IT was the work of the first generation of Tractarians to insist on fundamental principles, rather than on their expression in outward forms. It was their aim to vindicate afresh the true nature of the Church, the Priesthood, and the Sacraments, and to recall to a world which seemed to have forgotten them the unearthly claims of Jesus Christ. The 'ethical tendency' of the movement was shown, notes Dean Church, in two things which were characteristic of it: 'one was the increased care for the Gospels and study of them, compared with other parts of the Bible'; 'the other was the increased and practical sense of the necessity of self-discipline, of taking trouble with oneself to keep thoughts and wishes in order, to lay the foundation of habits, to acquire the power of self-control,' [The Oxford Movement, pp. 167, 8.] A criticism of Jane Austen by Newman illustrates what the Tractarianswere looking for in the Church: 'Miss Austen,' he wrote in 1837, 'had no romance--none at all. What vile creatures her parsons are! She has not a dream of the high Catholic ethos.' [Letters and Correspondence of J. H. Newman, II, p. 224.]
As the Movement spread from the scholars of Oxford to the parochial clergy and the laity, it inevitably happened that the desire arose to adjust the slovenly and meagre arrangements of public worship to a higher ideal. The theories of the scholars had to be articulated in practice. From the first there was a modest and reverent carefulness about the churches and services of the Tractarians. It is true that so long as he was in the Church of England Newman consecrated no otherwise than at the north end of the altar; that Keble never wore vestments; that there was no early celebration during the incumbency of Church at Whatley. On the other hand, we have noted already the altars arranged by Manning at Lavington and Graffham, the furniture of the chapel of Sackville College, the pastoral staff belonging to Radley College used by Bishop Wilberforce. The truth is that the development of the outward solemnity of public worship followed inevitably on the growing appreciation of Tractarian principles. The 'Ritualists,' as they were called, were the necessary successors of the Oxford divines.
In March, 1854, began the famous case, Westerton v. Liddell. The result of it was a decision of the Privy Council in March, 1857, which was roughly in favour of the Ritualists all along the line. While it was forbidden to use a stone altar and embroidered linen, the cross on the chancel screen and above the altar, the credence table, and coloured frontals were authorized. The Court of Arches had already allowed chancel gates and altar candlesticks. The appeal of the Ritualists to the Ornaments Rubric was thus endorsed by the highest judicial authority, and they were quick to see that the interpretation of the rubric which ordered the catholic ornaments of the church, ordered also the catholic ornaments of the minister. Vestments began to be introduced in many churches, and they were introduced always in the confident conviction that their use was enjoined by the law of the Church of England. ['It is said that the Eucharistic vestments were restored in the chapel of Wilmcote, Warwickshire, in 1849; Dr. Neale wore the chasuble in chapel at East Grinstead in 1850; in 1852 the vestments were restored at the parish church of S. Thomas, Harlow, in Essex. ... In Oxford itself a red chasuble was first worn at S. Thomas's on Whitsun Day, 1854 (S. L. Ollard, Short History of the Oxford Movement, p. 172). The vestments were introduced at S. George's-in-the-East in 1858; Mr. Bryan King left S. George's in 1860; in 1863 he brought the vestments to Avebury and used them there, and at his death in 1895 they were sent to his son in New Zealand, and are still in use at S. Peter's, Cavesham, Dunedin.]
In 1867 came the case of Martin v. Mackonochie. The charges were elevation, genuflexion, altar candles, incense, and the ceremonial mixing of the chalice; in March, 1868, the Court of Arches disallowed incense and the ceremonial mixing of the chalice; and in December, 1868, Lord Cairns delivered the judgement of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, disallowing elevation, genuflexion, and altar lights. This decision was a very marked setback to the Ritualists; it was the first legal decision which went against their contentions. There followed the even more momentous case, that of Hebbert v. Purchas. This suit raised the questions of the eastward position, vestments, wafer bread, and the mixed chalice. In 1870 the Dean of Arches decided virtually in favour of Mr. Purchas on these points, but in 1871 his decision was reversed by the Judicial Committee, and all were declared illegal.
