Project Canterbury

Life of Edward Bouverie Pusey
by Henry Parry Liddon, D.D.

London: Longmans, 1894
volume two

Transcribed by The Revd R D Hacking
AD 2002











AT the beginning of Michaelmas Term, 1844, Dr. Wynter' s term of office as Vice-Chancellor expired. Next in the order of succession was Dr. Symons, Warden of Wadham.

Dr. Symons, as one of the Six Doctors, had joined in the condemnation 0f Pusey' s sermon; or, as Pusey himself would have said, of the doctrine contained in that sermon. Whilst at Ilfracombe, Pusey had received a letter from C. Marriott, insisting on this consideration, and asking whether it would be necessary to oppose Dr. Symons'  nomination. Pusey thought that it would, not for any reason personal to himself, but  'as a protest against heresy' . He gave this opinion subject to Newman' s assent. It would seem that at the time Newman expressed no opinion: those of the younger men who were verging towards Rome were opposed to the protest against Dr. Symons on the ground that it was useless to struggle for Catholic truths in the English Church, and that Dr. Pusey' s judges represented her true principles.

When the Senior Proctor, Mr. Guillemard of Trinity, asked Dr. Wynter, the outgoing Vice-Chancellor, on what day the nomination of his successor would take place in Convocation, Dr. Wynter was unable or unwilling to satisfy him. Yet almost immediately after this application a circular was issued, addressed to all the Masters of Arts of Wadham College, inviting them to dinner in the hail on Oct. 8th--a pretty plain intimation of the date of the event. This circular was the signal for others: the war had begun. The British Critic having expired in 1843, its more moderate successor, the Christian Rernembrancer, appeared in October with a vigorous article on  'Dr. Symons and the Vice-Chancellorship.'  The writer argued that Dr. Symons'  share in the condemnation of Dr. Pusey justified the opposition to his nomination, and contended that the real disturbers of the peace of the University were those who by their arbitrary measures made such opposition necessary, in order to preserve the rights of Convocation. If the  'Wynter dynasty'  had already encroached on those rights, what was to be expected from its successor?

 'If Dr. Wynter, a sort of High Churchman, thinks proper to suspend Dr. Pusey without a trial, and to arrogate to himself and his suc–cessors the power of refusing degrees to persons whose theology they dislike, not a fortiori, but a fortissimo, what could be anticipated from Dr. Symons?'

It was well for Oxford that no long time would elapse before the question was decided: and from the first there was no probability of a majority for the opposition to Dr. Symons, notwithstanding the signal defeat of the Heb–domadal Council on May 2nd. The natural unwillingness of members of Convocation to interfere with the routine of academical government was reinforced by the misgiving whether victory, if it were attainable, would secure the objects which the opposition had at heart. Keble indeed contended that it would  'make the next man, whoever he be, more careful.'  Pusey became more decided as the day of nomination approached.


October, 1844.

I use no concealment now, if I ever did, that I think Dr. S. ought to be opposed as a protest against heresy and heretical decisions. If the University accepted him without a protest, it seemed like making itself a party to it.'

And, referring to those of his friends who on various grounds refused to join in the Opposition to Dr. Symons, he added:--

 'I hope some good will come of all this independence: but so many good people have crotchets. It is the most difficult thing to bring people to act together: every one has a way of his Own, or grounds of his own, instead of acting on broad principles.'

The nomination was fixed for Tuesday, October 8th. Pusey had gone to Pusey with his mother, who, since his eldest daughter' s death, had spent a great part of her time with him.  'Poor Dr. Pusey,'  writes his sister-in-law,  'looks much harassed by this coming election of the Vice-Chancellor at Oxford' ; and this would not have been lessened on his returning to Oxford on Saturday, October 5th.


Oxford, Oct. 5, 1844.

