J^^

(

m:

Ht ANGLICAN -^ REVIVAL

YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

XLbe IDIctorian lEra Series

The Anglican Revival

The Anglican
Revival

By

J. H. OVERTON, D.D.
Rector of Epworth and Canon of Lincoln; author of
"The English Church in the Nineteenth Century (1800-1833)"
"Life of John Wesley", &c. &c.

HERBERT S. STONE & COMPANY
CHICAGO & NEW YORK
M DCCC XCVIIJ

M

Preface

The object of the following pages is to give a brief
sketch of that Revival in the English Church which has
been a marked feature of the Victorian Era. In one
sense, indeed, it dates from the reign of William IV.,
for it began with the Oxford Movement of 1833; but
that movement was only just beginning to make itself
generally felt when Queen Victoria ascended the throne;
so the Revival may with the strictest propriety be said
to belong to the Victorian period. "The Anglican
Revival" and "The Oxford Movement" are by no
means convertible terms; if they were, the present
sketch would be superfluous, for the Oxford movement
has been handled by many pens; but there is not, so
far as I am aware, any one single volume which gives a
succinct account of the Anglican Revival. That revival
owes a considerable part of its success to men who
never came under the spell of the Oxford school, who
carefully guarded themselves from being identified with
it, and who, on occasions, were brought into collision
with it. The Oxford Movement undoubtedly gave the
first and most effective impulse to the revival, and its
leaders claim the first place in any account of that

vi Preface
revival; but when the Oxford Movement suffered a
partial collapse in the place of its birth in 1845, the
Anglican Revival hardly received a check in its onward
course. This will appear in detail in the present little
work, which, though written by one who necessarily
regarded the subject from the clerical point of view, has
had the great advantage of passing through the crucible
of a competent lay criticism. Mr. J. Holland Rose, the
editor of the series, has carefully examined and freely
criticised every part of it, and I desire thus publicly to
express my deep obligation to him for his invaluable
aid.
J. H. O.
November, 1897.

Contents

CHAPTER I
Introductory ... . . . . n
CHAPTER II
First Stage ofthe Movement (1833-1835) - - -27
CHAPTER III
Second Stage ofthe Movement (1835-1839) - 62
CHAPTER IV
Third Stage of the Movement (1839-1845) - 88
CHAPTER V
Oxford after Newman's Secession ... jsj
CHAPTER VI
Cambridge and the Movement ..... 135
CHAPTER VII
The Movement in the Outer World — Deafi Hook and
Bishop Wilberforce - . . . . j^d
CHAPTER VIII
The Hampden and Gorham Cases and their results - 167
CHAPTER IX
The Movement and Public Worship - - - 188
CHAPTER X
Causes ofthe Success ofthe Movement • - su
INDEX .... . . . 225

The Anglican Revival.

Chapter L
Introductory.
In the period immediately preceding the Oxford
Movement there was great bitterneas-inumany-quar-
ters against the_Church_Q£ England.,^ and it was
seriously thought, both by friends and foes, that
her days 3s a national churcbL were mim-bered.
The repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts in
1828, the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829, and
the Reform Act of 1832 were regarded by many as
anti-church measures. Itwas expected that the besom
of reform, having commenced its work in the state,
was now to be employed in cleansing the Augean
stable of the church. The church herself seemed
almost inclined to accept the inevitable, and to be
preparing "to wrap her robes around her and die
gracefully". She was quite ready to reform her
real abuses, if she could do so without playing into
the hands of her foes. In fact, she had begun, for
thirty years or more, to reform herself. There was
infinitely more life and vigour in her at the time of
the Reform Bill than there had been at the close of

IO The Anglican Revival.
the eighteenth century. It is perfectly wonderful
to observe how many new agencies for good had
been set on foot by her, and what fresh vitality had
been given by her to old ones in the interval. The
Church Missionary Society, founded in 1799, was
making great progress in Africa and the East, and
also in India. New life had been given to the older
societies, both to the Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge and the Society for the Propagation of
the Gospel in Foreign Parts. The National Society
for the education of the poor was founded in 181 2 on
the principle that "the national religion should be
made the ground-work of national education " (hence
the name), and was prospering and extending its
operations beyond the most sanguine expectations
of its friends. The Indian episcopate, which at the
outset met with great opposition, was at last firmly
established, and gave a great impetus to mission
work in India. The Church Building Society,
founded in 1818, met half-way the great liberality
of the state, and it is computed that, between par
liamentary grants, the work of this society, and
individual efforts, a sum of not less than six millions
of pounds was spent in the building and reparation
of churches from 1818 to 1833, — that is, far more
than in the hundred years preceding 1818.
And yet the church found that the more active
she was, the more unpopular she became. The
state of things was quite different from what it had
been a hundred years before, when the trumpet-

Introductory. ii
tongue of Wesley began to rouse the slumbering
church from her lethargy. Then, from a number
of circumstances which this is not the place to par
ticularize, the church had undoubtedly sunk to a
very low ebb as a spiritual, though not as an intel
lectual, force ; but this could not fairly be said now.
The abuses which led to the Evangelical Revival
are obvious enough ; but these abuses, if not entirely
removed, were certainly far less glaring when the
outcry against the church reached its climax about
the year 1832. The English people are not unjust,
and it seems at the first blush unaccountable that
the church should have reached the height of her
unpopularity just at a time when she was, in one
sense, singularly fruitful in good works. But those
who penetrate beneath the surface will find an easy
explanation of the anomaly by two considerations :
(i) The odium against the church was more appa
rent than real ; its expression proceeded from a noisy
minority, not from the quiet majority. When the
question was fairly put to the bulk of the nation,
"Are you, or are you not, attached to the church
of your fathers? do you, or do you not, wish to
see it weakened, and, if possible, destroyed?", to
the surprise even of those who put it the answer
came, "Yes, we are attached to it; and we will
maintain it to the last gasp!"
(2) The activity of the church mainly proceeded
from one or the other of two parties, which, both
together, constituted only a very small proportion

12 The Anglican Revival.
of the whole body. These parties were called respec
tively "the Evangelicals" and "the orthodox". The
Evangelicals were Jhea-undoubtedly 4he strongest
spiritual force in the church; so-much so that when
a person was spoken of as "a serious" or "a re^
ligious "„person, it meant practically that he was an
Evangelical. But the JEvangelicals-were essentially
a party within the church, not a leaven leavening
the whole body. And if, on the one hand, they
exercised an attractive, on the other hand they cer
tainly exercised a repulsive power; and that, not
only among mere worldlings, but also among very
many who were by no means deficient in spiritual
earnestness. It is a significant fact that the whole
current of that literary outburst of poetry and prose,
which is so remarkable a feature of the early nine
teenth century, and which had been quite unparal
lelled since the days of Queen Elizabeth, set against
the Evangelicals. Not one of the really great writers
who have shed an immortal lustre upon the period
had the least sympathy with Evangelicalism ; while
some of them wrote directly against it. Those again
who made theology their special study were dis
satisfied with the thinness of the theology of the
Evangelicals ; while men of the world, in the good
as well as, in the bad sense of that term, revolted
against thelnarrow and rather arbitrary restrictions
and distinctiSns which they made. Hence scant
justice was done, outside their own circle, to their
truly saintly characters and the excellent practical

Introductory. 13
work which they did, of which their share in the
abolition of the slave-trade is only one out of many
instances. The other party, which must be credited with a
very large share of the church activity of the period,
was that of " the orthodox " ; but these formed a
smaller and less widely influential party than the
Evangelicals. They were the best representatives
of the old High Church divines, who have always
been the backbone of _the ChUTCh~X)f: England ; and
of their practical energy in all kinds of religious
and philanthropic work we are reaping the benefit
to this very day. But their influence was not widely
extended ; they moved within their own circle, and
those outside that circle gave, at most, "an otiose
assent " (to use a pregnant phrase of Bishop Butler)
to their proceedings. Outsiders respected them —
at a distance — as "sound churchmen" (which they
were), but were not roused to any enthusiasm by
their efforts.
The names given to these two parties respectively,
"the Clapham sect" and "the Clapton sect", derived
from their two chief centres, indicate correctly enough
their weakness. Not that either of them formed, or
desired to form, anything that could be rightly termed
"a sect"; for neither of them followed any one
leader ; they were quite content to be simply mem
bers of the Church of England; but both were
coteries within the church, and rather limited cot
eries too.

14 The Anglican Revival.
Outside both were the vast majority of church
men, both lay and clerical, whose church principles
were of the vaguest possible description. The
Methodists^kne-w what they meant, and th£_Roman
Catholics- Jknew what they meant; but, with the
exception of the two parties which have been noted,
churchmen of this period seem to have had no defi-
nite system jof-doctrineoiL worship. It is difficult to
say what their opinions were — they had none that
could be put into any tangible shape. If they were
in the neighbourhood of any perfervid Evangelical,
they yielded passively to his — or perhaps her — in
fluence, rather on the principle of "anything for a
quiet life " than from conviction ; if they were in
the neighbourhood of ' ' the orthodox ", they would
be quite content to be reckoned among "church
and king" men, and would back up their many
schemes for good with their purses and the sanction
of their names ; the best of them were amiable but
not impressive.
In short,.Jbe-chiirch. as _a-ivhoIe__was- wanti^g^ jn
definiteness of doctrine and purpose duringjhe first
thirty years of the nineteenth century. But all the
time tfiere were elements at"work which were leaven
ing the mass gradually. The revival which is here
to be narrated was no sudden movement, but was
the logical result of various causes which had long
been at work; and we cannot grasp the significance
of what followed without some little knowledge of
what these causes were.

Introductory. le
Chief among them were the exertions of the two
parties which have been noticed above.
The high church revival was not the antagonist
but the supplement of the evangelical revival which
preceded it. It has been remarked as'a strange
thing that so many who fell under the spell of the
Oxford movenienthad been brought up under evan
gelical influences. But" there vras really nothing
strange about it ; it was a quite natural sequence of
events. It was merely a passage from the subjective
to the objective, from individualism to j:qllectivismj^
frqgi_th£_giLeat_ti:uthjbat "Jesus Christ came into
the worhd_to.5ave-sirLners" to the other and kindred
great truthjhat "Almighty God purchased to him
self an universal church by the precious blood of
His dear Son ". It was not the loss of anything, but
the superaddition of something more to what was
already there. If it was not this, it was a spurious,
not a genuine, result of the movement.
As to the orthodox movement before 1833, it was
essentially the same as the Anglican movement
after 1833. The latter diverged from the former
only when it went off at a tangent ; and that part of
it which did so diverge was never any proper part of
the Anglican revival, as will appear in the sequel.
The old and the new were one and the same thing,
though .they differed widely in their methods, their
tempers, and their tones of mind. Hence John
Keble would say to his Oxford friends when they
propounded a theological statement: "It seems to

i6 The Anglican Revival.
me just what my father taught me".^ Hence Pusey,
when he met Joshua Watson, the lay head of the
Clapton sect, in his old age, was delighted, and
perhaps a little surprised, to find how closely they
agreed. " I cannot say", he writes, "how cheering
it was to be recognized by you as carrying on the
same torch which we had received from you and
those of your generation, who had remained faithful
to the old teaching. We seemed no longer separ
ated by a chasm from the old times and old paths,
to which we wished to lead people back ; the links
which united us to those of old seemed to be
restored."^ Assuredly among the pioneers of the Anglican
revival must be reckoned, first of all, — indirectly
and remotely the Clapham sect, directly and very
nearly the Clapton sect.
At the same time a number of causes had long
been at work tending to create a craving which
neither Clapham nor Clapton could supply. First
among these were the writings of Sir Walte^Scott,
He revived a love of the beautiful both in. nature
and art, and an interest in antiquity which .had
well-nigh died^out ; he opened out to men's view a
wider outlook; he dispelled narrow prejudices; he
presented history under an aspect which was new to
that generation; and in many other ways he pre
pared, all unconsciously, the soil for the seed which
the Anglican movement was soon about to sow in
'Lock's .ffito, p. 84. ^ Ch-aiion's Memoir of Joshua Watson, ii. 82.
( M 426 )

Introductory. 17
it. More complicated and subtle, but certainly not
less potent, was the influence of Samuel Taylor
Coleridge, both in his prose, his poetry, and his
conversation. Coleridge reminds one of Colling
wood, who dropped on the ground wherever he
went an acorn, which was pretty sure to spring up
in due time. It is fair to say that Coleridge's trees,
when they sprang up, were not all of the Anglican
type, but some of them were ; and all of them were
of a very different type from that which was pre
dominant before the movement.^ William Words
worth, owing chiefly to the influence of his brother
Christopher, cast in his lot personally with "the
orthodox", and showed no sympathy with the dis
tinctive characteristics of the movement, eighteen
years of which his prolonged life enabled him to
see; but his poetry all tended to prepare the way
for what was coming, and one of the chief leaders,
John Keble, was in a sense his most ardent disciple.^
1 To give specimens would be rather like presenting a number of detached
bricks as specimens of a building; the whole tone which pervades his later
writings, especially the Aids to Refiection, strikes a churchman far more
forcibly than any particular passages do. But take the following passages :
"The Church of Christ asks of the State neither wages nor dignities. She
asks only protection and to be let alone. . . . The church here spoken of
is not the kingdom of God which is within, and which cometh not with
observation, but is most observable— a city built on a hill, and not to be hid
—the Church visible and militant under Christ." . . . "There exists, God
be thanked, a Catholic and Apostolic Church in England, and I thank God
also for the constitutional and ancestral Church of England." ..." The
safest expression is, the Church of Christ in England, or the Catholic
Church in England" (On the Constitution of the Church and State, ch. vii.).
!>He dedicated to Wordsworth his Lectures delivered during the ten
years in which he held the Professorship of Poetry at Oxford (1831-1841),
7- 0M426) ^

;

i8 The Anglican Revival.
Next we come to two men of a very different type
from those hitherto mentioned, John Jebb, Bishop
of Limerick, and Alexander Knox, his guide,
philosopher, and friend. These men were not only
pioneers, but actually anticipators of the movement
in several important points. The famous "Appen
dix" to Bishop Jebb's sermons, of which Knox
was virtually the author, might really almost have
appeared as one of the Tracts for the Times, while
many of the letters of Knox might have been the
letters of a tract-writer.
We come yet nearer to the actual movement
when we turn to the great work done by Hugh
James Rose. Indeed Rose has been boldly claimed
as the true "restorer of the old paths'',^ to restore
which was avowedly the chief object of the whole
movement. The claim may be so far admitted that
ofthe workers before 1833 no one can for a moment
compare with Hugh James Rose as far as direct
work in the matter of church revival is concerned.
calling him ' ' a true philosopher" and ' ' a priest of Divine Truth ". In his
undergraduate days, as his closest friend tells us, he read Wordsworth's
poems ' 'with avidity ; and the admiration for his poetry, which he conceived
in youth, never waned in after-life". "He had been for many years an
enthusiast in his admiration of the man and the poet", and when in 1839
Oxford conferred on Wordsworth an honorary degree, and it fell to Keble's
lot as Poetry Professor to deliver the Creweian oration, he hailed the oppor
tunity to pronounce a hearty panegyric npon his favourite (see Memoir of the
Rev. John Keble, by Sir J. T. Coleridge, ch. i. p. 17; do., pp. 248-9). It
was the blending of religion and philosophy, the sacredness of Nature as the
outward expression of God» the sacredness of childhood, the sacredness of
common hfe, expressed in Wordsworth's poems, which touched Keble, and
which made those poems a real preparation for the movement which was to
follow. ' Dean Burgon's Lives of Twelve Good Men, i. 116-295.

Introductory. ig
It has fallen to the lot of few men to call forth such
enthusiastic admiration from his personal friends as
did Mr. Rose. We might be inclined to take cum
grano the strong expressions of his admiring bio
grapher about the man "who, sixty years ago,^
at a time of universal gloom, panic, and despon
dency, rallied the faint-hearted as with a trumpet-
blast ; — awoke the sleepers ; — aroused the sluggish ;
— led on to glory the van of the church's army".^
But the dean is amply borne out by others who
knew Mr. Rose personally. Rose was, for instance,
in Mr. T. Mozley's view, "the one commanding
figure, and very lovable man, that the frightened
and discomfited church-people were now [1833]
rallying round. Few people have left so distinct
an impression of themselves as this gentleman."^
He was, in the opinion of Mr. Henry Bradshaw, a
very high authority, ' ' the man who, of all Cam
bridge men of that time, was the leading spirit
in the great church revival".* In the opinion of
Sir W. Palmer, he was "in his time a bright
and shining light of the Church of England. He
had been Christian Advocate of the University of
Cambridge. He was the most powerful and most
followed preacher there; a profound scholar, an
eloquent orator, a deep thinker, and an admirable
theologian. . . . Had this noble man lived, he
' Written in 1888. " Burgon, i. ri6.
3 Mozley's Reminiscences, chiefiy of Oriel College and the Oxford Move
ment, i. 308. ' Quoted by Burgon, i. 141.

20 The Anglican Revival.
would have been the greatest ornament and the
most trusted leader of the church."^ And finally,
in words which have now become classical, he was
the man "who, when hearts were failing, bade us
stir up the gift that was in us, and betake ourselves
to our true mother".^ Mr. Rose's four sermons at
Cambridge in 1826, " On the Commission and Con
sequent Duties of the Clergy", were by far the
strongest and most effective appeal that had yet
been made to the church to be up and doing; and
his eight sermons, also delivered by him at Cam
bridge as Christian Advocate and Select Preacher
in 1829, were equally rousing. Rose also started,
and ably edited, the British Magazine, the first
number of which appeared in March, 1832 ; it was
afterwards accepted by the leaders of the movement
as the organ of the party, and both Newman and
Keble expressed their determination to support it,
and not allow the Tracts for the Tim,es to interfere
with it;^ and itwas at Rose's parsonage that the
first meeting was held, which led immediately and
' Article in the Contemporary Review for May, 1883.
2 Newman's Dedication of his 4th volume of Sermons to H. J. Rose.
'See Letters and Correspondence of J. H. Newman, i. 441; ii. 2, 3. Keble
says to Newman; "I quite agree with you that Rose's magazine must be
supported". Newman writes to Rose, Dec. 1883, on the subject of the
Tracts, and "the difficulty about interfering with the British Magazine".
"But", he adds, "we fancy we might sail in our little boat without the
chance of your running us down. However, we vrish in this matter [about
issuing tracts periodically'] to be guided entirely by you. The Church owes
so much to the British Magazine, as the first publication which set up her
standard when others shrank from doing so, that you have a right to this
deference."

Introductory. 21
directly to the Oxford movement. But he died to(
early to see the final issue of that movement, though
he lived long enough to find that there was much
in its methods of which he disapproved. On the
whole, therefore, it seems to me that he must be
regarded as by far the most prominent and effective
of the precursors of the revival, rather than its
actual originator.
While H. J. Rose was affecting Cambridge, a
very diff'erent man was in a very different way
affecting Oxford, but still tending to the same
general result. This was Dr. Charles Lloyd, Regius
Professor of Divinity, whose lectures on the Book
of Common Prayer opened out quite a new view to
many of his hearers. Among those hearers were
young men who afterwards became very prominent
in the movement, such as Newman, Pusey, Hurrell
Froude, Isaac Williams, and Frederick Oakeley.
From the pen of the last-named we have a graphic
account of the kind of influence which these lectures
exercised: "I am disposed", he writes, "to give a
very prominent place among the proximate causes
of the movement to the teaching of Dr. C. Lloyd,
Regius Professor of Divinity, and afterwards Bishop
of Oxford, who died in 1829. . . . Besides being
a man of independent thought considerably in
advance of the high churchmen of his time, he had
in his youth many opportunities of intercourse with
French emigrant clergy, to whom he was indebted,
as he told us, for truer views of the Catholic religion

22 The Anglican Revival.
than were generally current in this country. Upon
the subjects of Church Authority, Episcopacy, the
Apostolical Succession, and others with which the
earlier Tracts were almost exclusively occupied, I
do not remember to have derived any very definite
ideas from Lloyd's teaching ; but I do remember to
have received from him an entirely new notion of
Catholics and Catholic doctrine. ... In his Lec
tures on the Anglican Prayer Book, he made us
first acquainted with the Missal and the Breviary,
as sources from which all that is best and noblest in
that compilation is derived."^ It must of course be
remembered that this is the account of a Roman
Catholic, and is therefore not perhaps quite ex
pressed as Dr. Lloyd himself would have expressed
it; but there is no reason whatever to doubt its
substantial accuracy. Pusey was a thorough dis
ciple of Dr. Lloyd, and on his premature death
mourned for him as "a second father", "the guar
dian-friend, with whose guidance I had hoped to
steer securely amid all the difficult shoals through
which the course of a theologian must in these days
probably be held".^
William Palmer's Origines Liturgiccs, or Anti
quities of the English Ritual, with a Dissertation
on Primitive Liturgies, published in 1832, was
partly an anticipation, partly a result of Bishop
Lloyd's labours; that is to say, Mr. Palmer began
' Historical Notes on the Tractarian Movement, by F. Oakeley, pp. 13, 14.
^ Liddon's Life of Pusey, i. 202.

Introductory. 23
to write, or to collect materials for writing, his great
work in Ireland, and migrated from Trinity College,
Dublin, to Worcester College, Oxford, in order to
have the benefit of the Oxford libraries. At Oxford
he found Bishop Lloyd engaged in a similar work,
and therefore abandoned his design; but when
Bishop Lloyd died in 1829 with his work unfinished,
Mr. Palmer was persuaded to resume his task, and
to incorporate with it the results of Bishop Lloyd's
labours. The Origines helped to remind those
who had heard the lectures of what they had heard,
and to inform others on the important subject; and
thus the book must be regarded as a chief factor in
the preparation for the movement which was fast
approaching; for, "insisting upon the almost for
gotten fact that the Prayer Book is mainly a trans
lation from earlier office-books, and so represents
the descent of the Reformed Church of England
from the church of earlier days, it powerfully
contributed to increase that devotion to the tra
ditions of the church which characterized the
Tracts ".1
In indicating the preparations for the movement,
we must not forget the impulse given to the study
of early church history by Bishop Kaye, in his
lectures at Cambridge, as Regius Professor of
Divinity, on the early Fathers, which were after
wards enlarged and published. Bishop Kaye has
been described as "the first to recall theological
^ Liddon's Life of Pusey, i. 264.

24 The Anglican Revival.
students to the study of the Fathers".^ So far as
he did this he must certainly be regarded as a
pioneer of a movement which had for its object a
return to primitive antiquity, though he was very
far indeed from identifying himself with the later
development of that movement.
If John Keble had died immediately after his
publication of The Christian Year (1827), he too
would have had to be regarded as a pioneer instead
of a leader of the movement. The effect which that
sweet work had in preparing the way has been
described as none but Newman could have described
it: "When the general tone of religious literature
was so powerless and impotent as it was at that
time, Keble struck an original note, and woke up
in the hearts of thousands a new music, the music
of a school long unknown in England".^ But Tlie
Christian Year did not adequately represent the
writer's later views. He himself said in 1845 that
when he wrote The Christian Year he did not fully
understand the doctrine of. the Holy Eucharist.^
Dr. Pusey, indeed, "always held that the real
source of the Oxford movement was to be found in
The Christian Year";^ and Mr. Lock says with
perfect truth that "in it will be found nearly all the
truths and the tone which came to the front in
Tractarianism " (p. 71). Yes! they are there, but
1 Article on " Kaye, John," in the Dictionary of National Biography.
' Newman's Apologia pro Vitd Sud, p. 77.
' See Lock's Kehle, p. 56. * Liddon's Life of Pusey, i. 270.

Introductory. 25
they hardly do come to the front. In this work
Keble did for the church revival very much what
in a preceding generation Cowper did for the Evan
gelical revival. The poetry of both was saturated
with their respective views, but these views were
not prominently brought forward by either. You
have certainly to read The Ch^ristian Year in the
light of after events to find in it "the true and
primary author" of the Oxford movement. But,
when read thus, traces of him may be found. Thus,
in the hymn for S. Matthias' Day the doctrine of
Apostolical Succession is clearly traceable: —
" Who then, uncall'd by Thee,
Dare touch Thy Spouse, Thy very self below?
Or who dare count him summon'd worthily,
Except Thine hand and seal he show?
Where can Thy seal be found,
But on the chosen seed, from age to age
By Thine anointed heralds duly crown'd,
As kings and priests Thy war to wage?"
In the hymn for Holy Baptism, we have the doctrine
of Baptismal Regeneration : —
"A few calm words of faith and prayer,
A few bright drops of holy dew.
Shall work a wonder there
Earth's charmers never knew.
"Blest eyes, that see the smiling gleam
Upon the slumbering features glow,
When the life-giving stream,
Touches the tender brow."
In the hymn for the Tuesday in Whitsun-week we

26 The Anglican Revival.
have the duty of closely following out the church's
system from Advent to Advent: —
"This is Thy pastoral course, O Lord,
Till we be sav'd, and Thou ador'd ; —
Thy course and ours — but who are they
Who follow on the narrow way?
"And yet of Thee from year to year
The church's solemn chant we hear
As from Thy cradle to Thy throne
She swells her high heart-cheering tone.'
And once more, in the hymn for Trinity Sunday,
we are taught to find an emblem of the Trinity in
the three aisles of the church converging in the one
chancel : —
"Three solemn parts together twine
In harmony's mysterious line ;
Three solemn aisles approach the shrine ;
"Yet all are One — together all
In thoughts that awe but not appal,
Teach the adoring heart to fall.
"Within these walls each fluttering guest
Is gently lur'd to one safe nest —
Without, 'tis moaning and unrest."
Moreover, Keble imperceptibly undermined that
spirit of complacency with which it was the fashion
of churchmen to regard their church as it was.
"7%e Christian Year", as he himself says, "always
supposes the church to be in a state of decay";
"and", adds his latest and best biographer, "he
cannot acquiesce in a church so sluggish, so worldly,
so utilitarian, because of the purity of his ideal.

First Stage of the Movement, 27
. . . The whole volume is a dirge over the lost
glory of the church; but it is much more than this,
it is a trumpet-call to Christians to be true to the
life which is in them, even though they may have
to face the martyr's death. "^
The same tone of sadness, mingled with an .
earnest appeal to churchmen to be up and doing,
runs through the very striking set of sermohs pub
lished in 1830, by one whose writings John Keble
always admired and recommended, John Miller, of
Worcester College. These sermons, ^ like their
writer's Bampton Lectures of 18 17, must have had
the effect of making those who heard or read them
feel not quite comfortable under the state of things
as they were.
In a sketch like the present, it must suffice to
give these brief indications (which do not pretend
to be exhaustive) of the preparations for the move
ment. We must now pass on to the first stage of
the movement itself.

Chapter II.
First Stage of the Movement (1833-1835).
Matters came to a climax on the introduction into
Parliament in the early summer of 1833 of Mr.
' Lock's Keble, p 59.
' Sermons intended to show a Sober Application of Scriptural Principles
to the Realities of Life. With a Preface addressed io the clergy. By John
Miller, late Fellow of Worcester College, Oxford.

28 The Anglican Revival.
(afterwards Lord) Stanley's Irish Temporalities
Bill. The abolition of the church cess — a very
unpopular method of collecting tithes — diminished
greatly the income of the Irish Church; and to
meet the deficiency the government proposed to
suppress, on its own authority, two archbishoprics
and ten bishoprics, that is, one-half of the whole
Irish episcopate. Perhaps English churchmen
hardly realized the extreme difficulty of the situation
in which the government was placed; it had to
devise som,e remedy for a state of things which
seemed not unlikely to bring about a civil war in
Ireland. But looking at it from their own point of
view, they feared that what was done in Ireland
might be done in England ; and if bishoprics could
be abolished by a purely secular authority, what
would become of the doctrine of apostolical succes
sion? So thought a little band of churchmen,
mostly Oriel men, and they determined at once to
take action. The reputation of Mr. Hugh James
Rose naturally marked him out as their leader.
Accordingly on July 6, 1833, we find Mr. Rose
writing to Mr. Perceval that he was prevented from
attending a meeting in London, but "can I not",
he adds, "tempt you here?" — that is, to his rectory
at Hadleigh in Suffolk. On July 10, Mr. Palmer
writes to Mr. Perceval: "Our valued friend Rose
has proposed a conference of friends on the state of
affairs, and to consider of the line we ought to
adopt. I think this most highly desirable. He has

First Stage of the Movement. 29
asked me to go to Hadleigh, and gives me hopes
of meeting you, which would be an exceeding
pleasure. [Hurrell] Froude^ has also expressed
his intention of coming, and he says Keble will
also. Newman we expect every day from the
Continent, and I hope he will also be there. I
would think of being at Hadleigh about this day
fortnight if our other friends were then disengaged.
Now I hope you will be able to join in this little
plan and conspiracy; and when we are all met, it
will be easy for us to consider and explain all
things which might not be conveniently discussed
in letters."
There is a singular interest in these details, trifl
ing as they are in themselves; for the meeting,
which duly took place, was in fact the nucleus of a
movement which has revolutionized the Church of
England. But before "the fortnight" to which Mr. Palmer
alludes had elapsed, another event occurred of
primary importance. On July 14, 1833, John Keble
preached an assize sermon at Oxford, which was
published under the title of " National Apostacy".
"I have ever considered ", writes Newman, "and
kept the day as the start of the religious movement
of 1833."^ Perfectly calm and unimpassioned, yet
outspoken to the utmost degree of boldness, refined
and scholarly (of course), yet without the slightest
' For an account of this remarkable man see infra, p. 70.
' Apologia, ch. i. p. 35.

30 The Anglican Revival.
pretence at eloquence in the ordinary sense of the
term, the sermon may disappoint the reader at
the present day, as it disappointed Dean Burgon,
who declares that "the sermon in question is by
no means extraordinary".^ Nor was it extraordin
ary in the sense in which the burning language of
the dean's hero par excellence, Hugh James Rose,
at Cambridge, was extraordinary. But, like all
Keble's utterances, there was more effectiveness in
it than the casual hearer or reader would realize.
Applying the warning of the prophet Samuel to
the people who had rejected God for their king, he
pressed upon his hearers the duty of resisting a
similar catastrophe. He did not scruple to declare
boldly that England "as a Christian nation was a
part of Christ's Church, and bound in all her legis
lation and policy by the fundamental laws of that
church", and that if this principle was disavowed,
it was a direct disavowal of the sovereignty of God.
Then, in obvious reference to the late Irish measure,
he asked, "If it be true that such enactments are
forced on the legislature by public opinion, is
apostasy too hard a word to describe the temper of
such a nation?" In his peroration, he stirs up his
hearers to take as active a part in public affairs as
the duties of life would allow, and expresses the
most absolute confidence in the final victory of the
church. His closing words are worth quoting:
* ' Public concerns, ecclesiastical or civil, will prove
' Lives of Twelve Good Men, i. 173,

First Stage of the Movement. 31
indeed ruinous to those who permit them to occupy
all their care and thought, neglecting or under
valuing ordinary duties, more especially those of
a devotional kind. These cautions being duly ob
served, I do not see how any person can devote
himself too entirely to the cause of the Apostolic
Church in these realms. There may be, as far as
he knows, but a very few to sympathise with him.
He may have to wait long, and very likely pass out
of this world before he see any abatement in the
triumph of disorder and irreligion. But, if he be
consistent, he possesses to the utmost the personal
consolations of a good Christian; and as a true
churchman, he has the encouragement which no
other cause in the world can impart in the same
degree: he is calmly, soberly, demonstrably sure
that, sooner or later, his will be the winning side,
and that the victory will be complete, universal,
eternal." The meeting at Hadleigh rectory took place on
July 25, and lasted until July 29. There were only
four clergymen present, Mr. Rose, the host, Mr.
William Palmer, Mr. A. Perceval, brother of Lord
Arden, and vicar of East Horsley, and Mr. Richard
Hurrell Froude. Keble and Newman were unable
to attend, but they were kept well posted up as to
the proceedings, which were not very encouraging.
The conference was to a great extent occupied in
revising a tract entitled The Churchman's Manual,
the composition of Mr. Perceval. Even the four

32 The Anglican Revival.
who met do not seem to have been agreed as to the
reraedy to be applied to the evils which all acknow
ledged. There is an interesting letter from Newman
to Keble on the subject, dated Aug. 5, that is, a week
after the conclusion of the conference: "Palmer
has returned from Rose, and I have heard from
Rose, as you probably have. Froude wishes to
break with Rose, which must not be, I think. Let
us wait the course of events. ... I fear they did
not get on very well at Hadleigh. Froude wants
you to give your friend Arthur Perceval a bit of
advice which I think Froude himself partly requires
[against being prematurely violent]. Palmer thinks
both Froude and Perceval very deficient in learn
ing, and therefore rash."^ To which Keble replies,
Aug. 8: "If the Hadleighans could not agree when
inter quatuor m.uros, will you find six men to agree
together?"^ Froude himself was evidently dissatis
fied, for he writes to Perceval, Aug. 14, a letter,
beginning: "The impression left on my mind by
my visit to Rose was, on the whole, a gloomy
one".3 The fact is, that Rose, Palmer, and, perhaps,
Perceval on the one hand, Froude, Keble, and
Newman on the other, represented, not exactly two
different parties, but two different classes of mind.
The former group were essentially conservative ;
^Letters and Correspondence ofJ.H. Newman, i. 439. ^ Id., p. 441.
3 Collection of Papers connected with the Theological Movement of 1833,
p. 12.

First Stage of the Movement. 33
they did not share the dissatisfaction with the Church
as it was, which was so strongly felt by Keble,
Newman, and Froude; they only desired to see it
freed from what they regarded as the oppression of
the State. They were very different types of men,
Rose representing the brilliant and fascinating.
Palmer the learned, and Perceval the aristocratic
or territorial element. But none of them was
prepared to follow what Newman calls the "go-
ahead" course, for which he and Froude were ready,
and from which Keble was not at all averse. The
general object aimed at by the two groups was
the same, but their views as to the right methods
of attaining that object were very different, as will
abundantly appear in the sequel. Which were right
and which were wrong need not here be discussed ;
but, as a matter of fact, the movement was carried
on by the latter, not by the former group. It is to
this group, therefore, that the plan of this work re
quires us to turn ; and in order to enable the reader
to appreciate better what was afterwards done, it
will be well to trace out the antecedents of the chief
leaders ofthe group up to 1833.
Limiting our inquiries to this date, there can be
no question who claims the first place. The order
was afterwards twice reversed, but at the commence
ment the name of John Keble stands far above any
other in connection with the movement. Indeed, to
the very last he was distinctly recognized by the
only other two who can at all come into competi-
(M426) C

34 The Anglican Revival.
tion with him, as their leader and their head. " The
true and primary author", writes Newman, "was
out of sight . . . Need I say that I allude to John
Keble?" ^ And again, "I compared myself with
Keble, and felt that I was merely developing his,
not my, convictions". And again, "You [Keble]
shall be censor of the tracts, but we will obey no one
else".^ When Dr. Liddon proposed in 1879 to
write a history of the Oxford Movement, taking
Pusey as the central figure, Dr. Pusey promised
to help him to collect materials, "but the central
figure ", he added, " should be John Keble. . . .
I should be glad to see it brought out, for J. K. was
a mainspring."^ Both Newman and Pusey con
stantly spoke of Keble as their spiritual father ; and
both — but especially Pusey — deferred submissively
to his counsel in a very remarkable manner. What
was there about this shy, homely, unambitious man
to give him such a place in the greatest movement
in the church since the Reformation? A brief sketch
of the early lives of the three men, who were head
and shoulders above all others connected with the
movement, will perhaps enable us to answer the
question, — at anyrate it will show us that the relation
ship between the three was a perfectly natural one.
John Kehle (1792-1866) was the son of a country
clergyman of Gloucestershire, and received a purely
home education. He was never even at a private
school. Up to the time of his going to Oxford he
¦^Apologia, ch. i. p. 17.
2 Letters and Correspondence of J. H. Newman, i. 473.
3 Life of Pusey, iv. 339.