Though 'from the very first there had been the gravest exception taken to the competence or qualification of the Court of Appeal to decide questions of doctrine,' it does not seem that hitherto the Tractarians had expressed objection to its competence to decide questions of ritual. Now vehement protests were made against the claim of secular judges to decide questions of religious worship. [See the historical summary presented by Dr. Randall Davidson to the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline: Report, Vol. II, p. 357.] Two canons of S. Paul's, Liddon and Gregory, publicly refused to obey the Purchas judgement with respect to the eastward position. 'We have carefully considered,' they wrote to the Bishop of London, 'the recent Judgement of the Privy Council in relation to our obligations and the general law of the Church; and we are unable to recognize in that Judgement any sufficient reason for departure from our existing practice.'
The situation was very much embittered by the passing of the Public Worship Regulation Act in 1874, which in its ultimate form transferred 'to a single lay judge appointed by the two archbishops, the office and authority of the two existing provincial judges, directing that this judge should hear all representations under the Act, without the intervention, either of diocesan Courts, or of the preliminary commission of inquiry proposed by the archbishops.' [Report, Vol. II, p. 359.] Father Stanton's comment on the situation was exactly accurate: 'The Queen, Dizzy, and the Archbishop are the three combined to smash us up.' [G. W. E. Russell, Arthur Stanton, p. 146.]
All Saints' Church was consecrated on June 8, 1868. The Vicar was fortunate in finding two admirable assistant curates, James Dunn [Vicar of S. John's, Bathwick, 1879-1919.] and Thomas Bowles, who had been previously Perpetual Curate of Graffham and afterwards curate to Butler at Wantage. The following letter written by Dunn to his father on February 15, 1869, illustrates the gay and gallant spirit with which the three entered on their work, and were encountering the difficulties of the situation.
You asked me some time ago what change the Cairns judgement would make in our services. It has made this difference now, that we have begun to wear vestments and have put out our lights. [Randall's recollection as quoted in Alleyne, All Saints', Clifton, p. 12, was inexact.] I cannot say that one makes up for the other at all. We had them both together on the Purification just, as Randall said, that we might keep the Church's law in its fullness for once. When I say we have begun vestments, I do not mean that we use them at every celebration, only at the daily 7.15 celebration and at a third celebration at 7 a.m. on Sunday--the ones at 8 and 11.15 on Sunday are still illegally performed. I hope soon we shall wear them at all, for I think as one Catholic custom is taken away, which was a bond between us and ancient, and the rest of Catholicity, we ought to show the people another one.
The persecution, which rather surprised us by its absence at the beginning of our work, is in full swing now. The local branch of the 'Church Association' have meetings with poor old Bishop Anderson in the chair; tracts against us are actively distributed in one district, reporters are sent to take down notes of services and sermons and so on. There is one charming little tract called A visit to All Saints' which calls us 'three lugubrious individuals, one of them with a bald head.' I only wish the writer could have seen us as I retailed it to Bowles and Randall as we were walking into Bristol one day; he would not have called us 'lugubrious' then; I wonder we were not put in the asylum or somewhere, we were in such fits of laughter. Well, this veracious tract says that 'the sermon was preached (for sermon see separate paper)'--I should so like to see the separate paper and what they made of my sermon--'after the third collect'; also that the Apostles' Creed was chanted in the Communion Office. However, we forgive them, for no doubt the prayer book is a difficult book to find one's way in, if one is unacquainted with it.
Seriously, these things of course do very little harm; the worst thing they have done is raking up an old attack that was made upon Randall at Lavington some fifteen years ago, and distributing it in one district. But after all the only effect is that the church is fuller than ever, and I suppose one only has to wait to see it all turn to good. That is what one cannot help feeling about the Catholic Movement in England. It is like a rising tide, the wave rises high and seems as if it would flood the whole shore at once, and then it goes back and seems to disappoint all the hopes it has raised, but if you wait and watch, you see that it will come up again higher than ever, and more than fulfil its promise. I suppose just now the wave is drawing back, but it will rise again; there is no resisting the Catholic Faith; nothing can stand against its rising.
The services for the opening of the nave and the completion of the chancel by the costly and elaborate reredos were to be a conspicuous demonstration. The Bishops of Oxford and Salisbury were announced to preach. It was the natural consequence that the Protestant opposition should become more vigorous and more bitter.
Already there is a note of foreboding in a letter of Randall to his wife written on May 14, 1872:
Now here is a Mission for you. Go to call on Dr. Liddon, 3 Amen Court. Beg, beseech, implore him to preach for me at the Opening. Tell him we will put it a day or two earlier, in July, if that will make it possible. Tell him that it really will make an immense difference to me, that the Bishop treats me with studied coldness and neglect, and that Liddon's coming would do very much in the eyes of wavering Churchmen to counterbalance this, besides putting heart into our own people.
During the following month, the Protestants of Clifton and Bristol presented a memorial to the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol desiring him to enforce at All Saints' obedience to the recent decisions of the Privy Council: the Bishop refused to initiate proceedings, but invited the Protestants to do so if they wished.
'I do not disguise my regret,' he added, 'that usages, some of which appear certainly to be contrary to the law as recently laid down in the court of the Archbishop and by the Privy Council, are complained of as practised at All Saints', Clifton.'
Randall expected to be prosecuted and wrote to tell Bishop Wilberforce, who sent him in reply the two following letters:
Aug. 21, 1872.
MY DEAR R. RANDALL, . . .
I am deeply grieved at the announcement of your letter. I pray God to avert the possible future mischief. But I cannot help indulging a hope that if forced into the Court there may on a rehearing be a different decision from the wretched Purchas one. My belief is that your bishop means to make a distinction between the Privy Council decision and the decision of the Judge of the Arches Court. At least I told him that was my line; and he said he should adopt it, i.e. to advise submission to P.C., but as it had in the Special Case, in which alone it is binding, been arrived at without having counsel, not to enforce it; but to enforce the Dean of the Arches where it agreed with the P.C. This seems to me not only an intelligible but a. just ground. At the same time, whilst I am hopeful of a better judgement, I regard it a misfortune that the matter should be hurried on. I think gaining time is gaming everything, and though, of course, even if prosecuted now the case could not come before the P.C. before we have a new Chancellor, and that would be much, still a little further waiting might see a wholly new court of appeal and be everything. May God guide and bless you, my dear Richard, in this and all your ways. You know that I think you naturally inclined to great obstinacy and that I fear only from that side; but you know too how heartily I love you and so I dare to write what looks now it is written so hard.
I am, ever very affectly yours,
[Dr. Wilberforce had been translated to Winchester in November, 1869.]
Secret. HAGLEY HALL,
Sept. 9, 1872. MY DEAR RANDALL,
I cannot yet tell you anything. I wrote at once to the Archbishop to get him to advise as I knew that with his sails set as they at this moment are for Shaftesburian Airs, he would not listen to me. But the Archbishop was in Scotland, and whether it be holiday, distance, or native Presbyterian atmosphere, I have not heard from him. ... I take it that refusal is meant to mark disapproval of your ritual and wrath against the Bishops of Salisbury and Oxford. G. and B. is away in Cumberland. . . .
Very affectly yours,
The threat of prosecution did not materialize, and on October 14th Dr. Ellicott wrote to Randall:
DEAR MR. RANDALL,
Now that all chance of a prosecution is passed, I feel it a solemn Christian duty to place on paper with all kindness, but all seriousness, my opinion and judgement that you ought to obey whatever has been decided to be the law as set forth and finally enunciated in the court of our Metropolitan--and therefore I solemnly entreat you to do so.
I do not command you, because I feel that I might be placing a snare and even a danger in your path. No one can safely disobey a solemn command without incurring some spiritual risk and liability.
As I believe you are labouring for Christ, I will put no hindrance in your way. I therefore solemnly entreat.
I quite know the immense trial compliance may be to you, and even to many of your congregation, and I quite feel for you; as I know, from your rightmindedness, how much this letter will try you. I would have spared you the conflict of thought such an entreaty from one who is by Divine permission your Bishop must cause you--but my conscience obliges me thus to write.
I ask no answer. I would, indeed, rather have no answer. All I ask is that you give this letter your fullest and deepest thought.
--And may God the Holy Ghost be with you.
Your faithful brother,
C. J. GLOUCESTER & BRISTOL.
I need not say that I should never dream of giving publicity to such a letter, but I have made a copy of it and requested that it be placed among the Archives of the Diocese.
In January, 1873, a further memorial was presented to the Bishop, complaining with respect to All Saints' that--
from every quarter large numbers attracted by the peculiarity of the Service, are gradually becoming accustomed to doctrine and ritual at once unscriptural and disallowed by the Church of England, and are familiarized with the doctrines and practice of auricular confession to and absolution by a so called human priest to the great disparagement of the one only High Priest of our profession, and to the inflicting of much domestic discomfort and parental anxiety.