Edward hears that there may be 900 voters coming up. Dr. Hook has made an exceeding blunder, and thrown things just at the last into extreme confusion. He has given out, on a conjecture, that only Mr. Ward' s friends are going to vote, so he shall not come up. This is to be contradicted in The Times. Edward says we are all in a great mess. This is all dictated by Edward.

The result was a foregone conclusion: the Opposition to Dr. Symons'  nomination was defeated by 882 votes to 183. The minority was certainly small; yet that a protest of such a kind should receive so many votes was quite un–expected by the majority.

Although Pusey, in his sanguine way, tried to make the best of a serious defeat, he could not, upon reflection, fail to see that he had been wrong in sanctioning the contest at all. He sanctioned it as a  'protest against heresy' ; but in this case the question of heresy was so bound up with the personal issue between himself and his judges, that the protest could not be made without being attributed to a selfish motive. Pusey was too conscious of the purity of his own motive to take this into account: but nevertheless it had much to do with the result. The contest of October, 1844, marks the transfer of the mass of the country clergy who were members of Convocation from an attitude of vague sympathy with the Tractarian leaders to the cause of their opponents. Newman, with his keen statesmanlike instincts, was painfully aware of its significance. He writes to Pusey:--

 'Littlemore, F. of St. John, 1844.

 'The country parsons are of unfathomable strength: they and the Conservative feeling which moved with them turned out Sir Robert Peel in 1829; brought in the Duke of Wellington in 1834; censured Hampden in 1836; and made Symons Vice-Chancellor in 1844.'

Newman indeed attributed the error of embarking on the last contest to the letters of the Rev. John Morris, under the signature of N. E. S., in the English Churchman. But Pusey would not disavow his own responsibility for what he now felt to have been a wrong method of asserting a right principle.


                        56 Marine Parade, [Brighton.]

Mo. in Oct. of Xmas. [Dec. 30], 1844.


*                             *                            *                             *

The mistake about opposing the V. C. was mine, much more than N. E. S.' s; C. M. wrote to me, when at Ilfracombe, and although I wished the matter to be decided by others I fear it was decided in consequence of what I said myself. I was applying a principle of yours, of a protest against heresy, in a wrong way: and I did not get at your real opinion, being prevented, I forget how, from seeing you.

Meanwhile the majority of the Heads of Houses were at least as much alive as Pusey to the mistake which had been made by the opposition to Symons; and they proceeded without delay to take advantage of it. Mr. E. Coleridge, of Eton, had replied to some taunts of the majority on Oct. 8th, by observing,  'We have a saying at school that when a little boy fights a big boy, the big boy does not bully him again' . The  'big boy'  in the Hebdomadal Board was of another mind. This was his hour.  'There is a general set upon us from all quarters,'  wrote Mr. J. B. Mozley,  'Conservative and Radical. The press never was so malignant.'

In June, W. G. Ward, Fellow of Balliol, had published his  'Ideal of a Christian Church considered in comparison with existing practice.'  Its immediate purpose was the defence of certain articles in the British Critic against criticisms in the Rev. W. Palmer' s  'Narrative of Events connected with the Tracts for the Times.'  But the book was much more than a large controversial tract. It was a substantial treatise, marked by the combination of moral fervour and implacable--or perhaps rather unbalanced--logic which were characteristic of its author. It was and is valuable as pointing out undeniable shortcomings and evils in the practical system of the Church of England; and if the  'Ideal of a Christian Church'  with which she was placed in contrast had been only the Church of the primi–tive ages, Mr. Ward' s book could never have been un–acceptable to honest and earnest Anglicans. As it was, the  'Ideal'  in the writer' s mind appeared to be, at least largely, the actual. Roman system; while the points in which the Church of England, in spite of her practical deficiencies, had approached more nearly than Rome to a truer ideal, were altogether ignored. Thus--apart from incidental provocative phrases--this brilliant work failed to achieve a religious success which was within its author' s reach, and furnished a weapon to the Opponents of the principles with which he was associated.