First Stage of the Movement. 35
was educated entirely by his father, a scholar and
divine, whose theology was that of the Caroline
divines in the seventeenth century and the Non
jurors in the eighteenth. His mother {nee Maule)
was of just the same school; so from his earliest
years he had been trained in a definite church
system, from which he never diverged, and had
always breathed an atmosphere of culture and re
finement. When he was elected to a scholarship
at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, of which his
father had been scholar and fellow, at the early age
of fourteen years and eight months, he was not drawn
far into the vortex of university life ; for the Corpus
of those days had only about twenty undergraduates,
all more or less scholarly, who lived chiefly within
their own circle. After a brilliant undergraduate
career he was elected fellow of Oriel, and was thus
admitted at the age of nineteen into the most distin
guished society Oxford could boast. He had carried
all before him, — a scholarship (1806), a double first-
class (1810), the most coveted of all fellowships
(181 1), and two University prizes, the Chancellor's
essays, both English and Latin (1812).
After this his life for some years alternated be
tween pastoral work in country cures and various
work at Oxford. He was twice Public Examiner
in the Classical School, from 1814 to 1816, and
again from 1821 to 1823. He was for six years
(1817-1823) College Tutor at Oriel, where he had
to deal with the picked youth of the country as
pupils, and in 1831 he was elected unanimously

36 The Anglican Revival.
Professor of Poetry, which of course only entailed
occasional visits to Oxford. All the rest of his life
was passed as a parochial clergyman in the country,
but always amid congenial society and among the
simple, rustic poor, contact with whom does not
take off the fine edge of a man's mind, as perhaps
contact with the class above them is apt to do ; and
he was always near his old home. His poetry is
just what one would expect from such a career.
Exquisitely delicate and refined thoughts, expressed
in the most delicate and refined language, are its
characteristics. Even the occasional roughness of
versification may not be altogether unconnected
with the absence of a public school education, when
public schools laid excessive stress upon the form
of composition, especially in verse. And his life in
the country and love of the country are obviously
factors in forming his poetical character. As Dean
Stanley remarks: "Bagley Wood and the neigh
bourhood of Hursley might be traced through
hundreds of lines in The Christian Year". In the
words of his favourite poet :
" His daily teachers had been woods and rills,
The silence that is in the starry sky,
The sleep that is among the lonely hills".
No town-bred man could have written The Christian
Year, and no man could have written it who had
not been encouraged by a pious home-training to
study his Bible in a way that few school-boys did ;
for one of the features of the book is the Scriptural

First Stage of the Movement. 37
knowledge, extending even to the scenery of Pales
tine, which it displays. Such was John Keble
when he headed the movement of 1833.
Edward Bouverie Pusey (1800-1882) was born at
Pusey in Berkshire, Aug. 22, 1800. His father,
Philip Bouverie, youngest son of the first Viscount
Folkestone, took the name of Pusey in 1789 when he
succeeded to the Pusey estates. His mother was a
daughter of the Earl of Harborough, and to her he
ojved his early religious training. "All that I know",
he says, "about religious truth, I learnt, at least in
principle, from my dear mother. But then, behind
my mother, though of course I did not know it at
the time, was the Catholic Church." "I was educated
in the teaching of the Prayer-Book. . . . The doc
trine of the Real Presence I learnt from my mother's
explanation ofthe Catechism, which she had learned
to understand from the older clergy."^ In 1812 he
went to Eton, from whence he proceeded in 1819 to
Christ Church, Oxford, where he had a very high
reputation as an undergraduate. " Shortly after I
went to Oxford", writes Isaac Williams, "I heard
of Pusey as a man who ought to have a first-class
made for him by himself, he being so superior to
everyone else in the mass of information he had
acquired."^ He justified these expectations by gain
ing a particularly good first-class in 1822 ; one of his
examiners, G. Porter, "predicting his greatness,
and regarding him as the man of the greatest ability
^'Liddon's Life of Pusey, \. 7. '^ Autobiography of I. Williams, -p. z^.

38 The Anglican Revival.
he had ever examined or known". ^ In 1823 he was
elected fellow of Oriel, arid in 1824 won the Chan
cellor's prize for the best Latin essay. He was per
suaded by Dr. Lloyd to spend two years (1825-
1827) in Germany, "to study the language and
theology of the Germans". There he made the
acquaintance of several of the most famous German
professors, and was impressed with the fact that Eng
lish churchmen were quite unprepared to grapple
with the bold speculations of the Germans. Soon
after his return to England (1827) he published his
first book. An Historical Enquiry into the Probable
Causes of the Rationalist Character lately Predom
inant in the Theology of Germany. It was an
answer to a course of lectures delivered at Cam
bridge by Hugh James Rose on the subject ; but it
is a mistake to suppose that Rose took the orthodox
and Pusey the rationalistic side. They both agreed
on the main question. "We ought", he wrote to
Rose ten years later, "to have been fighting side
by side instead of with each other." But Pusey
thought — and with very good reason — that he per
ceived a tendency in England to combat rationalism
in exactly the same inadequate ways in which it had
been unsuccessfully combated in Germany, and he
naturally feared the same disastrous result. Ger
man pietism corresponded closely with English
evangelicalism; and German "orthodoxism", as
he terms it, with the rather stiff, wooden, inelastic
i See Liddon's Life, p. 32. Mr. Porter made the remark to the learned
Canon A. S. Farrar of Durham.

First Stage of the Movement. 39
attitude of English "orthodoxy". Both lived to
regret their "German war". Rose wrote gener
ously : " I wish we had known each other personally,
and I am sure it would never have taken place. I
should have profited by your very far superior
knowledge of the subject, and should have done
the work of warning the English student more
effectually." Pusey "was dissatisfied with his books
[he wrote two], and withdrew from circulation what
remained of them ".^ These books were misunder
stood ; some thought that he was a rationalist, others
that he was an evangelical, on account of his ex
pressions of sympathy with the German pietists.
Perhaps the fact that he was not ordained deacon
until 1828, after he had written the books, helped to
make men think that his opinions were unsettled.
When he became a candidate for the Hebrew chair
in 1828, Archdeacon Cambridge, a leading high
churchman, informed him that "some dignitaries
thought him latitudinarian, but he himself acquitted
him of the charge ". Pusey wrote to his constant
friend Bishop Lloyd (Oct. 1828), "I believe that prac
tically my opinions are those of the High Church ;
that, however I may respect individuals, I feel my
self more and more removed from what is called
Low Church. I do not know any subject of contro
versy between High and Low in which I do not agree
with the former." Bishop Lloyd was satisfied that
he was " quite unlikely to cause serious anxiety on
the score of rationalism or even latitudinarianism ",
^ Liddon, i. 175.

40 The Anglican Revival.
and mainly through Lloyd's exertions, as Pusey
himself gratefully recognized, he was elected to the
professorship. But the rather doubtful way in
which the bishop expresses himself shows that
Pusey was at least a suspected person; and in 1829
those who were suspicious of him were probably
not a little confirmed in their suspicions by the fact
that he ranged himself with Whately and Blanco
White, as a supporter of Sir R. Peel, in the famous
election when that great man lost his seat, while his
friends Keble, Newman, Froude, and R. Wilber
force were in the opposite camp. This, however,
was a political, or at most a politico-ecclesiastical,
not a theological question. But the suspicion re
mained. Writing about the commencement of the
movement, Palmer says: " Pusey we knew nothing
of; he was supposed to be favourable to the in
novating party; he did not join the Association, and
only became connected with the cause when New
man had become leader. "i The fact is undoubted;
Pusey never opposed, but he held aloof from the
movement at first, and there is an interesting letter
written by him to his wife in 1835, which certainly
implies that he was at any rate not quite steady in
his convictions at the time of "the German war".
"I see", he writes, "many reasons why John's
[Newman's] statement of truth should be attractive,
mine repulsive. He has held a steady course, I
have not. I studied evidences when I should have
^Narrative of Events, &c.. Introduction, p. 50.

First Stage of the Movement. 41
been studying the Bible; I was dazzled with the
then rare acquaintance with German theology, and
over-excited by it, &c."^
The "John" of this letter introduces us to the
third member of the trio, whose early history,
however, does not quite bear out what his friend
says of him.
John Henry Newm.an (1801-1890), unlike the
other two, received his first religious impressions
from the Evangelical school. He was the eldest of
the six children of John Newman, a banker in the
city of London, and Jemima his wife, who was a
member of a well-known Huguenot family called
Foudrinier, which had long been settled in London.
The mother directed the course which Newman's
early religion took, and, as might be expected from
a descendant of the Huguenots, it was an evan
gelical direction. He was taught to take a delight
in reading the Bible, and to expect an inward con
version. When he was fifteen years of age the
longed-for event took place, the chief instrument of
his conversion being a pious clergyman, Walter
Mayers, a classical master in the private school at
Ealing where he was educated. Of its reality, he
writes, long after he had drifted away into quite a
different course, " I am still more certain than that
I have hands and feet".^ He was deeply impressed
by evangelical writers, such as William Romaine,
Joseph Milner, Daniel Wilson, and above all,
1 Liddon, ii. 87. ' Apologia, p. 4.

42 The Anglican Revival.
Thomas Scott, "to whom", he writes "(humanly
speaking) I almost owe my soul";^ and in 1816
he went up to Trinity College, Oxford, a decided
Evangelical. He does not appear to have been at
all shaken in these views during his undergraduate
days. He was a hard reader, and was judiciously
directed in his reading by his college tutor, the
well-known Thomas Short. But by one of those
strange slips which occasionally occur, he was about
as unsuccessful in the schools as an industrious
scholar of Trinity could well be. He read for a
double first, but the result was that in the classical
list, his name appeared in the lowest class (a second
below the line), and in the mathematical, not at all
— that is, he was " gulfed ". Various circumstances,
into which it is unnecessary to enter, sufficiently
account for his failure. He was not disheartened;
he was still conscious of his powers, and boldly
aimed at the highest distinction within his reach —
a fellowship at Oriel. He was elected on April 12,
1822, a day which he "ever felt the turning-point
of his life, and of all days most memorable ". But
at Oriel ' ' there was that real isolation of thought
and spiritual loneliness which were the result of his
Calvinistic beliefs ".^ In 1824 he was ordained dea
con, and took the curacy of the Evangelical Church
of S. Clement's, Oxford, of course residing in col
lege, and there coming under the influence of
^Apologia, p. 5.
"^ Letters and Correspondence cf J . H. Newman — Autobiography, i. 104.

First Stage of the Movement. 43
powerful minds. " During two years of parochial
duty at S. Clement's Mr. Newman underwent a
great change in his religious opinions, brought
about by various influences. The atmosphere of the
Oriel common-room was one ; its members, together
with its distinguished head [Copleston], being as re
markable for the complexion of their theology, and
their union among themselves in it, as for their
literary eminence. . . . They were neither High
nor Low Church, but had become a new school,
characterized by its spirit of moderation and com
prehension, and of which the principal ornaments
were Copleston, Davison, Whately, Hawkins, and
Arnold."^ They were, in fact, the Oriel "Noetics",
the forerunners of the Oxford liberals. But, strange
to say, he also learnt from them some of the chief
doctrines which he afterwards held as a Tractarian.
From Whately — of all men in the world — " he found
on looking back that he had learned one momentous
truth of Revelation, and that was the idea of the
Christian Church as a Divine appointment, and as
a substantive, visible body, independent ofthe State,
and endowed with rights, prerogatives, and powers
of its own ".^ Hawkins " gave me ", he says, " the
Treatise on Apostolical Preaching, by Sumner, after
wards Archbishop of Canterbury [an Evangelical !],
from which I was led to give up my remaining
Calvinism, and to receive the doctrine of Baptismal
Regeneration ".^ The influence of Whately lasted
na, i. 114. "/rf., p. 109. ^Id., p. 9.

44 The Anglican Revival.
for four years (1822-1826), but it was (except on the
point above-mentioned) a negative rather than a
positive influence. It succeeded in detaching him
from evangelicalism, but it never really succeeded
in drawing him towards the liberalism of which
Whately was the ablest exponent. He tells us,
indeed, that at one time he ' ' was beginning to pre
fer intellectual influence to moral ; and was drifting
in the direction of the liberalism of the day";^ but
this was quickly stayed by illness and bereavement.
When Whately became principal of S. Alban Hall
in 1825 he made Newman vice-principal and tutor;
and the two men were of course thrown much to
gether. But they were so different that they could
not be really intimate ; and the parliamentary elec
tion of 1829, which unseated Peel, dissolved what
intimacy there was. Newman naturally found his
closest friends at Oriel among men nearer his own
standing. In 1823 he says, "I had the intimacy
of my dear and true friend Dr. Pusey, and could
not fail to admire and revere a soul so devoted to
the cause of religion, so full of good works, so faith
ful in his affections; but he left residence when I
was getting to know him well ".^ He then attached
himself to two younger fellows, Robert Isaac Wil
berforce and Richard Hurrell Froude. These
friendships would more than counterbalance the
influence of Whately in a different direction ; and
Froude, in especial, had a power over him which a
¦'¦Apologia, p. 14. "Id., p. iS.

First Stage of the Movement. 45
younger man rarely exercises over an elder. It
was Froude, too, who brought Newman and Keble
together. They had hitherto kept rather apart.
Keble (in Newman's opinion) "was shy of him in
consequence of the marks he bore of the evangelical
and liberal schools".^ Newman regarded Keble as
a sort of awful being, to be admired only at a re
spectful distance. But Froude prided himself in
having brought the two to understand each other,
about the year 1828.
Newman had by this time drifted away from
evangelicalism, but he had hardly entered into the
true spirit of the English Church. In fact, from
first to last, he never did enthusiastically admire
that church; — he saw her abuses, and he ardently
set himself to reform them ; but she was never his
true mother, as she always was Keble's. He con
trasted her with the Primitive Church, on which
his attention was engaged while writing his History
of the Arians, much to her disadvantage. After
having dwelt mournfully on the evil effects of
liberalism, and the weakness of evangelicalism in
the church, he writes : ' ' With the establishment
thus divided and threatened, thus ignorant of its
true strength, I compared that fresh vigorous Power
of which I was reading in the first centuries. In
her triumphant zeal on behalf of that Primeval
Mystery, to which I had so great a devotion from
my youth, I recognized the movement of my
''Apologia, p. 18.

46 The Anglican Revival.
Spiritual Mother, '¦Incessu patuit Dea '. The self-
conquest of her Ascetics, the patience of her Mar
tyrs, the irresistible determination of her Bishops,
the joyous swing of her advance, both exalted and
abashed me. I said to myself, ' Look on this pic
ture and on that '; I felt affection for my own church,
but not tenderness ; I felt dismay at her prospects,
anger and scorn at her do-nothing perplexity."^
The fact is, Newman had never had a fair chance
of seeing the church's system at work; his ante
cedents, as sketched above, show this plainly enough.
A singularly interesting article in The Christian
Remembrancer, written by one who knew him well,
immediately after his secession, expressed this very
forcibly: "Has Mr. Newman ever had what could
be called a natural mental position in our church?
Has he ever been her son? If he has, he has not
done himself justice in his own way of speaking of
her position ; he has represented it as more external
than it really was. He wants a larger body to be
long to; the English Church is too small. He tries
her system as an experiment. His own work was
in a way external to himself all the time. There
was a reserve going on; he was not one with his
church; he was not at home in her; he had not
faith in her. . . . He was in the midst of a circle
of Church of England friends [that is, at Oriel] ; the
movement had a pre-existence in them ; he took it
from them. He was their convert originally, not
gia, p. 31.

First Stage of the Movement. 47
their teacher. It spread rapidly with his powerful
aid; but alas! the support was had, not the sup
porter. "^ It is fair to add that Newman's sister,
Harriet (Mrs. T. Mozley), writes to her brother-in-
law, J. B. Mozley, the writer ofthe article: "There
was a time, before you knew J. H. N., when he had
a thorough attachment to our church, which you
do not give him credit for"^ — but when that time
was, does not appear. At any rate, it was with any
thing but "a thorough attachment to our church"
that he set forth, with R. H. Froude, and his father.
Archdeacon Froude, in December, 1832, on his
Mediterranean tour ; and when he returned, with a
firm conviction that " he had a work to do in Eng
land ", he found himself on the very verge of the
movement with which his name is inseparably con
nected. From the summer of 1833 the history ofthe church
revival is the history of its three great leaders ; the
future events of their lives will come in naturally in
the course of the narrative. But this little sketch of
their antecedents will, it is hoped, enable the reader
to see why it was that the other two paid so marked
a deference to John Keble. Far inferior to Pusey
in learning, and to Newman in genius, Keble pos
sessed qualifications which would at once lead them
to recognize him as their guide. In the first place,
' "The Recent Schism'', Art. vi. in No. 51 of The Christian Remem-
irancer, for January, 1846.
"Letters of J. B. Mozley, ed. by his sister, p. 174.

48 The Anglican Revival.
he was eight or nine years their senior; and years
almost count as generations at Oxford. Newman
had from the first an uncomfortable feeling that he
and his friends were taking a prominent position
which was unbecoming the modesty of young men.
But Keble had won his spurs at an unusually early
age, and Newman had heard of him as "the first
man in Oxford " years before the movement began.
Thomas Mozley, who was by no means an indis
criminate admirer of John Keble, says of him : "He
was present (1828) in everybody's thoughts, as a
glory to the college, a comfort and a stay, for the
slightest word he dropped was all the more remem
bered from there being so little of it, and from
it seeming to come from a different and holier
sphere ".1
And not only was he the first man in reputation,
but he was the first man who ' ' turned the tide, and
brought the talent of Oxford to the side of the old
theology" {Apologia, p. 289), which would of course
give him an additional claim to the reverence of
Newman and Pusey. Again, Keble had been
throughout fixed and steady in his convictions,
which Newman had not been at all, and Pusey only
in a very qualified sense. And yet, though from
first to last a thorough high churchman, he differed
from the main body ofthe high churchmen ofthe day
in being free from that spirit of optimism, that com
placency in the church as it was, which exasperated
¦'Reminiscences, &c., vol. i. ch. v. p. 37.

First Stage of the Movement. 49
Newman beyond measure. When The Christian
Year "always supposed the church to be in a state
of decay ", it thoroughly reflected the habitual tone
of its writer. And once more, Keble, though per
sonally humble and diffident to a fault ("If you
want to get anything in the way of plain counsel
from dear John Keble", said Pusey, many years
later, "you really must be on your guard against
his humility"!) — was bold as a lion when a principle
was at stake. " Keble is at length roused," writes
Newman, just before the movement, "and (if once
up) he will prove a second Ambrose."^ How truly
he estimated the man will appear in the narrative
to which, after this not unnecessary digression, we
now return.
After the Hadleigh meeting the two sections of
the movement to a certain extent agreed that tracts
should be issued to insense people on church sub
jects, and that an association should be formed to
combine church people together; though one section
never took kindly to the tracts, nor the other to the
association. However, "An Association of the
Friends of the Church " was formed, the objects of
which are thus stated: —
" 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
or suppression of doctrine, a departure from primi
tive practices in religious offices, or innovation upon
^ Life of Pusey, i. 441. ^ Quoted by Mr. Lock, p. 78.
(M426) D

50 The Anglican Revival.
the Apostolical prerogative, orders and commission
of bishops, priests, and deacons.
"2. To afford churchmen an opportunity of ex
changing their sentiments and co-operating together
on a large scale. "^
The Association was short-lived, Froude (who at
this time had immense influence over Newman, and
therefore over the section which Newman repre
sented) being "strongly against any society or
association other than the church itself", and im
pressing his views upon others.^ But before it
became defunct, it effected at least one most im
portant measure. It elicited a very unexpected and
general expression of an attachment to the church,
and a fixed determination not to see the national
church destroyed or even weakened; and it thus
showed that the jubilancy of the church's foes, and
the despondency of her friends, were quite misplaced.
This was done, first through an "Address to the
Primate", drawn up at the instance of, and by.
Palmer, which was eagerly signed by seven thousand
or more of the clergy, and presented to the Arch
bishop of Canterbury at Lambeth in the early part
of 1834. It expressed a deep attachment to the
church, but in rather vague and general terms —
even so moderate a churchman as Archdeacon
Froude called it "milk and water". It was fol
lowed by a "Declaration of the Laity", drawn up
1 See Palmer's Narrative, &c. , ch. vi. p. 49, and Perceval's Collection, &c. ,
p. 18. "See Perceval, p. 18.

First Stage of the Movement. 51
by Joshua Watson, and expressing the same senti
ments, but rather more definitely, which was signed
with even more eagerness by no less than two hun
dred and thirty thousand heads of families.
All this showed that there was plenty of material
for what would now be called "church defence";
but it did not show that there was an adequate
knowledge of church principles. To supply and
disseminate this knowledge was the object of the
"Tracts for the Times". "It had been unani
mously agreed", writes Mr. Palmer, "amongst
those who originated the movement, that the press
ought to be made the means of bringing before the
clergy and laity the great principles on which the
church is based, and which had been almost wholly
forgotten. . . . We were anxious to impress upon
them that the church was more than a merely human
institution; that it had privileges, sacraments, a
ministry ordained by Christ. "^ But they were not
so unanimously agreed about the methods to be
adopted for bringing about this result. Mr. Palmer,
who, owing to the failing health of Mr. Rose, and
his removal to the then remote Durham, became the
recognized leader of the old-fashioned, conservative
wing of the movement, was for doing nothing with
out general consultation : the tracts were all to be
revised and put forth by a committee. Mr. New
man, who from this time forth drew ahead and
became by far the most important and influential
» Narrative, &c., p. 119.

52 The Anglican Revival.
factor in the movement for the next eight or nine
years, was for leaving each tract-writer absolutely
free and unfettered. "If you correct them", he
argued, "according to the wishes of a board, you
will have nothing but tame, dull compositions,
which will take no one.''^ "Individuals who are
seen and heard, who act and suffer, are the instru
ments of Providence in all great successes. There
is an awkwardness in tracts coming from a society.
It is an assumption of teaching. And further, they
must in consequence be weighed and carefully cor
rected; and thus they become cold and formal and
(so to say) impersonal. An address with much in
it which others question, yet coming from an indivi
dual mind, has life about it which is seen to make
an impression. . . . You will see I am for no com
mittee, secretaries, &c., but merely for certain indi
viduals, in every part of the country, in correspond
ence with each other, instructing and encouraging
each other, and acting with all their might in their
respective circles."^ It was Newman, again, who
insisted upon it that Oxford, not London, should
be the centre of the movement. " Universities are
the natural centres of intellectual movements."^ "I
do not think we have yet made as much as we
ought of our situation at Oxford, and of the defer
ence paid to it throughout the country."* " When-
> Letter to Keble, Nov. 1833. Letters and Correspondence of J. H. New
man, p. 463. "Id., pp. 466, 468. Newman to Palmer, Oct. 1833.
' Apologia, p. 39. " Newman to Keble, Aug. 5, 1833. Letters, &c., p. 440.

First Stage of the Movement. 53
ever you talk of the tracts, mind and persist they
are not connected with the Association, but the pro
duction of ' Residents in Oxford '. I wish them
called the ' Oxford Tracts ', but I cannot myself so
call them for modesty's sake. So I think that soon
I shall advertise them as ' Tracts for the Times, by
residents in Oxford ', which, of course, will soon be
corrupted into 'Oxford Tracts'. "^
Looking back after an interval of more than sixty
years, it appears to me that Mr. Newman was not
only right on both points, but that upon his insis
tence on them hinged the whole success of the
movement. With the intuitive insight of genius
he caught at once the secret of the strength of his
position, and Mr. Palmer himself afterwards gener
ously owned it. "Perhaps", he says, "a committee
would have imposed a far greater restraint than I
should have been conscious of, or designed";^ and
he fully admits the greater influence of the Tracts
than of the Association.^
It was on September 9, 1833, that Newman burst
forth in print with his first tract. It is entitled
Thoughts on the Ministerial Commission, respect
fully addressed to the Clergy. He plunges at once
in m,edias res with the now memorable words: "I
am but one of yourselves — a Presbyter, and there-
1 Newman to Bowden, Nov. 1833. Letters, &c., p. 483, 484.
"Narrative, &c., p. 123.
"/rf., Preface. A paraUel instance may be found in a different kind of
warfare. The will of one general is always more full of force than the
decision of a committee. A council of war generally advises prudence or
even retreat in face of difKculties.

54 The Anglican Revival.
fore I conceal my name lest I should take too much
on myself by speaking in my own person. Yet
speak I must, for the times are very evil, yet no one
speaks against them", and then he proceeds to
dwell on the Apostolical Succession as the only real
ground on which the clergy can base their claims.
No. 2, on The Catliolic Church, and No. 3, On Altera
tions in the Liturgy,^ bear the same date, and are by
the same hand ; they are mere leaflets, but well cal
culated to rouse those to whom they are addressed ;
and they thoroughly bear out the principle of the
motto of the series, ' ' If the trumpet give an uncer
tain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?"
So too do No. 4 (September 21), Adherence to the
Apostolical Succession the safest course, and No. 5
(October 18), but they are evidently by different
hands. No. 4 is by John Keble, No. 5 by "a lay
man", that is, J. W. Bowden, Newman's early and
very intimate friend, whom he calls "Apostolicorum
Princeps". When four tracts had appeared, New
man was cheered by a most encouraging letter from
Rose, of whom he always had the very highest
opinion : ' ' Your tracts are excellent, and not too
stro'ng. They will, I think, tell better if separate.'"
All through the autumn of 1833 the tracts came out
in rapid succession, many written by Newman him
self, and all under his inspiration.
The key-note of the early tracts is the doctrine ot
the Apostolical Succession ; all else is subservient
'Quoted by Bturgon, i. 196.

First Stage of the Movement. 55
to, and flows from, this doctrine. On the supreme
importance of insistence upon it, both sections of
the movement were thoroughly at one. The three
leaders of the conservative section. Rose, Palmer,
and Perceval, all wrote decidedly on this point.^
Before the plan of writing tracts had taken a definite
shape this doctrine had come to the front, for we
find Keble writing to his friend Dyson, on August
26, 1832, telling him that there were thoughts of
forming "a kind of association", the first object
of which was to be "the inculcation of primitive
notions regarding the Apostolical Succession ",2 and
accordingly it was the burden of the first tract. The
doctrine has of course always been an essential part
of high church theology, but the unique importance
now attached to it was due to the supposed exi
gencies of the times. There was, as we have seen, a
strong feeling abroad that the State was about to
' ' cast off " the Church ; on what, then, were the
clergy to rest their claim of respect and attention
from their flocks? They must go back to the real
ground on which their authority was built. Christ
gave His Spirit to His apostles; they in turn laid
their hands on those who should succeed them, and
these again on others, and so the sacred gift was
handed down to the present bishops. This was the
doctrine of the ordination service; if they rested
' See Appendix to Rose's Commission and consequent Duties of the Clergy ;
Palmer's Treatise on the Church of Christ, esp. vol. i. ch. viii. pp. 132-145;
and Perceval's Doctrine of the Apostolical Succession.
" Coleridge's Memoirs, p. 212.

56 The Anglican Revival
upon this they were on an impregnable basis, but
if they rested upon the State support, or upon any
secular advantages which they might possess, they
were resting on a broken reed, which might fail
them any day. Hence the party called themselves
"Apostolicals". Meanwhile the more conservative wing of the
movement observed with dismay how rapidly things
were going ahead, and how Newman was carrying
all before him. "The movement", writes Mr. Pal
mer, ' ' suddenly found itself Tractarian ; that is,
informed, guided, and presided over by Newman
alone." He complains, not unnaturally, that the
tracts were everywhere called, not * ' Newman's
Tracts", but " Oxford Tracts", and that "the whole
Association became responsible for their contents,
though they were really the expression of Newman's
opinions, and those of his friends or disciples whom
he chose to associate with him in his Tracts". The
excellent H. H. Norris, the clerical head of the old
High Church party, strongly agreed with Palmer,
and appears to have imagined that that party had
succeeded in putting a stop to the tracts; for we
find Hurrell Froude writing to Newman in Novem
ber, 1833: "As to giving up the tracts, the notion
is odious. Norris writes to my father to announce
that the tract system (he was happy to say) was
abandoned. We must throw the Z's^ overboard;
' "The Z's" was the cant name by which the Tractarians designated
the ' ' orthodox ", the Evangelicals being; ' ' the peculiars ", and themselves
"the apostolicals"

First Stage of the Movement. 57
they are a small and, as my father says, daily
diminishing party. He is much inclined to them
himself, but will take trouble to circulate the
tracts."! But, in this case, Newman did not require to be
"kept up to the mark by Froude". He had no
intention of giving up the tracts, nor of altering
their character, to please anybody. He writes to his
friend, Bowden, this same month (November, 1833):
"We shall go on printing and circulating through
our own friends, though the High Church party
wish us to stop tracts altogether. By us I mean
Keble, myself, Froude, and our friends, who are
more or less the following (though not associated or
bound together by any law; that is, many people
like naturally their own way) : Pusey and Harrison,
Ch. Ch. (they must not be numbered as of our
party) ; Williams of Trinity ; Christie, Rogers, Moz
ley, and the Wilberforces of Oriel ; Thomas Keble,
Prevost, Rickards, Sale of Magdalen, Rose, Per
ceval, Golightly, Dyson, &c. Palmer, backed by
Norris, &c., is afraid of tracts, and wishes them
stopped, and is aiming at an association. I say let
every man employ his talent in his own way. Let
there be an association, if they can do it, and we
will be members of it, to avoid the appearance of
schism. Still, why not also go on with tracts?
Until I see reason, I must. Perhaps Keble will be
proclaimed our editor." Newman must have been
' Newman's Letters, &c., p. 484.

58 The Anglican Revival.
rather sanguine when he wrote the above names of
his adherents. He could hardly count upon all "the
Wilberforces of Oriel"; Golightly soon became the
bitterest and most effective of all the opponents of
the movement; "Sale of Magdalen", afterwards
the respected vicar of Sheffield, was never regarded
as a Newmanite; Perceval was certainly more in
clined to the Palmer section ; and to Rickards,
Newman had to write very soon after: "As to
your criticisms, I have been too busy to answer
them. The Association has nothing to do with the
tracts. The latter are the work of Oxford; Keble,
myself, and others are answerable for them. . . .
We will take advice and thank you ; we will thank
you for cuffs; but we will take our own line ac
cording to the light given us by Almighty God
and His Holy Church."^ In December, 1833, he
writes to Froude more hopefully still: "Our
demand increases. Thomas Keble, Harrison,
Menzies, Perceval, and a more important friend
who at present is nameless, have written for us;
John Miller, Copeland, and Williams are also
writing."^ The mysterious friend who is nameless
is of course Pusey.
And so the tracts went on all through 1834, and
towards the close of that year forty-six of them
were collected and published in one volume, with
a remarkable preface, or, as it is called, "advertise
ment". They were energetically pushed by friends
^Letters, &c., i. p. 490. " Id., ii. 8.

First Stage of the Movement. 59
of the movement riding about the country and
distributing them, especially among the clergy.
Newman himself took an active part in this per
sonal canvass, and so did his brother-in-law, Thomas
Mozley. But this method of making them known
was not needed long. The tracts made their own
way, and that as much by the hostility as by the
sympathy which they evoked. The Tractarians
adopted the very wise policy ot "offering no reply
to the numberless attacks made on them, but trust
ing to the strength of principles and internal force
of truth ".^ The novelty of the situation attracted
attention. Tracts had of course long been a vehicle
by which men and parties propagated their views.
Wesley had had his tracts ; the Evangelicals inside
and outside the National Church had had their
Religious Tract Society for more than thirty years,
which had disseminated a vast amount of such
literature. But tracts by the highest of High
Churchmen, tracts, not only written but circulated,
by Oxford dons, and dons of the most intellectual
and fastidious college at Oxford, were a new thing.
Incidents ludicrous enough occurred during the
process of circulation. One old clergyman, when
Newman presented himself on his missionary enter
prise at the country parsonage, asked him sus
piciously whether Whately was not at the bottom
of it all! Another (a bishop!), having read the
earlier tracts, which were all more or less on the
1 Palmer's Narrative, &c., p. 66.

6o The Anglican Revival.
subject ot the Apostolical Succession, could not
quite make up his mind whether he believed it or
not ! Another gravely wrote to a newspaper point
ing out a misprint in one of the tracts: it had spoken
of the " Eucharistic sacrifice", which of course
was a printer's error for the "Eucharistic sacra-
m.ent" I
Such incidents, trifling as they may seem, are
important as illustrating the bewilderment and
alarm of old-fashioned minds at the strange things
that were going on. But that was just what was
intended. The "advertisement" to vol. iii. (dated
" Feast of All Saints", 1836), contrasting the marked
difference in length, style, and tone, between the
tracts before and the tracts after the summer of
1835, says of the earlier: "They spontaneously
used the language of alarm and complaint. They
were written, as a man might give notice of a fire or
inundation, to startle all who heard him, with only
so much of doctrine and argument as might be
necessary to account for their publication, or might
answer more obvious objections to the views therein
advocated."^ The change in the character of the
tracts marks a new phase of the movement, which
will be best described in a new chapter.
But Newman, besides being the life and soul of
the tracts, was pushing on the movement in another,
and at least as effective a way. In 1834 he published
his first volume of Parochial Sermons ; and according
1 Reminiscences, vol. i. ch. xlix. p. 316.

First Stage of the Movement. 6i
to Mr. T. Mozley, "the publishers said that the
volume put all other sermons out of the market, just
as Waverley and Guy Mannering put all other
novels".^ And no wonder, when we remember that
they were the famous Sunday afternoon sermons
preached at S. Mary's. They had been going on
since 1828, when Newman succeeded Hawkins as
vicar of the Oriel living of S. Mary's. But of course
after the start of the movement they had an addi
tional significance. Not that they often dwelt
directly upon those doctrines which it was the
object of the movement to propagate; they were
essentially practical rather than doctrinal. But with
Newman a religion which did not rest upon dogma
was no religion at all; and the undergraduates
and graduates who listened breathlessly to them
had quite sense enough to perceive the dogma
behind the practical advice. The service, coming
at a most inconvenient hour for university men
(4 p.m.), and being, in fact, not intended for them,
was not crowded ; but those who did attend were the
picked men — the most earnest and thoughtful of the
future clergymen, statesmen, and men of letters —
and they carried away with them into all parts of
the country ineffaceable impressions not only of
the sermons but of the preacher, whose personality
was even more impressive than his sermons — great
as the sermons are, even when read in cold blood
by those who never saw the preacher. "Without
' Reminiscences, &c. , vol. i. ch. xlix. p. 316.

62 The Anglican Revival.
those sermons, the movement might never have gone
on, certainly would never have been what it was."^
" The sermons at S. Mary's were the commentaries
on the Tracts."^

Chapter III.
Second Stage of the Movement (1835-1839).
In the summer of 1835 a crisis arose in the history
of the Tracts. Newman writes in a desponding
tone to Hurrell Froude: "The Tracts are defunct
or in extremis. Rivington has written to say
they do not answer. Pusey has written one on
Baptism, very good, of ninety pages, which is to
be printed at his risk. That and one or two to
finish the imperfect series (on particular subjects)
will conclude the whole. I am not sorry, as I am
tired of being editor."
The final adhesion, however, of Dr. Pusey to the
movement, which took place at this time, not only
gave a new lease of life to the Tracts, but marks an
altogether new era in their history. Not that Pusey
had before this in any way disapproved of what his
friends were doing, nor, indeed, had entirely stood
aloof from their work. As early as 1833 he had
written a tract (No. 18, on Fasting),* stipulating,
however, that he should attach his initials to it, to
'Dean Church, Oxford Movement, ch. vii. p. ri3. "Id., ch. viii. 131.
^Letters and Correspondence of J. H. Newman, ii. 124.

Second Stage of the Movement. 63
show^ that he was only responsible for his own com
position; and in the same year, in a letter to his
brother, he animadverted, with as much indignation
as his gentle nature was capable of showing, upon
what he considered a wrong-headed criticism of
the early Tracts in the Christian Observer. " It has
wholly mistaken the object, which is wholly directed
to things spiritual, and has nothing to do with the
temporals of the Church."^ But he can scarcely be
said to have thoroughly identified himself with the
movement until the publication of his three tracts on
Holy Baptism, the first of which (No. 67) appeared
on S. Bartholomew's Day, the second (No. 68) on
Michaelmas Day, the third (No. 69) on S. Luke's
Day, 1835. The three together, with subsequent
enlargements, formed a bulky and most elaborate
and exhaustive treatise on the subject.
Pusey's adherence was an instance of the right man
coming in just at the right time. The public had
now been fairly aroused ; they had had sufficiently
impressed upon them the duty of maintaining
Church principles ; they had now a right to demand
that those principles should be fully and definitely
explained to them in detail. The time for short,
stirring appeals was over; the time for solid, sober
treatises on divinity had arrived; and Pusey was
better qualified for this department of the work than
any other member of the group. Palmer^can scarcely
1 Quoted in Life of Pusey, i. 278.
" That is, of course, William Palmer, the writer of the Treatise on the

64 The Anglican Revival.
be reckoned a member. Routh, though agreeing
in the main, never dreamed of entering the arena;
Rose was far away in the remote north, and no one
else could be compared to Pusey for extent and
depth of reading. Moreover, his mild and con
ciliatory spirit introduced a healing element into
the movement which was certainly needed. The
"fierceness" (to use his own expression) of Newman,
and especially of Newman when ' ' kept up to the
mark by Froude",^ had the very natural effect of
raising opposition ; and even in Keble — the gentle,
humble Keble — there was a strong spice, if not
exactly of fierceness, yet of a tendency to give vent
to the most unpopular sentiments in the most uncom
promising way, without the slightest attempt to
tone them down. Pusey, again, was far more apt
to recognize two sides of a question than was Keble,
Newman, or Froude. Moreover, as Regius Pro
fessor of Hebrew and Canon of Christ Church, he
had a definite status in the University; and this,
besides giving weight to the cause, perhaps also
led him to see the necessity of measuring his words.
By no one has his place in the movement been
Church of Christ, who is so often referred to in these pages. It is rather
confusing that there were two William Palmers connected with the Oxford
High Churchmen — (i) William Palmer of Magdalen, the archceologist,
brother of Sir Roundell Palmer (Lord Selborne), who went over to Rome ;
{2) William Palmer of Worcester College, who used sometimes to be called
" Worcester Palmer", to distinguish him from the other. Unless otherwise
specified, "Palmer" in this volume always means "Worcester Palmer".
1 Froude and Ward were both "fiercer" than Newman; but Froude was
now virtually dying, and Ward had not yet come upon the scene.

Second Stage of the Movement. 65
better described than by one, with whom he never
quite agreed, and who, while he was still in the
English Church, certainly belonged to the Newman
rather than to the Pusey section of the movement.
"Dr. Pusey's moderation", writes Mr. Oakeley,
"did much valuable service to the movement. He
was, as Mr. Newman was not, a high dignitary of
the Established Church, a person of aristocratic
birth and high connections." [Then follows a quite
unnecessary fling at the Church which the writer had
left.] " He was the only member of the Tractarian
school to whom the Evangelical party had any kind
of attraction. His piety was not only most real, but
it was of a popular and impressive character. He
had also a way peculiarly his own, and entirely
consistent with sincerity and simplicity, of rounding
off the sharp edges of the strong and offensive state
ments of others, and thus presenting them under a
far less odious aspect to those who disliked them.
Hence Dr. Pusey had a definite and most important
place in the movement. While it was Mr. Newman's
office to stimulate, and his misfortune to startle, to
Dr. Pusey, on the other hand, belonged the work
of soothing and the ministry of conciliation. He
was the S. Barnabas ofthe movement."^
I quote this rather than the splendid and touching
passage on the subject in Newman's Apologia, partly
because it is less known, and partly because the
characteristic generosity with which Newman recog-
' Historic Notes on the Tractarian Movement, by F. Oakeley, pp. 48-49.
(M426) E

66 The Anglican Revival.
nizes the invaluable services of Pusey, might lead
the general reader to suppose that the latter became
at once a more important personage in the movement
than the former. This was not so. Newman still
continued to be far and away the most influential
leader. He had qualifications for the post which
neither Pusey nor anyone else possessed to anything
like the same extent. Again, I cannot do better
than quote Mr. Oakeley : " In actual hold upon others
there was no comparison between the two. Pusey's
power over consciences was limited by the degree
of his disciples' obedience; Newman's penetrated
and swayed them in spite both of themselves and
himself" {Id., p. 69). It should be added that there
was not the slightest rivalry or jealousy between the
two men ; they worked together harmoniously, each
in his own way, with Keble in the background as
a sort of final court of appeal for both, — a Deus ex
machina, invariably to be called in when, and only
when, a knot worthy of such a champion occurred.
Considering the characters of the two men, it is
not surprising that Newman's influence over indi
viduals should have been greater than Pusey's. He
was far less reserved with his intimate friends ; the
social and domestic element was much stronger in
him ; at the same time he was less intelligible to the
outer world, and for that very reason the more attrac
tive to the inner circle of which he formed the centre.
Pusey was no mystery ; he was simply the student,
the scholar, and the saint, a person to be regarded

Second Stage of the Movement. 67
with reverential awe, but not to be approached too
nearly, except as an oracle to be consulted. New
man had his lighter and more unrestrained mood,
(which, however, was always checked in the presence
of Pusey) ; men were drawn to him, and learned to
regard him with an enthusiastic devotion, imitating
his very voice and gestures, — which nobody ever
thought of doing in the case of Pusey. He was not
more warm-hearted, — for Pusey had a very warm
heart — but he certainly wore more his heart upon
his sleeve. Perhaps also the poetic element, which
was so conspicuous in Newman's character, and was
wanting in Pusey's, tended to increase the fascina
tion of the former. Newman was restless, startling,
brilliant; Pusey calm, staid, and dignified; and to
young minds especially, such as most of those who
joined the early movement, the former type was
naturally the more taking of the two.
Having thrown himself heart and soul into the
cause. Dr. Pusey at once began to project various
schemes to promote it in the way which seemed to
him most essential, that is, in the way of theological
study. He formed a Theological Society, which was
at first intended to be confined to no party in the
Church. Men were invited to join who had no
sympathy with the founders' views ; but these either
declined or soon withdrew; and the Society became
as much a part of the movement as the Tracts them
selves. Indeed it was one of the chief means by
which the Tracts were kept up in their new shape.

68 The Anglican Revival.
The members met in Dr. Pusey's house, when one
of them would read a paper on some theological
subject; and then the paper would appear, some
times altered and greatly enlarged, either as a
" Tract for the Times " or in the British Magazine.
Isaac Williams' views on Reserve and John Keble's
on Mysticism, of which we shall hear more pre
sently, were first expressed in papers read before
the Theological Society.
Another and a far more ambitious project also
originated about the same time with Dr. Pusey.
This was " A Library of the Fathers of the Holy
Catholic Church anterior to the Division of the East
and West, translated into English". Pusey, Keble,
and Newman were to be the three joint-editors,
and Pusey was delighted with the project, not only
as being quite in his own line, but also as tending
to unite the trio more closely together. "You
know," he writes to Keble (1836), "a treble cord is
not easily broken ; last year you and Newman left
me to write my tracts ' On Holy Baptism ' by myself;
so this year I have intertwined yours and Newman's
names so fast that I hope they will not easily slip
away."^ Pusey brought out the first volume. The
Confessions of S. Augustine, and wrote a preface,
pointing out the advantages of patristic studies;
but in course of time the giant's share of the task
fell upon the saintly Charles Marriott.^ The benefits
of the great undertaking could not be better stated
' Life, 1. 425. " For a full account of this good man see supra, p. 37.

Second Stage of the Movement. 69
than in the words of Dr. Pusey's biographer: " The
Library of the Fathers was at once an encouraging
and a steadying influence; it made thoughtful
adherents of the movement feel that the Fathers
were behind them, and with the Fathers that ancient,
undivided Church whom the Fathers represented.
But it also kept before their minds the fact that the
Fathers were in several respects unlike the moderns,
not only in the English Church, but in the Church
of Rome. It reminded them of a type of life and
thought which all good men in their best moments
would have been glad to make their own."^
Another project of Dr. Pusey, closely connected
with the Library of the Fathers (which could of
course find work for many hands), but also having
the wider object of encouraging theological study
generally, was to support, first in his own house,
and then in a house he hired for the purpose, some
promising young B.A.s who were without the
benefit of a fellowship, and give them work to do
for him. Mr. J. B. Mozley, who was invested with
a sort of headship over the establishment, calls it
"a reading and collating establishment to help in
editing the Fathers";^ but this was clearly not the
whole, nor indeed the main purpose of Pusey's
benevolent scheme. Such men as J. B. Mozley and
Mark Pattison ought not to have been left out in
the cold by the electors to fellowships so long as
they were : both obtained at last the object of their
^Life, i. 434. "Letters, p. 78.

70 The Anglican Revival.
ambition ; but meanwhile they were chiefly supported
by Pusey, and it is needless to say that any work
done by them for him was good of its kind.
The movement gained Pusey and lost Hurrell
Froude almost at the same time. When Pusey
joined the party, Froude was practically a dying
man, and on Feb. 28, 1836, to the infinite regret of
his many friends, he died at his native Dartington.
With Froude passed away the most daring and "go-
ahead" spirit connected with the whole movement.
Newman was enthusiastic, but Froude was far more
so; Newman waged war against the complacency
which was a characteristic of the old Church party,
but Froude was still more exasperated against it;
Newman was not over-cautious in his invectives
against the fallacies and prejudices of the age, but
Froude was ten times less so. With an intense
earnestness and thoroughness of conviction, with a
fiery energy which would ride over anything, with
a courage which sometimes amounted to audacity,
and with an irresistibly attractive personality, there
is no saying what would have happened if his short
life had been prolonged. But it is not a very pro
fitable speculation to conjecture what might have
been. Suffice it to say that in one respect the in
fluence of Froude was likely to have had exactly the
opposite effect to that of Pusey. The one seemed,
of all men, the most calculated to trouble the waters,
the other, to pour oil upon them ; and the fact
that Froude dropped out just when Pusey began

Second Stage of the Movement. 71
to make his influence felt seemed to promise that
henceforth the movement would create less hostility.
After events, however, proved that this was not to
be the case ; and the causes are not far to seek.
The death of Dr. Burton, on Jan. 19, 1836, created
a vacancy in the Regius Professorship of Divinity,
and Lord Melbourne nominated to the vacant post
Dr. Renn Dixon Hampden. Dr. Hampden was
an Oriel man, and had been a fellow in the days of
Copleston, Arnold, and Whately. He had been
brought into contact both with the Oriel Noetics
and the Oriel Tractarians; he can scarcely be said
to have identified himself with either, but he ap
proached nearer the former than the latter. His
university career had been a distinguished one, and
in 1832 he was appointed Bampton Lecturer, when
he took for his subject "The Scholastic Philosophy
in its relation to Christian Theology ". In the
fifteenth century this would have been an attractive
subject; but it was hardly so in the nineteenth,
when men had forgotten all about scholasticism.
So the Bamptons fell rather flat at the time, though
there were some who thought they detected in them
sentiments of a dangerous tendency. The lecturer
uttered nothing against the doctrines of Christianity,
but he ascribed much of the phraseology in which
those doctrines were clothed in later times to the
scholastic philosophy, and that philosophy he con
demned in toto. Scholasticism, he thought, had
created "an atmosphere of mist" between us and

72 The Anglican Revival.
primitive truth. The Bamptons were not published
until 1834, in which year Hampden .also published
a pamphlet entitled Observations on Religious Dis
sent, in support of the government measure for
admitting dissenters into the universities, and in
the same year he was appointed Professor of Moral
Philosophy. Those who had suspected the ' ' Bamp
tons " were confirmed in their suspicions by the
Observations, and Newman frankly told Hampden
(whom of course he knew personally) that his pam
phlet tended to make shipwreck of the Christian
faith, and (what was a dire offence at Oxford) to
disturb the peace of the university. The matter
would probably have blown over; but when in 1836
Hampden was appointed by the crown to teach that
very subject on which his soundness was regarded
as doubtful, the old High Church, the new High
Church, and the Low Church parties in Oxford
banded together to oppose what all alike regarded
as a disastrous appointment. Hampden himself,
in a truly Christian spirit, offered to resign, but the
prime-minister was firm; whereupon the Oxford
Convocation, which, after a long resistance on the
part of the heads of houses, was at last allowed to
act, showed its disapproval in a most marked way.
After a futile attempt, which was quashed by the
veto of the proctors, it returned to the charge after
the expiration of the proctors' year of ofiice, and
succeeded in passing by an immense majority
(474 to 94), in May, 1836, resolutions that the new

Second Stage of the Movement. 73
professor should be deprived of two important
privileges attached to his office, that of voting for
the select preachers, and that of being a judge on
any question of heresy which was brought before
the university.
Though the opposition to Dr. Hampden's ap
pointment was a general one, including all parties
except the Liberals, who were then very few in
numbers, the main brunt of the odium fell upon the
Tractarians ; and there was a sort of rough justice
in this, for there is no doubt that they constituted
the backbone of the opposition. The odium found
its bitterest expression in an article published in
the Edinburgh Review for April, 1836, under the
ominous title of "The Oxford Malignants". It
was written by Dr. Arnold, and illustrates how ex
ceedingly unpopular the Oxford men were outside
their own circle, for Dr. Arnold was a representa
tive man. "Was there ever", he asks, "an accusa
tion involving its unhappy promoters in such a
dilemma of infamy?" [as that which accused Hamp
den's Bamptons of heterodoxy]. The "charges were
known to have proceeded from authors whose cen
sure was to be courted by every good Christian
minister". They were "a few obscure fanatics".
The attack "bears upon it the character, not of
error, but of moral wickedness" . " In such a pro
ceeding we see nothing of Christian zeal, but much
of the mingled fraud, and baseness, and cruelty of
fanatical persecution. And for such persecution

74 The Anglican Revival.
the plea of conscience is not admissible ; it can only
be a conscience so blinded by wilful neglect of the
highest truth, or so corrupted by the habitual indul
gence of evil passions, that it rather aggravates
than excuses the guilt of those whom it misleads."^
It will be noticed that the article was written, and,
indeed, published before the final meeting of Con
vocation. But a far stronger reason for the outcry against
the new school than the Hampden controversy was
the raising of the Roman question, which from
various circumstances came to the front at this
period. On "The Feast of the Circumcision, 1836",
Newman published the first of his tracts (No. 71)
"against Romanism", beginning with the words,
"The controversy with the Romanists has over
taken us like a summer's cloud ". Perhaps it is
difficult to read this tract without being biassed by
what afterwards happened to the writer; but it
certainly seems to me, especially in its earlier part,
to be a singularly cold and faint-hearted defence of
the English Church against Rome; it leaves the
^ For a defence of the article, or rather an explanation of Arnold's attitude
when he wrote it, see Stanley's Life of Arnold, pp. 350-354. Dean Stanley
frankly owns that the article contains "the most startling and vehement,
because the most personal, language which he ever allowed himself to use",
and that "the offence caused by it, even amongst his friends, was very great"
Dr. Arnold, in a "letter to an old pupil" (see Life, pp. 369-370), implies
that Mr. Newman had made unfair extracts from Hampden's writings, and
it is fair to add that some years later Bp. S. Wilberforce, having carefully
read the Bam.pton Lectures and Observations on Religious Dissent, thought
the same. Charles Marriott also in later years says that he had an uncom
fortable feeling that they had not been quite fair to Hampden.

Second Stage of the Movement. 75
impression that the writer is profoundly dissatisfied
with the state of his own church; that he feels the
majority of the popular arguments against Rome
to be fallacious, and that he is more impressed than
he cares to own by the counter-arguments of Rome.
One can well understand a really strong English
Churchihan like Hugh James Rose protesting some
what indignantly against the very hesitating tone in
which Newman writes. "You must", says Rose, "let
me not endure, but love — and warmly and passion
ately love — my mother church." The whole letter,
as quoted by Dean Burgon,^ is well worth reading;
and the reader should remember that the writer was
at least the equal of Newman in learning, in earnest
ness, in judgment — in everything, in short, except
brilliancy. The Hampden controversy helped to press the
Roman question on the attention of the movement
party. The friends of Dr. Hampden met the charge
of heresy by a counter-charge of Romanism, and
raised against them — as it was never difficult to do
— the "No Popery" cry; and the Evangelicals, who
had joined them in a most unwonted alliance, urged
upon them the necessity of clearing themselves
from the charge of Popery. Again, the astute Dr.
Wiseman, regarding the present as a favourable
opportunity, on his return to England began to
lecture in London, in 1836, on "the principal doc
trines of the Catholic Church"; and it was thought
' See Lives of Twelve Good Men, i. 214-22T.

7^6 The Anglican Revival.
that these lectures were a challenge. The glove had
been thrown down, and it would be cowardice not
to take it up. Nor were the Tractarians at all un
willing to do so. They felt that, apart from special
circumstances and outside pressure, the relations
between England and Rome needed readjustment.
Pusey expresses this view clearly and strongly in a
letter to Newman in 1836. "As far as I know,
most of our old controversy with Rome was carried
on upon wrong (Genevan) principles; it would be a
good thing to have one on the whole subject on
right principles; it would bring out these principles;
people would see that Catholic principles can be
maintained against Popish, and would receive
them the rather because they are on their own
side."i The upshot ofit all was that in 1837 Newman pub
lished his very remarkable work on The Prophetical
Office of the Church viewed relatively to Romanism,
and Popular Protestantism. He had been en
gaged in it for three years; it contained the sub
stance of a correspondence with "a learned French
\ priest ", and of some of the noted lectures delivered
by him in Adam de Brome's chapel in S. Mary's,
Oxford. Its spirit is certainly, as he says,^ not so
gentle towards Rome as Tract 7 1 was, but it seems
to me to show yet more clearly how little hold the
English Church, as a definite system, had upon
Newman's mind. In it he elaborates his famous
1 Life, ii. 4. "Apologia, p. 64.

Second Stage of the Movement. 77
theory of the Via Media ;^ — in fact it was afterwards
republished in the volumes entitled The Via Media.
But what is this Via Media but the religion of all
English Churchmen who had adhered faithfully to
the original intention of the English Reformation?
The deflections from that original intention were
many and frequent, but they were deflections ; and
those who formed the backbone of the Church of
England, her great divines, did not deflect. For a
well-chosen list of them, — which, however, might
then have been multiplied ten-fold, and now a hun
dred-fold, — we have only to turn to Newman's own
Catence Patrum (that is, post-reformation fathers),
from Bilson and Hooker in the sixteenth century to
Van-Mildert and Mant in the nineteenth. And yet
Newman could write in his Introduction: " It may
be said that Protestantism and Popery are real
religions ; no one can doubt about them ; they have
furnished the mould in which nations have been
cast; but the Via Media has never existed except
on paper, it has never been reduced to practice ; it
is known, not positively but negatively, in its differ
ences from the rival creeds, not in its own properties;
and can only be described as a third system, neither
the one nor the other, partly both, cutting between
them, and, as if with a cruel fastidiousness, trifling
with them both, and boasting to be nearer antiquity
than either. What is this but to fancy a road over
^ He had already written two tracts (Nos. 38 and 41), entitled The Via
Media, but these are slight and popular.

78 The Anglican Revival.
mountains and rivers, which has never been cut out?
When we profess our Via Media as very truth of the
Apostles, we seem to be mere antiquarians or ped
ants, amusing ourselves with illusions or learned
subtilties, and unable to grapple with things as
they are. ... It cannot be denied there is force in
these considerations ", — and so forth.
Surely it is not surprising that Mr. J. B. Mozley
(as learned and acute a man as Mr. Newman him
self), after quoting these words, should add: "Mr.
Newman seems to start with a deep, latent incredu-
lousness as to her [the English Church's] very
existence, a primary doubt as to whether she has
anything at all in her, and is made of anything
more than paper. He says, 'Here is an experiment
to be tried ; we have a church that we know nothing
about, and it has to be unfolded and brought out ;
it is a mere experiment'."^
It is a remarkable instance of what the magic
touch of genius can effect, that Mr. Newman's
volume produced a far greater impression than W.
Palmer's Treatise on the Church of Christ, which
appeared in the following year (1838). The works
were singularly characteristic of their respective
authors. In the former there is genius, brilliancy,
an unrivalled beauty of style, but a painful un
certainty and unsettlement, as of one who has not
yet found a sure footing; in the other a little stiffness
iSee The Christian Rememtrancer, No. 51. January, 1846, art. vi., "The
Recent Schism".

Second Stage of the Movement. 79
and formality, a style which never carries one away
with it, but an absolute certainty of conviction, a
sure footing from which one feels instinctively that
it will be impossible to dislodge the writer. It is,
as Dean Church remarks, "an honour to English
theology and learning";^ "a most learned, most
careful composition — one which no Anglican could
write but himself", as Newman generously owns;
but probably for one who reads Palmer, a hun
dred will read Newman. However, Mr. Palmer's
book was received with well-deserved applause by
the Tractarians, and it conduced, perhaps, to bring
the two sections of the movement nearer together
than they had been since the commencement of the
Tracts. Two compositions, however, which belong to the
year 1838, not only widened again the breach be
tween the two sections, but also tended more than
anything that had yet been written to bring the whole
movement into disfavour. One was the appearance
of Tract No. 80, "On Reserve in communicating
Religious Knowledge". The writer, Mr. Isaac
Williams, seemed the last man in the world likely
to cast a fire-brand. Sensitive and retiring almost
to a fault, a lover of peace and quietness, a most
loyal son of the Church of England, and a pupil
of the Fairford school, he might have been expected
to pour oil upon the troubled waters rather than to
disturb them. But he was a man of a singularly
* The Oxford Movement, p. 187.

8o The Anglican Revival.
delicate mind; intellectually, no less than morally,
he shrank from the blatancy and coarseness with
which the highest truths were tossed about even by
good Christians whose minds were of a less delicate
texture than his own. Against this tendency he
wrote his first tract on "Reserve". The term "Re
serve" was, he tells us,^ suggested to him by New
man ; and it must be owned that the suggestion was
not a happy one, hinting, as it did, that there was
something kept in the background, which was, in
fact, one of the chief offences with which the Trac
tarians were charged. "Some", he says, with
characteristic naivete, "were alarmed at the name
more than anything else" ; and we may well believe
that it was so; for, turning to the tract (or rather
volume, for it covers 82 pages) itself, we find that
at least three-fourths of it is devoted to proving up
to the hilt, with a perfect wealth of illustration, the
fact that both in the Old Testament and the New
there was a certain reserve in communicating re
ligious knowledge. It is difficult to see how any
intelligent reader of the Bible could deny the fact,
and what reasonable reply he could make to Mr.
Williams' superabundant proof of it. The sting of
the tract (to the few who got beyond the title) must
have lain in part iii., where the writer applies his
principle to the popular system of the day; and,
most of all, in his strictures on the indiscriminate
and exclusive prominence which was given in it to
'¦Autobiography, p. go.

Second Stage of the Movement. 8i
the doctrine of the Atonement. Here, perhaps, the
Evangelicals had reason to complain that justice
was not done to the teaching of their best men ; but
it really is difficult to see why so violent an outcry
should have been raised against the tract as a whole.
Mr. Williams, however, had all the calm courage
of his spiritual mentor, John Keble ; and, instead
of being silenced by the clamour, he at once set
himself to work to produce another and much longer
tract on the same subject, which appeared as No. 87,
dated The Feast of the Purification, 1840. So far
from retracting anything that he had written, he
calmly declared at the commencement that "after
diligent examination of all that has been said against
his former tract, he is not aware of one single argu
ment adduced that touches the question ; but much
vague declamation, and strong alarms expressed,
because the view interferes with certain peculiar
religious opinions, or on account of some motives
attributed to the writer's friends, or on other similar
grounds, which, in fact (even were they true), in no
way affect him or this principle". Many events,
however, happened before this later tract appeared.
One of the most startling of these events was the
appearance, in 1838, of the first series of Froude's
Remains, edited by Keble and Newman jointly.
It is not surprising that this publication raised a
violent outcry; it gave to the world the off-hand
utterances of a young enthusiast, whose opinions
would probably have toned down with age, but were
(M426) !¦

82 The Anglican Revival.
here expressed with all the recklessness of inexperi
ence, and were only intended, in the first instance,
to be read by sympathetic friends. His views on
the English Reformation and Reformers were suffi
ciently startling: " The present church system is an
incubus upon the country". "The Reformation
was a limb badly set — it must be broken again in
order to be righted." The English Reformers gen
erally were " a set of men with whom he wished to
have less and less to do". Jewell in particular was
"an irreverent dissenter" ; Latimer "a martyr some
thing in the Bulteel line".^ One can conceive the
horror with which such sentiments would be read by
men with whom "our happy establishment in church
and state", "our glorious Reformation", and "our
martyred Reformers", were almost articles of faith!
It has been thought that the editors miscalculated
the effect which the book would produce; but the
theory is not very complimentary to their judgment.
Surely they must have known that the glamour of
Froude's personality would not affect the general,
still less, the hostile reader, — and his name was
legion, — who would greedily seize upon any handle
which could be turned, as Froude could so easily
be, against the movement. Moreover, how does it
agree with the fact that, when they found out their
mistake they nevertheless published in the following
' H. B. Bulteel had been a Low-church clergyman in Oxford, but his
license to preach had been revoked by the Bishop of Oxford, in 1831, and
he severed his connection with the Church of England.

Second Stage of the Movement. 83
year (1839) a second series as outre as the first?
And this they introduced with a preface pointing
out how Froude's sagacity had anticipated all the
improvements that had taken place, and representing
him, not as a disturber of the people, but as a pro
phet indeed. This preface is said to have been
chiefly the work of Keble ; and it is highly charac
teristic of the man, though not of the popular con
ception of him ; for Keble was always for the bold
course. The other editor, Newman, writing to his
friend, F. Rogers, in July, 1837, gives six reasons
why Froude's private letters should be published ;
and to his co-editor he writes at the same time : "We
have often said the movement must be enthusiastic.
Now here is a man fitted above all others to kindle
enthusiasm."^ May it not have been that both
editors put forth the Remains with their eyes per
fectly wide-open as to what the result would be?
That they were not unwilling that the enfant terrible
of the movement should say his say and startle the
public? The public was startled; it took in all
seriousness the audacious dicta of Froude as if they
were stamped with the approval of the whole party,
which it denounced with increased vigour accord
ingly. It is impossible to help connecting with the pub
lication of Froude's Remains the starting of that pro
ject which gave to Oxford one of the most beautiful
of its many beautiful monuments, the "Martyrs'
•¦Letters, Sfc., of J. H. Newman, ii. 237, and 240-1.

84 The Anglican Revival.
Memorial ", opposite Balliol College, on the spot
on which Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer had been
burnt. The greatest offence of Froude was that he
had spoken disparagingly of the English reformers
generally, and of these men in particular. The
project of the Memorial originated in a small meet
ing held towards the close of 1838 at Oriel in the
rooms of Mr. Golightly, who, having begun as a
friend of the movement, had soon become its bit
terest and most persistent foe. Everybody seems to
have connected the Memorial with the Re-mains,
but there was some division of opinion as to the
course which should be pursued. Keble and New
man were from the first opposed to the project, and
so were moderate men like Palmer and Benjamin
Harrison. But Hook and S. Wilberforce were in
favour; and so, strange to say, was Pusey to a
certain extent at first, until he was persuaded
otherwise by Keble and Newman. " My final con
clusion", he writes to Harrison, "about the Monu
ment is that / had rather not have anything to do
with it. Three years ago I printed (Baptism, part
iii.), that the great mercy in our Reformation was
that we had no human founder ; we were not identi
fied with men, or any set of men." Harrison had
written to him a little earlier, "I heard the other
day that it would seem in its first origination to
have been called forth by the publication of Froude's
Remains, and so designed as an antagonistic move
ment". Keble writes to Pusey, "I cannot under-

Second Stage of the Movement. 85
stand how poor Cranmer could be reckoned a
bond fide martyr according to the rules of the Primi
tive Church. Was he not an unwilling sufferer?"
And in the same letter he declares boldly, "I am
not at all prepared to express a public dissent from
Froude in his opinion of the Reformers as a party".^
On the other hand, S. Wilberforce writes to Hook,
regretting that ' ' our good Oxford friends run down
reformers, and will not subscribe to the ' Martyrs'
Memorial' ".2
It was said of the Memorial, " It will be a
good cut against Newman "; ^ but it was not a cut
which made him smart. He was far more pained
by another cut, a much gentler one, which he
received in the earlier part of the same year, 1838.
Of course it was of the very essence of a movement
which originated above all things in the doctrine
of the Apostolical Succession, to have the sanction
of the successors of the apostles — though in its early
days it was singularly unsuccessful in obtaining
that sanction. But Newman was more sensitive
than the other two leaders about the approbation
or disapprobation of individual bishops. His own
diocesan. Bishop Bagot, had been, and still con
tinued to be, a most kind, considerate, and judicious
friend, and had, in fact, incurred much odium for
dealing so gently with him. In the spring of 1838
Bishop Bagot delivered a charge to the clergy of
iSee Life of Dr. Pusey, ii. 64, 67, and 71.
"Life of Bishop S. Wilberforce, i. 132. ^Life of Pusey, ii. (>^.

86 The Anglican Revival.
the Oxford diocese, in which he expressed some
slight disapproval of parts of the Tracts — so slight
that the enemies of the movement were much dis
satisfied. It was quite enough, however, for New
man. He writes at once to Keble — the one friend
on whose advice he always acted in a crisis — "I
am just come away from hearing the bishop's charge,
and certainly I am disappointed in the part in which
he spoke of us. He said he must allude to a remark
able development, both in matters of discipline and
doctrine, in one partof the diocese; he had had many
anonymous letters charging us with Romanism, &c.
I must cease the tracts if the bishop says parts are
dangerous." Keble agreed, and Newman wrote to
Bowden, "The bishop has given us a slap. What
he said was very slight indeed, but a bishop's
lightest word, ex cathedra, is heavy. The whole
effect was cold towards us. ... I felt it impossible
to continue the Tracts, and wrote to Keble about it.
He, without knowing my opinion, quite took the
same view, stating it very strongly."^ Pusey took
a different view, but when it was a question between
Keble and Pusey, Newman always followed Keble ;
and he turned upon his friend Pusey with some
thing of his old fierceness, " I do not think you
enter into my situation, nor can anyone. I have for
several years been working against all sorts of
opposition, and with hardly a friendly voice. Con
sider how few persons have said a word in favour
' Letters and Correspondence of J. H. Newman, ii. 257 and 260.

Second Stage of the Movement. 87
of me. Do you think the thought never comes
across me that I am putting myself out of my place?
What warrant have I for putting myself so forward
against the world? Am I a bishop or professor, or
in any station which gives me a right to speak? "^
So he wrote to the Archdeacon of Oxford, using the
same words as he used to Bowden, and offered to
submit the Tracts entirely to the bishop's disposal.
He also wrote to the bishop himself, offering to
withdraw any of the Tracts over which he had con
trol, if he were informed which were those to which
his lordship had objections, and declaring that he
should feel a more lively pleasure in knowing that he
was submitting to the bishop's expressed judgment,
than he could have even in the widest circulation of
the volumes in question. The bishop, however, did
not desire that any measures should be taken, and
the matter dropped.
In spite — partly, perhaps, in consequence — of the
bitter hostility which it had evoked, the movement
had spread most rapidly and widely, and its prin
ciples had sunk most deeply into the hearts of many
churchmen by the close of 1838. Mr. Palmer ex
presses indignantly, but not unjustly, the character
of a great part of the opposition against it. "Party
feeling has led to every species of unfairness. Exag
geration of facts has almost universally prevailed;
motives have been unjustly imputed ; character has
been traduced."^ This kind of tactics is sure in the
^Life of Dr. Pusey, ii. 58. "Narrative of Events, Sfc, p. 197.

88 The Anglican Revival.
long run to defeat its own end. Up to this time
the friends of the movement had manifestly the
Prayer-Book on their side, and the Fathers at their
back. Churchmen, at any rate, though they might
condemn Keble, Newman, and Pusey, would think
twice before they condemned the early Fathers and
the great English divines ofthe seventeenth century;
and, if they could divest themselves of prejudice —
a large "if" — must have seen on which side these
indisputable authorities were. The ' ' Catence Pa
trum" and the "Library of the Fathers" were
overwhelmingly powerful allies of the movement.
And hitherto, the differences between its friends
had been mainly differences about the means by
which the end was to be attained, not about the end
itself. But now came a change in this vital point.
In the year 1839 the movement enters upon a new
and very alarming phase, which will form the sub
ject of the next chapter.

Chapter IV.
Third Stage of the Movement (1839-1845).
The eventful year 1839 opened with bright pro
spects for the movement. The leaders had, as we
have seen, wisely acted on the principle of making
no direct reply to the attacks which had been made
upon them from all quarters ; they had simply en-

Third Stage of the Movement. 89
forced what they believed to be the truth, and left it
to make its own way.
But the time had now arrived when they were
forced to vindicate their conduct and their principles.
They had professed the utmost readiness to comply
vfith the wishes of the bishops, as successors of the
Apostles; and when his diocesan. Bishop Bagot,
requested Dr. Pusey to make some form of declara
tion which would clearly show his loyalty to the
English Church, Pusey at once complied, and wrote
his famous Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, in which
he cleared Tractarianism, as it then was, from any
leaning towards Rome, and vindicated the Via
Media as the faith of the Primitive Church "after
whose model our own was formed". This was a
task which Pusey was far better qualified to perform
than either Keble or Newman : he was not only the
most learned of the three, but also the one who was
most in touch with other schools of thought. The
"Letter" was an admirable one, and was accepted
by the Tractarians, as a body, as expressing their
views. It was published on S. Matthias' Day (Feb
ruary 24) 1839 — the date is important in the light
of future events now to be recorded.
"In the spring of 1839", writes Newman,^ "my
position in the Anglican Church was at its height.
I had supreme confidence in my controversial status,
and I had a great and still growing success in re
commending it to others." But in April, 1839, he
'^ Apologia pro Vitd Sud, ch. iii. p. 93.

go The Anglican Revival.
published in the British Critic his marvellously able
article " On the State of Religious Parties" — " the
last words which I ever spoke as an Anglican to
Anglicans", "my parting address and valediction
to my friends, though I little knew it at the time".^
What brought about the startling change?
It was not quite so startling as it seemed. In
spite of his success in exercising unbounded influ
ence over others, we have his own word for it
that he was not, and never had been, quite settled
himself. In tracing his mental history up to 1841,
he writes: " And first, I will say, whatever comes of
saying it, for I leave inferences to others, that for
years I must have had something of an habitual
notion, though it was latent, and had never led me
to distrust my own convictions, that my mind had
not found its ultimate rest, and that in some sense
or other I was on a journey".^ The stages of this
jovirney he describes with painful vividness.
In June, 1839, he began to study the history of the
Monophysites, and the conviction flashed upon him
that his church of the Via Media was in the position
of the Oriental communion, while Rome was where
she now is. If the Monophysites were heretics,
were not the Anglicans so too? In the autumn of
1839 he read an article in the August number of the
Dublin Review on "The Anglican Claim" by Dr.
Wiseman, in which a parallel was drawn between
the Donatists and the Anglicans. It did not con-
'¦ Apologia pro Vitd Sud, ch. iii., p. 94. "Id., p. 119.

Third Stage of the Movement. 91
vince him at the time, but a friend pointed out to
him the words of S. Augustine, quoted in the
Review, " Securus judicat orbis terrarum", a dictum
which corresponded closely with a dictum of Aris
totle, with which as an Oxford man he must have
been familiar: "What all men say, that we say".
The dictum applied to the Donatists ; did it not also
apply to the Anglicans? If it did, the argument
from antiquity was gone, the theory of the Via
Media was absolutely pulverized. Then, as will
shortly appear, he wrote Tract 90, and the outcry
which it raised showed him that he could not be
allowed to hold the articles in a Catholic sense, and
this alienated him still more from the Anglican
Church. This was in the spring of 1841 ; in the
summer of the same year he determined to put aside
controversy, and devoted himself to his translation
of S. Athanasius. But this, of course, drew his
attention to the Arians, with whom S. Athanasius
waged war, and he found the same phenomenon
which had so startled him in the history of the
Monophysites. The pure Arians, he thought, cor
responded to the Protestants, the Semi-Arians to
the Anglicans, and again Rome now was what it
was then.
Contemporary as well as past history contributed
to his unsettlement. The scheme of the Jerusalem
Bishopric, for which, however, the church as a
body can hardly be regarded as responsible, seemed
to him a recognition of heresy, allowing, as it did,

92 The Anglican Revival.
heretics to put themselves under an Anglican bishop
without any renunciation of their errors. He sent a
solemn protest against the project to the Archbishop
of Canterbury (November ii, 1841); but the project
was carried out, and this was "the last blow that
broke him ". Henceforth it was merely a question of
time when he would leave the church of his fathers.
In 1839 another actor comes upon the scene who
was a very prominent figure in the movement for
the next six years. "The only real news", writes
Newman to his friend Bowden in May, 1839, "is
the accession of Ward of Balliol to good principles.
He is a very important accession."^ But if by
"good principles" are meant the principles of the
early Tractarians, Mr. Ward was no accession at
all, as Newman himself afterwards discovered.
"Your father", he told Mr. Wilfrid Ward, the son
and most interesting biographer of W. G. Ward,
"was never a High Churchman." And Mr. Wil
frid Ward himself writes : "He had no distinctive
affection for the Anglican Church. He disliked it
in the present, and he knew nothing of its past.
The study of primitive times was uncongenial to his
unhistoric mind."^ The chief religious influence
which had affected him was that of Dr. Arnold, as
interpreted by A. P. Stanley. But he was now
attracted to the Tractarians, first by Froude's Re-
m,ains (the chief attraction of which was probably
^ Letters and Correspondence of J. H, Newman, ii. 282.
" William George Ward and the Oxford Movement, p. 136 and 141.