The memorialists proceeded to suggest that a cheap and effective method of marking episcopal disapproval of the ways of All Saints' would be refusal to license curates to the church, and withdrawal of the licences of the curates already serving there. The Bishop was also reminded that he had already intimated that he 'personally disapproved of what is alleged to be done' at All Saints', and at the Diocesan Conference had said that in this case he had already exercised 'all that moral influence that a man had in the way of persuasion and entreaty.'
In October, 1872, Mr. Randall arranged with Mr. Alfred Gurney that he should come as curate to All Saints', and the Bishop wrote on October 27th promising to ordain him. However, on January 10, 1873, the Bishop wrote as follows to the Vicar:
It is with deep pain, deeper perhaps than I have felt since I have been Bishop, that I am conscientiously constrained to say that I cannot take upon myself to ordain to All Saints', Clifton, while Lights and Vestments are used there. ... I shall be willing to license one already in Orders to fill up any vacant place--but I cannot and dare not ordain.
Yours faithfully and sorrowfully,
C. J. GLOUCESTER & BRISTOL.
A vigorous correspondence followed, in which Randall did not fail to tax the Bishop with breaking his written promise: and a further difficulty arose when Mr. Tracy proposed to resign his curacy. The Bishop wrote on May 30th:
When Mr. Tracy resigns, I will, on receiving the usual three clergyman testimonial, forward to you, on my own personal authority, a permission to Mr. Buttress to act as your curate. I am grieved that I cannot license, but that I am not able to do. While the letter of October 14th is uncomplied with, I cannot place my seal on any document, but for the sake of Christ's work in your parish, I will not shrink from giving any one named by you and properly recommended my personal permission.
Randall vehemently expostulated with the Bishop for breaking the promise he had given in his letter of January 10th, and again and again defended at length his refusal to accept the decisions of the Privy Council.
'I maintain,' he wrote, 'that the Services in All Saints' Church are such as the Church intended them to be, and I venture to say that there is no Church in your Lordship's Diocese in which the services are performed with a more exact obedience to the Church's Laws than they are in the Church of All Saints.'
The only result of Randall's letters was a further proposal on the Bishop's part to limit to two the curates serving All Saints'. [This regulation was withdrawn in 1874.] The relation of the Bishop of the diocese to the parish remained unchanged until 1889; no curates were licensed, no confirmations were held in the church.
Randall received from his friends during this time many letters of sympathy, and criticism of the Bishop's action.
Bishop Wilberforce wrote on January 6, 1873: 'Your Bishop is a very odd man.'
Dr. Liddon wrote as follows:
OXFORD. SS. Simon and Jude,
October 28, 1873.
MY DEAR R.,
I saw an extract from the Bishop's charge in one of the daily papers. Probably it was abridged or altered: but it had the grotesque pseudo-oracular manner which he has adopted, and which I should think would go far to deprive what he says of much weight with sensible people. He had prophesied something in a sermon at Bristol seven years ago--I forget what--which, 'though the sermon had no doubt been forgotten,' had come to pass very remarkably. I think it was that the Church party would develop a tendency to reunion with other branches of the Church. As if that had not been done before the date of the prophecy! Bishop Hamilton was constantly charging and preaching about it. Then there was something about the 'prelusive ritualism' of that date, in contrast with the 'materialized' worship of the present. I can scarcely suppose that this quaint pedantry will do much beyond raising a few passing smiles at the expense of its author. Perhaps I am mistaken, and anyhow, I agree with you, that it is sad--inexpressibly sad--to see the natural fosterers and guardians of faith and earnestness playing the part that G, and B. does play before the Church and the World. He is destined I should fear to go from bad to worse in this matter; he has given heavy pledges to the world and will be kept to his bargain. Whether he is worth the vexation of spirit and the labour which a controversial pamphlet implies I should doubt; if you can get on at all, I would leave him alone.
H. P. LIDDON.
The Public Worship Regulation Act was passed by Parliament in 1874, and, immediately after it came into operation, the Ridsdale case began. The Dean of Arches, now Lord Penzance, and not Sir Robert Phillimore, decided with regard to Mr. Ridsdale's church against vestments, wafer bread, and the eastward position. [S. Peter's, Folkestone] Mr. Ridsdale appealed to the Privy Council, and the Privy Council in 1877 confirmed the Dean of Arches' view as to the illegality of the vestments, modified his decision about wafer bread, and legalized the eastward position, provided that the manual acts were seen.
It seemed likely again that Mr. Randall would be prosecuted. An eminent lawyer had attended the High Mass and collected the incriminating information. The three 'aggrieved parishioners' had been secured, and all was in train. A petition was presented to the Bishop by the churchwardens and sidesmen of All Saints' asking him to stay proceedings, to which the Bishop replied by a cold and unfriendly note. Then just as the trial was expected, the three 'aggrieved parishioners' disappeared. One lost his status by a fortunate change in the parish boundaries, another died suddenly, and the third refused to have anything more to do with the proceedings.
Mr. Randall was in correspondence meanwhile with Mr. Ridsdale, and Dr. Liddon wrote him the following important letters:
CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD.
Ti^th March, 1877.
MY DEAR RANDALL,
In his letter to me the President of the E.C.U. said that he thought a meeting such as had been proposed could hardly have practical results. And Dr. Pusey is of the same mind. In a letter on other subjects he says to me: 'I do not see what we could advise if we met as R. suggests. Had it been the Eastward position which was attacked, you could retain it, and I, as I meant, could assume it. ... It would be a strong measure to assume vestments simply because they were declared illegal. I all along thought their revival ill-advised, and so did J. H. N. in our palmy days. As I said, we begged a priest in the diocese of Carlisle not to assume a Cope. It was on my advice that Richards so long held back at All Saints'. I do not see then what I could do. I could not advise other people to go to prison with no prospect of going there myself: and I could not get a set of vestments to wear in the Cathedral because it was wrongly declared illegal.'
This has in fact been his mind all along. He has consistently discouraged the aesthetic side of the Church Movement of the last 15 or 20 years; and this mainly on two grounds: (i) that it distracts attention in some minds from higher things, and (2) that if unchecked it tends to precipitate a catastrophe.
He cannot bear breaking with those who love him and whom he loves and respects, and this may have prevented his speaking out. But if at our meeting he was to say what he really thinks, I do not doubt that he would advise retreat before the impending decision of the P.C.
Besides this, as you probably know, he does not agree that the Court of Lord Penzance has been so vitally changed by the P.W.R.A. as to have forfeited the spiritual character of the old Court of Arches. Here again there is a grave difference of opinion, as, e.g., with Mr. Carter.
Of course the practical difficulty of giving up a beautiful and elaborate ceremonial, associated in thousands of devout minds with recognition of Truth and with inward reverence and love, is so great as to be almost insuperable. At least I can well imagine this to be the case: only men of great spiritual power, quite commanding the confidence of the most enthusiastic minds among their people, could hope to carry through such a change without great damage to souls.
Moreover, I have said enough to show that a meeting would not be of much practical value. Those who, in your view, should meet, would hardly be of one mind. And as a rule such meetings, since they possess no authority, rather satisfy the wish to be 'doing something' than achieve any very tangible good.
Does not the present state of things look as if God was educating us as a Church for Disestablishment? If the old relation with the State had gone on working smoothly, we should have found it very difficult to accept with resignation the changed circumstances, which to all appearances are in store for us. As it is, we shall feel that loss of income and position and of much else that is more precious than these, will be counterbalanced by the recovery of a Church Government of some kind which it will be possible to obey without loss of spiritual self-respect. At least I cannot but hope that this is what our Lord means, by permitting the Church Association, etc., etc.; and therefore, that, although the immediate future is full of bewilderment, there is something to look forward to beyond. I do not mean that I would accept the responsibility of helping forward the catastrophe of Disestablishment: but I shall, at least, feel that, when it comes--as it will come--all will not be loss.
You have never felt with me about Mr. Gladstone: but, in my eyes, his unapproached value to a churchman, among the Statesmen of our day, lies in his resolute preference of the spiritual to the merely material interests of the Church. He may have made practical mistakes in the application of his principles: he has done so, I think, in respect of the Universities and of the later Marriage Law discussions--but it has been an error of fact not of principle. . . . Whereas his rival views the whole thing with sublime contempt, and advises the clergy to support the political party which will secure their incomes, and to treat all else as private or non-relevant. . . . Surely, as an order, we have to thank ourselves for the P.W.R.A.: we deserved it for putting Lord Beaconsfield in power. We might have known what manner of man he was.
Pray forgive me for this: you will not agree, but you will tolerate.
H. P. LIDDON.
CHRIST CHURCH. OXFORD.
15th May, 1877.