Pusey had been reading the book during the Long Vacation, and wrote to Hook, who had been much disturbed by it.


Ilfracombe, Aug. 16, 1844.

I know, my dear friend, you will not be impatient. I have read most of Ward' s very strong book (in which however he is very careful as to the subject you mention, the worship of the Blessed Virgin); there is so much of religious earnestness and practical wisdom in it, that, however it makes one wince sometimes, I trust it will do us good.

Hook rejoined that Ward  'maligned the English Church for the purpose of eulogizing that of Rome.'


Christ Church, Sept. 5, 1844.

If you knew... Ward you would be more patient. For myself, I see, on the one hand, how deeply in earnest and conscientious and really personally humble he is, very affectionate too and loving; on the other, I feel how deep our wounds are, and that we shall get no good until they are probed to the bottom, and therefore, however painful the process and rough the hands may seem, I am glad to undergo it, and thankful for it. Indeed, he does not  'malign our Church for the purpose of eulogizing that of Rome,'  but I believe his feeling to be this in part: we have great practical evils, such as neglect of discipline, of care of the poor, carelessness as to heresy, and alas! so many more, and as long as we have this high opinion of ourselves, and contempt of our neighbours, there is no hope of our mending. If we obtain humility, all will be well: and I do feel I myself have learnt of him, in learning a humbler tone.

Pusey took now a more decided step.  'I have taken an opportunity,'  he wrote to Newman, in my new preface, with some reserve, to express my sympathy in Ward' s articles and his book.'  But undoubtedly in thus expressing himself he was pushing his chivalry to its utmost limits. The  'Ideal of a Christian Church'  was certainly open to serious criticism from an Anglican point of view, and it helped to swell Dr. Symons'  majority on October 8th. The Hebdomadal Board, under the presidency of the new and victorious Vice-Chancellor, was not likely, in these days, to let it alone; and the results of its deliberations soon showed themselves.

On Nov. 30th Mr. Ward was summoned to appear before the Vice-Chancellor. He was asked, first, whether he disavowed the authorship; and, secondly, whether he dis–avowed certain passages in the book. His reply was that he could not answer without consulting his friends, and perhaps taking legal advice. This the Vice-Chancellor allowed him to do, and on Dec. 3rd Mr. Ward again appeared before him. On this occasion Mr. Ward declined, under legal advice, to answer any question whatever until he knew more definitely the course which it was intended to adopt against him. The Vice-Chancellor did not keep him long in suspense. On Dec. 13th notice was given of three propositions to be submitted to Convocation on Feb. 13th. By the first of these it was declared that certain passages in the  'Ideal of a Christian Church'  were utterly inconsistent with the Thirty-nine Articles, and with Mr. Ward' s good faith in subscribing them in order to his admission to the degrees of B.A. and M.A. By the second Mr. Ward was to be degraded from his degrees. The third proposed a  'test to be imposed on all persons, lay or clerical, who might hereafter be suspected of unsound opinions, in place of simple subscription.'  Every such person was to declare that he subscribed the Articles in the sense in which he believed them to have been originally drawn up, and to be imposed by the University at the present time.

On the day following the publication of this notice, Mr. Ward presented a letter to the Vice-Chancellor, which he immediately published. He explained why he had not before avowed his authorship of the  'Ideal' ; and he now acknowledged it, and accepted full responsibility for all its contents.

On the same day Newman saw Pusey, and discussed the situation. At first he could only suggest a petition to the Board from people of all parties, and based on general considerations only.


Dec. 16, 1844.

What is drawn up should expressly waive any opinion on the two first Articles and on the general question, but put the matter on the ground of the peace and comfort of the place, the desirableness of a good understanding between residents, of frank intercourse, &c.-- on the wretchedness of gossipping, talebearing, prying, delating--in short, of Golightlyism. I really am sanguine that men, if but written to, when they see names, would come into this. No time ought to be lost.