Third Stage of the Movement. 93
Froude's dislike of the Reformers and dissatisfaction
with the church as it was), and then by the irresist
ible fascination of Newman, to whom he attached
himself, as so many did, with enthusiastic devotion.
" My creed", he said to his friend, James Lonsdale,
" is very short. Credo in Newmannum".^
With W. G. Ward is generally coupled his friend
and brother-fellow of Balliol, Frederick Oakeley, an
able man and elegant writer who had been trained
in Evangelicalism. These two became the most
prominent and influential members of the distinc
tively Romanizing section of the movement, which
was gradually gaining strength, and was influ
encing Newman rather than being influenced by
him. It is no wonder that the loyal friends of the Eng
lish Church viewed with dismay the advance of this
section, which was putting the most effective of all
weapons into their enemies' hands. No one was
more alarmed at the Romeward tendency than
Pusey; and though there was no semblance of a
division personally between the two great leaders
resident at Oxford, each became unconsciously a
centre round which a section rallied. "A certain
party in this place [Oxford]", wrote Mr. Ward to
Mr. Golightly in 1841 (and he might have written
it earlier), " might now be considered to be divided
into disciples of Mr. Newman and disciples of Mr.
Pusey, — the latter opposed, the former no longer
'¦ Apologia pro Vitd Sud, ch. iii., p. 33.

94 The Anglican Revival.
opposed, to Rome."^ But this requires modification.
Just as Wilkes was not a Wilkite, so Newman was
not a Newmanite. He wished to be quiet and
think the momentous question out for himself; but
his so-called disciples would not allow him ; he was
being pushed on by others, rather than pushing
others on. Besides the decided Romanizers, there
were others who joined the movement as a new
thing, and looked down, as from an eminence, on
cautious, old-fashioned churchmen. A wise and
judicious letter of Dr. Pusey, written in 1839 to one
of those gentlemen, will illustrate what is meant:
"Allow me one word of advice to yourself, which is.
Do not think that you have possession of any new
thing. What you have which is true has been
taught quietly and unostentatiously by many in all
times before you ; it is in the Catechism and Liturgy;
it has only been brought out into open day, and
seems new to those who had forgotten it."*^
It was in order to steady down these reckless
and ardent spirits that Isaac Williams started the
project of putting forth a series of Plain Serrnxms by
Writers of the Tracts for the Times. " I saw", he
tells us, "among ourselves greater dangers than
those from without, which I attempted to obviate by
publishing the Plain Sermons."^ He enlisted among
his contributors John and Thomas Keble, Pusey,
1 " Correspondence illustrative of the actual state of Oxford, 1842"—
quoted in Pusey's Life, ii. 229.
"Life of Pusey, ii. T44. "Autobiography, p. 96.

Third Stage of the Movement. 95
Copeland, and Newman himself; and perhaps there
would be no one more ready to help in the work
than Newman, for no one suffered from the danger
more than he. Rash, impulsive persons called
themselves his disciples, and embarrassed him by
going farther than he was at all prepared to go
himself; and he was not at all sorry to have the
opportunity of checking these ardent spirits, which
he did by contributing a whole volume to the series.
The first series appeared in January, 1839, and
other series followed. The effect of the publication
was, in Mr. Williams' opinion, "at the time very
quieting". But it did not permanently check the
advance of a party which was not nearly so strong
as it was thought to be, and thought itself to be,
but was still strong enough and noisy enough to be
very embarrassing. Newman began to be almost
in despair about his position at Oxford, and con
sulted Keble, his never-failing resource, as to the
advisability of his resigning S. Mary's, giving three
reasons for such a course: (i) because he was not
influencing his own proper parishioners; (2) because
he was exercising an influence on undergraduates
to which he was not called ; (3) because of the ten
dency of his opinions to create Roman sympathies.
"The third", he writes to his friend Rogers (No
vember, 1840), with a touching humility which
would seem almost ludicrous and unnatural to those
who did not know the relationship which subsisted
between Newman and Keble, "was the only ground

96 The Anglican Revival.
he thought much of, and he gave me full leave to
resign if I could do it without creating scandal. At
the same time he said he wished me to remain, and
did not think it a reason necessitating resignation.
Upon this I felt I ought to remain, because what I
wanted to get from him was leave to do so."^
Thus matters went on through 1840, the move
ment still gaining ground rapidly on all sides, and
embarrassed rather than checked in its progress by
the un-English party within the fold. But in the
early part of 1841 came "the beginning of the
end" of the '^^ Oxford Movement", properly so-
called. The first symptom was the appearance of
John Keble's famous Tract 89, " On the Mysticism
Attributed to the Early Fathers of the Church".
Like No. 80, the substance of it had been the sub
ject of more than one paper read at meetings of the
Theological Society in Pusey's house. Like No.
80 also, its title probably helped largely to cause
the offence which it created; for to English ears in
the first half of the nineteenth century "mysticism"^
^ Letters and Correspondence of J. H. Newman, ii, 314, &c.
2 "Mysticism" is, like "Methodism", a term given by enemies, not by
friends. The so-called "mystic writers" rarely describe themselves as
such; and they are called by their admirers not "mystical", but "spiritual"
writers. I do not think that Keble was ever, properly speaking, a mystic,
nor were any of the leaders of the Anglican movement. It therefore hardly
comes within the province of this work to dwell upon the subject. In my
opinion, the best description of mysticism (to define it is impossible) is that
its aim is Omnia videre in Deo — Deum videre in omnibus. Perhaps I
may be allowed to refer the reader who desires to know my views on the
matter to chapters x. xi. and xii. in William Law, Nonjuror and Mystic,
pp. 140-220, which at any rate give them fully enough.

Third Stage of the Movement. 97
was as ugly a word as " reserve ", especially when
used by a leader of a party which was charged with
concealing what it really meant Having first ad
mitted that they were "reserving", or keeping
back some of the whole counsel of God, they now
frankly justified the "mystification" of their readers.
As a matter of fact, Keble did nothing of the kind ;
he explained and justified the (so-called) mystical
interpretation (i) of Holy Scripture, (2) of Nature.
"The invisible things of Him from the creation of
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made ", was virtually the text of the
later and more important part of his treatise — for a
treatise it was, not a tract. It is, in fact, an amplifi
cation of, and comment on the hymn for Septua
gesima Sunday in The Christian Year, against
which no exception had ever been taken. But
Dean Church calls it an "inopportune" tract ;'^ and
the epithet is singularly appropriate in its literal
sense, for at that day it was not likely to be attrac
tive to either friend or foe. The time was not ripe
for such refined and subtle, though perfectly inno
cuous speculations. " It is", says Mr. Lock, most
truly,^ "a poet's protest against a prosaic age,
pleading for the beauty and fulness of life." But
a prosaic age does not like being protested against,
and refused to listen to the pleading. The tract
produced no immediate effect in the direction which
1 The Oxford Movement, ch. xiii. p. 229.
" Lock's John Keble, p. 101.
IM426) ^

gS The Anglican Revival.
its writer desired, and only succeeded in swelling
the outcry, already sufficiently loud, against the
party from which it emanated. Also, like his disciple,
Isaac Williams, Keble did not hesitate to express
pretty plainly his low opinion of the popular reli
gion of the period; and the period did not relish
such plain speaking. If Keble's object had been
to please the popular taste (which it was not, and
never was), he might have taken warning by the
fate of another whom he much admired — William
Law, who lost all his popularity when he became "a
mystic writer". And once more, a time of bitter
controversy was not a time in which mysticism
could ever find favour. Again to quote Mr. Lock:
" It would have been difficult for these views to win
ready acceptance at any time, most of all in Oxford
in the beginning of 1841. A nightingale might as
soon have expected to be listened to on a field of
battle."! But the alarm caused by No. 89 paled into in
significance before that which arose on the appear
ance of its successor. Tract No. 90, " Remarks
on certain Passages in the Thirty-nine Articles",
is dated "The Conversion of S. Paul, 1841",
and was published on February 27. The writer
was Newman, and there is no reason to doubt
his perfect good faith when he declares that
he wrote it for the purpose of keeping waverers
within the fold of the English Church. His aim
> Lock's John Keble, ch. iv. p. 102,

Third Stage of the Movement. 99
was to show that the Articles, though "the product
of an un-Catholic age", were "patient ofa Catholic
interpretation ". He certainly did not advocate, as
he has been charged with doing, their acceptance
in a non-natural sense. He would take them in
their plain, grammatical sense, but not necessarily
in the sense of their writers, still less in the sense
which the later decrees of the Council of Trent
might suggest. "The main thesis", he says, "of
my essay was this: The Articles do not oppose
Catholic teaching ; they but partially oppose Roman
dogma ; they for the most part oppose the dominant
errors of Rome. And the problem was to draw the
line as to what they allowed and what they con
demned. "^ He works out his case with great
ingenuity and not a little special pleading; but
many of his positions which were at the time fiercely
assailed — notably his historical view of the Articles
as " Articles of Peace " — are now generally adopted
by competent theologians. Like all his writings
since 1837, the Tract leaves an uncomfortable im
pression that the writer was dissatisfied with his
own position. Thus, it was not reassuring to be
told to go on teaching, "if only with the stammer
ing lips of ambiguous formularies and inconsistent
precedents and principles partially developed".
But nothing like evasion or moral dishonesty can
be fairly predicated of it. Some years before, he
had maintained that a certain latitude must be given
^ Apologia, p. 79.

IOO The Anglican Revival.
to the interpretation of the formularies of the church ;
otherwise they would press at least as heavily upon
Liberals and Evangelicals as upon High Church
men. "Two can play at that", he would say, when
the latter were accused of acting inconsistently with
those formularies. But in this case he would not
have admitted that he claimed any latitude. He
maintained that his views were perfectly consistent
with the plain, literal meaning of the Articles, though
not with the popular gloss upon that meaning.
Whether he was right or wrong is another question ;
all that is maintained is, that he was not shuffling
or disingenuous. But the way in which he was
treated would certainly imply that he was. Four
senior tutors, Mr. Tait of Balliol, Mr. Churton of
Brasenose, Mr. Wilson of S. John's, and Mr.
Griffiths of Wadham (with Mr. Golightly in the
background, probably, urging them on), wrote a
" Letter" to the editor of the Tracts for the Times,
asking for the name of the writer, and asserting
that the Tract suggested and opened a way by which
men might, at least in the case of Roman views,
violate their solemn engagements to the University.
Newman at once admitted that he himself was the
writer, and began to prepare his defence, which
took the form of a "Letter to Dr. Jelf". But mean
while the Heads of Houses took the matter up on
their own account ; and appointed a committee
which drew up a resolution that "modes of inter
pretation, such as are suggested in the said Tract,

Third Stage of the Movement. loi
evading rather than explaining the sense of the
Thirty-nine Articles, and reconciling subscription
to them with the adoption of errors which they are
designed to counteract, defeat the object, and are
inconsistent with the due observance of the statutes
which require subscription to the Articles ". This
document was posted on the buttery-hatches of the
various colleges, for the benefit of undergraduates.
It will be seen that both the four tutors and the
Heads impute not only error, but palpable dis
honesty to the writer of the Tract. But even this
was not all. The mere dates of the rapid sequence
of events show that matters were pushed on with
indecent haste. The Tract was published on Feb
ruary 27, the " Letter of the Four Tutors " was sent
on March 8, the Vice-chancellor laid the Tract be
fore the Board of Heads on March 10, and the
Resolution was passed on March 15, without wait
ing for Newman's defence, which actually appeared
on the very next day, March 16!
Perhaps allowance must be made for the heated
atmosphere of Oxford at the time. But outside the
University not only did Newman's friends rally
round him, but men who had strongly disapproved
of some of his doings were drawn towards him by
the Englishman's love of fairness. Dr. Hook, who
had never identified himself with the movement,
was "indignant at the Hebdomadal Board taking
upon itself to exercise judicial powers which pro
perly belonged to the University at large, and at the

I02 The Anglican Revival.
offensive terms in which its sentencewas expressed"-^
So was Mr. Palmer, who was perhaps still more
actively opposed to Newman on many points. So
was Mr. Perceval. The judicial mind of Sir J. T.
Coleridge revolted against the unjudicial way in
which it had all been done. John Keble, with
characteristic chivalry, wrote at once declaring that
the Tract had been submitted to him before publi
cation, and had met with his warmest approval.
Pusey also wrote in defence of his friend, though
he by no means agreed, as Keble did, with New
man's views on the point; for in this as in other
matters Newman and Keble were much in advance
of Pusey. On the other hand, Ward was much in
advance both of Newman and Keble; but he wrote
two very moderate pamphlets in Newman's defence
entitled, "A Few Words", and "A Few Words
More ".
Men, again, who had any real knowledge of
history perceived at once that Newman had much
to say on his side. This was the case with Palmer,
and also with J. B. Mozley, who was now fast
coming to the front, and who wrote in a private
letter to his sister most pertinently : " A new tract
has come out this last week which is beginning to
make a sensation. It is on the Articles, and shows
that they bear a highly Catholic meaning, and that
many doctrines of which the Romanist are corrup
tions, may be held consistently with them. This
^ See Stephens' Life of Dean Hook (7th ed. in i vol.), p. 317.

Third Stage of the Movement. 103
is no more than what we know as a matter of his
tory, for the Articles were expressly worded to bring
in Roman Catholics. But people are astonished
and confused at the idea now, as if it was quite
new."! But the most astonishing thing of all was
that Dr. Routh, the venerable president of Mag
dalen, who held quite aloof from the movement, or,
indeed, from any movement, emerged from his
obscurity and protested very strongly, ' ' of course
in writing, for he never goes near them himself",^
against the resolution of his brother Heads. His
profound learning showed him at once that they
were wrong. Some whom outsiders would hardly
have suspected as likely to take an interest in such
a matter, entered the lists; Mr. Monckton Milnes,
the poet and society man, but one who took a keen
interest in theology, published a pamphlet entitled
"One Tract More", in defence of Newman, who
gratefully acknowledged his kindness in the Apo
logia;^ and on the other hand, Mr. Robert Lowe,
of all men in the world, attacked the Tract on the
ground of bad faith and immorality.
Great surprise has been expressed that Newman
himself was quite unprepared for the storm which
the Tract created. But may not this be accounted
for by his knowledge of theology? Without having
anything like the deep and wide reading of Routh
and Pusey, he was a well-read man, and may well
'¦Letters of J. B. Mozley, p. 112. " Id , p. 116.
3 Note at the end of Apologia, ch. ii.

I04 The Anglican Revival.
have supposed that a learned university would at
least have recognized the intellectual strength of his
position, however much it might disapprove of his
views. He would, however, probably have taken
little heed of what either the University or the outside
world said ; but an intimation came to him from one
whose lightest word was law to him, his own
diocesan, that the Tracts had better cease. Newman
at once complied with Bishop Bagot's request, and
No. 90 was the last of the Tracts. This was really
all that was done. No. 90 was never withdrawn
from circulation; it was never condemned by the
University as a body ; Newman himself was never
precluded from any office, academical or clerical.
"But", he says, "I saw clearly that my place in
the movement was lost; public confidence was at
an end; my occupation was gone. It was simply
an impossibility that I could say anything hence
forth to good effect, when I had been posted up by
the marshal on the buttery-hatch of every college of
my University, after the manner of discommoned
pastry-cooks, and when in every part of the country
and every class of society, through every organ and
opportunity of opinion, in newspapers, in periodi
cals, at meetings, in pulpits, at dinner-tables, in
coffee-rooms, in railway-carriages, I was denounced
as a traitor who had laid his train and was detected
in the very act of firing it against the time-honoured
Establishment." ^ He was troubled also by the fact
'¦Apologia, p. 89.

Third Stage of the Movement. 105
that some who called themselves his disciples would
go ahead of their leader, or try to force his hand.
And, worst of all, his own mind became more and
more unsettled. He accordingly withdrew himself
by degrees from public notice, and in February,
1842, retired to Littlemore, which was part of the
parish of S. Mary's, retaining his living until Sep
tember 18, 1843.
Meanwhile the enemies of the movement at
Oxford, emboldened by their success, went on
triumphantly in their crusade. In the autumn of
1 84 1 John Keble resigned the Poetry Professorship
which he had held for ten years. One man stood
prominently forward as his natural successor. Isaac
Williams had every qualification for the post but
one. He had been a resident Fellow and Tutor of
Trinity ; he was of unblemished character, and the
last man in the world to make enemies who would
oppose him on personal grounds; he had won his
spurs in the domain of poetry, having already
published The Cathedral, Thoughts in Past Years,
and Hymns translated fromthe Parisian Breviary; in
fact, as a sacred poet he stood second only to Keble;
and in those days, when Oxford was an exclusively
religious university, the epithet "sacred" should
have counted for something. Moreover, he had all
the advantage of the warm support of the outgoing
professor, who had a claim upon the electors, as
having himself held the office with conspicuous
success; "but he was a leper"— he was tainted

io6 The Anglican Revival.
with the scrofula of what now began to be called
" Puseyism ". Worse still, he had been the inti
mate friend and coadjutor of Newman at S. Mary's.
Worst of all, he had been the writer of the most
obnoxious of all the Tracts except No. 90.
The candidate put forth against Mr. Williams
was Mr. Garbett, of Brasenose, an accomplished
man and a first-classman, but one who had never
had the faintest connection with poetry, either as a
poet or a critic. A contest was avoided by a com
parison of votes, which showed that there would be
921 for Mr. Garbett and only 621 for Mr. Williams.
This was the first public defeat of the movement in
the place of its birth. It took place in January,
1842. It was followed in the same year by another
attack upon the party, which was temporarily
successful. Mr. Macmullen, a Fellow of Corpus
Christi College, and a well-known Tractarian, had
by the statutes of his college to take his B.D.
degree in due course if he would retain his place
among the Fellows. Before doing so he had to go
through what were called "the exercises for the
degree " — that is, he had to defend two theses,
which were generally selected by the candidate
himself and approved by the Regius Professor of
Divinity. The professor was Dr. Hampden, who
sent Mr. Macmullen two theses to defend which no
conscientious Tractarian could defend. Mr. Mac
mullen (as we shall see presently) was the last man

Third Stage of the Movement. 107
tamely to submit to such an indignity. The
Gordian knot was cut by the vice-chancellor, who
on his own responsibility stopped the degree, which,
however, after much litigation, Mr. Macmullen at
last succeeded in obtaining. The incident had no
ultimate importance, but it is significant as being
one instance out of many of the dogged determina
tion at all hazards to quash the movement.
But in 1843 its opponents flew at higher game.
On May 24 Dr. Pusey preached a university sermon
on "The Holy Eucharist as a Comfort to the
Penitent ". It will be best to give his own account
of the reason why he chose the subject: "When
people said that I had scared them about post-
baptismal sin " — that is, in Nos. 67, 68, and 69 in
Tracts for the Times — " I was led to preach a course
of sermons on ' Comforts to the Penitent \ Of these
the sermon on the Holy Eucharist was one. It was
a singular case of mistaking what people's feelings
would be. For I chose the Holy Eucharist as the
subject at which they would be less likely to take
offence than at Absolution. But we know what
happened."! What did happen was this. The Margaret Pro
fessor of Divinity, Dr. Faussett, a vehement anti-
Tractarian, requested the vice-chancellor to take
measures for putting in force the statute De con-
cionibus. That statute provided that when a sermon
was "delated" to the vice-chancellor for heresy, he
' See Liddon's Life of Pusey, ii. 307.

io8 The Anglican Revival.
should demand a copy of it, summon six Doctors of
Divinity as his assessors, and if the sermon should
be found to contain heresy, condemn and punish
the preacher. The vice-chancellor. Dr. Wynter,
President of S. John's, accordingly demanded the
sermon, and appointed as his assessors to sit with
him in judgment upon it, Drs. Faussett, Hawkins,
Symons, Jenkyns, Ogilvie, and Jelf. Of these the
first was the very man who had delated the sermon;
but Dr. Wynter justified the choice on the ground
that the Regius Professor (Dr. Hampden) was
disqualified by the disabling statute of 1836,! and
the Margaret Professor acted in his place as a
matter of course ; the second was one who was at
complete variance with his Oriel friends on the
subject of the movement; the third was the leader
ofthe small Evangelical party at Oxford; the fourth,
as Master of Balliol, was being worried out of his
life by that most eccentric of Tractarians, W. G.
Ward, Fellow of Balliol; the fifth had not committed
himself to any side; and the sixth was a rather timid
High Churchman. Before such a tribunal the issue
of the inquiry was of course a foregone conclusion.
But the details of the transaction — what were the
incriminated passages of the sermon — what were
the sentiments if any of the seven divines assembled
in conclave, are profound secrets to this day. The
statute indeed did not require that there should be
any publication of the charges, or any defence on the
' See supra, pp. 72, 73.

Third Stage of the Movement. 109
part of the accused, though it left it open to allow
both. Dr. Pusey in vain requested the vice-chan
cellor to "choose that course allowed by the statute,
which permits the accused to answer for himself ".^
Even the sentence of the vice-chancellor was never
formally announced; but it came out that that sen
tence was that Dr. Pusey was " guilty of preaching
certain things dissonant from, and contrary to the
doctrine of the Church of England ",^ and that he
was suspended from preaching within the Univer
sity for two years.
The whole proceedings were more like those of a
mediaeval Wehmgericht than of an English court
in the nineteenth century, though no doubt they
were all according to the letter of the statute. We
turn in vain to the sermon itself to discover what
were the heretical passages. It might have been
preached by any of the great Caroline divines ; for
there is nothing in it which had not been previously
expressed by them, and which is not amply covered
by the writings of the early Fathers. If it were not
singularly unlike the general character of Pusey,
one might have fancied that there was a cutting
irony in his reply to the vice-chancellor's demand
for the sermon: "I would have sent you the sermon,
but I thought it might save trouble if I were to add
some references in some places to mark that I was
using the language of the Fathers, not my own ".
' Life of Pusey, ii. 317.
' " Quaedam doctrinse Ecclesise Anglicanae dissona et contraria.''

no The Anglican Revival.
But, being what he was, he probably meant just
what he said, viz. that he really wished to save his
judges trouble, and prevent them from falling into
ludicrous errors. " I thought this best," he writes
with characteristic simplicity to a friend, "that they
might not be exposed unconsciously to condemn,
e.g. S. Cyril of Alexandria, when they thought they
were only condemning me."! There is an interest
ing letter of James Mozley — a cool observer — which
shows how it appeared to a contemporary who
probably heard it: "It was one of Pusey's sermons,
and therefore of course contained high doctrinal
views; the audience recognized that fact, went home,
were perfectly at their ease, thought nothing more
about it, — the reverential impression excepted, of
course, which that preacher's discourses always
leave upon the mind; when all on a sudden comes,
like a clap of thunder on the ear, the news that
the Board of Heresy is summoned to sit on Dr.
Pusey".2 But the matter was not allowed to rest. First
came an address to the vice-chancellor signed by
sixty-one resident members of Convocation and
B.C.L.'s, asking him to make known to the Univer
sity the grounds on which sentence on Pusey was
passed; and then one from n®n-residents, including
such names as those of Mr. Gladstone and Sir J.
T. Coleridge, which said more boldly, "We depre
cate that construction of the statute under which
• Life, ii. 311 and 312. " Quoted in Pusey's Life, ii. 309.

Third Stage ofthe Movement. in
Dr. Pusey has been condemned, which, contrary to
the general principles of justice, subjects a person
to penalties without affording him the means of
explanation or defence". Coleridge's judicial mind
was again outraged, as it had been in the case of
No. 90, and he wrote to the vice-chancellor in 1844:
' ' My conduct proceeded and proceeds on the most
undoubting conviction that the course pursued was
not only cruel to him and radically unjust in prin
ciple, but most dangerous to the church ". I. Wil
liams was particularly shocked; "Pusey", he says,
"is the one of all others least inclined to secede to
Rome". As to Dr. Pusey himself, he accepted the sentence
with that meekness which was one of his most
distinguishing characteristics, quietly waiting until
the expiry of the period of his suspension.
To understand how the next — and last — conflict
between the Oxford writers and the Oxford autho
rities arose, we must go back a year or two. In
1 841 Newman gave up the editorship ofthe British
Critic, and his brother-in-law, Thomas Mozley,
undertook it. The writers, freed from the restrain
ing hand of Newman, began to run riot in distinctly
Roman articles, chiefly the product of Mr. Ward
and Mr. Oakeley. Palmer remonstrated on the
subject with Newman, who, he says, "replied under
evident excitement, and in a spirit which was new
to me. He said that he was no longer editor of
the British Critic; that it had passed under different

112 The Anglican Revival.
control; that the heads of the church had thought
fit to condemn him and to destroy his usefulness;
that they had silenced him, and that they would
now have to deal with younger men, whom it was
not in his power to restrain; that they would in
future have to deal with a different class of men.
He finally declared his resolution not to interfere."!
Foiled in this direction. Palmer wrote a pamphlet
on his own account, which gave, as the title ex
presses it, "A Narrative of Events connected with
the publication of the Tracts for the Times, with
reflections on existing tendencies to Romanism,
and on the present duties and prospects of the
members of the church". No one had a better
right to give such an account, for he had been a
prime mover, though the movement took a direction
of which he did not wholly approve. The object
of the Narrative is to show that the later develop
ment, as represented by the British Critic, was
totally contrary to the original intention; and the
point aimed at is proved beyond possibility of doubt.
The pamphlet was read and approved before it was
printed by Dr. Bagot, Bishop of Oxford, to whom
it is dedicated; but the bishop objected to the inser
tion of letters of censure on the Romanizing party,
which the writer had received from "leading church
men" to whom he had shown the manuscript, and
' Narrative, &c., p. 77. Pusey also remonstrated with Newman, and
apparently with -a. little better effect, for he writes, Aug. 9, 1841, " It is a
great rehef to me that you mean to urge Oakeley and Ward to be quiet ".
See Life of Pusey, ii. 218 and 225.

Third Stage of the Movement. 113
which he had inserted in the Preface. The bishop
thought, perhaps rightly, that to print them would
only tend to drive waverers to Rome; but their
omission is a loss, as the testimony given in them
might have emphasized a point which ought never
to be forgotten, viz. that the Roman party was
only a small clique, while the main body of church
men were absolutely loyal to the English Church.
Almost simultaneously with the publication of
the Narrative, that is, in the autumn of 1843, the
British Critic became defunct; so the writers could
not defend themselves in their own organ. But it
was understood that Mr. Ward was preparing an
answer; and this answer appeared in the summer
of 1844, not in the form of a pamphlet like Mr.
Palmer's, but of a bulky volume of 600 pages,
entitled. The Ideal of a Christian Church considered
in Com,parison with Existing Parties. Mr. Palmer
had awaited with some nervousness the appearance
of a work in which he expected at least some
attempt, on the part of a very able man and acute
logician, to defend himself against the charges of
the Narrative; and it is amusing to observe with
what mingled feelings of relief, amazement, and
perhaps a little disappointment, he found that there
was no attempt of the kind. He was an Irishman,
and did not dislike the idea of a combat — especially
a combat for which he felt himself armed at all
points. But Mr. Ward admitted the truth of all
the imputations. There was no combat at all. Mr.
(M426) H

114 The Anglican Revival.
Palmer had nothing more to do; The Ideal of a
Christian Church was quite different from the Eng
lish Church; the Roman approached far more
nearly to it. Mr. Ward was regarded as a disciple
of Mr. Newman; but The Ideal sho'ws that the dis
ciple far outstripped the master. Mr. Newman did
not advocate subscription to the Articles in a non-
natural sense; but Mr. Ward did. "Our nth
Article is as plain as words can make it on the
Evangelical side; of course I think its natural mean
ing may be explained away, for I subscribe it my
self in a non-natural sense" (p. 479). Mr. Newman
had criticised very carefully and temperately the
Lutheran doctrine of justification ; but Mr. Ward
" had the greatest satisfaction in reflecting that he
had ventured to characterize that hateful and fearful
type of Antichrist in terms not wholly inadequate
to its prodigious demerits" (p. 305). And as to Mr.
Palmer, he need not have troubled himself to prove
elaborately that there was a Roman party in the
church. It is admitted without proof. " We find,
oh! most joyful, most wonderful, most unexpected
sight, we find the whole cycle of Roman doctrine
gradually possessing numbers of English Church
men " (p. 565). As to the writer himself: "Three
years", he says, "have passed since I said plainly
that in subscribing the Articles I renounced no
Roman doctrine, yet I retain my fellowship, which I
held on the tenure of subscription, and have received
no ecclesiastical censure in any shape " (p. 567).

Third Stage ofthe Movement. 115
But it was scarcely likely that after such exceed
ingly frank avowals he would escape censure much
longer ; and it is not surprising that, as soon as the
October term began, the Board of Heads appointed
a committee to examine the book, and that in De
cember they announced that they were going to
submit to Convocation three measures. These
measures were: (i) to condemn Mr. Ward's book;
(2) to degrade Mr. Ward by depriving him of all his
University degrees; and (3) whereas the existing
statutes gave the vice-chancellor power of calling
any member of the University at any time to prove
his orthodoxy by subscribing the Articles, to add to
this a declaration, to be henceforth made by the
subscriber, that he took them in the sense in which
they were both first published and were now imposed
by the University, with the penalty of expulsion
against any one, lay or clerical, who thrice refused
subscription with this declaration.!
The last measure was abandoned in consequence
of an outcry being raised against it as imposing a
new test, but another measure was introduced in its
place containing a formal censure of the No. 90 of
four years ago !
On Feb. 13, 1845, in the roughest of weather, the
Convocation met in the Sheldonian Theatre. There
was no speaking except the address of Mr. Ward,
who obtained leave to speak in English. His ' ' de
fence" was merely a reiteration of the principles he
' Dean Church, The Oxford Mcfuement, ch. xviii. p. 326-7.

ii6 The Anglican Revival.
had advocated in the British Critic and The Ideal.
Mr. J. B. Mozley, who was present, declares that
"he said twenty times in the course of his speech,
' I believe all the articles of the Roman Church'".!
Then came the voting. The first measure, for con
demning the book, was carried by 777 against 386 ;
the second, for degrading the writer, by 569 against
511; but when it came to the third measure, for
censuring No. 90, the proctors exercised their privi
lege of veto, and therefore no vote was taken.
Meanwhile the great leader himself, to whom so
many eyes had been turned, was in retirement at
Littlemore — his Torres Vedras — only desirous of
being left alone that he might work out the vital
question between himself and his God. But this
was just what he was not allowed to do. For years
he had been too conspicuous an object of reverence
to friends, and of suspicion to foes, to be allowed to
remain quiet. He was subjected to much impertinent
curiosity of men who wished to find out what he
was doing at Littlemore. " Doing there !" he writes
indignantly; "have I not retreated from you? have
I not given up my position and my place? am I
alone, of Englishmen, not to have the privilege to
go where I will, no questions asked?"^ His position
was completely misunderstood. He was supposed
to have made up his mind, when he had really not
done so. Nay, he was suspected of acting the part
of a traitor to the Church whose ministry he had
1 Letters of J. B. Mozley, p. 164. " Apologia, p. 172.

Third Stage of the Movement. 117
abandoned, though he still remained in lay com
munion, and of luring on others away from her.
But instead of pushing on his friends Romewards,
he was really being pushed on by them, driven into
a corner, forced to answer questions which he would
have much preferred not to have been asked. From
the close of 1841 he had been on his deathbed as
regarded his membership with the Anglican Church,!
but the death-struggle was a very long and linger
ing process.
In the first place, though he was dissatisfied
with England, he was by no means satisfied with
Rome. Was she the true Church? If she had
the note of Catholicity, which England had not,
she had not the note of Antiquity, which England
had. He was in a strait between two: he could
not continue his ministry in the Church of Eng
land, if he was not allowed to hold the Thirty-
nine Articles in a Catholic sense. He could not
join the Church of Rome if, contrary to the practice
of Antiquity, she paid to the creature the worship
due solely to the Creator. Besides, there were
personal ties which detained him where he was.
What would be the effect of his desertion upon the
disciples who hung upon his words? what upon the
Oxford that he knew and loved so well? Might it
not bring in that very Liberalism, the dread of
which had been the first cause of the whole move
ment of which he had been the leader? And then
^ Apologia, beginning of ch. iv.

ii8 The Anglican Revival.
there were closer ties still — those which bound him
to his own family, and his own intimate friends, such
as Keble, Pusey, and Marriott. He was very warm
hearted and had strong family aff'ections ; nothing
can be more heart-rending than his letters addressed
to members of his own family at this crisis of his life.
On the other hand, he felt that he had been
cast off by his own Church ; he had no longer any
place in her; the Bishops, for whose office he had
intense reverence, had charged against him ; Oxford
had virtually condemned him. Not that he was at
all affected by the last futile attempt of the Heads to
revive the odium of No. 90. On the contrary, he
was rather disappointed that the decree did not
pass. It would have simplified matters and smoothed
the way towards that goal which everybody (except
Pusey, who hoped against hope and turned a deaf
ear to Newman himself) saw that he must reach
sooner or later. Writing to Pusey when the excite
ment about Ward's Ideal was at its height, he says :
"The matter now going on has not given me a
moment's pain — nay, or interest".! His whole mind
was engaged in ridding himself of the last intel
lectual obstacle — the others were sentimental, and
would of course give way when the course was
made plain — which prevented him from joining
the Church of Rome ; that is, in writing his Essay
on the Development of Doctrine. It was not a new
subject to him ; he had already preached a famous
' Pusey's Life, ii. 429.

Third Stage of the Movement. 119
sermon in the University pulpit about it in 1843 ; and
now^ he employed the whole of 1845 up to the fatal
October in elaborating the theory which, if sound,
would dispose of the difficulty about antiquity.
"Before I got to the end", he writes {Apologia,
p. 366), " I resolved to be received, and the book
remains in the state in which it was then, unfinished";
and he adds a postscript to the "Advertisement" of
the work: " Since the above was written the author
has joined the Catholic Church". The date of the
"Advertisement" is October 6, and on October 10
he was received into the Roman Church by Father
Dominic, the Passionist.! Some had preceded him,
many followed him, but the other two members of
the great trio were absolutely unmoved. It was
personally a terrible shock both to Keble and Pusey,
especially to Keble ; for, curiously enough, Pusey,
who had been most sanguine about retaining him,
bore the parting best when it actually came. The
three friends met once again at a later day ; but they
were virtually parted for ever in this world, and the
beautiful lines of one who had prepared the way for
their work in the English Church, are applicable to
them in the spirit, if not in the letter: —
" They parted — ne'er to meet again !
But never either found another
ISee R. H. Hutton's Cardinal Newman (Eng. Rei. Leaders' Series),
p. 186. Newman (Apologia, closing part of ch. iv.) tells us that he wrote
on October 8 to his friends that he was expecting Father Dominic that night,
but Mr. Hutton gives good reason for thinking that October lo was the
actual day of his reception.

