians 
 can set before them no lower goal. How this goal is to be 
 reached, we know not. The present seems dark and per- 
 plexing, and it is hard to see light. But we refuse to believe 
 that a nation which, with all its faults, has never lost hold 
 of the sheet-anchor of faith in Christ, will under the in- 
 fluence of temporary panic, either prove false to its cherished 
 ideal of religious liberty, or deliberately allow sectarian 
 partisanship to usurp its name and authority for the dis- 
 couragement of true religion. 
 
 If the considerations that I have brought forward in this 
 
:Po$tlcrtpt. 177 
 
 little book should prove helpful, in however slight a degree, 
 towards appeasing wrath and promoting a calm judgment on 
 the issues of our present controversy, I shall be doubly 
 grateful to those friends without whose kindly presence it 
 would not have been given to the world. 
 
 The End, 
 
 Printed by Curtis & Beamish, Ltd., Coventry. 
 
 M 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT.