Walter Walsh's "The History of the Romeward Movement in the Church of England 1833-1864," pp.22-47

Walter Walsh's "The History of the Romeward Movement in the Church of England: 1833-1864," pp.22-47. This will give an overview of John Henry Newman, Tractarians, and Anglo-Catholics and their insinuation into Evangelical, Reformed and Confessional Christianity in the Anglican way. This well-researched expose of Tractarianism and Anglo-Romanizing won't get press at www.virtueonline.org, AMiA, CANA or the ACNA. The "so-called" evangelicals in the ACNA sit loose re: these anti-Confessional, anti-Reformational, and anti-Protestant squatters.

Bishop Iker, ACNA, was open and public that he and his Texan ilk would read the Reformed Confession of the English Reformation as did Newman, Keble and Pusey. The same holds for Ackerman of Quincy and Schofield of California. The neo-Tractarian REC, in essence, holds to Tract XC as one way to read the Reformed Confession. See their "wash" at the REC website with an article entitled, "True Unity."

Freely downloadable at:

http://books.google.com/books?id=skIkAVBbQFQC&pg=PA46&dq=walter+walsh&as_brr=1&output=text#c_top

----------------------
CHAPTER II

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

On Tuesday, July 9, 1833, Mr. Newman returned to Oxford from a prolonged visit to Italy. The Rev. R. H. Froude, who had been his companion during a portion of his journey, had returned some time before. " The following Sunday," writes Mr. Newman, "July 14th, Mr. Keble preached the Assize sermon in the University pulpit. It was published under the title of National Apostasy. I have ever considered and kept the day as the start of the religious movement of 1833."1 During their travels in Italy, Newman and Froude had two interviews with Monsignor Wiseman at Rome, to which the latter gentleman ever afterwards attached the highest importance, and apparently considered as the real birth date of the Oxford Movement. I have already, in the ninth chapter of my Secret History of the Oxford Movement, referred to this interview, which seems to have been kept

footnote. 1 Newman's Apologia, p. 10o. 18

A SECRET INTERVIEW AT ROME 19

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

"The interview left Wiseman with two vivid impressions—sparks which the course of the Oxford Movement fanned later into a flame. He was struck by the truly Catholic temper of mind of the two men, and by their utter sincerity. Both these impressions were contrary to the views current among his co-religionists alike in Rome andjj in England, who thought that Catholic sympathies in the Anglican Church were, for the most part, purely superficial and aesthetic Where they were deeper, adherence to the Church of England—then beyond question predominantly Protestant in its religious tone—was supposed to be incompatible with sincerity. Wiseman judged differently from this brief visit, and, with characteristic hopefulness, made up his mind that if these men represented the rising generation at Oxford, the centre of English religious life, great changes were in store for the country. The existence of such opinions in Oxford itself was not, indeed, a justification of Father Spencer's chimerical hopes. But it promised no longer the accession of units only in a people of millions. A movement which was in its degree corporate was apparently beginning among leading minds within the Anglican Church. Such a movement must have peculiar elements of power, resulting from its claim to be national as well as Catholic. It appealed to English Churchmen as the work of their friends, while the hereditary supporters of the Roman See necessarily appeared in a measure to assail them as foes. From this year dates the rise of a new hopefulness in Wiseman. ' From the day of Newman and Froude's visit to me,' he wrote in 1847, 1 never for an instant did I waver in my conviction that a new era had commenced in England ... to this grand object I devoted myself . . . the favourite studies of former years were abandoned for the pursuit of this aim alone.'"1

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

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

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

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

footnote. 1 Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman. By Wilfrid Ward, vol i. pp. 118, 119. * Wiseman's Essays on Various Subjects, vol. ii. p. vi.

WISEMAN EXPECTS GREAT THINGS 21

Hour, however, I watched with intense interest and love the Movement of which I Then caught the first glimpse. My studies changed 1heir course, the bent of my mind was altered, in the strong desire to co-operate with the new mercies of Providence."1

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

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

Keble's sermon on National Apostasy, with which Newman considered that the Tractarian campaign commenced, was in reality a denunciation of the State, and an exaltation of the Church. He mourned over the " impatience under pastoral control," which he considered was one of the characteristics of the day, and " a neverfailing symptom of an unchristian temper."l He was particularly indignant at any want of respect shown to the " Successors of the Apostles," meaning, of course, the Episcopally ordained clergy only. " Disrespect to the Successors of the Apostles, as such," he exclaimed, "is an unquestionable symptom of enmity to Him, who gave them their commission at first, and has pledged Himself to be with them for ever. Suppose such disrespect general and national . . . that nation, how highly soever she may think of her own religion and morality, stands convicted in His sight of a direct disavowal of His sovereignty."2 And all this respect he claimed for the clergy, quite apart from their personal character. Apparently, no one, in the opinion of Mr. Keble, should show any " disrespect" to a " Successor of the Apostles," no matter what his character might be. On this occasion Mr. Keble took the gloomiest view of the condition of the country, affirming that it " is fast becoming hostile to the Church, and cannot therefore long be the friend of God"8 — an assertion which implies that no Dissenter, who is hostile to the Church of England, can be " the friend of God." He defined the " Church," in this sermon, as " the laity, as well as the clergy in their three orders—the whole body of Christians united, according to the will of Jesus Christ, under the Successors of the Apostles."* From this it manifestly follows that the " whole body of Christians" are united only under those " Successors of the Apostles " who are divided into " three orders;" and therefore no non

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

footnote. * Md. p. 18. * Ibid. p. 20 . * Ibid. p. 21.

NON-EPISCOPAL CHURCHES 23

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

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

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

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

It seems to have been forgotten in the present day, that many of the leaders of the Tractarian party were from its very birth favourable to the entire separation of the Church of England from State control. Mr. F. W. Newman tells us that, on one occasion, when he visited his brother, Dr. Newman, at Birmingham, soon after the Colenso Case was ended, the future Cardinal said to him:—

footnote.1 Guardian, October 29, 1851, p. 761. * Guardian, May 14, 1851, p. 348.

"'When in 1833 we met to start the Tracts for the Times, we thought it only prudent to be frank to one another, and we all submitted to free questioning on every important subject: among them, the Union of Church and State. To our astonishment we found that, one and all, we desired entire separation. The book on Scotch Episcopalianism (ascribed to Archbishop Whately) had converted us.' ' Is this a secret ?' asked I. ' Not at all/ was his reply, ' tell it as widely as you choose.'"1

I do not wonder that Mr. F. W. Newman adds, in relating this anecdote:—" I am amused to find, that while the clergy were looking to the Puseyites as their defence against the formidable Dissenters, those very Puseyites were on the side of the foe." In his Apologia, Newman admits that Whately fixed in his mind " those anti-Erastian views of Church polity which were one of the most prominent features of the Tractarian Movement," and that his work on Scotch Episcopalianism " had a gradual but a deep effect" upon his mind.2 And yet, on August 14, 1833, Mr. R. H. Froude was able to announce that Newman had agreed to a declaration containing the following clauses :—" IV. We protest against all efforts directed to the subversion of existing institutions, or to the separation of Church and State ; V. We think it a duty steadily to contemplate and provide for the contingency of sdch a separation." Mr. Froude added :—" Keble demurs to these, because he thinks the union of Church and State, as it is now understood, actually sinful."8 The Rev. William Palmer, of Worcester College, Oxford, who was for several years a leader of the Tractarian party until its rapid

footnote. 1 The Early History of Cardinal Newman, p. 37. 1 Apologia, pp. 69, 71.

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

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 25

progress towards Romanism alarmed him, states that at the commencement of the movement " there was some difference of opinion on the question of the union of Church and State, which some of our friends seemed inclined to regard as an evil ; while I (and perhaps another), was desirous to maintain this union." 1 This statement shows that only one or perhaps two of the party were in favour of the union of Church and State. Mr. Froude himself seems to have anticipated a separation, and to have looked forward to it with hope. Writing from Rome, March 16, 1833, he remarks:—"To be sure it would be a great thing to have a true Church in Germany; in Scotland it seems to be thriving, and if the State will but kick us off we may yet do in England." 2 In the following August Froude wrote to another friend mentioning that a sermon which he had written had met with strong approbation from an unnamed gentleman, and adding:—

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

Although, as we have seen, early in August, Newman had agreed to a protest against efforts being put forth for "the separation of Church and State," yet, on the 31st of the same month, he wrote a letter to an intimate friend, Mr. J. W. Bowden, in which, by contrast, his doubledealing is clearly revealed :—

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

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

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

footnote. Ibid. p. 323.

footnote. * Newman's Letters, vol. i. p. 449.

What the Tractarian party, as a whole, seemed to desire in the relations of Church and State was, perhaps, accurately expressed in No. 59 of the Tracts for the Times, dated April 25, 1835, and written by Mr. R. H. Froude. It pleads for " State Protection" for the Church, and protests against " State Interference" with its concerns. The early Tractarians were alarmed at what seemed to them the increasing encroachments of the State on the province of the Church. They believed that the Government of the day were in favour of a Revision of the Liturgy with a view to a comprehension of Dissenters within the pale of the Established Church ; and they were certainly made extremely angry by the publication of Dr. Arnold's pamphlet on Principles of Church Reform, which was issued from the press early in 1833, and obtained a very large circulation.1 It created a great sensation by its daring proposal to " extinguish Dissent" " by comprehension." Apart from the main object of the pamphlet, it contained several expressions which must have been peculiarly distasteful to the rising party of Sacerdotalists. In it Dr. Arnold declared that Christianity " has provided in the strongest manner against superstition and priestcraft " ; 2 and he expressed himself as " ashamed " of " the petty tyranny of Laud " ;8 affirming that " the mischievous confusion of the Christian ministry with a priesthood, that anything can be lawful for a Christian layman which is unlawful for a Christian minister," was " a most groundless superstition." *

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

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

footnote. Ibid. 2nd edition, p. II. * Ibid. p. 20. « Ibid. p. 62.

DR. ARNOLD ON CHURCH REFORM 27

trust from a clergyman, so neither are the laity, as a body, warranted in taking the national faith in the same way. If ever it should be thought right to appoint commissioners to revise the Articles, it is of paramount importance, in order to save the plan from utter failure, that a sufficient number of laymen, distinguished for their piety and enlarged views, should be added to the ecclesiastical members of the commission." 1

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

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

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

footnote. 1 Arnold's Principles of Church Reform, pp. 80, 81. > Ibid. p. 28.

senters; and that so long as these three particular sects " preserve exactly their present character, it would seem impracticable to comprehend them in any national Christian Church." But, nevertheless, he was full of hope that these difficulties would be removed. " Is it," he asked, " beyond hope, that many who are now Roman Catholics, would ere long unite themselves religiously as well as politically with the rest of their countrymen ? Lastly, with regard to the Unitarians, it seems to me that in their case an alteration of our present terms of communion would be especially useful," provided they (the Unitarians) would, as to our Saviour, " call him Lord and God." ' In a comprehensive Church of this kind, Dr. Arnold, however, insisted on the necessity of an Episcopal form of government, though not as a matter of divine right. " It will be observed," he wrote, " that the whole of this scheme supposes an Episcopal government, and requires that all ministers should receive Episcopal ordination."2

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

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

footnote. Ibid. p. 56.

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

" WE MUST MAKE A ROW " 20

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

And so, nominally to oppose the Latitudinarian spirit of the age, but in reality to build up a High Church Movement opposed to Protestantism, Keble, Newman, Froude, Percival, and their disciples banded themselves together into a party. Meeting the Rev. Isaac Williams one day soon after their work began, Newman said to him, " Isaac, we must make a row in the world !" 1 No one can now deny that the Oxford Movement has made " a row in the world." It has torn the Church of England asunder, broken up its peace, and filled it with quarrels and dissensions. Those who begin a " row" are to be held primarily responsible for it. How the work began is related by the Rev. William Palmer :—

" I had not," he writes, " been very intimately acquainted with Mr. Newman and Mr. Froude, and was scarcely known to Mr. Keble or Mr. Percival, when our deep sense of the wrongs sustained by the Church in the suppression of Bishoprics, and our feeling of the necessity of doing whatever was in our power to arrest the tide of evil, brought us together in the summer of 1833. It was at the beginning of long vacation (when, Mr. Froude being almost the only occupant of Oriel College, we frequently met in the common room) that the resolution to unite and associate in defence of the Church, of her violated liberties, and neglected principles, arose. This resolution was immediately acted on; and while I corresponded with Mr. Rose, Mr. Froude communicated our design to Mr. Keble. Mr. Newman soon took part in our deliberations, on his return from the Continent. The particular course which we were to adopt became the subject of much and anxious thought; and as it was deemed advisable to confer with Mr. Rose on so important a subject, Mr. Froude and myself, after some correspondence, visited him at Hadleigh, in July, where I also had the pleasure of becoming personally acquainted with Mr. Percival, who had been invited to take part in our deliberations. The conference at Hadleigh, which continued for nearly a week, concluded without any specific arrangements being entered into, though we all concurred as to the necessity of some mode of combined action, and the expediency of circulating tracts or publications on ecclesiastical subjects, intended to inculcate sound and enlightened principles of attachment to the Church. On our return to Oxford, frequent conferences took place at Oriel College, between Mr. Froude, Mr. Newman, Mr. Keble, and the writer, in which various plans were discussed, and in which especial attention was given to the preparation of some formulary of agreement as a basis for our Association."1

footnote. 1 Autobiography of Isaac Williams, p. 63.

Hadleigh was, indeed, a strange place for holding such a conference. "The town of Hadleigh," says Foxe, "was one of the first that received the Word of God in all England, at the preaching of Master Thomas Bilney, by whose industry the Gospel of Christ had such gracious success, and took such root there, that a great number of that parish became exceeding well learned in the Holy Scriptures, as well women as men . . . that the whole town seemed rather a university of the learned, than a town of cloth-making or labouring people ; and, what most is to be commended, they were for the most part faithful followers of God's Word in their living."2 At this period Rowland Taylor was rector of Hadleigh, a holy and godly man in life and doctrine, and a very decided Protestant. Soon after Queen Mary came to the throne, hearing his church bells ringing one day, he went into the building to ascertain the cause. There, to his utter astonishment, he found that his honest communion table had been changed for a Popish altar, and a priest was actually saying Mass there at the moment, surrounded by armed men. Thereupon Dr. Taylor said to the priest, in the forcible language common in those days, " Thou devil ! Who made thee so bold to enter into this Church of Christ to profane and defile it with this abominable idolatry ? I command thee, thou Popish wolf, in the name of God to avoid hence, and not to presume here, with such Popish idolatry, to poison Christ's flock."8 For

footnote. 1 Palmer's Narrative of Events, pp. lo1, 102.

footnote. Foxe's Acts and Monuments, voL vi. p. 676, edition 1859.

footnote. 3 Ibid. p. 679.

THE HADLEIGH CONFERENCE 31

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

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

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

footnote. 1 Percival's Collection of Papers, p. 43. 1 Newman's Letters, vol. i. pp. 431, 432.

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

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

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

After the Hadleigh Conference the friends of the cause held several private meetings at Oriel College, Oxford, for the purpose of maturing their plans. Eventually it was decided to form "The Association of Friends of the Church." The founders of this Association pledged themselves to inculcate on all committed to their charge " the inestimable privilege of communion with our Lord through the successors of the Apostles " ; to " provide and circulate books and tracts which may tend to familiarise the imaginations of men to the idea of an Apostolical Commission " ; to revive " among Churchmen the practice of daily Common Prayer, and more frequent participation of the Lord's Supper" ; and " to resist any attempt that may be made to alter the Liturgy on insufficient authority, ix. without the exercise of the free and deliberate judgment of the Church on the alterations proposed." It will thus be seen that the party did not object in itself to "the Friends Of The Church" 33

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

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

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

It will be observed that these were " objects " which might well receive the countenance and aid of Evangelical Churchmen. The real objects of the wire-pullers were, in it, kept carefully out of sight, in accordance, no doubt, with that doctrine of " Reserve in Communicating Religious Knowledge," which was so widely adopted by the Tractarians from the commencement of their Movement. On September 18, 1833, Newman informed Froude : "Palmer is about to make a journey to Hook and others, and has sounded the Evangelicals of Liverpool." 1 On November 14, 1833, one of the leaders of the party wrote to a Member of Parliament, with reference to the Association : —" We want to unite all the Church, orthodox and Evangelical, clergy, nobility, and people in maintenance of our doctrine and polity." 2 A little over two months before this letter was written, the Rev. J. B. Mozley wrote to his sister (September 3, 1833) a confidential letter, in which he revealed the real object of what he termed a " Society established for the dissemination of High Church principles."8 With his letter Mr. Mozley enclosed some of the Tracts, which he described as " the first production of the Society," and added this significant opinion:—" The fact is, we must not be very scrupulous as to views or particular as to sentiments in the distribution of these things."

footnote. 1 Percival's Collection of Letters, pp. 13, 14. * Palmer's Narrative of Events, pp. 104, 105. 1 Newman's Letters, vol. i. p. 458.

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

footnote. * Palmer's Narrative of Events, p. 212.

footnote. * Mozley's Letters, p. 33.

footnote. * Palmer's Narrative of Events, p. 108.

NEWMAN AND THE EVANGELICALS 35.

Cheltenham, Northampton, Derby, Plymouth, Dorchester, Poole, Norwich, Newcastle, Hull, Bristol, Bath, and Gloucester. But, says Mr. Palmer, " so great was the apprehension at this time, that they did not venture at first to assemble openly, for the purpose of recording their attachment to the Established Church ; admission was in general restricted to those friends who were provided with tickets."1 Enthusiastic friends rapidly joined the Association, but some of them had their doubts about portions of the policy adopted. The Rev. S. Rickards, for instance, wrote to Newman, on September 6, 1833 :— " As far as my opinion goes for anything, I disapprove of the concealment of names."2 Two days later Newman boasted to a friend of the cause:—

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

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

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

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

The men who were sent out into various parts of the country to push the new Association received " instructions " for their guidance, written by Newman, headed "Objects of your Journey." They included the following :—" To form local Associations. To instruct the corresponding member. To sound men on certain questions." These emissaries were termed by Newman "Propagandists," and with the subtlety which characterised him all his life, he advised them thus :—" If men are afraid of Apostolical ground [i.e. the ground of Apostolical Succession], then be cautious of saying much about it. If desirous, then recommend prudence and silence upon it at present." 1

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

"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 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

CLERICAL AND LAY ADDRESSES 37

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

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 conviction, that should anything, from the lapse of years or altered circumstances, require renewal or correction, your Grace, and our other spiritual rulers, may rely upon the cheerful co-operation and dutiful support of the Clergy in carrying into effect any measures that may tend to revive the discipline of ancient times, to strengthen the connection between the Bishops, Clergy and people, and to promote the purity, the efficiency, and the unity of the Church."

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

" In the preservation, therefore," said the Lay Address, " of this our National Church in the integrity of her rights and privileges, and in her alliance with the State, we feel that we have an interest no less real and no less direct than her immediate ministers; and we 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."1

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

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

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

The first great work undertaken by Newman after the Hadleigh Conference was the commencing of the now , well-known Tracts for the Times. The first of the series was issued on September 9, 1833, and the last on January 25, 1841. Of these, twenty were issued before the close of 1833, thirty in the year 1834, twenty in 1835, seven in 1836, five in 1837, three in 1838, one in 1839, two in 1840, and two in 1841. Several of the series were not really " Tracts " at all, but large volumes; Tract LXXXI. ran into 424 pages. At first they were not offered for sale to the public. They were, says Mr. Palmer, "privately printed and dispersed amongst friends and correspondents in the country."1 " Probably," writes Cardinal Newman's sister, "they never got into circulation through ordinary trade machinery. They were read by thinkers and talkers, they were widely distributed, and universally discussed ; but at a vast expense of money, trouble, and worry to the writers, and with real difficulty to the readers, who could rarely procure them through the ordinary channels." 2 It was not long before they produced a spirit of well-founded suspicion. One clergyman wrote about them :—" They have been the cause of more injury to the united operations of the Church than can well be calculated" ; while another uttered the much needed warning:—" We must take care how we aid the cause of Popery."8 Even the earliest of the Tracts fully justified the fears of the enlightened friends of the Church of England. In Tract I. the Non-Episcopal Churches were declared to have no validly ordained Ministers, and the doctrine of " Apostolical Succession" was taught in unmistakable terms. The Tract was addressed to the clergy, to whom Newman said :—" We must necessarily consider none to be really ordained who have not thus been ordained"—i.e. by Bishops. While Non-Episcopal Ministers were thus to be brought down to the level of

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

footnote. * Palmers Narrative of Events, pp. 226, 227.

THE "TRACTS FOR THE TIMES" 39

ordinary laymen, the Bishops and the priests were to exalt themselves as far above ordinary mortals. " Exalt," he exclaimed to the clergy, " our Holy Fathers the Bishops, as the Representatives of the Apostles, and the Angels of the Churches; and magnify your office, as being ordained by them to take part in their Ministry." 1 In the third Tract Newman objected to " Alterations in the Liturgy," not, however, on the ground that revision was evil in itself, but because of the dangers which at that time would have attended it. In a note to the fourth Tract Mr. Keble discussed the question, " Where is the competent authority for making alterations " in the Liturgy ? And he answered it negatively only :—" It does not lie in the British Legislature." 2 In the tenth Tract the Bishops were raised almost to an equality with the Apostles. " In one sense they [the Apostles] are still alive; I mean, they did not leave the world without appointing persons to take their place; and these persons [' the Bishops'] represent them, and may be considered with reference to us, as if they were the Apostles." 8 With the Bishops the clergy must be exalted also. "Then you [the laity] will honour us [the clergy]," says this Tract, "as those (if I may say so) who are intrusted with the keys of heaven and hell, ... as intrusted with the awful and mysterious privilege of dispensing Christ's Body and Blood." * This last sentence was, I believe, the first in which the Tractarians taught the Real Presence. I do not wonder that directly after this Tract was issued, the Tractarians " were called heretics, Papists," as Newman admits in a letter which he wrote on December 15, 1833,6 and it is not astonishing even to learn that some persons called Newman " a Papist" to his face.8 To a friend, who remonstrated with him for his language in Tract X., he candidly acknowledged:—"In confidence to a friend, I can only admit it was imprudent, for I do think we have most of us dreadfully low notions of the Blessed Sacrament. I expect to be called a Papist when my opinions are known." l Startling, then, as Newman's opinion was, as expressed in Tract X., that publication only revealed a portion of what he really believed. His full faith was held in reserve, to be revealed on some more auspicious occasion.

footnote. 1 Tracts for the Times, No. I. pp. 3, 4.

footnote. Ibid. No. IV. p. 8. • Ibid. No. X. p. 2. * Ibid. pp. 5, 6.

footnote. Newman's Letters, vol. ii. p. 8. ' Ibid. p. 10.

It may be useful to mention here the names of the writers of the Tracts for the Times, and the Tracts for which each was responsible. My authority for this list is the Appendix to the third volume of the Life of Dr. Pusey. The Rev. J. H. Newman wrote Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 19, 20, 21, 31, 33, 34, 38, 41, 45, 47, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 79, 82, 83, 85, 88, and 90. The Rev. J. Keble wrote Nos. 4, 13, 40, 52, 54, 57, 60, and 89. The Rev. Thomas Keble, Nos. 12, 22, 43, and part of 84, the other part being written by the Rev. G. Prevost. The Rev. R. H. Froude wrote Nos. 9, 59, and 63. Mr. J. W. Bowden (a layman) wrote Nos. 5, 29, 30, 56, and 58. The Rev. Dr. Pusey wrote Nos. 18, 66, 67, 68, 69, 77, and 81. Mr. Alfred Menzies, No. 14. The Rev. B. Harrison, Nos. 16, 17, 24, and 49. The Rev. R. F. Wilson, No. 51. The Rev. A. Buller, No. 61. The Rev. C. P. Eden, No. 32. The Rev. H. E. Manning (afterwards Cardinal Manning), part of No. 78, the other part being by the Rev. C. Marriott. The Rev. Isaac Williams, Nos. 80, 86, and 87. The Rev. A. P. Percival, Nos. 23, 35, and 36. Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 37, 39, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 53, 55, 62, 64, 65, 70, and 72, were reprints from old authors.

Next to Newman and Keble the most noteworthy of all the Tract writers was Dr. Pusey. He did not join the Movement at its commencement, and, when he did join, the fact was for a time kept a secret from the public. As early as November 7, 1833, Newman was able to announce to Froude that " Pusey circulates Tracts." 2 On November 13th he was able to tell another friend of the cause that Pusey had joined them, but that his name " must not be mentioned as of our party" ;8 while on

footnote. * Newman's Letters, voL i. p. 490.

footnote. * Ibid. p. 476. » Ibid. p. 482.

PUSEY JOINS THE TRACTARIANS 41

December 19th he was able to communicate the good news to Mr. F. Rogers (afterwards Lord Blackford):— " I have a most admirable Tract from Pusey, but his name must not yet be mentioned."1 At length, however, Pusey was drawn into the net, and became publicly known as connected with the Tractarians, and this is how it seems to have come about, as related by the Rev. Isaac Williams:—

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

Mr. Williams seems to think that it was Pusey's Tract on Baptism which was the subject of conversation on this occasion, but in this his memory must have been at fault, for Pusey's initials were placed on Tract XVIII. (the first he wrote), which was issued on December 21, 1833, while the first of those he wrote on Baptism was not published until August 24, 1835 — one year and eight months after. This first of the Tracts written by Pusey, was entitled " Thoughts on the Benefits of the System of Fasting, Enjoined by Our Church." In urging upon his readers the observance of Fasting Dr. Pusey was, to a considerable extent, on common ground with Evangelical Churchmen, and even with Puritans, though he attached greater value to the practice than they have done. He quoted the Church's Homily of Fasting in support of his views, but omitted from his extracts some cautions which are, perhaps, as necessary for these times as when they were first put forth, such, for instance, as the following:—

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

footnote. * Autobiography of Isaac Williams, pp. 70-72.
" To fast then, with this persuasion of mind, that our fasting and other good works can make us good, perfect, and just men, and finally bring us to heaven, is a devilish persuasion ; and that fast is so far off from pleasing of God, that it refuseth His mercy, and is altogether derogatory to the merits of Christ's death and His precious blood shedding. This doth the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican teach."1

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

footnote. 1 Homily of Fasting, Part I. 2 Ibid. Part II.

"BEGINNING OF A CATHOLIC MOVEMENT" 43

they, in their sermons, should teach the people that the observance of these days " is not required for any liking of Popish ceremonies heretofore used (which utterly are detested), but only to maintain the mariners and navy in this land, by setting men a fishing."1

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

" Then you will honour us, with a purer honour than many men do now, namely, as those (if I may say so) who are intrusted with the keys of heaven and hell, as the heralds of mercy, as the denouncers of woe to wicked men, as intrusted with the awful and mysterious privilege of dispensing Christ's Body and Blood, as far greater than the most powerful and wealthiest of men in our unseen strength and our heavenly riches." 1

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

footnote. * Life and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps De Lisle, vol. i. p. 199.

footnote. Tract No. IV. pp. 2-5.

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

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

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

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

footnote. 1 Palmer's Narrative of Events, pp. 226, 227.

ARNOLD ON TRACTARIANISM 45

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

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