I20 The Anglican Revival.
To free the hollow heart from paining ;
They stood aloof, the scars remaining,
Like cliffs which had been rent asunder".*
The year 1845 saw the collapse of "the Oxford
Movement" in one sense; that is, Oxford was no
longer the centre from which everything issued and
to which everything turned. But in another sense,
the movement, so far from having suffered collapse,
was spreading and strengthening itself in all direc
tions. So it is not the melancholy history of a
"Decline and Fall ", but the joyous history of a con
tinuous advance which will form the subject of the
ensuing chapters. In fact, the secession of a number
of men who had been manifestly tending towards
Rome for some time, was really a relief and cause
of strength to those who still remained loyal to the
English Church. It was the bursting of the storm
which cleared the air, and left a freer scope for the
development of those principles which were clogged
and hampered by the nominal adherence of those
who never heartily accepted them. The true Church
of England was not a thing to be apologized for,
and made the best of, but a thing to be gloried in,
and to be thankful for; and it was soon found that
all except a small minority, who had been more
Roman than English from the first, accepted it as
such. ' Coleridge's Christabel.

Oxford after Newman's Secession. 121
Chapter V.
Oxford after Newman's Secession.
After the secession of Newman there could be no
doubt who was to be the leader of the movement.
Indeed that matter had been settled long before by
the popular voice. The party had been called
"Puseyites", not " Newmanites ", for some years.
The title may have partly arisen from the fact that
in the early stage Pusey had been the only one who
had given the clue to his identity by attaching his
initials to his Tract on Fasting, and signing with
his full name a letter prefixed to a later Tract. But
there is a sense in which he had been the real chief
even before Newman's secession. It was he who
not only gave the new shape to the Tracts, and
revivified them when they were in extremis in 1835,
but who was also the chief agent in making the whole
work of the movement more solid, substantial, and
learned. After the catastrophe there could be no
question about the matter. Mr. Palmer speaks of
him as ' ' the self-constituted leader of the Tractarian
party",! ^j^^ gQ jjj ^ ^^y. j^g ¦^j^a.s. That is to say, he
at once took the reins into his own hands, and pub
licly announced himself as leader of the scattered
and bewildered forces. But those little understood
the true character of Dr. Pusey, who regarded him
on that account as a Diotrephes, "who loved to have
'Narrative, &c., p. 240.

122 The Anglican Revival.
the pre-eminence". It really was no time for hesi
tation or delay. As on the field of battle, when a
leader falls, the next in command must at once take
his place, so it was in this spiritual battle-field.
And who could possibly take the place of the lost
leader except Pusey?
The only other name that could in any way come
into competition with his was that of John Keble.
And there were several reasons why Keble could
not occupy the vacant post. In the first place, he
was wedded to his distant Hursley, which he had
no intention of leaving; and a working leader of a
great party, who buried himself in a remote country
village, was an impossibility. Again, it is essential
for such a leader to be absolutely confident of his
position ; — this Pusey was, but Keble for a time was
not. He had been far more shaken by Newman's
secession than Pusey had been; he never thought
of following Newman's example, but he did think,
for a time, that it might be necessary for him to
adopt some such attitude as that of the Nonjurors,
who remained the staunchest of staunch Churchmen,
though they could not accept the Revolution settle
ment, and with whom he always had a strong and
hereditary sympathy. The thought was merely a
passing one, but while it lasted it naturally disquali
fied its holder for the post of leader. Once more, the
time required emphatically, not so much a fighter,
as a leader who would bring out the healing, con
ciliatory side of the movement, who had large views,

Oxford after Newman's Secession. 123
and who could thoroughly appreciate all that was
good in other parties. These qualifications Pusey
possessed in a far greater degree than his friend,
who, in spite of his personal humility, was very
combative, and who, when he had once made up his
mind, could never go one inch-breadth out of his
rut. Thomas Mozley, after doing full justice to his
many admirable qualities, tells us " that Keble very
soon lost his temper in discussion", and that "there
really was no getting on with Keble without entire
agreement, that is, submission".! This was when
he was a very young man, flushed with University
success immediately following a home training, and
without the discipline of "give and take" which is
one of the best features of a public school. Years
softened down this characteristic, and grace kept it
in check; but it was still there, and the career of a
country clergyman was not the sort of career to
remove it.
Pusey, perhaps, erred in the other extreme; he
was too apt to yield, when a leader ought to have
been firm ; he was too ready to take everyone at his
own estimate of himself, and was deficient in insight
of character. These defects often brought him into
trouble, especially in connection with men who,
though they still remained in the English Church,
were not loyal English Churchmen. But, on the
whole, his policy of conciliation was a beneficial one.
" I should myself", writes Mr. Palmer, "have often
• Reminiscences, chiefly of Oriel College, i. 220 and 221.

124 The Anglican Revival.
been in favour of a sterner and more direct policy
towards all who shared in semi-Romanizing and
Ritualistic opinions, and whom Pusey conciliated ;
but my own opinions were proved to be faulty by
the result ; for by mild methods the church has been
saved from further disruption, and retains all the
energies which a different mode of proceeding might
have lost."! Lord Selborne, after doing full justice
to Pusey's "admirable personal qualities, his piety,
charity, self-denial, consistency," adds: " I do not
think that, when he led, he was a strong leader; he
abetted and justified things which his natural mo
deration, good sense, if he had possessed Keble's
firmness when his friends were concerned, might
have been expected to disapprove, and for which his
distaste, on occasions, was not concealed. He was
a faithful member of the Church of England to the
end, without any sign at any time of inclination
towards Rome, though he desired peace between all
churches, and with all men."^ This last sentence is
most literally true; but Pusey's guileless trustful
ness sometimes made him think others as loyal to
the church as himself, when they were nothing of
the kind; and hence he was, not unnaturally, re
garded at times as too favourable towards Rome.
Another apparent drawback to Pusey's leadership
was that he had been a recluse since the death of
Mrs. Pusey, in 1839; he was never seen in general
' Narrative (Supplement), p. 241.
" Memorials of Roundell, Earl of Selborne, i. 399.

Oxford after Newman's Secession. 125
society, and was grave and silent even among
friends. But this cut two ways. A religious leader
must not make himself too common, or descend
too readily from his pedestal. "I never", writes
Newman, "had the staidness or dignity necessary
for a leader. " ^ Newman's irresistible charm of man
ner and character carried this off in his own case;
but as a general principle, he is right in thinking
that staidness and dignity are necessary for a leader
of men. There was a great contrast between the
two men in this respect, which was very marked
when they were seen together. "Pusey's pres
ence", writes Mr. Williams, "always checked
Newman's lighter and unrestrained mood; and I
was myself silenced by so awful a person."^
Be all this, however, as it may, Pusey was the
recognized leader of the movement for many years.
' ' He regulated the affairs of the remains of the
Tract party, which were very powerful and numerous
from 1845 to 1882."*
But there had always been a Triumvirate, Who
was to make the third, now that Newman was
gone? A paper was privately circulated by the leaders
among their followers, suggesting subjects for
mutual intercession, such as, the unity and peace
ofthe church, the conversion of sinners, the advance
ment and perseverance of the faithful. This paper
' Apologia, p. 59. " Autobiography of Isaac Williams, p. 70.
' Palmer, Supplement to Narrative, p. 242.

126 The Anglican Revival.
was subscribed with the initials, "J. K., E. B. P.,
and C. M." " C. M." stands for Charies Marriott,
and the subscription intimates that the two remain
ing leaders had tacitly "co-opted" him into their
body. It is noticeable that "J. K." stands before
" E. B. P.", and this was the right order, not only
in point of seniority, but also as indicative of their
future course. The party was to be led by Pusey,
but Pusey himself was greatly under the influence
of Keble, whom he accepted, not only as his spiri
tual father, but as one to whom he might have re
course in all emergencies. But who was this third
member of the Triumvirate?
Charles Marriott (1811-1858) would have seemed
to the superficial observer the last person in the
world fitted to take Newman's place; for, to all
appearance, he was the exact antipodes of the lost
leader. Among the advantages which Newman
possessed were an extraordinarily fascinating per
sonality, a most persuasive eloquence, and a power
of writing English which has rarely if ever been
equalled. In all these points Marriott seemed to
be conspicuously deficient. He was silent, absent-
minded, nervous, and full of personal eccentricities
which could hardly fail to provoke a smile. He was
very far indeed from being a popular preacher, and
he wrote in a plain, homely (though, of course,
scholarly) style, which was not at all likely to be
impressive. Newman was essentially a brilliant
man in every way, Marriott essentially the reverse.

Oxford after Newman's Secession. 127
But all these drawbacks were merely on the sur
face; when we penetrate a little deeper, we see at
once why Marriott was emphatically the right man
in the right place, as third member of the trium
virate. It is to the great credit of the undergraduates
that, next to Newman, no man had had, for a long
time, so much influence over the more thoughtful
and earnest of them as Charles Marriott, in spite of
his manifold and manifest disadvantages. But it is
not surprising. There is nothing that appeals more
to the young mind than genuineness, and Charles
Marriott was thoroughly genuine — genuine in his
learning and scholarship, genuine in his saintliness,
genuine in his heart-felt sympathy with the shy and
the dull, as well as with the forward and the brilliant,
genuine in his unswerving attachment to the church
of his baptism. He was an ardent admirer and
devoted disciple of Newman ; and Newman on his
part fully appreciated his disciple's merits. As early
as 1840 he wrote to Pusey: " If one could do as one
would, I would have Marriott provost [of Oriel] ; he
has a particular art of taking young men, and has
had it from an undergraduate".! ^jj^j again, in
1841, to Dr. Routh, in writing to whom he would
naturally measure his words : ' ' Marriott is a grave,
sober, and deeply-religious person; a great reader
of ecclesiastical antiquity ; and has more influence
with younger men than any one perhaps of his
standing".^ This is strong testimony from one who
' See Life of Pusey, ii. 138. " See Burgon's Lives of Twelve Good Men, i. 345.

128 The Anglican Revival.
had himself to perfection the art of attracting young
men; and it is thoroughly borne out by Dean
Church, who was one of the young men attracted :
"The only out-college man", he writes, "of any
mark, except Moberly, that I knew much of while
I was at Wadham [as an undergraduate], was
Charles Marriott. . . . No man, I suppose, was
more smiled at in Oxford, both for his words and
his silence. But no man that I ever heard of, had
such strange influence, the influence arising from
sheer respect, in turbulent Oxford scenes among the
undergraduates, as in the rows at the Union. No
one was so listened to, as if men believed in his
sincerity and truth of purpose, and entire absence
of indirect motives."! It was an advantage to
Marriott that he belonged to the right college.
Oriel and Trinity had produced the chief originators,
and been the chief centres of the movement, and it
was meet that the new leader should be a Fellow of
Oriel. On Newman's defection Marriott at once
loyally transferred his allegiance to Pusey, though
no one could be to him quite what Newman had
been. Another Oxford resident, who now begins to take
a very prominent part in the movement, was Mr. J.
B. Mozley, one of a very clever family. Jam,es Bow
ling Mozley (1813-1878) was one of those who had
fallen deeply under the influence of Newman; but
he never dreamed of following him to Rome. It
' See Dean Church's Life and Letters, pt. i. p. 13.

Oxford after Newman's Secession. 129
will be remembered that he was one of those graduate
students of theology who were supported by Pusey
before they won their fellowships; and he helped in
editing "The Library of the Fathers". But his was
one of those minds that develop late ; and it was not
until this later stage of the movement that he really
came to the front, when for many years he did
yeoman service to it by his pen.! fjg .^^^g g^ .^gj.y.
independent thinker, who had not the slightest
scruple about differing from his party, when he
thought that party wrong. A memorable instance
of this will appear on a later page. The times par
ticularly needed a man of Mr. J. B. Mozley's pecu
liar abilities. We have seen how The British Critic
collapsed in the autumn of 1843. It was succeeded
in 1844 by The Christian Remembrancer, which had
been founded in 1841, and had been well conducted
for the three years under the joint-editorship of
William Scott of Hoxton and Francis Garden. In
1844 it became a Quarterly, and Mr. J. B. Mozley for

'¦ His character and position are summed up with great discrimination by
his old Oriel friend. Lord Blachford (Sir Frederick Rogers): "He was
wholly genuine — in his friendships, his arguments, his measurement of
things, and in his devotion to the Church of England — not an imagination
of his own mind, nor exactly the church as it is ; but a distinct historical
community, having, like his country, its defects and its merits; and in spite
of these defects, capable of greatness and goodness on the basis supplied by
its formularies and great divines. . . . With a lively discrimination of
characters and situations, he had not the flexibility of address, the resource,
the practical energy, or the taste for active movement, which are required
for a leader. His line was thought, and in choosing theology for the object
of that thought, he approached it on its philosophical side." — Review of
Mozley's Essays in The Nineteenth Century, 1879.
( M 426 ) I

130 The Anglican Revival.
a short time took the place of Mr. Garden; but dur
ing the greater part of its career, which ended in 1868,
Mr. Scott, who was a very active and prominent
member of the High Church party until his death
in 1872, was its sole editor. But its success was
greatly due to the good writing of Mr. J. B. Mozley.
Its first number contained his brilliant article on
Dr. Arnold, — though an old Rugbeian must venture
to protest against the one-sidedness of the sketch
which he drew. Many of his other essays, which
have now become classical, first appeared in the
pages of The Christian Rem.em,brancer.
Mr. Mozley also helped largely in starting and
writing up a longer-lived and still more effective
periodical, The Guardian, which was planned by a
few friends in 1844-5, and launched into the world
on January 21, 1846. It sounds strange now to
hear that The Guardian at first seemed likely to
prove a failure, — in fact, that it narrowly escaped
death half a year after its birth. " The fate of The
Gtiardian ", writes Mozley to his very clever sister
Anne, in July, 1846, "is, I fear, sealed. The cir
culation keeps obstinately stationary."! The remon
strances of Christopher Wordsworth (afterwards
Bishop of Lincoln) and others saved its life for a
time. "The Guardian," writes Mozley again, "it
has been resolved, is to go on to complete its year
of trial, but not till after much consultation and
doubt." ^ Happily the crisis was tided over, and
'Letters, &c., p. 178. "Letters, &c., p. 179.

Oxford after Newman's Secession. 131
The Guardian remains to this day not only an
organ of which the party that it represents may
well be proud, but a paper of wide and general
interest. With The Christian Remembrancer for a Quarterly
and The Guardian for a Weekly, the High Church
party was far more strongly represented in the press
than it had ever been in the days of the Tracts.
And it should be particularly noted that, so far as
can be now ascertained, the chief writers in both —
certainly in The Guardian — were Oxford men, and
for the most part Oxford residents. This hardly
tallies with the theory that after the catastrophe of
1845, Oxford talent deserted the Oxford movement.
Mozley stands first of all ; and Dean Church does
not go one whit beyond the truth when he reckons
him as, "after Mr. Newman, the most forcible and
impressive of the Oxford writers ".!
But there were other Oxford men, resident or
non-resident, who seem to me decidedly superior
as brilliant ^ writers to those of the earlier stage of
the movement — always, of course, excepting New
man, who shines forth "velut inter ignes Luna
Tuinores ".
Take, for instance, the two brothers Haddan.
Thomas Henry Haddan (1814-1873) may be re
garded, so far as that honour can be attributed to
' The Oxford Movement, p. 293.
"\ would lay stress upon the epithet "brilliant", because I would not
contend that any of them were superior in point of sound learning to the
earlier writers in the movement.

132 The Anglican Revival.
any one man, as the originator of The Guardian.
He was a double first - classman, a Fellow of
Exeter, and afterwards Vinerian Fellow. Like
others to be noticed in the same connection, he was
a lawyer, not a clergyman, and, so far as theology
was concerned, he did no work comparable to that
of his younger brother Arthur West Haddan (1816-
1873), another Oxford man, who became a resident
Fellow of Trinity, where he was deeply influenced
by Isaac Williams. For about a year he was New
man's assistant- curate at S. Mary's, and then
succeeded Williams as college tutor of Trinity in
1842, remaining in that post until 1857. He wrote
both for The Christian Remembrancer and The
Guardian from the first; and his contributions, like
those of Mr. Mozley, were peculiarly valuable to
the cause, because the forte of both was ecclesi
astical history ; and on historical grounds the Angli
can position was impregnable. Both could write not
only forcibly but fiercely ; and people soon learnt
to be rather shy about attacking such authorities.
Another founder of The Guardian was a layman
and a lawyer, Mountague Bernard (1820-1882),
an Oxford first-classman and a Vinerian Fellow,
and afterwards Fellow of All Souls, who soon
undertook its higher editorial work, though Mr.
Martin Sharp was ostensible editor as well as the
publisher and admirable manager of its affairs; and
there was yet another lawyer, Frederick Rogers
(1811-1889), a double first-classman and Fellow of

Oxford after Newman's Secession. 133
Oriel, who was not only one of the founders of The
Guardian, but has kindly left us a most interesting
account of the first meetings of the projectors " in
a room opposite the printing-press in Little Pulteney
Street", where, in spite of the discouragement of
the public, they went on "writing articles and re
vising proofs ". And least of all must we forget
to notice among the earliest writers both for The
Christian Rem,em,hrancer and The Guardian, R.
W. Church (1815-1890), another first - classman
and Fellow of Oriel, the very flower of Oxford
culture, who nearly fifty years later immortalized
The Oxford Movem.ent in a work which posterity
will not easily let die. Both Rogers and Church
were intimate friends of Newman, but neither of
them was tempted for a moment to follow him to
Rome. With men such as these for its enthusiastic sup
porters, it was not in the least likely that the move
ment should die away in the place of its birth,
simply because one Oxonian of real genius, and a
few others of more or less brilliancy, deserted it. No !
Even in Oxford, though it ceased to predominate,
it never died. A great change undoubtedly came
over the University after Newman's secession.
Pusey himself had less to do with the movement
at Oxford, and more to do with it in the country at
large. Keble withdrew himself more and more
from any connection with his old University. Isaac
Williams, whose feelings were deeply hurt, as well

134 T'^^ Anglican Revival.
they might be, by the Poetry Professorship pro
ceedings, retired into the country for good. The
able men who have been noticed above affected the
movement mainly by their pens, which would of
course touch the outside world quite as much as
Oxford itself. Our interest, therefore, will be no
more centred at Oxford, but will take a wider range.
It will also be ofa different character. Mr. Palmer
characterizes the movement up to 1845 as "essen
tially an aristocratic movement, addressing itself to
the higher and more educated classes through the
medium of the intellect".! Perhaps "academical"
would have been a happier epithet than "aristo
cratic", which conveys the idea of "the upper ten";
whereas, as a matter of fact, none of the leaders
except Pusey, and few, if any, of the followers
belonged to that select circle. But they did all
belong to the aristocracy of intellect. The very
creme de la creme of Oxford culture had been their
ordinary food, and it affected them for life. They
could not play to the gallery; they recoiled from
anything that was merely showy and superficial;
in the Keble group this delicacy was intensified
by what has been called "the Fairford" or "the
Bisley" influence; but it was conspicuous enough
in them all. They had all the advantages, and
also the disadvantages of being thoroughly imbued
with the habit of mind, or to use their own expres
sion, the r'Sos, which Oxford at its best would natur-
' Narrative, p. 60.

Cambridge and the Movement. 135
ally tend to foster — delicacy of touch, fastidiousness
of criticism, and a want of acquaintance with the
rough Philistinism of the outer world. And when
we turn from the movement at Oxford to the same
movement in that outer world, we feel at once that
we are breathing a different air. The men with
whom we are brought into contact, even the ablest
and best of them, are of a different intellectual
calibre. They are more practical, more effective
perhaps, but far less delicately moulded, far less
interesting as writers and thinkers. But before we
pass on to this new phase, we must remember that
there was another great university besides Oxford ;
and a short chapter, at any rate, may be devoted to
Cambridge.

Chapter VI.
Cambridge and the Movement.
Cambridge was not, like Oxford, almost a virgin
soil for the reception of definite church principles
when the movement began. The ground had
already been occupied by teachers who had pro
duced a very deep religious impression among a
certain class of piously-disposed young men. There
were few if any men at Oxford of the type of
Charles Simeon, William Parish, Isaac Milner,
James Scholefield, Joseph and William Jowett.
These, indeed, all belonged to an earlier generation,

136 The Anglican Revival.
but they had infused a strong Evangelical element
into the University, which did not die out when they
died. What was more or less true of the state of
religion throughout the country was especially true
of Cambridge ; when a man was said to be " serious "
it meant that he was an Evangelical. Even as late
as 1846, when F. J. A. Hort went up as an under
graduate to Trinity, " It was natural", his biographer
tells us, "that he should seek out first the teachers
ofthe Evangelical school, who then represented what
was best in the religious life of the University.
Chief of these was Dr. Carus, for whom he always
retained a great regard." !
And yet, if anywhere, one might have expected
him to find at Trinity religion of a different type,
for the High Church party had had some strong
representatives there. Christopher Wordsworth the
elder was Master from 1820, and held the office for
more than twenty years. He was brother of William
Wordsworth, with whom he was always on terms
of the closest intimacy, and whose religious views
he largely influenced. He had been an intimate
friend of Joshua Watson, H. H. Norris, and the rest
of the Clapton sect, and was an earnest and uncom
promising High Churchman. R. W. Evans, author
of The Rectory of Valehead and The Bishopric of
Souls, had been Fellow and Tutor of the college for
several years from 1814; and though he had now
taken a living, he must, one would have thought,
'Life and Letters of Fenton J. A. Hort, i. 41.

Cambridge and the Movement. 137
have left a High Church impress behind him. W. H.
Mill, the famous Orientalist and quondam Fellow of
Trinity, had returned to Cambridge as Christian
Advocate, and in 1848 became Regius Professor of
Hebrew; and he was always counted as a member
of the same party. Christopher Wordsworth the
younger had been classical lecturer at Trinity not so
many years before, and was even then delivering his
famous Hulsean lectures at Cambridge. Charles
Webb Le Bas, who was a voluminous contributor
to the British Critic both before and after Newman
was editor, and also to the British Magazine, and
was, moreover, famous as a university preacher,
had been a Fellow of Trinity. And yet an earnest
undergraduate had to turn to the Evangelicals as
guides in his religious life. The fact is an illustra
tion of what has been frequently intimated in these
pages, viz. that though there was a compact and
able party of excellent High Churchmen, quite
apart from those who belonged to the Oxford move
ment of 1833, yet they had not at all succeeded in
making their influence generally felt; and this, so
far as Cambridge is concerned, is illustrated in
a somewhat diff'erent way by the fact that when
Hugh James Rose was beating about for writers for
the British Magazine in 1831, he was obliged to
have recourse to Oxford, because his own university
furnished few who were available for the purpose.
Nevertheless, it would be a great mistake to sup
pose that Cambridge contributed little or nothing

138 The Anglican Revival.
towards the general church movement. On the
contrary, it did, in one sense, more than Oxford;
or, at any rate, it came to the rescue when Oxford
seemed (though only seemed) to have collapsed.
The lectures of the Lady Margaret professor, J. J.
Blunt, between 1840 and 1845, on the early Fathers,
led men, as another Cambridge professor, Bishop
Kaye, had done before, to the historical view, which
has always been the strong side of the Anglican
party ; and his subsequent lectures on the " Acquire
ments and Principal Obligations and Duties of the
Parish Priest " were an excellent guide to the work
ing of a parish on High Church lines.
Christopher Wordsworth the younger, again,
though he certainly cannot be called a Tractarian,
was as certainly a very important factor in the
Anglican movement. And the splendid reputation
which he had won in his Cambridge career no
doubt tended to commend his church principles in
his own university; but he had really not very
much to do with Cambridge in after-life. It was
at Westminster, and afterwards in the diocese of
Lincoln, that his main influence was exercised.
As to his own personal views, Pusey, Keble, and
Newman do not appear to have affected him at
all, in the way either of attraction or of repulsion.
He simply thought and read out the subject for
himself; and the result Jie arrived at is expressed
in a condensed form in his Theophilus Anglicatius,
which has been, perhaps, the most widely influential

Cambridge and the Movement. 139
of all his many compositions. It appeared in 1843,
just when the alarm excited by the obviously Roman
tendency of a section of the Oxford party was reach
ing its height, and it met a deeply-felt want. No
one could suspect Dr. Wordsworth of any leaning
towards Rome; and he was so notably honest,
guileless, and outspoken that no one could dream
of thinking that he had any other object than that
which appeared on the surface. His little manual
gave the young churchman (it was originally in
tended simply for the writer's pupils at Harrow) a
clear and definite conception, first of the Catholic
Church ; then ofthe Anglican branch of that Church,
and her true position in relation to Rome on the
one side and the various Protestant sects on the
other; and then of her connection with the state
as the national church of England. It is perfectly
packed with information, fortified by well-chosen
quotations from recognized divines, all tending to
the support of English Church principles. But no
one can read it without perceiving that it is abso
lutely independent ofthe Oxford movement; and no
one can study the life and character of the writer
without perceiving that they are ofa totally different
type from that of any of the Oxford leaders who
have been described in these pages.
But there were some Cambridge men who ap
proached much more nearly to the Oxford type than
any who have been yet mentioned. Among these
were the founders ofthe Cambridge Camden Society,

140 The Anglican Revival.
which was one of the first attempts, though not quite
the first, to bring the ritual and doctrinal aspects of
the church movement into harmony. This subject,
however, will be treated of in a future chapter.
Suffice it here to say that in 1839 a few very young
men banded together chiefiy with the view of im
proving church fabrics and church services, which
(with, of course, notable exceptions) had fallen to a
lamentably low ebb. One of the most vigorous and
accomplished of these vfSisJohn Mason Neale (1818 —
1866), who was, perhaps, the most pronounced
"Puseyite" of all the Cantabs. Like Keble, New
man, and Marriott, he never attained to any dignity
whatever in the English Church; but, like them,
he deservedly won a reputation and exercised an
influence far greater than most of the dignitaries of
his time ever achieved. Poet, scholar, divine, his
torian, translator, tract-writer, tale-writer, ecclesio-
logist, journalist, Neale poured forth his varied works
in rapid succession, and caught the ear of many
different sections of society; while as warden of
Sackville College, East Grinstead — a high-sounding
title, which, however, only means that he was head
of what Dr. Littledale frankly calls "an obscure
alms-house",! with a stipend of between ;^20 and
;^30 a year — he rallied around him what may be
regarded as a very advanced guard of the move
ment. He had also the honour of being a confessor
for the cause. From the very outset of his clerical
^See Dr. Littledale' s Memmrof Dr. J. M. Neale.

Cambridge and the Movement. 141
career he was a marked man, as a "Camdenian";
and the Bishop of Winchester (Dr. Sumner) refused
to license him in his diocese. He was afterwards,
on more than one occasion, subjected to mob
violence, and was brought into collision with his
diocesan. Dr. Gilbert, of Chichester, who for a time
inhibited him from officiating in his diocese, though
it is a comfort to know that the two were thoroughly
reconciled before Neale's premature death. Neale,
like his friend John Keble, combined the utmost
gentleness of manner with an iron inflexibility of
will; and he always carried his point. When the
episcopal inhibition was removed in 1863, "So, I
hope," he writes, "ends a battle of more than
sixteen years, I having neither withdrawn a single
word nor altered a single practice (except in a few
instances by way of going further) ". Like the
Oxford Tractarian leaders, Neale was a man of the
highest culture; as a classical scholar he had few
equals; and his well-known hymns, translated and
original, are no less conspicuous for their extreme
refinement than for their poetical merit. But he
was essentially a practical man, and the church has
as much reason to be grateful to him for his prac
tical work as for his writings. !
' His friend Dr. Littledale wrote a most vivid and interesting sketch of his
life; but this seems difiicult of access — at least, it was not without some
difficulty that the present writer found access to it — but a full and accurate
account of his life and writings will be found in St. Margaret's [East Grin
stead] Magazine, from July, 1887, onwards. The most popular of his verse
compositions are his translations of the Hora Novissima, or Rhythm of

142 The Anglican Revival.
Another Cambridge man, who was also a founder
of the Camden Society, its first secretary, and editor
of its organ. The Ecclesiologist, and who, like Neale,
resembled the Oxford Tractarians more than the
Cambridge High Churchmen, was Benjamin Webb
(1820-1885). Mr. Webb made his mark both as a
London clergyman at S. Andrew's, Wells Street,
one of the earliest and most prominent of the
advanced churches, and as editor of the Church
Quarterly Review. William Butler, again, who, as
an efficient and successful priest at Wantage, almost
rivalled Dr. Hook at Leeds, was trained at Cam
bridge, but was more of the Oxford Tractarian than
of the old High Church type ; and so, in a different
way, was that most stanch and munificent lay
churchman, A. J. Beresford Hope, though he was
identified with Cambridge almost all his life.
All these, however, and others who could be men
tioned, bore traces of their Cambridge training, and
were not quite of the Oxford pattern. Perhaps one
difference was that there was not the spell of the
great leaders upon them, for there was no trium
virate at Cambridge like that which directed the
Oxford party. Neither was there any section which
had any directly Roman tendencies. Of course it
is not meant by this that no Cambridge men went
Bernard de Morlaix, Monk of Cluny, from which the well-known hymns,
"Brief life is here our portion", "Jerusalem the golden", and "For thee,
O dear, dear country" are taken; and " Art thou weary, art thou languid?"
"O happy band of pilgrims", and "Fierce was the wild billow", taken
from the Greek.

Cambridge and the Movement. 143
over to Rome, but only that when they did go over
they went as individuals, not as members of a party.
Even Dr. Neale, who held quite as advanced views
as any Oxford man who kept within the pale of the
English Church, never seems to have felt the faintest
inclination to cross the border. The infusion of the
Cambridge element was a distinct advantage to the
movement. The dififerent course of education, the
different surroundings, the very absence of pro
minent leaders, made the Cambridge men look at
the whole question from a rather different point of
view, and produced a "variety" which was not
only "pleasing", but decidedly beneficial to the
cause which all alike had at heart.
But the greatest benefit which the movement
derived from Cambridge was indirect rather than
direct, and arose from quarters which were pro
fessedly antagonistic to it. The religious element,
if not the church element, was, after the trying year
1845, very much stronger at Cambridge than itwas
at Oxford. The leading men there were far more
settled and definite in their Christian convictions
than they were at the sister university. There was
a triumvirate at Cambridge which was as influential
in its way as the Oxford one was. "The Three",
as Drs. Westcott, Lightfoot, and Hort were em
phatically called, did untold good in keeping
young inquirers firm in their Christian, and, in a
sense, church, though not High Church, convictions.
What Dr. Hort said in 1879 applies to earlier years:

144 The Anglican Revival.
" The studies of the place [Cambridge] discourage,
instead of fostering, youthful ' sophistic ' ; the num
ber of leading men who are known to be conscien
tious Christians makes contempt of Christian faith
a trifle ridiculous ; and the way in which churchmen
of all opinions, both graduates and undergraduates,
are accustomed to meet and work together, not only
keeps party-spirit in check, but gives power to the
life of the whole body. In this and other respects
we have no sharply-defined camps, and consequently
no need of prematurely closing the mind against
growth in knowledge and experience."!
All this is undoubtedly true ; but it told in another
way. Men left Cambridge with their faith unshaken,
nay, more firmly established than when they en
tered. But then, when they went into the outer
world, and especially if they went as clergymen,
they were apt to join one or other of the "sharply-
defined camps ", and by far the most attractive has
been that of the movement.
In another way Cambridge, indirectly but very
really, has contributed more than its quota to the
success of the Anglican movement. After the stormy
events of the forties there was a tendency at Oxford
to let theology alone, and to devote attention to more
peaceful studies. But Cambridge had not been in
the thick of the combat, and it suffered from no such
reaction. The consequence was that for the twenty
years after the secession of Newman sacred literature
1 Life and Letters of Fenton J. A. Hort, ii. 277.

Cambridge and the Movement. 145
in all its departments was enriched far more by
Cambridge than by Oxford. Now it is of immense
importance to the Church of England (and therefore
to the movement which is being sketched), that she
should keep up her traditions as a learned church ;
and after those years of storm and stress, it must be
confessed that the credit of doing so rested mainly
with Cambridge. It would be invidious to select
names, but let any elderly man call to mind what
were the new books on divinity which were most
popular, and most helpful to him in his youth, and
he will probably find that the great majority of them
were written by Cambridge men.
An university training had more to do with the
life and mind of the church fifty years ago than it
has now. For though the laity are an essential part
of the church, it is obvious that her character at any
particular time must depend largely upon the char
acter of her clergy. And the clergy were more
closely connected with the universities then than
they are now ; for not only was there a larger pro
portion of university men among their ranks, but
the college system impressed itself more deeply upon
the future clergy than it does now, when very many
live outside the college walls, and when college
offices are to a great extent filled by laymen. Hence
it has been thought desirable to dwell very fully
upon the parts which the universities played in the
movement. But we may now leave the cloister and
see how that movement affected the world outside.
(M426'> K

146 The Anglican Revival.
Chapter VII.
The Movement in the Outer W^orld. — Dean Hook
and Bishop Wilberforce.
"Universities", said Newman, "are the natural
centresof intellectual movements"; but if those move
ments have any vital force in them, they extend
their influence far and wide, whether the centre
remains the same or not. This certainly was the
case with the movement before us. Oxford had set
the ball a-rolling ; Cambridge contributed its share
to the impetus ; but it is now to the country at large
that we must look in order to estimate its effects.
It will still be convenient to connect what went on
with individual names; and two men stand pro
minently forward as having, more than any others,
stamped the impress of the revival upon the parish
and upon the diocese respectively.
Although it was the tract-writers who gave the
first impulse to the church movement of 1833, it
by no means follows that the chief agents in carry
ing its principles into effect should have identified
themselves with the so-called Tractarians; and, as
a matter of fact, the two men in question never did
so; indeed, they were not seldom brought into
somewhat violent collision with "Tractarianism".
This, of course, could not have been the case, had
the Anglican movement been introducing some new
system of doctrine; but that was just what its origi-

Dean Hook. 147
nators vehemently denied that they were doing.
They desired simply "to stand upon the old ways";!
they appealed to primitive antiquity, and were quite
content to abide by that test. It was not on prin
ciples, but at most on the application of principles,
and, as a rule, only on non-essential details, that the
diff'erent agents differed. Hence, when men declared
that they never were Tractarians, that they disap
proved of the action of the Tractarians, this did not
necessarily mean they were thereby disqualified from
taking a leading part in the movement which the
tract-writers started. It certainly did not mean so
in the case of the two men who are the fittest repre
sentatives of church work on Anglican lines in the
parish and the diocese respectively — Dean Hook
and Bishop Wilberforce. For several reasons it
will be well to begin first with the smaller area and
the lesser dignitary.
Walter Farquhar Hook (1798-1875), the son ofa
country clergyman who afterwards became Dean of
Worcester, went up in 1817 from Winchester to
Oxford, where he was nominated by the Prince
Regent, through the influence of his grandfather.
Sir Walter Farquhar, to a studentship at Christ
Church. Pusey, as we have seen, matriculated as
a commoner at Christ Church in 1819. The two
were therefore undergraduates together, but Hook
was the senior by nearly two years, and was a stu
dent while Pusey was only a commoner. Those
' "Stare super antiquas vias."

148 The Anglican Revival.
who know the inner life of young Oxford, at least
in the first half of the present century, will see in
these differences quite enough to account for a cer
tain air of seniority and superiority in Hook's early
letters to Pusey, very different from the general
tone of the letters addressed to that somewhat awe-
inspiring personage. In those early days Pusey's
views were not settled, and there was of course
not that halo of sanctity about him with which he
was afterwards invested. When Hook took his
B.A. degree in 1821, and Pusey in 1822, the two
friends entered upon very different lines of life,
Pusey remaining at Oxford, and Hook commencing
parish work at once. For seven years Hook was
engaged in country cures, where, although he was
a most diligent and successful parish priest, he
naturally found abundance of leisure for regular and
systematic theological study. He took full advan
tage of the opportunity, and formed his views, from
which he never diverged, very early. This is shown
by the fact that in 1822, when he was still only a
deacon, and when Pusey was hardly yet freed from
the throes of the schools, he preached a sermon at
the Bishop of Winchester's visitation at Newport
on " The peculiar character of the Church of Eng
land independently of its connection with the State",
in which he advocated the very same views which
were insisted upon so strongly by the tract-writers
eleven years later. In fact, he was firmly established
in his theological position, which was, in the main.