But when he heard that Pusey had determined never to sign the test if it were proposed to him, he suggested that Pusey should at once say so in a public letter. The following letter, as if written to a personal friend, was therefore sent to the English Churchman, as soon as New–man had read it. It was evident that in proposing the test the Heads had outwitted themselves.

Christ Church, Advent Ember Week,

MY DEAR --                                                                                                       Tuesday, [Dec. 17], 1844.

You ask me what I should do in case this new test, to be proposed to Convocation, should pass. I would say at once, that others, not so immediately affected or intended by this test as I am, need not, I should think, make up their minds yet. I plainly have no choice: it is not meant that I should take it, nor can I.

You will not mistake me; I sign the Articles as I ever have since I have known what Catholic Antiquity is (to which our Church guides us) in their  'literal grammatical sense,'  determined, where it is ambiguous, by  'the faith of the whole Church'  (as good Bishop Ken says)  'before East and West were divided.'  It is to me quite plain that in so doing I am following the guidance of our Church.

The proposed test restrains the liberty which Archbishop Laud won for us.

Hitherto High and Low Church have been comprised under the same Articles.

And I have ever felt that in these sad confusions of our Church,        things must so remain, until, by the mercy of Almighty God, we be brought more nearly into one mind.

But as long as this is so, the Articles cannot be (which the new test requires)  'certum atque indubitatum opinionum signum.'

How can, they be any  'certain and indubitable token of opinion'  when they can be signed by myself and --? This new test requires that they should be: one then of the two parties who have hitherto signed them must be excluded. We know that those who framed the test are opposed to such as myself. It is clear then who are henceforth excluded. The test is indeed at once miserably vague and stringent; vague enough to tempt people to take it, too stringent in its conclusion to enable me to take it with a good conscience.

Beginning and end do harmonize, if it be regarded as a revival of the Puritan  'Anti-Declaration,'  that the Articles should be inter–preted according to  'the consent of Divines' ; they do not in any other case. This shifting of ground would indeed (were not so much at stake) be somewhat curious; bow those who speak so much of  'fallible men'  would require us now to be bound in the interpretation of the Articles by the private judgement of the Reformers (it being assumed, for convenience sake, that Cranmer, Ridley, and Hooper, agreed among themselves), instead of Archbishop Laud' s broader and truer rule,  'according to the analogy of the Faith.'  It would indeed be well, if all who have urged on this test could sign the first and eighth Articles, in the same sense as Cranmer and Jewell. Well indeed would it be for our Church, if all could sign the twenty-seventh in the same sense as all the Reformers, except perhaps Hooper. One could have wished that, before this test had been proposed to us, the Board who accepted it and proposes it to us, had thought of ascertaining among themselves whether they themselves all took £all and singular of the Articles in one and the same sense.'

And yet while they enjoy this latitude, how can the signature of the Articles be any  'certain and indubitable token of people' s opinions' ?

However, this is matter for others; my concern is with myself.

I have too much reason to know that my own signature of the Articles would not satisfy some of those from whom this test emanates, since, when a year and a half ago, I declared repeatedly (as I then stated) that I accepted and would subscribe, ex animo, every state–ment of our Formularies on the solemn subject upon which I preached, that offer was rejected; and this on the very ground (I subsequently learnt) that they did not trust my interpretation.

When, then, they require that the signature should be  'certum atque indubitatum opinionum mearum signum,'  it is plain that they mean something more than what I offered and they refused to accept.

The Articles I now sign in the way in which, from Archbishop Laud' s time, they have been proposed by the Church: this test I should have to receive not from the Church, but from the University, in the sense in which it is proposed to me by them. Could I then ever so much satisfy myself that I could take the test according to any general meaning of the words, I must know from past experience that I should not take it in the sense in which it was proposed to me.

I could not then take it without a feeling of dishonesty.

You will imagine that I feel the responsibility of making such a declaration, knowing, as I must, that in case, in the present state of excitement, the Statute should pass, younger men, whom it may involve in various difficulties, might be influenced by my example. I know, too, of course, that some will be the more anxious to press the test, in hopes that my refusal to take it may end in my removal from this place. Whether it would or no, I know not. But, whatever the result, it seems to me the straightforward course. It is best, in cases of great moment, that people should know the effect of what they are doing.

I am ashamed to write so much about myself, but I cannot explain myself in few words. What is my case, would probably be that of others. It has often been painful to witness the apparent want of seriousness in people when things far more serious than office, or home, or even one' s allotted duties in God' s vineyard, have been at stake. But people can feel more readily what it is to lose office and home and the associations of the greater part of life. It will be a great gain, if what is done is done with deeper earnestness. For myself, I cheerfully commit all things into His hands, Who ordereth all things well, and from Whom I deserve nothing.

                                                                                              E. B. PUSEY.

No one in our day would defend an attempt on the part of the University to impose a doctrinal test which the Bishops did not impose at ordination. No one would think of substituting for subscription to the Articles in the literal and grammatical sense, subscription in the sense, or rather the very various senses, of the original compilers of the Articles, as to which, every student of the Reformation knows, a hundred questions might be asked that could not possibly be answered. Nor would the majority of the Hebdomadal Board have embarked on this wild crusade unless they had been blinded by party feeling, and unable for the moment to estimate the general bearings of a measure which was deemed necessary to satisfy it.

Lady Lucy Pusey' s correspondence at the time reflects a mother' s natural anxiety.


[35 Grosvenor Square,] Dec. 20, [1844].


I am sure both you and Philip are sorry for what is going forward at Oxford and for Edward' s letter in the English Churchman. I fear for the consequences. Private. When he first knew of the intended Statute, he called it a struggle for life or death, but he did not think of declaring his own opinion publicly, but he thought he might be attacked: he doubts their power of turning him out of his Canonry, as he was given it by the Sovereign' s Patent, under the Great Seal. As the party goes by his name, they would doubtless be glad to get rid of him, being the supposed head: Dr. Hawkins and Dr. Cardwell were the persons most urgent about these measures.

Pusey and his friends, however, were not alone in their objection to the proposed test. Dr. Tait, one of the Four Tutors who had delated Tract 90, and who was now Head Master of Rugby, could not but feel that the sense in which he and his friends subscribed the Formularies was not such as to enable them to welcome the imposition of a test designed to make subscription more stringent. He was not prepared to save Mr. Ward from degradation. The excesses of Latitudinarian liberty in one direction did not warrant the excesses of Tractarian liberty in another: in Mr. Ward  'liberty had degenerated into licence.'  But the test would mean danger for persons whom the Vice-Chancellor and the Heads would desire to protect. So Dr. Tait employed his Christmas holidays in writing to the Vice-Chancellor a letter, of which this topic is at once the motive and the leading feature:--

 'If there is one point to which they [i. e. the Latitudinarians] are, from their very principles, pledged, it is to a dislike of more tests than are absolutely necessary. The damnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed and the 18th Article (to say nothing of many other points of difficulty, which have not like them been made public by an appeal to Parliament), must of necessity warn them to pause, before they bind themselves more strictly than now to the letter of the Articles.'

Pusey' s hostility to the proposals of the Hebdomadal Board was not confined to their projected new test. It was no less directed against their plan for degrading Mr. Ward. Pusey did not himself accept--he deeply regretted--the anti-Anglican language of parts of the  'Ideal.'  But he resented, with the whole force of his moral nature, the pretended zeal for orthodoxy which proposed to visit such language with extreme penalties while it left error, which to a serious Christian should appear much more vital, altogether uncensured.


Advent, Ember Wednesday, [Dec. 18,] 1844.


I do think these measures against Ward absolutely shocking, because (1) the Heads of Houses themselves think him honest; and how is his subscription (on any hypothesis) so bad as those who impugn the doctrine of the Trinity or deny the grace of the Sacraments? While Archbishop Whately is Archbishop of Dublin, the zeal against Ward only makes the indifference as to grave heresy the more shocking. Picture Rome (which indeed you do not know, my dear friend, on its good side) as bad as you can, what should you think of a judge who punished adultery with death and appointed a murderer to high station? Should you think his punishment of adultery a proof of his sensitiveness of any breach of the law of God?

(2) Ward is really very greatly benefitting the Church by his practical suggestions and opening people' s eyes to amend things. It is shocking to think of  'degrading'  one by whom we are benefitting.

(3)   For the Low Church who cannot receive the Baptismal Service, except by some violent perversion, to help to hunt down Ward is most outrageous.

I wish you would read the extracts from Ward' s book calmly. I think they would modify some of the (forgive the word) bitterness of your feeling against W.; they may show his real affection to our Church although you do not understand his way of showing it.

                                            In haste, your very affectionate,

                                                                                        E. B. P.

I find that persons who think and have spoken strongly against Ward' s book, as W. Barter, E. Churton, &c., still strongly deprecate the measure and are going to vote against it: others again will vote for No. 1 and against 2. I shall vote against both, but explain that I do not agree with the book, and this I hope will relieve the embarrassment of some who would not like to speak, yet would not wish to seem to approve of the book.

Hook could not see  'why Ward should not be condemned--merely because he has done some good amidst much harm.'  Mr. W. K. Hamilton had received a letter from Pusey written in terms resembling that to Dr. Hook.


    MY DEAR SIR,                                                                                        Close, Sarum, Dec. 20, 1844.

I quite agree with you that the toleration of unsound teaching--the making light of Truth--has been so common at Oxford as to throw no inconsiderable suspicion around any measure emanating from the authorities there as a protection to it; and as far as I can see at present this measure would throw many snares in the way of delicate consciences, and possibly force many out of the communion of our Church. .

With regard to the proposed degradation of Ward, I do feel much more perplexed. I read his book with intense interest, I may say with very great profit, but I quite abhor the disloyal feeling to our Church in which it is written. Very probably he has not overstated our most grievous shortcomings as a Church, but there is no evidence of publishing a parent' s dishonour with sorrow, and the effect upon any doubtful mind must be to detach it altogether from us. Then it appears to me that in his indifference, or almost his contempt of her, his spiritual parent, he has overdrawn the picture of the Roman Church....

What seems wanted is to maintain the loyal feeling towards our Church, and at the same time to draw persons on to an appreciation of better things than we have for ages enjoyed: in fact, to act as Ward recommends in the latter part of his book, but abstaining from his undutiful tone...

                                    Ever, dear Sir, yours gratefully attached,

                                                                              W. K. HAMILTON.

Meanwhile an effort had been made in Oxford to organize an intermediate or moderate opposition to the proposed test. A meeting was held in the rooms of Mr. Eden of Oriel College, and it was attended by C. Balston, Daman, Donkin, Heathcote, and others. It came to nothing, owing to a discussion on the Reformation which was occasioned by remarks in Eden' s introductory speech. Combination among the Liberal opponents of the test was attempted, but with no greater success.

 'Every one,'  wrote Newman to Pusey on Dec. 27,  'has his own opinion, and there are no older persons to whom others might defer...I have not seen Church or Mozley; but I fear they would confirm my desponding view of Oxford.'

Pusey thanked Newman for checking his sanguine anti–cipations. But, naturam expellas furca-- he could not but be sanguine in the next paragraph of his reply.

                                                          56 Marine Parade, Brighton,

MY DEAREST N.                                                                     Mo. in Oct. of Xmas. [Dec. 30], 1844.

It is indeed an anxious thing, when one thinks of the 2,900 members of Convocation, and that our whole Church is stirred to its foundations; there is no calculating on numbers; it seems taken out of all human calculation and agency almost; and so, since it is a crisis, I trust the more in Him Who alone can dispose the issue.

Yet almost every one writes sanguinely, and certainly it will re-unite persons who have been scattered or were not with us on the last occasion. John Miller (Worcester), Manning, B. Churton, Hook (thus far), Gresley, Archdeacon Berens, Saunders (Charterhouse), R. Wilberforce. Then some of these take it up warmly; as Saunders, also. Manning, if he votes at all on 1 and 2, will vote against them. Keble writes:  'It is pleasant to hear from all sides of the disgust which the test is exciting. But I fear it will go hard with Ward.'  Moberly is only afraid that the test should be withdrawn, and so the Heads be saved a defeat. Badeley:  'I hope, from all I hear, the test will be defeated. B. Hawkins, who is in the way of seeing people, told me everybody he had met with was strong against it.'

Richards tells me people in London are lukewarm about a Com–mittee. I am to write to-morrow to try to rouse them. I wish Copeland would try to keep people together in Oxford, but I have to write to him about the Paradisus, and will say something myself.

Meanwhile, it is a great comfort to see a very deep undercurrent of good steadily flowing on, and that in persons who are the formation of our own Church. I have of late been allowed to come in contact with more of such minds than heretofore, and to see very deep workings. . . . All consolations be with you always.

                                                            Ever your very affectionate

                                                                                           E. B: PUSEY.

The considerations which told most effectually against the proposals of the Hebdomadal Board are powerfully stated by Mr. Gladstone. He expresses with unanswer–able force the absurdity of making a man subscribe the Formularies  'in the present sense of the university,'  and, with prophetic insight, described the proposed test as  'a violent blow to the whole doctrine and practice of subscription.'  If tenaciously adhered to it would  'break down subscription altogether' ;  'in my view,'  he added,  'a very deplorable catastrophe.'  And although the proposi–tions extracted from Mr. Ward' s book might be each and all of them deserving of censure, yet how inequitable was it to censure them and to leave errors of an opposite kind, but of a much more deadly character, unnoticed!  'If Ward is to be censured for what he wrote of the Reforma–tion, what is to be done with regard to other prominent and dignified members of the University?'  Was it censurable, he asks, to disparage the Reformation, but permissible to promulgate heresy respecting the Revealed Nature of Almighty God?

Archdeacon S. Wilberforce also, who was at the time in general sympathy with the policy of the Hebdomadal Board, represented to the Vice-Chancellor the  'bungling'  character of this attempt to secure the end which its pro–moters desired. In fact, as general discussion proceeded, the defenders of the proposed test became less confident and fewer in numbers. Consequently at the meeting of the Hebdomadal Board on Monday, Jan. 13, it was resolved to withdraw the test. This resolution, however, was not made public for ten days. On January 23rd the notice of December 13th was reissued, but with the omission of the last proposal, and the insertion of a note to the effect that the projected test would not be submitted to the House.

Attention was now concentrated, by both sides, on the case of Mr. Ward. Were the proposed measures against Mr. Ward legally within the competence of the University? Messrs. Bethel and Dodson gave an opinion strongly against their legality.  'Any opinion,'  said the Hebdomadal advocates of the degradation,  'could be got for two guineas.'  Still, cheap as the opinion was, it made them uncomfortable. It was difficult  'to bring on the measure in spite of such an opinion. Accordingly a case was submitted to the Solicitor-General, Sir C. Wetherell, Dr. Adams, and Mr. Cowling. They ruled that the University had the power to degrade, that the passages from Mr. Ward' s book justified action being taken against him; and that if Convocation should vote his degradation, the only appeal would lie to the Queen as Visitor. This opinion was circulated among members of Convocation.