MY DEAR RANDALL,
Indeed you have every claim upon our sympathies; and I have very often thought of you since the appearance of this judgement. The difficulty I have in advising you is that I cannot share the consequences of my advice, as I could wish; and one shrinks from dictating heroic inconvenience or suffering to others, while sitting comfortably at home oneself.
For--the judgement, I suppose, is intended to make the Eastward Position optional; although the terms of it appear to me to leave those who celebrate as I always do still open to prosecution, unless we henceforth turn round to the people when breaking the bread, and taking the chalice before the Consecration.
But I am astonished at the argument which the honourable men who sit upon the Committee condescend to employ on the subject of the Vestments.
As to the practical question now before you--everything seems to turn upon the grounds on which alterations are put before you by the bishop. If a bishop says that I must do this or that because he so understands the law of the church, I have always felt that Church principles make submission a duty within very wide limits. There can be no doubt of his jurisdiction over matters like these, and if he is wrong, whether absolutely, or in my opinion, that is a matter for his conscience--and for Hereafter.
But if a bishop says 'do this or that because the Judicial Committee has told you so'--he does not touch my conscience. The only question then to be considered is the question of spiritual expediency--i.e. what course of conduct would bring most good or least injury to the largest number of souls. Of this you are a better judge than any one else within the limits of your own parish. ... I fear that the present Primate is bent upon exterminating the High Church School--first the Ritualist, and then the others--from a sincere belief that this process is essential to the safety of the outer shell of the Establishment for which he has a real enthusiasm.
I like the proposal of the lay deputation to the Bishop if they are prepared to use very plain language to him.
H. P. LIDDON.
I feel sure that speaking generally the more you can act with and through a large body of your laity the stronger your position will be.
CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD.
MY DEAR RANDALL,
Don't, pray, take any sudden resolution. I can well understand your feelings--it is difficult to speak of the matter quite calmly. But, as I need not remind you--you have a great number of people depending on you--not a few directly, and many more indirectly. What is to happen to them if you go? If you follow your conscience, and are driven out, you have no responsibility in the matter--the great thing in all such cases is (is it not?) to let God act through the natural sequence of events.
I wish that the lay petition to the Bishop of Gloucester could be published. It would help to dispose of the hypocritical nonsense which is talked about the laity, whenever any puritan or unbelieving project is in hand--such as was the attack on the Athanasian Creed. The only laity who are really in favour in these high quarters are those whom I meet now and then at the Athenaeum, and who, however intelligent and accomplished, have no particular relation to the Church of Christ at all.
Ever affectionately yours,
H. P. LIDDON.
Here is a letter from Dr. Pusey, written, as usual with him, on very small notepaper, and in very minute handwriting:
CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD.
MY DEAREST FRIEND,
Your trials are through your affections, and it is a sore part, through which to be tried. I am grieved for your poor Bishop, though, when I saw him long ago, I said to myself, 'weak as water.' So now he gives way to the tide. He does not see that victory is by stemming it. I hope that he has to put violence on himself. This seems the only explanation, how one, who seems naturally gentle, should be so hard. I suppose he thinks that we are in the way, and would cast us over, like Jonah, in hopes that it may still the storm. It is not he that is unkind. I should hope that he has to steel himself. But a storm has been raised, I fear through unwisdom of some of our friends. Yet you have this comfort. It is not your Bishop who has been acting thus towards you. Very possibly, he might have been glad if the vestments had been conceded. But he is not one to set his judgement against all those lawyers. I hope that he thinks them right. We shall win the battle, please God, though it may be through suffering, in which I am sorry that I can have no share, except in sympathy.
God be with you and comfort you.
Your affectionate friend,
E. B. PUSEY.
ALL SAINTS', CLIFTON
Dr. Pusey wrote again when Randall thought of resigning:
CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD,
MY VERY DEAR FRIEND,
Liddon tells me that you speak of resigning. Pray do not. The battle is not lost. But it will be lost if those who are to fight it, resign. Each individual encourages or discourages. You have a prominent post. I would gladly go to prison for you. But I can't.
'Fortes pejoraque passi
Mecum saepe viri,
Nil desperandum Christo duce
et auspice Christo'
has been my motto for many years of trouble.
Yours very affectionately,
E. B. PUSEY.
In spite of the great difficulties of his situation, Randall maintained the use of the lights and vestments at All Saints', and there was no further threat of a prosecution in the Courts.