Dean Hook. 149
the same as that of the early Tractarians, long before,
and quite independently of, the Oxford movement ;
and when all the prime movers except Keble were
either yet in a state of flux or belonged to quite a
different school of thought. Moreover, he formed
his convictions entirely through his own reading
and thought; he certainly owed nothing in this
respect either to his home or his school or his
university training. The only human being to
whom he appears to have been really indebted was
Bishop Jebb, to whom he frequently refers at various
times in such terms as these: "You know my system
as I learnt it from Bishop Jebb" (1837); "My dear
Gamaliel, Bishop Jebb" (1840); "My dear spiritual
father. Bishop Jebb" (1849).!
In 1828 an opportunity was given him of showing
how his principles worked on a larger scale than
that of a country village, and nobly did he avail
himself of it. He was appointed to the living of
Holy Trinity, Coventry, and soon made his mark
in that large parish. It is difficult to realize the
extent of his work there, because it embraced the
introduction of improvements which are now quite
ordinary parts of parochial machinery, but which
were then new, and could not be carried out without
a struggle. Evening services, frequent celebrations
of the holy communion, sermons on saints' days,
lectures in Lent, classes for instruction, and so forth,
1 See Dean Hook, His Life and Letters, by Stephens, 7th ed., in i vol.,
pp. 240, 306, 433.

150 The Anglican Revival.
seem matters of course now, but they were innova
tions then, and had to be fought for by the new
vicar. It was during his Coventry period that the
Oxford movement began; and Newman writes to
him in 1834 i" language which is not more generous
than true: "Your being obliged to retire from paro
chial duty would be a calamity we ought to try to
prevent, as we have no specimen (so far as I know)
but that which you supply of the infiuential nature
of true church principles on a town population ".!
He carried his points by a happy blending of
geniality and dogged perseverance; being absolutely
sure of his position he would not diverge a hair's-
breadth from it. The result was, in his own lan
guage, " As I will not go over to others, others
come over to me".
In 1837 still larger scope for his energies was
given him, for in that year he was elected by the
trustees to the vicarage of Leeds, one of the other
candidates being none other than Samuel Wilber
force. The election was vehemently opposed both
by the Low Church party at Leeds, and by The
Record and the Christian Observer, for Hook was
known, not only as a stanch High Churchman,
but as a personal friend of the obnoxious tract-
writers. He made no secret of this friendship —
indeed, it was not in his nature to make a secret of
anything. " 'He is known to be a friend of Pusey,
Keble, and Newman'," he writes, quoting indig-
'¦ Quoted in Life of Hook, p. irs.

Dean Hook. 151
nantly an objection that had been raised against
him; "and what higher honour can a man have on
this earth?"! g^^ Yorkshire men of business, and
above all Yorkshire working-men, were not the sort
of class to be prejudiced against a man by objec
tions of this kind. He was perfectly straightforward
with them, full of bonhomie, ready to take as well
as to deal a shrewd blow without losing his temper.
He showed his hand at once: "You see before
you", he said in his first sermon at Leeds, "a firm,
determined, consistent, uncompromising, devoted,
but I hope not uncharitable son, servant, and
minister of the honoured Church of England";^ and
this he proved himself all through his remarkable
career at Leeds. Within a few months of his arrival
enthusiastic admiration took the place of violent
opposition, and Leeds soon became a stronghold
of the church. But the work at Leeds under Dr.
Hook was a natural growth, not an artificial pro
duct; it did not depend upon the vicar's com
manding personality, and then collapse when that
personality was removed. There is a sense in
which his characteristic description of the relation
between Leeds and himself — " I did not manage
the parish, the parish managed me " — is perfectly
true. His aim was to impress not himself but his
principles upon his people; his persuasiveness was
of the Demosthenic, not of the Ciceronian type;
he did not make men say, "What a fine orator he
is!", but " Let us go and fight Philip".
^ Life, p. 217. '' Id., p. 209.

152 The Anglican Revival.
Though he was very far from identifying himself
with the tract-writers, the latter thoroughly appre
ciated the help which he rendered to the general
cause of the church, and also the difficulties in his
position in comparison with their own. "You",
writes Newman to him in 1838, "are in the thickest
fire of the enemy; and I often think how easy it is
for us to sit quietly here, sheltered from bullets,
while you often get what is meant to hit us."! And
Pusey, in the same year: "Thanks for your defence
of us ; as for your being our disciple the thing is
absurd. Newman said, in the Christian Observer,
that you had formed or received your views long
before many of the writers in the Tracts (long before
myself on many points). We were led by different
paths to the same end, and from our early separation
had little to do in forming each other's opinions;
and you have held them earlier than Newman pro
bably, and far longer and more consistently than
ourselves."^ Pusey soon found an opportunity of giving Hook
a practical proof of his appreciation of his work.
After his great sorrow in 1839 he conceived the idea
of making some great offering to God in memory
of his dead wife, and as a secret act of penitence;
and he determined to help his friend Hook by
building a new church in the overgrown parish of
Leeds. He intended to call it the church of S.
Cross, but, as Bishop Longley objected to the
' Life of Hook, p. 273. 2 j^ijg of Pusey, ii. 40.

Dean Hook. 153
designation, "S. Saviour's" was the name ulti
mately chosen. The foundation-stone was laid on
Sept. 14, 1842, but owing to various objections
raised by the diocesan, Bp. Longley, to the details
of construction, the church was not ready for conse
cration until October, 1845. This event at last took
place just after Newman's secession; and we cannot
wonder that both Hook and his diocesan were
rather nervous about it. "You must remember",
writes Hook to Pusey on Oct. 17, "there are not
five persons in Leeds who will sympathize with
you." However, the consecration went off satisfactorily;
but, alas! sore troubles were at hand. The first
incumbent was a Mr. Ward, apparently not a very
strong man, and not very firmly fixed in his church
principles. When matters did not go on satisfac
torily. Dr. Pusey sent to the rescue as curate Mr.
Macmullen, who at any rate was strong enough,
as his combat with Dr. Hampden in 1842 showed.
Mr. Macmullen threw life into everything at S.
Saviour's; but it was not the sort of life of which
the vicar of Leeds approved. Among other things
he preached a sermon advocating the doctrine of the
Intercession of Saints. Bp. Longley was informed
of his so doing. Hook wrote indignantly to Pusey:
"You have sent Mr. Macmullen here, and he is
acting as curate without the bishop's license. I
hope the bishop, now that he knows about this, will
send him to the right-about, so that when, having

154 The Anglican Revival.
done Romish work in England, he goes over to the
Popish Church, where his heart is, he may not refer-
to this clandestine act as a proof that there is no
discipline among us." Pusey replies with touching
humility that "there is some dreadful misunderstand
ing somewhere. We have been labouring together
these many years for one common mother. . . .
And now let me tell you, my dear friend, that I
stand on no other ground than yourself, that of Ken,
Andrewes, and Bramhall, the primitive, undivided
church." And then he tells him that he is "quite
sure" that the S. Saviour's clergy are "devoted ser
vants of our church " ; and writes a little later: ' ' I have
entire confidence in Ward as a loyal son of the
Church of England". Hook was not satisfied. "I
complain", he writes, "of your building a church,
and getting a foot in my parish to propagate prin
ciples which I detest, having come under the plea
of assisting me in propagating principles which I
uphold; of your having selected one to oppose me
and my principles, who approached me as a friend,
and who now admits that in so doing he did wrong,
and that before he undertook to oppose me by
causing a division in Leeds, he ought to have
reflected that he was not the proper person to be
your agent"; and a little later, "Depend upon it
that you are mistaken in Macmullen". The sequel
soon showed that Hook was right, for within six
days (Dec. 30, 1846) he writes again: "Macmullen
and his dupes have gone over to the Mother of

Dean Hook. 155
Abominations". Then Charles Marriott, as one of
the trustees of S. Saviour's, is sent over to Leeds,
and reports (Jan. 7, 1847): "There was more to
complain of here than you thought for through
Macmullen's indiscretion (to say the least). The
bishop was right in strongly pressing his removal."
Mr. Ward resigned the living, and Pusey wrote to
Hook: " I own myself quite mistaken about Mac
mullen, and that I did much mischief in sending
him to Leeds. About Ward you were right so far,
that it was of importance that he should have good
Anglicans about him. . , . Macmullen took the lead
(as being intellectually a superior person) in a way
he ought not."! Hook, warm-hearted and impul
sive as ever, wrote back in the old terms of affection,
but added: "The chief damage done to me is one
in which you cannot sympathize. I have lost the
confidence of the good old church-and-king men,
who used to support me because they thought me
a supporter of our constitution in church and state."
Mr. Ward soon went over to Rome, and by 1850,
"out of fifteen clergy who had been connected with
S. Saviour's since its consecration nine had now
seceded. Only one remained at his post after the
collapse of 1851."^
Such, in brief, is the history of this painful epi
sode. It has been thought right to dwell upon it
at some length because it is only fair to touch upon
the weak as well as the strong side of the movement,
1 Life of Pusey, iii. 131. '' Life of Hook, p. 453.

156 The Anglican Revival.
and also because it illustrates some of the difficulties
which had to be grappled with in so complex a
situation. One feels a sort of sympathy with both the chief
actors. On the one hand, who can help feeling for
Dr. Pusey, who in the simplicity of his heart only
wished to do good, without the slightest regard for
the praise of men? For the fact that he was the
sole founder of the church at a cost of ;£'6ooo was
kept a profound secret. It was only known to be
the work of "a penitent". The whole scheme
caused him the utmost difficulty and annoyance;
but he never faltered ; he submitted with meekness
to the reproaches which were cast upon him; he
owned his mistakes, and never attempted to palliate
them or explain them away. But, on the other
hand, he showed a strange want of judgment and
of insight into the characters of men.
There was certainly very much to be said for
Hook's side of the question. He has been charged
with hesitation, changeableness, timidity. But is
this quite fair? The result amply justified his fears.
In plain words, he feared the S. Saviour's men
were going to Rome, and, as a matter of fact, they
did go to Rome. It may be that his stiffness, his
invectives, his vehemence precipitated the catas
trophe. Mr. Macmullen distinctly said that he
owed his conversion to Dr. Hook, who had opened
his eyes to the real character of the Church of Eng
land. But, really, what weak-kneed Anglicans the

Dean Hook. 157
men must have been to be driven over the border
by such a cause! And if ever there was provoca
tion for vehemence — violence, if you will — surely
Dr. Hook had that provocation. For nearly ten
years he had been fighting the battle of church
principles against the incessant and bitter cry that
these principles were Roman, not Anglican. He
had succeeded, as no living clergyman had then
done, in commending those principles to a vast
town population which had previously had not the
faintest idea what they were, and which, when it
first heard of them, had been violently set against
them. This "timid" man had manfully fought his
way, through evil report and good report, had
won a confidence and achieved a position which
no other parish priest in England had. And now
the whole work seemed to be upset, and that by
his own familiar friend. The secessions from S.
Saviour's again brought down upon him those
storms of abuse which his own courage, tact, and
good judgment had quite lulled. And he had
foreseen it all, and forewarned the doer of it all.
Happily he soon recovered from the blow, but that
it was a blow, and a blow under which he reeled
again, is surely indisputable.
Looking at the matter from another point of view,
we may observe that it emphasized a difference be
tween Puseyand the school which Puseyrepresented,
and Hook and the school which Hook represented.
The two schools certainly regarded both the Church

158 The Anglican Revival.
of Rome and the Church of England in different
lights. To Pusey the former was a church in error,
but a real church, and one which he fondly hoped
might abandon those errors, and be reunited with
us. To Hook she was simply "the Mother of
Abominations " ; he would cordially have re-echoed
the sentiment of Bishop Hall, " No peace with
Rome ".
Again, in regard to the Church of England, Hook
was an optimist, Pusey, if not exactly a pessimist,
at any rate, one who was very far indeed from re
garding her as "without spot or blemish, or any
such thing ". His spiritual father had, as we have
seen, in The Ch-ristian Year always regarded the
church as in a state of decay. Hook, on the other
hand, thought and said that "the church and her
liturgy were absolutely excellent".! Pusey very
clearly indicated the difference between them in
this respect in a letter written to Hook in 1845:
" In you and Jelf, Churton, Palmer, Gresley, there
is a tone of easiness and satisfaction with all things,
and an inaptitude to see what is amiss ; a want of
the element of austerity, severity".^ Accordingly
Hook was a very much stiffer Anglican than Pusey
was; the latter always had great sympathy with
the Evangelicals, the former — none.
The difference in part arose from the very different
situations in which the two men were placed. Pusey
took the theoretical. Hook the practical view of the
1 See Life qf Hook, p. 142. " Life of Pusey, ii. 497.

Dean Hook. 159
subject. Pusey was essentially a student, Hook,
though a great reader, was really more at home as
a worker. Both held that the Primitive Church
was the true model for the Church of England ; but
Pusey knew very much better what the Primitive
Church really was than Hook did ; he had stiidied
it far more deeply, and with less prejudice.
On the other hand. Hook was a more practical
man in every way than Pusey. Any theory he held
was bound to be a working theory ; otherwise it was
useless for his purpose. This was one of the secrets
of his success. A man who was to make any deep
impression upon such places as Leeds and Coven
try must have very sharp, clear-cut convictions.
There was the definite church system which he
desired to recommend. If that system did not in
all points agree with the Primitive Church — so
much the worse for the Primitive Church. He
could not afford to have much sympathy with those
who did not agree with him; for such sympathy
was, as far as it went, a playing into the hands of
the enemy. It was all very well for Pusey, sitting
in his study, or in contact only with men who were
like-minded with himself, to love and sympathize
with the Evangelicals, or to be very friendly towards
Dissenters, with whom he was never brought into
collision. But how could Hook do this at Leeds,
where, as he says, ' ' There are bitter enemies, the
Peculiars " — [the name given by the Oriel men at
the commencement of the movement to the Evan-

i6o The Anglican Revival.
gelicals] — "whose bitterness is beyond all descrip
tion, ready to watch each trip that is made"?! jjow
could he fraternize with Dissenters, when he had
been forced to give this advice to a clergyman about
them: "Keep aloof from Dissenters as persons of
a different religion"?^ Hook perfectly well under
stood that he was on a lower intellectual level than
Pusey, as the following words in a letter written by
him in 1843 show: "The great men of a school
only write for the initiated. The little men, the
retail dealers in divinity, apply to the great men
through their writings for wholesale divinity."^
Among the great men he places Pusey and New
man ; among the little, Gresley, Paget, and himself.
But, as a retail dealer in divinity, he took the privi
lege, which all retail dealers take, of selecting only
those goods from the wholesale dealers which he
required. It seems necessary to dwell upon those
differences, because they were the differences not
merely of two individuals, but of two representative
men, each of whom had a vast number of stanch
churchmen who, more or less, harmonized with
him. Both parties were agreed on the main points,
and both were factors in the movement we are
considering. Before concluding this rather painful episode it is
a comfort to add that the old affectional relationship
between Hook and Pusey was restored before the
end came. In 1873, when both were old men. Hook
iZ«/<, p. 302. "Id., p. iSg. ^Lifeof Pusey, ii. 37S.

Dean Hook. i6i
sent a message to Pusey through Liddon, "Can
you tell that saint whom England persecuted, our
dearly beloved Pusey, that I should like, as I am
passing out of this world, to be permitted to renew
the friendship with him which in our youthful days
was my joy and crown of rejoicing?" Pusey wrote
at once to Hook to thank him for his "loving mes
sage", and added, " What a long life of friendship
it has been since 1819, when I used to come down
from my garret in Peckwater. ... I am so sorry that
some whom I sent to S. Saviour's worried you. . . .
I always studied you, though I was misinformed in
two cases."!
Dr. Hook was also a representative man, in being
perhaps the first, and certainly the most prominent
and successful, of those who applied the principles
of the movement to the practical work of a large
parish. The parish responded to the touch, as very
many other parishes have since done; for in no
respect have the results of the movement been more
conspicuous than in the increased energy and effi
ciency shown in plain, practical, parochial work.
As Dr. Hook is a palmary instance of what a
man imbued with the principles of the Anglican
movement may do in the parish, so is Dr. Wilber
force of what may be done in that larger unit, the
diocese. Samuel Wilberforce (1805- 1873) has been termed,
with good reason, "The Remodeller ofthe Episco-
' Life of Pusey, iv. 260.
( M 426 ) ^

i62 The Anglican Revival.
pate".! Not that this implies that there were no
good, active bishops at the time when he was
appointed to the see of Oxford (1845). On the
contrary, there were then prelates on the bench
who would have been an honour to any age of the
church. Bishop Blomfield had been a thoroughly
hard-working bishop for more than twenty years;
Wilberforce's own diocesan, Bishop Charles Sum
ner, was no idler at Winchester, nor was his brother
Bishop J. B. Sumner, at Chester; Bishop Denison's
industry and liberality in the diocese of Salisbury
were immense ; Bishop Kaye at Lincoln was a very
high type of bishop, both intellectually and spiritu
ally; Bishop Lonsdale was presiding with extra
ordinary success over the diocese of Lichfield; and
others might be named. But in spite of all this.
Bishop Wilberforce set a new standard of episco
pal work, which cannot be better described than in
the words of Canon Ashwell : ' ' Samuel Wilber
force's idea of Episcopacy with which he set out
was his own. The Bishop was to be as much the
mainspring of all spiritual and religious energy in
his diocese as a parochial clergyman is bound to be
in his parish. His duty was to supply not only
counsel to his clergy, but also that momentum, which
the sense of real supervision supplies, to care for
the diocese as a whole, to learn for himself where
needs existed, to take the necessary steps for sup-
•Dean Burgon, Lives of Twelve Good Men, "Samuel Wilberforce, The
Remodeller ofthe Episcopate".

Bishop Wilberforce. 163
plying those needs, and to take care also that it was
known that he so acted, and that he was at all times
not only accessible to all men, but also ready per
sonally to investigate on the spot any case that was
brought before him."! jf exception be taken to
this testimony as merely the testimony of an admir
ing biographer, the evidence of Mr. (Sir William)
Palmer can hardly be suspected ; for he was by no
means an indiscriminate admirer of Samuel Wil
berforce. He was a singularly different type of
man himself, one who had no sympathy whatever
with some of Wilberforce's leading characteristics ;
and, in fact, as he frankly owns, had to overcome a
considerable prejudice, which those who know the
minds of the two men can well understand. But
this is his deliberate conviction: "I must confess
that for many years I did not feel any confidence in
Wilberforce; I thought he courted popularity too
much; I could not depend on his principles. But
my objections were swept away by contemplating
his truly magnificent course of exertion in the cause
of the Church of England. He not only afforded
a grand example of what Christianity can do, but
electrified the whole church by it. He stirred it up
to a new life. . . . Bishop Wilberforce had a greater
influence in reviving the Church of England than
any of his contemporaries. . . . Newman laid the
foundation, but Wilberforce built up the temple.
Wilberforce realized in the face of the world, high
1 Life of Bishop S. Wilberforce, i. 344.

164 The Anglican Revival.
and low, the true ideal of a Christian Episcopate in
the Church of England — a model which was to fur
nish an example to all ages of the church ; but never
to be rivalled or approached again. Wilberforce's
work was exactly what we needed; a combination
of the practical with the theoretical; it led men
away from barren controversies and mutual mis
understandings to a holier emulation — a rivalry in
good works."! It is unnecessary to add the evi
dence of Dean Burgon to the same effect. Indeed,
the fact is patent, and, as in the case of Dr. Hook,
the only difficulty in realizing the extent of his suc
cess, is because he was successful; others followed
in his wake, and the standard, which was then abso
lutely unique, has become a common one.
But here a question arises. Can Samuel Wilber
force be fairly regarded as a product of the Anglican
movement? With the Tractarians as a party he
carefully abstained from identifying himself, and
not only spoke language, but did acts, which marked
his strong disapproval of them. But (though per
haps he would himself have denied it) his episcopal
character was surely formed in the Oxford school.
We can scarcely imagine him being what he was if
there had been no movement, and if he himself had
not been deeply affected by that movement. Never
perhaps was there a man who was more distracted
by conflicting influences than Samuel Wilberforce;
' Supplement to Narrative of Events connected with the publication of the
Tracts for the Times (written in 1883), pp. 255-7.

Bishop Wilberforce. 165
and some injustice has been done to him through
not taking these influences into account. His early
training was among "the Clapham sect". His love
and admiration for his father, its lay leader, were un
bounded.! From his twelfth year he carefully kept his
father's letters, which at last amounted to no less than
six hundred. When he was thirty-seven years old, an
age at which a man's views are presumably settled,
he disclaimed indignantly any identification of him
self with the tract-writers: "My general tone is
unlike theirs and against their peculiar views. My
opinions have been formed in a far different school.
They are those of my beloved father."^ His early
patron and most kind and constant friend was that
pronounced anti-Tractarian, Bishop Sumner of Win
chester, who gave him, when he was only twenty-
five years of age, the valuable living of Brightstone,
frequently interchanged visits with him, made him,
when he was only thirty -four. Archdeacon of
Surrey, and in the following year (1840) rector of
Alverstoke. In 1841 became under court influence,
being nominated by Prince Albert as his chaplain ;
and for some years he was a "persona grata" in
the highest quarters, both as a preacher and as a
personal friend. This would be, in a different way,
as antagonistic to the development of Tractarian
ism as the influence of his father and of Bishop
' ' ' The Wilberforces started with the immense and very rare advantage
of perfect confidence and openness with their father. He was the joy of
their Ufe and the light of their eyes." — T. Mozley, Reminiscences, chiefly of
Oriel College, &c., i. iro. "Life of Bishop S. Wilberforce, i. 217.

i66 The Anglican Revival.
Sumner. Then he married Miss Emily Sargent,
the daughter of a leading Evangelical ; and though
he lost her very soon, he almost worshipped her
memory, and would be little inclined to show any
tendency which would be distasteful to the Sargent
tradition. Again, he was placed in a most painful
position as an English clergyman by the fact that
many of his nearest and dearest relatives — his three
brothers, his two brothers-in-law, his only daughter
and her husband — went over to Rome. So far from
having the faintest inclination to follow them, their
defections, culminating in that of his eldest brother,
Robert Isaac, whom he loved and respected more
almost than any human being, filled him with an
ever-increasing abhorrence of Rome and everything
that tended towards it. Perhaps also he felt bound
to vindicate himself from any suspicion that Roman
izing ran, as it were, in the blood, by making vigor
ous and constant protests, and adopting courses of
action in accordance with those protests. But protest
as he would, the Low Churchmen, who in the early
years of his episcopate still formed the largest and
most influential party in the church, never regarded
him as their friend. And they were right; for in
spite of his manifestly sincere expressions of devo
tion to his father's memory, the unbounded influence
which he exercised in his diocese all tended to under
mine the power of that party of which his father had
been the lay chief. The work in the Oxford diocese
which really told was work done on High Church

The Hampden and Gorham Cases. 167
lines, and the life and soul of that work was Bishop
Wilberforce. He was hardly long enough at Win
chester to make the same impression there, and, in
spite of his higher dignity, he will always be known
as par excellence "the Bishop of Oxford". There
is another side to his career in that capacity, in
which he was by no means so successful ; that side
will come painfully before us in the next chapter.
The increased efficiency both in parochial and
diocesan work which may be fairly attributed to
the Anglican movement will be noticed in a later
chapter. To give instances at this stage of the
movement would hardly be in accordance with
chronological order. For the vast changes of which
Dr. Hook and Dr. Wilberforce were the pioneers
did not come into full and general operation until
after the two famous cases of Dr. Hampden and
Mr. Gorham.

Chapter VIII.
The Hampden and Gorham Cases and their
results.
It should be carefully borne in mind that the
Church movement and the Tract movement are not
identical. The Tract-writers, indeed, gave the first
impulse to the movement; without them it might
never have taken place, at any rate in the form in
which it did take place. But they themselves would

i68 The Anglican Revival.
have been the first to own that their work was to
revive the old, not to introduce the new. They
contended that they had at their backs the really
great divines of the Church of England, and those
divines would have been there, ready for use, whether
the Tracts had been written or not. Thus the famous
Hampden controversy, which arose in 1847, was not
one in which the so-called Tractarians were ranged
on one side and their opponents on the other.
It was convenient so to represent it, because the
Tractarians were still the unpopular party, and to
raise a cry of Puseyism was still the most effectual
weapon that could be used against any cause. But
the real point at issue both in the Hampden and
the Gorham cases was this : Is the Church, because
she is established, to be overridden by the State in a
way that no sect in the kingdom would tolerate for
one moment? And to this question many church
men who had no sympathy whatever with the
Tractarians as a party, answered emphatically "No".
At the same time, as in the commencement of the
movement, so now, it was the Tractarians who stood
in the forefront of the battle. Lord John Russell
was not far wrong when he said: "Dr. Pusey
must be considered as the leader and oracle of Dr.
Hampden's opponents".! These points will be amply
illustrated in the details of the two cases.
On November 15, 1847, it was announced, that
the premier, Lord John Russell, had recommended
'¦ Life of Bishop S. Wilberforce, i. 459.

The Hampden Case. 169
to the crown the appointment of Dr. R. D. Hamp
den, Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, to the
bishopric of Hereford, in the room of Dr. Musgrave,
translated to York. It will be remembered that Dr.
Hampden lay under the censure of his own Uni
versity, passed in 1836, and confirmed by a vain
attempt to remove it in 1842. The premier must
have known that those who objected to Dr. Hamp
den being a professor of divinity, would a fortiori
object to his being a bishop; he must also have
known that as the opposition to the lower appoint
ment was not confined to the Tractarian party, so
neither would the opposition to the higher. But
he thought the appointment "was calculated to
strengthen the Protestant character of our Church,
so seriously threatened of late by many defections to
the Church of Rome";! and therefore he persisted
in his recommendation in spite of remonstrances
from all quarters.
The Times, which was a very fair index of popular
opinion, expressed its astonishment; the Archbishop
of Canterbury (Dr. Howley) and the Bishop of Ripon
(Dr. Longley) wrote in conjunction a strong letter to
the premier on their own account; and a " Remon
strance", signed by thirteen bishops, among whom
were some who had taken an active part against the
Tractarians, was also sent to him. The Christian
Observer, the monthly organ of the Evangelicals,
declared that "it was hardly fair to the church to
1 Life of Bishop S. Wilberforce, p. 440.

170 The Anglican Revival.
nominate to a bishopric one who was lying under the
recorded censure of his University, a censure pro
nounced by all parties in the church"; and "could
not be surprised that the appointment had been
viewed with regret and disappointment by all par
ties".! The Record, the weekly organ of the same
party, declared that, as it had been "loud to de
nounce" Dr. Hampden's writings, it had "no dis
position to depart from the allegations then made".
Even among the Broad Churchmen, where Dr.
Hampden might have expected to find his warmest
sympathizers, a leading representative, Julius Hare,
"deplored and condemned the appointment as a
most injudicious measure on the part of the minis
ter, — as a wanton outrage on the feelings, preju
dices they might be, but still strong and earnest
feelings, of a large body of the church, especially of
the clergy, — as an act which would infallibly arouse
vehement opposition, and break up the peace of the
church at a time when we were hoping for something
like a lull after the storms of late years'';^ though,
at the same time, he defended Dr. Hampden per
sonally. Hence it was hardly accurate to call the
opposition, as Dr. Hampden called it, "a Trac
tarian persecution"; at the same time there is no
doubt that the strongest opposition came from those
who were more or less connected with the Anglican
1 "View of Public Affairs" in the appendix to the Cliristian Observer for
December, 1847.
2 Letter to the Dean ot Chichester (Dr. Chandler) on the appointment of
Dr. Hampden to the see of Hereford.

The Hampden Case. 171
movement, especially from Pusey, Keble, Charies
Marriott, and J. B. Mozley.
It was an unfortunate affair throughout; and not
the least unfortunate part of it was that the Bishop
of Oxford had, from his position, to take a pro
minent share in it; for it was just one of those cases
in which the weak side of the great bishop's char
acter would be sure to come to the front. Dr.
Hampden, as Regius Professor of Divinity, held
the living of Ewelme, which was then attached to
the professorship; he was therefore an incumbent
in Bishop Wilberforce's diocese; and it was pur
posed to institute a suit against him, under the
Church Discipline Act of 1840, before his diocesan
for heretical teaching. Bishop Wilberforce was one
of the thirteen bishops who had signed the Remon
strance to the premier against the appointment.
He declined, rightly, to promote the suit, but con
sented to sign Letters of Request to the Archbishop
of Canterbury to remit the case to be heard in his
Court of Arches. It was intended to oppose the
confirmation of Dr. Hampden in Bow Church, and
counsel's opinion was that "the opposition to con
firmation would have less chance of being summarily
set aside, if there were a suit pending in the Arches
Court which could be referred to as a ground of
objection".! Bishop Wilberforce signed the letters
on Dec. 16, regarding this simply as a ministerial,
not a judicial act. He then wrote to the premier,
^ Letter of Rev. Charles Marriott to the Bishop of Oxford, Dec. 4, 1847.

172 The Anglican Revival.
begging him to reconsider the appointment, and to
Dr. Hampden, asking him to avow his reception of
ten articles which he drew up, and to withdraw the
Bampton Lectures and the Observations on Religious
Dissent; but from both he received what can only
be called "a snub". Then came the last scene in
the drama. The great majority of the Heads of
Houses at Oxford were in favour of Dr. Hampden.
The bishop, when he went to Oxford for his Decem
ber ordination, stayed with the wariest of them all.
Dr. Hawkins, who worked upon him by telling him
that Dr. Hampden's pamphlet was being sold with
out its writer's consent, and by persuading him to
re-read the Bamptons. The result was that, three
days later, the bishop withdrew his Letters of Re
quest, which practically put an end to the Hampden
case. This drew upon him a storm of abuse, and
one of those crushing letters from Bishop Phillpotts
of Exeter, which that very able prelate knew so well
how to write. Canon Ashwell amply clears the good
bishop's memory from any fair charge of double-
dealing or insincerity, but hardly from weakness.
The broad facts remain that he signed a remon
strance against the nomination, gave his sanction
for the commencement of a suit against the nominee,
and then withdrew that sanction. The plea that he
granted the Letters of Request under the idea that
he had no power to refuse, and only withdrew them
when he was legally advised to the contrary, saves
his honesty at the expense of his strength ; for does

The Gorham Case. 173
it not argue weakness in a man in such a position
to do an important act without knowing his own
powers? The sequel is quickly told. At the elec
tion of Dr. Hampden, two votes (one being the
dean's) out of fourteen were given against him, and
at the confirmation of that election at Bow Church
the absurd farce was gone through of inviting objec
tions, and when the objectors were prepared to give
them, refusing to hear them. The Hampden case
fell through, but not without leaving a sore which
long rankled in the minds of many churchmen.
That sore was exasperated by another case which
in point of date overlapped that of Dr. Hampden.
On Nov. 2, 1847, the Rev. G. C, Gorham was
presented by the lord chancellor to the living of
Brampford Speke in the diocese of Exeter. He
had the year before been presented to another living
in the same diocese (S. Just-in-Penwith), and the
bishop had reason to believe that he held views,
especially on the subject of Holy-Baptism, which
he deemed inconsistent with the formularies of the
church. He therefore insisted upon his undoubted
right to examine a priest before instituting him to a
benefice. The examination commenced on Dec. 17,
lasted fourdays, and was then postponed until March,
when it was resumed for three days, no less than
one hundred and forty questions being set in all.
The bishop was dissatisfied with the result. Mr.
Gorham brought the case before the Court of Arches,
where Sir Herbert Jenner Fust, after a very long

174 "^^^ Anglican Revival.
interval, gave judgment against him (Aug. 2, 1849).
Mr. Gorham appealed to the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council, who reversed the decision of the
Court of Arches (March 8, 1850). The Bishop of
Exeter still refused to institute, and Mr. Gorham
was instituted by the Dean of Arches acting for
the Archbishop of Canterbury. Bishop Phillpotts
applied in vain to the Court of Queen's Bench, the
Court of Common Pleas, and the Court of Ex
chequer ; and the matter dropped.
The Hampden and the Gorham cases, but espe
cially the latter, had an important bearing upon the
movement in more ways than one.
In the first place they rallied churchmen together
who had for some time not been quite in sympathy
— or at any rate represented different sections of
the movement. In 1847, when the rumour of Dr.
Hampden's appointment spread. Dr. Pusey wrote
to Archdeacon Churton, the biographer of Joshua
Watson, and an excellent specimen of the old-
fashioned High Churchman, saying: " It seems as
if this trouble were allowed to bring together by a
common pressure those who were scattered".! And
the event showed that Dr. Pusey was right. For
instance, the Bishopof Exeter had never quite thrown
himself into the movement; but now he and Pusey
and Keble worked shoulder to shoulder. He sup
ported Pusey heartily in the matter of Miss Selion
and the sisterhood at Devonport in 1849; and Pusey
^ Life of Pusey, iii. i6a

The Hampden and Gorham Cases. 175
helped him largely in the theological questions
which arose out of the Gorham case, and, in fact,
supplied him with materials for his famous "Letter
to the Archbishop of Canterbury " in relation to that
case. Keble sympathized with the bishop so en
tirely that, after the series of defeats noted above,
he again thought of retiring into a position similar
to that of the Nonjurors.
On the other hand, the two cases led to another
series of secessions to Rome. Among these seceders
by far the most eminent -wsisHenty Edward Manning
(1808-1892), afterwards Cardinal-priest and Roman
Catholic Archbishop of Westminster. The reader
may have been surprised that this great name has
not been mentioned before ; but this is a sketch of
the Anglican movement, and with that movement
Manning really had very little to do; his name
scarcely ever occurs in the records of its earlier
stages. His training was not at all calculated
to make him a prominent leader in any reli
gious movement; for in his earlier years his views
appear to have been in a very fiuctuating state.
When he was seven years old his family removed
from Totteridge to Combe Bank, Sundridge, where
Christopher Wordsworth the elder had just been
appointed rector (1816). Manning became very
intimate with the remarkable family of the Words-
worths; but we do not hear anything about church
influence except that the good rector's sermons
seemed to him rather dull. In 1822 he went to

176 The Anglican Revival..
Harrow, where, he says, "the services in the church
for most ofthe boys were worse than useless",! and
where the religious instruction consisted in "read
ing on Sundays Waller's Catechism, and Paley's
Evidences, or Lesley [sic] on Deism", — excellent
books, no doubt, but hardly calculated to inspire
a youth with enthusiasm. In 1827 he proceeded
to Balliol College, Oxford, threw himself heartily
into the various phases of undergraduate life, and
became apparently a sort of Admirable Crichton.
He was a good cricketer, an excellent oar, a very
brilliant and frequent speaker at "The Union",
and distinguished for his social talents. With
all these distractions, however, he found time for
reading, and by a vigorous effort at the last
managed to secure a place in the first class in
Classical Honours in 1830. Charles Wordsworth,
the friend of his boyhood, who was his private
tutor, tells us that "on leaving Oxford Manning's
religious opinions were quite unformed"; and we
can easily believe it, for the religious influences
which were brought to bear upon him were of a
strangely varied character. First, there was the
influence of his brother-in-law, J. D. Anderdon,
who was sixteen years his senior, and was partner
with his father in the firm of "Manning and Ander
don". Mr. Anderdon was the anonymous author of
A Layman's Life of Bishop Ken, and his influence
would, of course, be in a strongly church direction.
'¦ Quoted in Purcell's Life of Cardinal Manning, i. i8.

Results of the Cases. 177
He persuaded Manning to read, in the later part of
his undergraduate career, the great English divines
of the seventeenth century; and in other ways af
fected him really if not deeply. "During my time at
Oxford ", Manning writes, "a religious change had
come over me ; the daily chapel became very sooth
ing, especially the Psalms and Lessons; I studied
for the first time the Old and New Testaments; I
read Barrow's Serm,ons with great care, then Butler's
Analogy and Sermons with still greater." But he
gives 1830 as the date of his conversion, and the
human instruments of it two pious Evangelicals,
Mr. Bevan and his sister Mrs. Mortimer, after
wards a most successful educational writer.! jjg
also became intimate with some Quakers, who lent
him Puritan books, such as Owen and Howe. Now
came the question ofa profession. "I had never",
he writes, "given a thought to Orders or Apos
tolical Succession, and had but a vague conception
of the church; but I had always believed in Bap
tismal Regeneration." In 1831 he first spoke to
Anderdon about taking Holy Orders; against which
he had, by his own account, a strong prejudice to
overcome. "The thought of being a clergyman
was positively repulsive to me. I had an intense
recoil from the secularity of the Established Church.
I can say before God that I had not a spark of
' Perhaps no little books were at one time more used to give the earliest
religious and secular instruction than her Peep of Day, Line upon Line,
More about Jesus, Precept upon Precept, Near Home, Far Off, and Reading
without Tears.
(M426) M

178 The Anglican Revival.
ecclesiastical ambition. The sight of an apron and
of a shovel hat literally provoked me. The title
' Father in God ' applied to Bishops living at ease
irritated me." " I had a drawing to Christian
piety, but a revulsion from the Anglican Church.
I thought it secular, pedantic, and unspiritual."
He had been intended by his father for a clergy
man, but had begged off, and had obtained a situa
tion as supernumerary clerk in the Colonial Office ;
his ambition was to distinguish himself in parlia
mentary life; but at last, through the advice of Mrs.
Mortimer, he decided to take orders. In April,
1832, he was elected Fellow of Merton College, and
in 1833 was ordained, and became assistant curate
to the Rev. John Sargent, rector of Wool Lavington
and Graffham. Mr. Sargent was a noted Evan
gelical, and the biographer of one of the greatest
saints in the Evangelical calendar (Henry Martyn);
and all the influences brought to bear on Manning
at this time were of an Evangelical cast. He be
came acquainted with the Rev. Henry Blunt of
Chelsea, an excellent specimen of the Evangelical
school, who gave him a higher ideal of the clerical
calling. Mr. Sargent had four beautiful daughters,
one of whom was married to Samuel Wilberforce.
Manning became engaged to another sister, Caro
line, and married her in 1833, succeeding Mr.
Sargent, who died in the same year, as rector of
Lavington and Graffham. He was an excellent
parish priest, but it is exceedingly difficult to tabu-

Results of the Cases 179
late with any sort of accuracy his relationship to
the existing parties in the church. In 1835 we find
him preaching, at the Archdeacon's visitation, in
Chichester Cathedral in favour of the Apostolical
Succession. But within a few months he is at a
meeting ofthe S. P. C. K. in London, "to defend",
he says, "the Evangelical cause against the arch
bishop" (Dr. Howley). In 1838 he seems thoroughly
to identify himself with the Oxford movement in
a sermon on "The Rule of Faith", preached at
Bishop Otter's primary visitation. In publishing
this sermon he added an appendix in which he
expressed the same views yet more strongly. This
sermon appears to have broken his connection with
the Low Church clergy of the diocese, who were
highly offended at it, and to have thrown him for a
time into the arms of the Oxford men. He sent a
copy of the sermon to Newman and Keble, and was
invited by Newman to write for The British Critic;
which he did. He also wrote against the Ecclesias
tical Commission as an encroachment upon the
liberty of the church — a grievance, indeed, which
was felt by others besides the Oxford men, though
it was particularly offensive to the latter. But in
1840 he became Archdeacon of Chichester, and his
charges in that capacity were increasingly anti-
Tractarian. It seems to me, however, a gratui
tous assumption on the part of his biographer
that the change was due to an unwillingness to
be on the unpopular side; it is more charitable

i8o The Anglican Revival.
and, as I think, more reasonable to believe that
it was due to the changed aspect of the movement
after the publication of Tract 90; many besides
Manning took a different view after that event.
At any rate, as a matter of fact. Manning took
the side of Newman's enemies on that memorable
occasion in 1841 ; and in 1842 he repudiated in
his charge all connection with any party in the
church. In his charge of 1843 he disclaimed, still
more emphatically and pointedly, any connection
with Pusey or Newraan ; and finally, in his charge
of 1845 he attacked the Church of Rome and the
Romanizing party in the Church of England so
fiercely as to call forth a remonstrance from Dr.
Pusey. Then came another change, due probably to his
reading Newman's Essay on the Development of
Doctrine, which produced a great effect upon his
mind. From 1846 onwards his letters to Robert
Wilberforce show that he was less and less con
vinced of the validity of the claims of the English
Church. The same tone runs through his letters
to Dr. Pusey, to whom, e.g., he wrote in 1847, sym
pathizing with him in his trouble at Leeds, and
adding: "The direct and certain tendency of what
remains of the original movement is to the Roman
Church". The Gorham judgment broke the tie,
which had been growing weaker and weaker for
more than four years, that bound him to the English
Church, and on April 6, 1851, he was received into

Results of the Cases. i8i
the Church of Rome. His opinions had always
been, more or less, in an unsettled state. "I was
a Pietist", he said in after years, "until I accepted
the Tridentine Decrees"; and again, "I had never
been one of the company of men working in Ox
ford. I knew them all. I agreed in most things,
not from contact with them, but because at Laving
ton I read by myself in the same direction."
But if all this be so — and it rests, as will have
been perceived, upon actual facts, and upon Man
ning's own words, not upon any one's opinion
about him— can it be correct to represent Manning
as in any way a leader of the Anglican movement?
His heart never was wholly in it, and on occasions
was decidedly against it.
Among others who went over to Rome at or
about the same time were Mr. Maskell, Mr. Dods-
worth, Mr. Henry Wilberforce, Mr. Allies, Mr. Hope
Scott, Mr. Badeley, and Archdeacon Wilberforce.
These were all men of mark in their way. Mr.
William Maskell had done valuable service to the
church as an ecclesiastical antiquary, especially
by his researches into the ancient liturgies of the
church, and by his History of the Martin Marpre-
late controversy in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth.
He was chaplain to the Bp. of Exeter (Phillpotts),
and had conducted the examination of Mr. Gorham.
Mr. William Dodsworth was a Cambridge man,
and had come over from the Evangelicals to the
Tractarians. He was a popular preacher and a

i82 The Anglican Revival.
very estimable clergyman in London, where he
became intimately associated with Dr. Pusey, who
established an Anglican Sisterhood in his parish
(Christ Church, S. Pancras), and placed it under
his direction. In consequence of the Gorham judg
ment he joined the Roman Church in January, 1851.
Mr. Henry Wilberforce was the younger brother of
Samuel Wilberforce. He was a double first-class
man, and had been for some time vicar of East Far-
leigh near Maidstone. He had been a great friend
of Newman and all the leaders, and was a man of a
genial and original character. Mr. T. W. Allies
was an Oxford first-classman and university prize
man. He was incumbent of the historical village
of Launton, in the diocese of Oxford, where he was
brought into collision with his diocesan (Bp. Wil
berforce) in consequence of a Journal in France
which he published, and which was of a distinctly
Roman tendency. It does not appear that he was
driven to Rome by the Gorham judgment. Indeed,
he went over a little before the final judgment in
that case was given, resigning his living on Sept. 3,
1849, and being admitted into the Roman Church
shortly afterwards; but he belongs to the same
group of seceders. Mr. J. R. Hope Scott (he
added the name of Scott in later life) was an
Oxford friend of Mr. Gladstone, Lord Selborne,
Manning, and Newman, and was the confiden
tial adviser of the last-named in after years. He
was a Fellow of Merton, and became a famous

Results of the Cases. 183
parliamentary barrister. There is an adventitious
interest about him, as having become, through his
wife, the possessor of Abbotsford. He was received
into the Roman Church at the same time as his
friend Manning, April 6, 1851. Mr. E. L. Badeley
was his intimate friend, and was also an ecclesias
tical lawyer of note, whose legal services were fre
quently engaged by the church party; indeed it was
he who had argued the Bishop of Exeter's case
against Mr. Gorham before the Judicial Committee.
He and Manning were among fourteen members of
the meeting who, in the summer of 1850, signed nine
resolutions, the gist of which was that the views of
the Privy Council on Baptism should be solemnly
disavowed by the English Church; and when no
such action was taken, he went over to Rome.
The last secession to be noted was perhaps the
most grievous of all. Of the four celebrated brothers
Wilberforce, none was so learned, so saintly, so
eminently lovable in every respect as Robert Isaac.
He was a double first-classman, a Fellow and
most able and effective Tutor of Oriel, an excel
lent parish priest, and a powerful and attractive
writer. Among the correspondents of the great
bishop there is not one to whom his whole heart
was so evidently given as his brother Robert Isaac.
Like many very learned men he was diffident of
himself, but he was candid and open as the day
light; he was indeed an honour to any religious
communion to which he belonged; and he all but

184 The Anglican Revival.
died as he had lived in the church of his baptism.
But the Hampden and the Gorham cases shook
him; and he finally succumbed to the incessant
arguments and importunities of his brother Henry
and his connection. Manning — though he was quite
the equal of both in point of real learning and abili
ties — and joined the Church of Rome in 1854, dying
a few weeks afterwards.
It cannot be denied that these, to which others
might be added, were serious secessions — perhaps
even more serious than those which had taken place
in 1845-6, excepting of course the great secession
of all. But the party was far better able to bear
them; for in spite of appearances to the contrary, it
was in reality stronger in 1851 than it had been in
1846; and when we compare the handful that were
taken away with the vast numbers who remained,
the loss will appear a trifling one.
Immediate steps were taken (i) to vindicate the
church from complicity in the Gorham judgment,
and (2) to encourage friends and prevent them from
seceding to Rome. Church unions were formed in
all parts of the country, and monster meetings were
held in London, at one of which, held in the Free
masons' Hall in July, 1850, both Keble and Pusey
uttered some weighty words. Keble, sounding his
characteristic note of "patience", made a telling
point by reminding the meeting that "the early
church had been content to wait fifty-six years" — that
is, from the Council of Nice in 325 a.d. to the Coun-

Results of the Cases. 185
cil of Constantinople in 381 — "for rest from troubles
on a chief point of doctrine", while "we", he adds,
"are now in 1850, and some eager ones think it
much too long to wait for 1851 or 1852 for settle
ment of our present trouble". Then rising to an
unwonted strain of eloquence, "The whole air", he
said, "of England seems to me to ring with voices
from the dead and from the living, especially from
the holy dead, all to this effect: 'Stay here; think
nbt of departing; do here your work'". Pusey
recommended a bold front: "We stand where two
roads part — the way of the world and the way of
the church; the way of man and the way of God. . .
If the state will not, as Magna Charta pledges it,
allow that the church should have her liberties
inviolate, we must ask that the state will set us free
from itself, and go forth, as Abraham, not knowing
whither he went, poor as to this world's goods, but
rich with the blessing of that seed in whom all
nations ofthe earth shall be blessed." At the same
time he was far too well-read a man to agree with
the extravagant theories which, in the recoil from
the judgment of a lay court, some put forth on the
church's entire independence of the state. To cor
rect these he published his valuable fragment on
The Royal Supremacy (1850), in which he showed
that the early church did not deny to the state all
control over church matters, due safeguards being
provided. R. W. Church also wrote a valuable
article in The Christian Remem,brancer on the same

1 86 The Anglican Revival.
subject. At another meeting of the London Church
Union at St. Martin's Hall, October, 1850, Pusey,
referring, as he rarely did, to the now reiterated
charge of Romanizing brought against himself and
his friends, said: " If the labours of 17 or 27 years
will not persuade men that we are faithful to the
Church of England, words will not. We raust
await God's time, until this fever of fear subside; or
if nothing will convince them, death in the bosom
of the church will." Experience proved the truth
of this utterance; after the secession of Robert Wil
berforce, it is astonishing how few men of mark
dreamed of leaving the Church of England for
Rome. Meanwhile the Roman Church itself was not idle.
It was quite in accordance with the papal policy in
relation to the English Church from the earliest
tiraes, that Pope Pius IX. should choose this time
of perplexity as a favourable time for pushing his
claims. In the autumn of 1850 England was par
celled out into dioceses, and the bishops dignified
with territorial titles, all under the direction of the
astute Dr. Wiseman, who was now raised to the
cardinalate, and exchanged the shadowy title of
Bishop of Melipotaraos in partibus for the more
definite and impressive one of Archbishop of West
minster. It is said that the bull for creating this
new Archbishopric of Westminster had been pre
pared for three years. Possibly the troubles at
Rorae and the exile of the pope at Gaeta may have

Results of the Cases. 187
delayed its publication. At any rate October, 1850,
was a convenient season for launching it. It was
just the time when the Gorham case had made
some people doubt whether the Church of England,
steeped, as they deemed it, in Erastianism, was a
safe home for them to dwell in ; while others were
filled with the utmost alarm by the secessions to
Rome which it had provoked, and was still provok
ing. The " Papal Aggression ", as it was termed,
fanned the alarm into a furious flame. Lord John
Russell, the premier, encouraged by his recent
triumph over the High Churchmen in the Hampden
case, rushed, nothing loath, into the arena; wrote
a violent letter to the Bishop of Durham (Dr.
Maltby), garnished with copious references to "the
unworthy sons of the church ", "the mummeries of
superstition ", and so forth ; and succeeded in
getting a bill passed through Parliament in Febru
ary, 185 1, declaring the assumption of ecclesiastical
titles in England by Roman Catholic priests illegal.
The Roman Catholics quietly disregarded the law,
and went on calling themselves by their new titles,
and the act became a dead letter. The panic passed
away, and the movement in the English Church
advanced, still vehemently opposed, but falsifying
the predictions of its many opponents that its ulti
mate goal was Rome.

i88 The Anglican Revival.
Chapter IX.
The Movement and Public W^orship.
Little or nothing has been said in the preceding
chapters about that which, to the outer eye, is the
most distinctive feature of the Anglican Movement
— the wonderful change which it has wrought in
the conduct of public worship, and in the fabrics in
which that worship is conducted. The reason is,
that this feature did not come prominently forward
in the earlier stages of the movement. At the same
time it is a mistake to suppose that its first leaders
attached no importance to externals. No one can
read The Christian Year, still less The Lyra Inno
centium, without perceiving that the value of the
outward, not only as expressive of, but as deeply
affecting the inward, was keenly felt by John Keble ;
as indeed he showed in a practical form by devoting
all the profits of The Christian Year to the restora
tion of Hursley Church. Dr. Pusey expressly said
in after years that "they [the first leaders] were
very anxious about ritual, but that the circum
stances were entirely different then from what they
are now (1866). They shrank frora caring for
externals at the outset of their work, from intro
ducing ritual before doctrine had taken possession
of the hearts of their people. It was like giving
children flowers that would fade, wither, and die
imraediately. They had laboured rather to plant

The Movement and Public Worship. 189
the bulbs, which in good time would send forth
their flowers, flourishing abundantly."! These
words are all the more significant because Dr. Pusey
was very far from identifying himself with the
"ritualists"; and, in fact, on more than one occa
sion expressed disapproval of them.^ Newman,
indeed, is noted for having perpetrated one of the
most hideous ecclesiastical edifices in England; but
that was in his pre-Anglican days. When he
walked — for a time — in the Via Media, he fully
recognized the importance of ritual, showing this
in a practical way in connection with his new
church at Littlemore. It is curious to observe the
mixed feeling of admiration, surprise, and a little
alarm, with which his closest friend describes the
church as it appeared on the day of consecration.
"Newman's church," writes Lord Blachford to his
sister, Sept. 4, 1836, "now finished, is certainly
one of the most perfect things for its size I ever
saw. The altar is beautiful, and the rest is so well
kept under, that when you come in you seem to see
nothing but the altar; never, certainly, was any
thing so unlike modern churches. The builders,
&c., are extremely puzzled at the capricious and
unseemly (as to them appears) way in which his
ornament is spent: no cushions in the arm-chairs
by the side of the altar, mere rush hassocks for the
' Dr. Pusey's speech at the annual meeting of the English Church Union
in 1866, quoted by Mr. Hore in The Church in England from William
IIJ. to Victoria, ii. 323.
" See Life of Pusey, vol. iv. pp. 211-2, 271-2, 277.

igo The Anglican Revival.
priest to kneel on there ; no cushion to support the
prayer-book on the altar; no cushions or hangings
on the pulpit at all; and instead of a reading-desk,
the kind of stand that a person plays the violin
before, with a bran hassock to kneel on when neces
sary; while the altar itself was carved stone, with
seven pretty Early English arches behind it." He
adds that they were all afraid what the Bishop
[Bagot], who came to consecrate it, would say, but
that he was very kind and complimentary.! It was
the sarae with Isaac Williams, who published, in
the early part of 1838, The Cathedral, or The Catho-
lick and Apostolick Church in England. This
poera was written about the same time as his first
Tract on Reserve, and "in pursuance of the same
great object we had undertaken " [in the Tracts] ;
and his mode of aiding that object was by con
necting each part of the edifice with some por
tion of church doctrine or discipline. And in his
subsequent volume, The Baptistery (1842), the lead
ing idea is that earthly things were a shadow of
heavenly. Indeed, the fact that one of the chief features of
the raovement was the greater prominence it gave
to the objective side of religion, as a complement
to the subjectivity of Evangelicalism, is of itself
enough to show that it could never have regarded
the externals of worship as a matter of slight
moment. It was of its essence to teach the dignity
'' Letters cf Lord Blachford, p. 38.

The Movement and Public 'Worship. 191
and importance of the sacraments ; and a necessary
corollary to such teaching was that the adjuncts of
worship were of real account. Accordingly, we find
that as soon as these principles began to take root
and to spread in all directions, attention was at
once paid to the subject.
In 1838 the Oxford Architectural Society was
founded, with Mr. J. H. Parker, an enthusiast on
the subject of Gothic architecture, for its first secre
tary. In 1839 the Cambridge Camden Society
arose, Mr. Benjamin Webb, Mr. E. J. Boyce, and
Mr. J. M. Neale being its chief founders. The
object of the society, which in 1846 was removed
to London, and changed its name to "The Ecclesio-
logical Society", was "the promotion of the study
of Christian Art and Antiquities, more especially
in whatever relates to the architecture, arrangement,
and decoration of churches". Nothing blocked
the way towards the attainment of this object more
effectually than the pew system, which was then
almost universal. Accordingly, the society waged
internecine war against this system, chiefly through
its organ. The Ecclesiologist. Mr. Neale wrote A
History of Pews, A Few Words to Church Builders,
A Few Words to Churchwartiens on Churches and
Church Ornaments ; and the advocacy of open seats
in church became part of the work of the movement.
The example of Oxford and Cambridge was fol
lowed in other districts, and "Architectural" or
" Arch^ological " Societies were established with.

ig2 The Anglican Revival.
raore or less, the same object. The crusade against
pews raet with great opposition, being termed " The
Tractarian Anti-Pew Mania"; but it is needless to
say that it was in the end successful. So also were
the efforts to present more fully the church's sys
tem, with its daily round from Advent to Advent;
to restore and beautify the church fabrics, and
generally to make public worship externally raore
worthy of its high purpose. So also were the
efforts to iraprove our psalmody, which had long
been one of the weakest points in our public ser
vices. In 1841 the Motett Society was founded for
the purpose of reviving ' ' the study and practice of
the choral service of the Church ".! Men like Sir
F. A. G. Ouseley (who was for some time curate at
one of the most advanced churches, S. Barnabas,
Pimlico) and Dr. W. H. Monk (who was organist
at another, S. Matthias, Stoke-Newington) did a
world of good in this direction. The Ecclesio-
logical Society also took up the matter warraly.
How sorely needed such efforts were is testified
by one of the few survivors who still remember what
public worship was before the revival. "It must
be adraitted", writes Mr. Gladstone, "that the state
of things frora which the thing popularly known as
Ritualisra took historically its point of departure,
was dishonouring to Christianity, disgraceful to the
nation, disgraceful most of all to that much-vaunted
' See Mr. Hore's The Church in England from William III. to Victoria,
ii. 324-

The Movement and Public Worship. 193
religious sentiment of the English public which in
impenetrable somnolence endured it, and resented
all interference with it. . . . The actual state of
things was bad beyond all parallel known to me in
experience or reading. Taking together the ex
pulsion of the poor and labouring classes (especially
from the town churches), the mutilations and block
ages of the fabrics, the baldness of the service, the
elaborate horrors of the so-called music, with the
jargon of parts contrived to exhibit the powers of
every village roarer, and to prevent all congrega
tional singing; and, above all, the coldness and
indifference of the lounging or sleeping congre
gations, our services were probably without a
parallel in the world for their debasement."!
This general testimony is borne out in detail by
another distinguished layman, a disciple of the
Oxford school,^ who himself took no small part in
bringing about a change for the better in church
worship and church fabrics. "In the reign of
George IV.", writes Mr. A. J. Beresford Hope,
"worship in the Church of England in an opulent
and beautiful town in Surrey " — that is, of course,
Dorking — "was made palpable to my childish
senses. The building was a large, and had been a
1" Ritualism and Ritual", published first in The Contemporary Review
for October, 1874, and afterwards repubUshed in the Gleanings.
" This is Mr. Hope's own description of himself though he was a Cam
bridge man: "For the formation of my views upon Christian antiquity and
upon the Church of England I am mainly indebted to that school of writers
whose public notoriety dates from the commencement of the Tracts for the
Times in 1833." — Worship in the Church of England, ch. i., p. 4.
(M42e) '^

194 The Anglican Revival.
handsome Gothic church, but of its interior the
general parish saw very little except the nave and
aisles, for the chancel was cut off by a perfectly solid
partition, covered with the usual sacred writings and
some strange painting, among which Moses and
Aaron shone in peculiar uncouthness. The aisles
were utilized for certain family pews or private boxes,
raised aloft and approached by private doors and
staircases. There was a decrepit western gallery
for the band, and the ground floor was crammed
with cranky pews of every shape." After having
spoken of the " communion office being read at the
desk" and other strange uses, he adds, " It was not
so very backward a parish ; it possessed one of the
earliest national schools".!
In a letter to the present writer, dated Noveraber,
1886, the sarae gentleraan dwells upon the reform
in the matter of public worship in a very important
sphere, that of one of our largest public schools,
commenced fifty years before by one who has been
already noticed as a weighty factor in the Anglican
Revival, though not, strictly speaking, a Tractarian.
"Among the benefits", he writes, "bestowed by
Dr. Wordsworth on the school [Harrow], foremost
comes the building of the school chapel ; with this
work old order ceased, and Harrow school took
its place in the general revival of church interests.
Words cannot describe the dreariness of the wor
ship offered to us in my days. One rustic, battered
I Worship in the Church of England, i. 8.

The Movement and Public Worship. 195
gallery filled up the west end of the nave of Harrow
Parish Church, and served for the Upper boys;
another stifling and cavernous gallery was hitched
into the north aisle for the Lower boys. The wor
ship took no account of the needs and peculiarities
of school-boys, but was merely the parish worship,
of which they were casual spectators. . . . With a
school chapel built by Dr. Wordsworth, all was
changed. The original building, due to Mr. Cock
erell, had not much to say for itself architecturally,
but the spirit of the thing was there — it was the
place of worship of the school, and meant for the
wants of the school ; bit by bit it has been replaced
by the present beautiful chapel, but as the dawn of
good things. Dr. Wordsworth's chapel should be
held in everlasting remembrance."!
These are reminiscences of men who had lived on
to see better things. But the conteraporary evidence
of the low estate to which the externals of worship
had fallen is, in one sense, more valuable, because
the writers would hardly have had the audacity to
give it, if anyone who had eyes and ears could have
contradicted it if it had been false ; for it was not a
matter of opinion but of seeing and hearing. A
few extracts, therefore, from the wealth of evidence
which is available, may be given.
What, then, do contemporaries tell us about the
state of our country churches before the revival?
"Let any one", says a writer in the British Critic,
' Quoted in Life of Bishop Christopher Wordsworth, ch. iv.

196 The Anglican Revival.
in 1827, " make a circuit of the villages throughout
a considerable portion of these realms, and what
is the spectacle which in too many instances will
salute his eyes on entering the church-yard? On
looking at the exterior of the church, he will often
find it half buried beneath the mould, which has
been suffered to accumulate round it for ages, and
to spread a gradual decay throughout the walls
and foundations. On entering it, he will find
that everything answers faithfully to the promise
without; and that the external provision for per
petuating dampness and discomfort within has suc
ceeded to admiration. The walls will appear deco
rated with hangings of green; a carpeting of the
same pattern often partially covers the floor; and
the very first and last thoughts which are excited by
the whole appearance of the building are those of
ague, catarrh, and rheumatism." Thirteen years
later (1841), a writer in The Christian Rem,embrancer
declares that "the traveller through these islands,
whose lot it was to have before his eyes the evidence
of the gradual substitution of Christianity in the
place of Druidical superstition, or Roman, Saxon,
or Danish idolatry, could hardly, perhaps, have
found among the decaying fanesof Jupiter or Woden,
scenes of more dismal ruin and dank desolation than
are to be seen at the present moment in some of the
houses of God in our rural districts ; and the reason
why so little is said about it seems to be that we are
so accustomed to see our churches generally in a

The Movement and Public Worship. 197
dilapidated condition, that we have altogether
ceased to find anything remarkable in it ". And then
he gives painful details. It may be objected that
writers in The British Critic and The Christian Re
membrancer are prejudiced witnesses, as belonging
to the party which set itself to correct the abuses
they complained of; but would they have dared
to make such assertions if they could have been
proved false by anyone who chose to use his eye
sight? The worship within was too often of a piece with
the external surroundings. Let us take, as an
example, the psalmody. Too often an ill-educated
parish clerk was left to make his own selection out
of the meagre stores of Tate and Brady. The
Evangelicals, indeed, had introduced hymns, and
in this, as in other respects, the worship in Evan
gelical churches was generally in advance of all
except those which belonged to "the Clapton", as
distinguished from "the Clapham sect". But, as
a rule, hymns were regarded as Methodistical, and
church people preferred psalms out of which the
poetry had been carefully extracted by the com
pilers of the Old Version or the New. The music
was \oi a piece with the words. According to the
same writer in the British Critic already quoted,
even "some of the London churches, with all the
facilities for excellent psalmody, contrived to con
vert this joyous spiritual exercise into a positive
infliction". In the country (v«th honourable ex-

igS The Anglican Revival.
ceptions) it was either a worse infliction, or ignored
altogether. One can hardly imagine an archdeacon,
in his charge, making a false assertion on a plain
matter of fact ; and this is what Archdeacon Bailey
says to the clergy of the Archdeaconry of Stow in
1826: "Sacred music is an essential part of the
Liturgy; it is the very life and soul of every new
raethod of Dissenting worship. Why, then, is it so
rarely invited to impart a solemn interest to our
parochial services?" — with much more to the same
effect. So too a clergyraan writes in the British
Magazine in 1832: " I believe it to be a matter oi
regret general among my clerical brethren, that
while almost every Dissenting congregation culti
vates sacred music as a part of their public worship,
it is altogether neglected in so many of our country
churches ". Perhaps it was better that it should be
altogether neglected than that it should be treated,
as we learn from no less an authority than Bishop
Mant that it was treated by some. In his notes "on
Psalmody " in his annotated edition of the Book of
Common Prayer, published in 1824, he finds it
necessary to give this gentle adraonition: " If we
will not employ our lips in the service, we may still
fix our minds upon it; at least, we should not hinder
others from doing either. And particularly, we
should abstain frora giving the bad example and
the offence of indecently holding conversation at
that time, for which there cannot surely be so
pressing an occasion but that it may be very safely

The Movement and Public Worship, 199
deferred till after church, if not altogether omitted."
Then he suggests, — but evidently as a counsel of
perfection, which he did not expect to be generally
carried out, — that it would be well to stand up dur
ing the singing of the Psalms. "Were it more
uncommon than it is, it would be far from a dis
honourable singularity. But still, as very many in
most congregations have by long habit been pre
judiced in favour of sitting; or, though they dis
approve the custom, feel a difficulty of quitting it
unless everyone did, they should not be censured
for a practice by which they mean nothing amiss,
but kindly encouraged to an alteration in this point,
which we may thus hope will gradually become
general." It would be easy, but needless, to adduce
other instances of the laxity into which the church
had fallen in regard to her fabrics and the worship
within them ; and few, I presume, would deny that
the marvellous improvement which has taken place
is due mainly to the movement which commenced
in 1833.
While this care for public worship derived its
impulse from the movement, it also reacted upon
that movement itself, and greatly conduced to its
strength and extension. The fashion of restoring
and beautifying churches was taken up by church
men of all schools, and had a natural tendency to
draw men upward, so to speak. It would be inter
esting to trace out the numerous instances in which
the restored church has helped to change a more or

200 The Anglican Revival.
less Low Church congregation into a more or less
High one. People cannot help being affected by
their outward surroundings; and when they wor
shipped in a building, every arrangement of which
would be suggestive of a certain system, they were
apt, by little and little, and often quite unconsciously,
to advance in the direction of that systera. It is
perfectly marvellous to observe how things are now
accepted which once provoked suspicion and even
actual rebellion. It is difficult in the present day
to realize that fifty years ago the wearing of the
surplice in the pulpit was so exasperating a pro
ceeding as to raise serious riots; it is still more
difficult to realize that one of the best of our bishops
(Dr. Blomfield), whose very natural injunctions to
his clergy to obey the rubric led them to don — or
rather, not to put off — the obnoxious garment, should
have been so alarmed at the opposition as to retract
his previous orders ; that his successor should have
been so annoyed at the sight of coloured stoles as
to utter his memorable comraand, "Take away
those ribands"; that another bishop should have
inhibited an earnest and devoted clergyman frora
officiating in his diocese, because he put into his
church ornaraents, most of which are now really
the rule rather than the exception, but which the
bishop termed "frippery" and "spiritual haber
dashery";! that an intelligent layman should have
complained to the bishop of the diocese about "rib-
' See Memoir of John Mason Neale (Littledale).

The Movement and Public 'Worship. 201
bons in service-books with small cardboard crosses",
and "wreaths on a chancel arch and round church
columns";! that the introduction ofa choral service
at St. George's-in-the-East should have raised a
mob. But all these things really happened, and,
with the exception of the last, arose from truly con
scientious feelings. This, however, can scarcely be
said of the disgraceful riots at St. George's-in-the-
East in 1859. Mr. Bryan King, the vicar, had been
working there for eight years, most earnestly,
though not perhaps always most judiciously; and
with the invaluable aid of two mission priests, Mr.
C. F. Lowder and Mr. A. H. Mackonochie, had
gradually elevated the tone of his poor parishioners.
This, of course, had injured the profits of those who
pandered to their vices, and stirred up animosity.
Right-minded men could never sympathize with
opposition based on such grounds, and, as a matter
of fact, men who had no sympathy whatever with
the views of the workers, men like Dean Stanley
and Judge Hughes, came to the rescue. But this
is anticipating. We must go back twenty years.
One of the first definite attempts to apply the
principles of the church movement to the accessories
of public worship was made by Mr. F. Oakeley in
what was then called Margaret Chapel, on the site
of which the beautiful church of All Saints', Mar
garet Street, was afterwards built at the sole expense
of Mr. A. J. Beresford Hope. In the summer of
» See Life of Bishop Samuel Wilberforce (Ashwell), i. 433.

202 The Anglican Revival.
1839 Mr. Oakeley accepted the incumbency of this
chapel, "desiring an opportunity of trying the effect
of Tractarian principles upon a practical scale".!
Margaret Chapel seemed a most unpromising sphere
for the experiment, for it was "a paragon of ugli
ness". But perhaps he was helped by the fact that
a sense of reverence was traditional there. Here
again the testimony of Mr. Gladstone comes in.
" Reverence", he writes in 1874, " need not be the
property or characteristic of any .school in particular.
It distinguished the Margaret Chapel of forty years
ago, when the pastors of that church were termed
Evangelical. It subsisted in that sarae chapel
thirty years ago, when Mr. Oakeley (now, alas!
ours no more) and Mr. Upton Richards gave to its
very simple services, which would now scarcely
satisfy an average congregation, and when the
fabric was little less than hideous, that true solem
nity which is in perfect concord with simplicity.
The Papal Church now enjoys the advantages of
the labours of Mr. Oakeley; who united to a fine
musical taste a much finer and much rarer gift, in
discerning and expressing the harraony between the
inward purposes of Christian worship and its out
ward investiture, and who then had gathered round
hira a congregation the raost devout and hearty that
I (for one) have ever seen in any coraraunion of the
Christian world. "^
'Historical Notes ofthe Tractarian Movement, by F. Oakeley, p. 6i.
" Ritualists and Ritual.

The Movement and Public Worship. 203
We have here a remarkable illustration of what has
been said above about the general raising of the tone
of congregations.! Mr. Gladstone tells us that "the
simple services" at Margaret Chapel under Mr.
Oakeley ' ' would now scarcely satisfy an average
congregation", and yet it is clear that Mr. Oakeley
found considerable difficulty in establishing even
these simple services. There was a recalcitrant old
parish clerk who could not be got rid of. The intro
duction of alms-bags was regarded as " a perilous
novelty". They might have, Mr. Oakeley tells us,
candles provided they did not light them. They
were restricted to one bouquet of flowers on the
communion-table, and were required to take especial
care that white did not predominate on the feast of
a virgin, nor red on that of a martyr. They might
preach in a surplice in the morning if they would
wear a black gown in the evening, — and so forth. ^
It did not, of course, help the work that Mr. Oakeley
followed his friend Newman to Rome, but his col
league Mr. W. Upton Richards reraained to the
end of his life a loyal son of the Church of England,
and became the much-esteemed vicar of Margaret
Chapel's glorious successor.
The doings, however, at Margaret Chapel did not
create any great sensation ; at any rate, not nearly so
great as that which arose about 1850 in connection
' See supra, p. 199.
2 See Oakeley's Historical Notes ofthe Tractarian Movement, pp. 63 and
69.

204 The Anglican Revival.
with the church of S. Paul's, Knightsbridge, and
its daughter church, S. Barnabas', Pimlico. The
incumbent, the Rev. J. W. E. Bennett, was an ex
ceedingly able and energetic man, who, so far frora
having any tendency to Rome, wrote some Lectures
on the Distinctive Errors of Romanism, which con
stitute one of the ablest defences of the Anglican, in
contrast with the Roman position, which has ever
been published. Itwas on S. Barnabas' Day, 1850,
that Bishop Blomfield consecrated the Church of
S. Barnabas with what was for those days a high
ceremonial. All passed off well on the day, but
when the services were continued on the same lines
they were interrupted by the hootings of the mob.
Mr. Bennett had promised the bishop that he would
resign the living, if it should' be thought to be for
the good of the church. The bishop now clairaed
the fulfilment of his promise, and Mr. Bennett re
tired to Frome, where he lived and worked for many
years, raaking his parish a centre of the Anglican
movement. But the services both at S. Paul's and
S. Barnabas' were conducted on precisely the same
lines under his successor, Mr. Liddell. And this
led to the first of those unhappy Ritual trials which
so long disturbed the peace of the church.
Into the details of these cases it is not purposed
here to enter. It is a subject which should be treated
thoroughly or not at all; and though I cannot at
all agree with the theory that the Tractarian move
ment was one thing, the Ritualistic movement

The Movement and Public 'Worship. 205
another, still the latter was a new phase which really
requires separate treatment, or, at any rate, longer
treatment than the space of this little volume will
allow. Neither do the limits of the work permit the
mention of other churches which were in the van of
the movement for raising the ideal of public worship,
such as the splendid new parish church at Leeds,
built under Dr. Hook, and opened in 1841, where
the beauty of the singing soon became a proverb ;
or the church of S. Thomas', Oxford, or of S.
Mary Magdalene, Munster Square, or of S. Alban's,
Holborn, or of S. Andrew's, Well Street, or of All
Saints', Margaret Street, or of Wantage, under Mr.
(afterwards Dean) Butler, orof S. Paul's, Brighton,
and the other "Wagner" churches there; or the
costly church at Wilton, built by the first Lord
Herbert of Lea, or of Highnam, built by Mr.
Gambler Parry, or (to end with the raost important
of all) S. Paul's Cathedral, which has been trans
muted from a scandal into a glory of the metropolis.
But before concluding, some words must be added
about the subject generally.
It was a most unfortunate coincidence that in the
very same year in which a movement was started,
having for one of its main objects the exaltation of
the church as aft independent, spiritual society,
a change was made in the ultimate court of appeal
in matters of doctrine and ritual, which caused many
churchmen to feel that the church was regarded as
a mere appanage of the state.

2o6 The Anglican Revival.
After the break with Rome in 1534, the ultimate
appeal was to the sovereign. This was no new
doctrine; it was simply the reassertion of the old
doctrine of the royal supremacy. But there was
always a sort of tacit understanding that the sove
reign should refer spiritual cases to spiritual persons.
And as a matter of fact the sovereign did give his
or her decision through a court which might, and
generally did, to a great extent, consist of spiritual
persons — the Court of Delegates. But in 1832 the
final appeal was transferred, simply by Act of
Parliament (for Convocation then existed only in
name, and therefore could not be consulted), from
the Court of Delegates to the Privy Council — that is,
frora the king in Chancery to the king in Council;
and then in 1833, to a section ofthe Privy Council,
called the Judicial Committee. This was done by
a kind of accident, it being never intended that such
ecclesiastical cases should come before the court as
did come before it. In fact it was a purely secular
court, founded by a purely secular authority. Pre
lates, indeed, might attend in certain cases, but only
as assessors, not as raerabers. "The attendant
bishops", said Canon Liddon, "only decorated by
their presence a tribunal which was essentially civil
and lay; they lent to its decisions a semblance of
ecclesiastical authority, which it could not in fact
possess, and which was only calculated to embarrass
tender consciences."
The case is here put as it appeared to a large

The Movement and Public Worship. 207
and increasing number of churchmen, from the
time of the Gorham judgment pronounced by the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, onwards.
And when these churchmen were charged with
being law-breakers, because they rebelled against
law so made, they replied in eff'ect, "What do you
mean by law? The early Christians were law
breakers when they refused to sprinkle a little
incense on the altars of the heathen gods. It
might seem a mere trifle ; it might mean nothing to
them; it need not in the lea'st have interfered with
their internal faith in the one true God. But a
principle was involved ; therefore they chose rather
to go to the stake than to comply with this simple
ceremony. And a principle is involved in our case;
we are required to render unto Caesar the things
that are God's."
But if the clergy could not submit to the ruling
of a secular court, might they not, at any rate, have
submitted to the ruling of the bishops, their own
spiritual fathers in God? Undoubtedly they might,
and some who refused to submit to the one, did
submit to the other. But they also felt that they
had a right to ask a reason for the ruling. The
bishops were their spiritual fathers; but it is the
part of a father to guide and direct, not arbitrarily
to command, a grown-up, intelligent son. The
bishop, they thought, ought to have the law of the
church, as well as the law of the state, at his back ;
and this is exactly what they believed that he had

2o8 The Anglican Revival.
not. Moreover, it could never be forgotten that, if
churchmen had been simply content to follow the
lead of individual bishops, there would have been
no movement at all. It was just the same with the
Church Revival of 1833 as itwas with the Evangelical
Revival of the preceding century. There was not
a single bishop who favoured either revival until it
had become a power in the land. It is instructive
to turn to the episcopal charges, on the one hand,
say, from 1780 to 1800, and on the other hand from
1835 to 1855. It will be found that charge after
charge is full of warnings against the revival then
in progress, with, at most, a word of faint praise
here and there, of the earnest, though misguided,
efforts of the workers. Perhaps it is the office of a
bishop to guide and regulate, rather than to lead a
crusade ; but it must be confessed that the leaders
of the van of the moveraent in any of its stages
would derive but cold comfort from the study of the
episcopal attitude in the past.
All this is apart frora the question of ritual itself.
That it is exceedingly foolish in any clergyman to
start a fancy ritual of his own ; that it is worse than
foolish to attempt to force any strange ritual upon
an unwilling congregation which is not educated
up to it;! that it is worst of all to make ritual a means
of showing and advocating disloyalty to that church
^ Dr. Pusey thus describes a meeting in 1867: " I had three-fourths or
four-fifths ofa meeting ofthe E.C.U. against me on a sentence of mine dis
claiming the forcing of ritual on an unwilling congregation," — and more to
the same effect. — Life, iv. 216.

The Movement and Public Worship. 209
to which he is bound by the most solemn obliga
tions ; that it argues great weakness in him to be
carried away, as it is to be feared some were, beyond
his own convictions, by a few irresponsible laymen
— all this is most fully admitted. Ritual is not an
end in itself, but only a means to an end ; and if the
end be not an honest one, or if the means be not
desirable or judicious, then it is a distinct evil.
Again, a distinction should be drawn between the
introduction of a high ritual into a new church or a
district church, and into the one old parish church
of the place, especially when that church is practi
cally the sole available means of grace for church
men. The fact must always be reckoned with that
there will generally be some, and men who have the
root of the matter in them too, who positively dis
like an ornate service, quite apart from its supposed
approximation to Rome. Even if these form but a
small minority their feelings ought to be regarded ;
and if they form a majority, then the wise clergyman
will surely wait until he has succeeded in changing
the feeling. It is to be feared that such a course
has not always been adopted, and the result has
thus been a very distinct weakening of the church.
There is another point which requires handling
delicately, but cannot be wholly ignored. The
leaders of the early movement were among the
most cultured men of the day; and it must be
admitted that, with notable exceptions, those who
were prominent in the next phase of the movement
(M426) O

2IO The Anglican Revival.
were not quite of the sarae calibre. A keen ob
server, who had seen both generations, in alluding
to a certain ritual dead-lock, writes: " I wish wise
men would think it over and give us some guiding
principles. At present my prevailing feeling is
that this question should not be settled in a passion
by a set of second-rate people, who are really fight
ing the battle of (as it seems to me) their own per
versities."! The writer of the letter is Frederick
Rogers (Lord Blachford); the recipient. Dean
Church. How raany have we had, of the same
calibre, who have been prominent either as ritualists
or anti-ritualists? Men on both sides seem to me
to have had a tendency to a disease which raay
be termed * ' ritual on the brain " — especially when
that brain was not a very strong brain.
The real question at issue between the most
thoughtful on both sides was not one of ceremonial
but of doctrine. Ritual apart from its symbolism is a
thing of naught. It was valued by the really earnest
men, not for its intrinsic beauty, but for what it
taught — taught through the eye rather than through
the ear, and therefore, on the Horatian principle,
taught more quickly and vividly, and that especially
among the poor and the unlearned. If, on the one
hand, it was the masses who raised the riots at S.
Barnabas', and S. George's-in-the-East, and else
where, it was also the masses who were touched by
the gorgeous services at S. Alban's, Holborn, S.
1 The Letters of Lord Blachford, p. 375.

Causes of the Success of the Movement. 211
Peter's, London Docks, and other similar churches.
Can we wonder at it? Think of the sordid sur
roundings by which they were depressed outside
the church, and what an effective means of elevat
ing and impressing them the mere sight of what
went on inside the church must have been. Think
again what a real refreshment to such labourers in
the squalid courts and alleys, as Mr. Lowder and
Mr. Mackonochie, must the grandeur of God's
House have afforded.
It is one of the happiest features of these closing
years of the nineteenth century that there is a better
chance than there has been for many a long year of
peace within the borders of the sanctuary.

Chapter X.
Causes of the Success of the Movement.
It remains to sum up the chief causes of the rapid
spread and enduring success of a movement, which
is described by one who had been a keen observer
of life for fourscore years as "by far the most re
markable phenomenon he had witnessed through
out his long career"!; which, taking its rise in a
learned university, soon extended to very different
spheres, alike to the country villages, the market-
1 Thomas Grenville (1755-1846). See Dean Burgon's Lives of Twelve
Good Men, " Samuel Wilberforce " , ii. i.

212 The Anglican Revival.
towns, the cathedral cities, and the great manufac
turing centres.
(i) The revived study of church history was
partly a result, but partly also a very potent cause,
of the moveraent's success. More than half a cen
tury has elapsed since H. H. Milman cynically,
but with a great amount of truth, declared that
those who desired to know the history of the early
church must turn to the pages of Gibbon. But
such a remark could hardly have been made twenty-
five years later. A subject so interesting to all
Christians had begun to be more deeply studied in
the interval ; and the more closely it was studied,
the better it was for the Anglican movement, which
was essentially a revival of historical Christianity.
The study taught men to realize the continuity of
the English Church, and scattered to the winds the
theory that a new Parliamentary church was in
vented in the reign of Henry VIIL; it taught them
to discriminate between what was raerely mediceval
and what was primitive; and thus it removed the
difficulty, which the popular Evangelicalism hardly
did, about justifying our English Reformation;
while, on the other hand, instead of helping the
cause of Rome, it in reality cut away the ground
from under her feet. "They have no support in
the Fathers, sir. In the first three centuries not
one word."! Xhus spoke, in his stately way, Dr,
' Dean Burgon's Lives of Twelve Good Men, " Martin Joseph Routh, the
Learned Divine ", vol. 1. p. 56.

Causes of the Success of the Movement, 213
Routh, by far the most learned English divine of
his day, concerning the Roman, so far as they
differed from the English, Catholics, Dr. Routh,
of course, never threw himself into the movement
(he held aloof from all movements); but he saw its
strength, and, in spite of his aloofness, gave its
leaders a sort of dignified support.
(2) The revived sense of beauty in all depart
ments, which is popularly termed ^stheticism, was
a valuable ally to the movement. It was, perhaps,
fortunate that prominence was not given in the
early stage to the adjuncts of worship; otherwise it
might have been said that the revival was merely
the ecclesiastical form which asstheticism took. But
dates show that it was not so. The principles ad
vocated by Keble, Pusey, and Newman, had estab
lished themselves before the aesthetic wave passed
over the country. We were still in the reign of
ugliness ; but when that reign passed away, and a
sense of the beautiful in architecture, in music, in
painting, in the fine arts generally, asserted its
sway, it found its natural home, so far as religion
was concerned, in the remodelled church. Men
who loved beautiful music and grand surroundings
in their worship had in former times gone to Roman
Catholic chapels in order to find them; now they
need not cross the borders of their own church.
Rome could no longer claim a monopoly in enlist
ing what appealed to the sense of beauty into the
service of the Almighty.

214 The Anglican Revival.
(3) It may seem to be attributing too much im
portance to a comparatively trifling matter, but there
is no doubt that very great influence in the Anglican
direction was exercised by the vast number of tales
for the young which followed in the wake of the
Tracts for the Times in rapid succession. Many who
would never have dreamed of reading the Tracts
read with aviditythe tales of Dr. Neale, Mr. Gresley,
Mr. Paget, Miss Sewell, Miss C. M. Yonge, and
Mr. J. W. E. Bennett; while the allegories of Samuel
Wilberforce, William Adams, and Edward Monro,
took the place in many families of The Pilgrim's
Progress and The Holy War. In any revival it is
of course of vital iraportance to win over the rising
generation; otherwise the work dies out with the
generation that dies away. But it was especially
important in this revival, which in the first instance
was the reverse of a popular one. The writings of
its first leaders, however excellent, were "caviare to
the general ". Even The Christian Year (still more
The Lyra Innocentium) demanded a much greater
effort of the intellect than the majority are willing
to give, really to understand it; and to this day I
believe it is a book more bought and quoted than
generally read. And the tales in question, though
adapted and intended for the young, were not at all
beneath the notice of grown-up people, who are
often children in mind when they are no longer
children in years. -^ Indeed, such stories as The
Siege of Lichfield, The Heir of Redely ffe, Am.y Her-

Causes of the Success of the Movement. 215
bert, Shepperlon Manor, The Owlet of Owlstone
Edge, and such allegories as The Rocky Island, The
Shadow of the Cross, and The Dark River, are lit
erature which the most learned and highly-culti
vated adults need not be ashamed of reading and
admiring; and a vast number did rend and admire
it, while, half-unconsciously perhaps, they imbibed
the principles of the writers.
(4) The personal characters of the leaders were of
a kind to commend any cause which they espoused
to the respectful consideration of the pious and the
thoughtful. John and Thoraas Keble, E. B. Pusey,
J. H. Newman, R. H. Froude, Isaac Williams,
Charles Marriott, and the rest were all raen of a very
high type, raorally, spiritually, and intellectually.
No breath of scandal ever sullied the fair farae of
any one of them; their earnestness and sincerity
were not denied even by those who thought that
they spent their lives in propagating the most
mischievous and deadly delusions. They were all
on the foundations of their respective colleges, and
were therefore, in a sense, picked men to begin
with ; and there they were trained up to the finest
possible point, leading one another upwards, as
young trees do in a plantation. It is wonderful
also what kindliness, forbearance, and consideration
they showed one towards another. They were men
of very independent minds, and were by no means
inclined to follow one after the other, as sheep do
when they go through a hedge. But this indepen-

2i6 The Anglican Revival.
dence does not appear to have in the least interrupted
the harmony of their joint work. It was not "a treble
cord ", but a tenfold or a twenty-fold cord, which,
of course, was " not easily broken". The movement
was emphatically one which began at the top and
worked downwards; not vice versa. And this
surely is the right order; for it is far easier and
more satisfactory to popularize a systera which
has an intellectual backbone, than it is to give an
intellectual backbone to a system which begins by
being popular and invertebrate.
(5) It supplied a want which Evangelicalism
supplied in its day, but which it was fast failing
to satisfy. The Oxford men and their successors
touched life at far raore points than the older Evan
gelicals ever did. To quote the unirapeachable
testimony of Principal Tulloch, who, though stand
ing apart frora both, raight certainly be expected to
sympathize farmore with Low than with High church
men: "The Evangelical school, with all its merits,
had conceived of Christianity rather as something
superadded to the highest life of humanity, than as
the perfect developraent of that life; as a scheme
for human salvation authenticated by miracles, and,
so to speak, interpolated into human history, rather
than a divine philosophy. Philosophy, literature,
art, and science were conceived apart from religion.
The world and the church were severed portions
of life divided by outward signs and badges; and
those who joined the one or the other were supposed

Causes of the Success of the Movement. 217
to be clearly marked off."! It was a mischievous
notion to go abroad that piety was alienated from
the higher culture ; but it certainly was a very prev
alent notion, though not altogether a just one, at
the time when the Oxford movement began. And
to this very day, while we can admire the beautiful
characters of the early Evangelicals, we cannot read
their books. But the Oxford school, unlike the
Evangelicals, produced a literature of enduring
merit; and, unlike the Broad churchmen and the
"establishment raen", had a definite system to
recommend. For
(6) Another cause of the success of the movement
was that it taught men to realize that the church
could give them something worth fighting for.
" Liberty of thought" on the one hand, and " Our
happy establishment in Church and State " on the
other, were too vague, too unspiritual things to
kindle enthusiasm ; but the Holy Catholic Church
was not. The Evangelical Revival derived its
impetus from its insistence upon the necessity of the
conversion of the individual sinner's soul to God;
the Anglican Revival, from its insistence upon the
supplementary, not contradictory, truth that God's
elect "are knit together in one coraraunion and
fellowship in the mystical body of His Son ". The
one was the triumph of individualism, the other, of
collectivism. 1 Movements of Religious Thought in Britain during the Nineteenth
Century, p. 13.

2i8 The Anglican Revival.
(7) The practical work in the parish, in the diocese,
and in the church at large, which arose out of the
movement, has been a most potent cause of its suc
cess. It would be a cruel injustice to many good men,
especially those of the Evangelical school, to claira
for the Anglican Revival an exclusive share in the
vast increase both in the araount and efficiency of
church work which has characterized the nineteenth
century as compared with the eighteenth. On the
contrary, in many dioceses and parishes that work
was in full swing before the movement comraenced,
and in still raore, before it made itself felt. But that
is the very reason why its practical work has been one
of the chief reasons of its success. It had not to
create a sense ofthe necessity of such work — that was
created already ; and the very fact that it existed led
to the keen appreciation of what the revival did in
the domain of practice. It commended itself to men
who could not enter into the nice distinctions of
theology by the real good its adherents appeared to
be doing. And moreover, it gave a certain defin
iteness and system to the work, which was needed.
In such dioceses as Oxford under Bishop Wilber
force, Salisbury under Bishops Denison, Hamilton,
and Moberley, Lincoln under Bishop Wordsworth,
Lichfield under Bishop Selwyn; in such parishes
as Leeds under Dr. Hook, Wantage under Mr.
Butler, Kidderminster under Mr. Claughton, Yar
mouth under Mr. Hills, Frome under Mr. Bennett,
you trace the peculiar stamp of the revival in what

Causes of the Success of the Movement. 219
was done. It was done often amidst great opposi
tion, but thatvery opposition called attention to it, and
thus really helped on the success of the movement.
It is wonderful, again, how much of the work of
the church at large during the last fifty years is,
directly or indirectly, due to the movement we are
considering. The restoration, after rauch discour
agement in high places, of the active powers of
Convocation, the establishment of the less regular,
but not less efficient. Church Congresses and Dio
cesan Conferences, of Sisterhoods, of Guilds, of
parochial missions, of retreats and quiet days; the
increase of the episcopate at home and abroad, the
revival of the office of (so-called) Suffragan Bishops,
and many other organizations, may fairly be said to
have originated with men who were, more or less, in
fluenced by the movement ; though they were after
wards taken up by others. * ' Nothing succeeds like
success ", and the successful carrying out of such
projects in detail, materially contributed to the suc
cess of the movement as a whole. It is the natural
tendency of practical workers to join themselves to
that body in which practical work is most efficiently
carried out ; and it would not be difficult to point
out many instances in which men who began by
having no sympathy with the theoretical side of the
movement have been gradually drawn into it by its
success in practical work. This has been more
especially the case with Broad Churchmen, who,
having never formed one corapact body, as the Evan-

220 The Anglican Revival.
gelicals did, have in numberless cases virtually
identified themselves with the moveraent party.
(8) It was a revival of the poetry of religion,
which had well-nigh died out at the commencement
of the Georgian era; in other words it was, as Dr.
Pusey expressed it, "a return to the seventeenth
century". A singularly prosaic type of Christianity
set in when Tillotson was the most admired of
preachers, and Locke the most influential of philo
sophers. The type was intensified in the days of
the "evidence writers", culminating in the Paley
school of divinity, which applied the utilitarian
theory of Jeremy Bentham to religion. The Evan
gelicals introduced a far more tender and spiritual
element, but even they laid so much stress upon the
fear of future punishment and the hope of future
reward that they seemed rather to extend the Ben
thamite principle of "the greatest happiness of the
greatest nuraber" to another world, which the utili
tarians applied to this world. The church was in
clined to be prosaic and commonplace from the acces
sion of the first George up to the commencement of
the Oxford raoveraent. There were very few whose
religion was of that spirit which breathes through
every page of our Liturgy, and which produced such
men as Lancelot Andrewes, Nicholas Ferrar, George
Herbert, Robert Sanderson, Thomas Ken, John
Kettlewell, George Bull, Simon Patrick, Williara
Beveridge, and Robert Nelson. Here and there an
instance like that of William Law or of William

Causes of the Success of the Movement. 221
Jones of Nayland might be found, but these were
quite exceptions; the type had practically died out.
The difference between the churchmen of the later
date and those of the eariier was like the difference
between a modern prayer and an ancient one; or
between an old Gothic church with all its mellowed
beauty and a brand-new town-hall with all its garish-
ness. The latter may be a useful edifice, but there
is no poetry about it. The Anglican revival was a
return to the old type reflected in the Prayer Book.
It caught the imagination, it supplied a refuge for
many who revolted from the prosaic spirit of the
age. It is a notable fact that a large proportion of the
men who have been prominent in the movement
have been, more or less, gifted with the spirit of
poetry. It has been seen that three at least of that
brilliant galaxy which lighted up the firmament in
the early part of the nineteenth century — Coleridge,
Wordsworth, and Sir Walter Scott — prepared the
way for the movement. And of the few who took a
leading part in the movement itself in its early stage,
no less than five — J. Keble, J. H. Newman, I. Wil
liams, J. M. Neale, and F. W. Faber — were true poets.
Not only did their religion aff'ect their poetry, but
also their poetry affected their religion and tended
to make it attractive. What was once said in a
periodical, which cannot be accused of having too
ecclesiastical proclivities,! of a later phase of the
1 The Pall Mall Gazette.

222 The Anglican Revival.
movement, is at least as true of the earlier : " It
made the Church of England interesting". It has
been, and still is, a standing witness and a valuable
protest against the utilitarian philosophy and ram
pant industrialism of the age. The Victorian age
has been termed "the age of inventions", and we
point with conscious pride to our railways, our
telegraphs, our telephones, our raachinery, our
sanitary arrangements, our manufactures, as proofs
of our greatness. But, after all, there is another
part of our nature which the utmost perfection of
appliances that only touch the material life cannot
affect. To this part the movement appealed, and
it did not appeal in vain; it is a reraarkable fact
that no section of society has been raore affected by
it than that which is incessantly occupied in work
shops, raanufactories, and such like places. Hence
it is that it has been more successful in crowded
centres than in country places : in the latter the
clergy have generally had to push on the people ; in
the former the people have very often had to push
on the clergy. But both in town and country it has
supplied a want which raere materialism can never
satisfy; for, as Matthew Arnold says in one of his
prose works, the human raind is interested in higher
questions than what papier-mache is, and how
buttons are made.
To these causes the adherents of the movement
would of course add another, which outweighs them
all — the blessing of the Almighty upon His own

Causes of the Success of the Movement. 223
work, the carrying out of the principle that the
Truth is mighty and will prevail. But this is
trenching upon a topic which belongs to the theo
logian, not to the historian. The task of the latter
is ended when he has told, as faithfully as may be,
the simple story of what friend and foe must own to
be one of the most remarkable and influential move
ments of modern tiraes.

Index.

Adams, Rev. W., 2r4.
Address to the Primate(i834), 49-50.
/Cstheticism and Worship, 213.
Allegories on the lines of the Re
vival, 214.
Allies, Rev. T. W., 182.
All Saints', Margaret Street, 201,
205.
Anderdon, J. D. , 176, 177.
Anglican Claim, The (Wiseman),
go-
Apostolical Succession, The, 28,
54-6, 60, 85.
" ApostoHoals, The", 56.
Appeal in matters of doctrine and
ritual, 205.
Appendix to Bp. Jebb's Sermons, 18.
Arians, History of the, Newman's,
45-
Arnold, Dr., of Rugby, 71, 73, 92.
Ashwell, Canon, 162, 172.
Assize Sermon, Keble's, 29-36.
Association of the Friends of the
Church, 49-50, S3, 56.
Badeley, E. L., 183.
Bagot, Bp., 85-7, 89, 104, 112-3.
Bailey, Archdeacon, 198.
Bampton Lectures, Hampden's, 71-
2, 172.
Bampton Lectures, Miller's, 27.
Baptism, Pusey's three Tracts on,
63.
Baptismal Regeneration, 43, 173-4,
177. 183.
Baptistery, The, J. Williams', 190.
Bennett, Rev. J. W. E. , 204, 214,218.
Bernard, Mountague, 132.
(U426)

Blomfield, Bp. C. J., 162, 200, 204.
Blunt, Professor J. J., 138.
Bowden, J. W., 86, 92.
Boyce, E. J., 191.
British Critic, The, 90, iri-3, 137,
179, 195-6, 197.
British Magazine, The, 20, 68, 137,
198.
Burgon, Dean J., 19,30.
Butler, Dean W. , 142, 218.
Cambridge Camden Society, 139-
142, I9r.
Cambridge — Evangelical eleraent
in, 135-6.
Cambridge — indirect influence on
the Revival, 143-5.
Cambridge — its share in the Revival,
135-145-
Catence Patrum, Newman's, 77, 88.
Cathedral, The, J. Williams', 190.
"Catholic Emancipation Act", 9.
Choral services, 192, 201.
Christian Observer, The, 169.
Christian Remembrancer, The, 46,
129-130, 185, 196-7.
Christian Year, Keble's, 24-7, 36,
49, 97, 188, 214.
Church, Dean, 97, 128, 133, 185, 210.
Church Building Society, 10.
Church Congresses, 219.
Church History, revived study of,
312.
Church Missionary Society, 10.
Church Quarterly Review, The, 142.
Church Restoration, effects of, 199-
200.
Church Unions, 184-6.

226

The Anglican Revival.

Churton, Archd., ioo, 158; 174.
"Clapham Sect, The", 13, 16.
" Clapton Sect, The ", 13, 16.
Claughton, Bp., 218.
Coleridge, Sir J. T., 102, no.
Coleridge, S. T., 17, 221.
Coloured stoles, 200.
Convocation (Oxford), 72, no.
Convocation (ProvincialSynod),2i9.
Copeland, Rev. W. J., 58, 95.
Copleston, Bp. (Provost of Oriel),
43. 71-
Corporation Act, 9.
Corpus Christi College, Oxford, 35.
Court of Delegates, 206.
Coventry, Dr. Hook at, 149-150.
" Declaration of the Laity" (1834),
50-1.
Denison, Bp., 162, 218.
Development of Doctrine, Essay on
the, Newman's, 118-9, i^o.
Diocesan Conferences, 219.
Dodsworth, Rev. W., 181-2.
Donatists, the, 91.
Dublin Review, The, 90.
Ecclesiological Society, The, 191,
192.
Ecclesiologist, The, 142, 191.
Episcopate, Increase of the, 219.
Evangelical Revival, The, 11, 15,
208, 217.
Evangelicals, The, 12, 41-2, 81,
216-7, 220.
Evans, Archd. R. W. , 136.
Faber, Rev. F. W., 221.
Fabrics of churches before the Re
vival, 196-7.
Fasting, Pusey's Tract on, 62, 121.
Fathers, Study of the, 23-4.
Faussett, Prof. (Oxford), 107-8.
Froude, Archd., 47, 50, 56-7.
Froude, R. Hurrell, 21, 32, 44-5,
47. SO, 56. 56. 70-1, 215.
Froude's Remains, 81-3, 92.
Garbett, Archd., 106.

German Theology, 38-9, 40-1.
Gilbert, Bp., 141.
Gladstone, Right Hon. W. E, no,
192, 202.
Golightly, Rev. C. P. , 58, 84, 93, 100.
Gorham, Rev. G. C, 173-4.
Gorham Judgment, The, 173-4,
180-4.
Griffiths, Rev. J. , 100.
Guardian, The, 130-3.
Guilds, 219.
Haddan, Rev. A. W. , 131-2.
Haddan, T. H., 131.
Hadleigh Rectory, meeting at, 28-9,
31-2.
Hamilton, Bp. W. K., 218.
Hampden, Bp. R. D., 71-4, 106-7,
108, 168-173.
Hampden Controversy, The (1836),
71-4.
Hampden Controversy, The (1847),
168-173.
Hare, Archd. J., 170.
Harrison, Archd. B., 84.
Hawkins, Dr. E. , Provost of Oriel,
108, 172.
Hebdomadal Board (Oxford), 100-2,
US-
Herbert of Lea, Lord, 203.
Hills, Bp. G., 218.
Holy Eucharist as a Comfort to the
Penitent, Pusey's Sermon on the,
107.
Hook, Dean W. F., 84, 85, loi,
147-161.
Hope, Rt. Hon. A. J. Beresford,
142, 193-5. 201.
Hope-Scott, J. R., 182-3, 193-4-
Host, Prof. F. J. A., 143-4.
Howley, Abp., 169, 179.
Hursley, 188.
Ideal of a Christian Church, The
(Ward), 113-5.
Indian Episcopate, The, 10.
Irish Temporalities Act (1833), 28.
Jebb, Bp. J., 18, 149.
Jelf, Dr. R. W., 100, 108, 158.

Index.

227

Jenkyns, Dr. R., Master of Balliol,
108.
Jerusalem Bishopric, The, 91-2.
Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council, 206-7.
Kaye, Bp. J.,' 23-4, 138, 162.
Keble, Rev. J., 15, 17, 21, 24-7,
29-31. 33-5. 45. 47-9. 64, 81-3, 84,
86, 94, 96-8, 102, 122, 17s, 184-5,
188, 215, 221.
Keble, Rev. T., 58, 94, 215.
King, Rev. Bryan, 201.
Knox, Alexander, 18.
Law, Rev. W., 98.
Le Bas, Rev. C. W., 137.
Leeds, Dr. Hook at, 150 etseg., zi8.
" Letter of the 4 tutors" (on Tract
90), lOO-I.
" Letter to the Bishop of Oxford",
Pusey's, 89.
Liberalism at Oxford, 43, 44, 117.
Library of the Fathers, 68-9, 88.
Liddledale, Dr. R., 140, 141 n.
Liddon, Canon H. P., 206.
Lightfoot, Bp. J. B., 143.
Littlemore, 105, 116, 189-190.
Lloyd, Bp. C, 21-2, 38, 39.
Longley, Abp., 152, 153, 169.
Lonsdale, Bp. J., 162.
Lowder, Rev. C. F., 201, 2ii.
Lowe, Rt. Hon. R., 103.
Lyra Innocentium, 188, 214.
Mackonochie, Rev. A. H., 201, 211.
Macmullen, Rev. R. G., 106-7,
153-5, 156-
Maltby, Bp. E, 187.
Manning, Card. H. E, 175-181, 184.
Margaret Chapel, services at, 201-3.
Marriott, Rev. C, 68, 74»., 126-8,
215-
Martyrs' Memorial at Oxford, 83-5.
Maskell, Rev. W., 181.
Mill, Dr. W. H., 137-
Miller, Rev. J., 27.
Milnes, Rt. Hon. Monckton, 102.

Moberly, Bp. G., 218, 228.
Monk, Dr. W. H., 192.
Monophysites, The, 90.
Monro, Rev. E., 214.
Motett Society, The, 192.
Mozley, Prof. J. B. , 47, 69, 78, 102-3,
109, 116, 128-130.
Mozley, Rev. T., 19, 48, 59, 123.
Mozley, Mrs. T., 47.
Mysticism, Tract 89 on, 96-8.
Narrative of Events, Sfc. , Palmer's,
112-3.
National Society, The, 10.
Neale, Dr. J. M., 140-1, 143, igi,
214, 221.
Newman, Card. J. H., 21, 41-7,
51-3. 65-7. 70. 72. 76-8, 81-3,
8S-7. 89-92, 93-5, 111-2, 116-9,
215, 221.
Noetics, Oriel, 43, 71.
Nonjurors, The, 34, 175.
"No. 89" (Tract), 96-7.
" No. 90" (Tract), 91, 97-104, 115-6,
180.
Norris, Rev. H. H., 56, 136.
Oakeley, Rev. F,, 21, 65, 66, 93, in,
201-3.
Observations on Religious Dissent,
Hampden's, 72, 172.
Odium against the Church (1832),
9. "-
Ogilvie, Prof. C. A., 108.
Optimismin Church of England, 158.
Oriel College, Oxford, 35, 42, 43,
44, 71, 128.
Origines Liturgicce, Palmer's, 22-3.
" Orthodox, The ", 12, 13.
Ouseley, Sir F. G., 192.
Oxford, collapse of movementat, 120.
Oxford, Diocese of, under Wilber
force, 166, 218.
Oxford, Keble's Assize Sermon at,
29.
Oxford, Newman's sermons at S.
Mary's, 61.
Oxford after Newman's secession,
121 et seq.

228

The Anglican Revival.

Oxford as a proper centre of move
ment (Newman), 52-3.
Oxford culture seen in the early
movement, 134-5.
Oxford Architectural Society, 191.
Oxford Malignants, The (Amold),
73-4-
Oxford Movement, The (Church),
133 and passim.
Paget, Rev. F. E., 214.
Palmer, Sir W. ("of Worcester"),
19, 22-3, 32-3, 51, 53, 55, 56, 78-9,
84, 87, 102, ni-5, 123-4, 158, 163.
Palmer, W. ("of Magdalen"), 63«.
Papal Aggression, The, 186-7.
Parker, J. H., 191.
Parochial Sermons, Newman's, 60-1.
Parry, Gambler, 205.
Pattison, Rev. Mark, 69.
"Peculiars, The", 159.
Peel, Sir R., 40.
Perceval, Rev. Hon. A. P., 28, 32-3,
55. 102-
Pew system, igi-2.
Phillpotts, Bp. H., 172, 173-4, 181.
Pioneers of the Revival, 16-27.
Pius IX., Pope, 186.
Plain Sermons by Writers of the
Tracts for the Times, 94.
Poetry Professorship at Oxford,
105-6.
Poetry of religion revived, 220.
Practical work of the Revival, 218-9.
Prophetical Office of the Church, Sfc,
Newman's, 76.
Psalmody before the Revival, 197-9.
Pusey, Dr. E. B. , 16, 21-2, 37-41,
44, 62-70, 76, 84, 86, 89, 93, 94,
102, 107-in, 121-5, 147-8, 152-
161, 174, 185, 186, 188-9, 215.
" Puseyite", The term, 121.
Rationalism (German), 38-9.
Record, The, 170.
Reform Bill (1832), 9.
Reserve in Communicating Religious
Knowledge, J. Williamson, 79-81,
96.

Retreats and Quiet Days, 219.
Richards, Rev. Upton, 202, 203.
Rogers, F. (Lord Blachford), 83, 95,
132-3, 189, 210,
Roman Controversy, The, 74-8 and
passim.
Romanizing party in the movement,
111 et seq.
Rose, Rev. H. J., 18-21, 28, 31-2,
51. 55. 75. 137-
Routh, Dr. M., President of Mag
dalen, 64, 103, 212-3.
Royal supremacy, Pusey on the, 185.
Russell, Earl, 168, 187.
S. Alban's, Holborn, 205, 210.
S. Andrew's, Wells Street, 205.
S. Barnabas, Pimlico, 192, 204, 210.
S. George's in the East, 201, 210.
S. Mary Magdalene, Munster Square,
205.
S. Matthias', Stoke Newington, 192.
S. Paul's Cathedral, 205.
S. Paul's, Knightsbridge, 204.
S. Peter's, London Docks, 211.
S. Saviour's, Leeds, 152-157.
S. Thomas', Oxford, 205.
Sale, Canon, 58.
Sargent, Rev. J., 178.
Scholastic Philosophy, Hampden on,
71-
Scott, Sir Walter, 16, 221.
Scott, Rev. W. (of Hoxton), 129,
130.
Secular Courts, 206-7.
Selborne, Earl of, 124.
Selwyn, Bp. G. A., 218.
Sewell, Miss, 214.
Sharp, Martin, 132.
Sisterhoods, 174, 182, 219.
Society for Propagation of the Gos
pel, 10.
Stanley, Dean A. P., 74«., 92.
State qf Religious Parties, Newman's
Art on, 90.
Suffragan Bishops, 219.
Sumner, Abp. J. B., 162.
Sumner, Bp. C, 141, 162, 165.

Index.

229

Sumner's Treatise on Apostolical
Preaching, 43.
Surplice Riots, 200.
Symons, Dr. B. P., Warden of Wad
ham, 108.
Tait, Abp. A. C, 100.
Tales for the young on the lines of
the Revival, 214.
Test Act, 9.
Theological Society founded by
Pusey, 67-8.
Theophilus Anglicanus (Words
worth), 138-9.
Thirty-nine Articles, Newman on
the, 98-101.
Thirty-nine Articles, Ward on the,
114-5.
Tracts for the Times, 51-60, 62, 68,
71, 74-S, 97, 104, 107, s.nd passim.
Treatise on the Church of Christ
(Palmer), 78-9.
Trinity College, Cambridge, 136-7.
Trinity College, Oxford, 42, 105.
Tulloch, Principal, 216.
Utilitarianism, The Revival a protest
against, 220, 222.
Via Media, Newman's, 77-8, 89,
90-1.

"Wagner Churches" at Brighton,
205.
Ward, Rev. W. G., 92-3, 102, 108,
111, 113-6.
Watson, Joshua, 16, 51, 136, 174.
Webb, Rev. B., 142, 191.
Westcott, Bp., 143.
Whately, Abp., 43-4, 59, 71.
Wilberforce, Archd. R. J., 44, 166,
180, 184.
Wilberforce, Rev. Henry, 182, 184.
Wilberforce, Bp. S., 74»., 84, 85,
161-7, 171-3, 214.
Wilberforce, WiUiam, 165.
Williams, Rev. Isaac, 21, 37, 79-81,
90, 94-5, 105-6, 190, 215
Wilson, Rev. H. B., 100.
Wiseman, Card., 75, 186.
Wordsworth, Bp. Charles, 176.
Wordsworth, Bp. Christopher, 130,
137. 138-9. 194-5. 218.
Wordsworth, Dr. Christopher, Mas
ter of "Trinity, 17, 136, 221.
Wordsworth, William, poet, 17, 136,
221.
Worship in Church of England be
fore the Revival, 192-5, 197-9.
Wynter, Dr., President of St. John's,
108.
Yonge, Miss C. M., 214.

PRINTED BY BLACKIE AND SON LIMITED, GLASGOW.

3 9002 00709 6085