Meanwhile, although the proposed test had been with–drawn, a new weapon against the Oxford school was devised to take its place. In 1841 the Heads of Houses had published a resolution of their own in language drawn up by the Provost of Oriel, which condemned Tract 90 as  'evading rather than explaining the sense of the Thirty-nine Articles, and reconciling subscription to them with the adoption of errors they were designed to counteract.'  Pusey and Newman, at that date, would have welcomed the proposal of such a censure to the acceptance of Convocation. They had no doubt what would have been its fate; but the Hebdomadal Board never ventured to propose it. Much however had happened since 1841. Newman had resigned St. Mary' s. Pusey bad been suspended. Some secessions to Rome had taken place: it was already rumoured that Newman might secede. Ward' s book appeared to many minds to justify the action of the Hebdomadal Board in past years; while the vote on the proposal to negative Dr. Symons'  nomination to the Vice-Chancellorship appeared to show that Convocation had now parted company with the Tractarian leaders, and might be relied on to obey the guidance of the Heads of Houses.

Accordingly arrangements were made for inducing the University to adopt as its own the opinion of Tract 90 which four years before had been formulated by the Heads of Houses. The usual agencies were already at work.

 'Golightly,'  wrote Mr. J. B. Mozley,  'is in thick communication with Dr. Ellerton, and is coming in and going out of College every day. He, E. and F. are the trio on the subject.'

An address was presented to the Vice-Chancellor, signed by 476 members of Convocation, asking him to submit the censure of 1841 to Convocation for its approval: and notwithstanding the irregularly short interval between the presentation of the petition and its discussion, it was resolved by the Hebdomadal Board, at their meeting of February 3rd, to comply with the prayer of the petitioners by asking Convocation, at its meeting on the 13th, after condemning Mr. Ward, to censure Tract 90.

 'Only an exceedingly vulgar animus of a party,'  wrote J. B. Mozley,  'could have brought itself to wake up a thing from four years ago, and apropos to nothing, to censure a man who has withdrawn from the University.'

Probably the proposal to condemn Tract 90 was partly due to an epigram of Mr. Ward' s. Ward had said that he subscribed some of the formularies in a non-natural sense, and this phrase was thenceforth applied to the interpreta–tion of the Articles advocated in Tract 90. Pusey always resented its injustice: he maintained that the interpretation of the tract was at least as natural and honest as the ordinary Protestant interpretation. And Newman, after he had become a Roman Catholic, and therefore when he was under a temptation to make a present of the tenable–ness of his position as an Anglican to its Puritan or Liberal opponents, asserted no less strongly his repudiation of the moral stigma conveyed by the term  'non-natural.'  In a letter to the Times, dated Feb. 24, 1863, referring to a criticism of Mr. F. D. Maurice, who was at the time engaged in a hostile correspondence with Pusey, Newman wrote:--

 'I maintained in Tract 90 that the Thirty-nine Articles ought to be subscribed in the literal and grammatical sense; but I maintained also that they were so drawn up as to admit, in that grammatical sense, of subscription on the part of persons who differed very much from each other in the judgement which they formed of Catholic doctrine.'

Still, the word  'non-natural'  did its work. It was worth a great deal to the opponents of the Movement during the year 1845.

Pusey knew that the proposed censure of Tract 90 was just as much aimed against himself as against the author of the tract. The preamble to the censure stated that modes of interpretation such as those of the tract  'had since been advocated in other publications purporting to be written by members of the University.'   'They proposed,'  wrote Pusey in 1865,  'to condemn not the author of Tract 90 alone, but its defenders en masse, such as the late W. B. Heathcote and myself.'  He hoped therefore that the attack on Tract 90 would rally Newman to the defence of the Tractarian position in Oxford.


Christ Church, Shrove Tuesday [Feb. 4], 1845.

It is wretched to have holy seasons, which one needs, thus broken in upon: however, I must break in on yours. I would have come out to-night, but that I thought to see Copeland, and that he would have learnt from you what you think best.

I should hope the Heads would suffer from the invidiousness of proposing the condemnation of Tract 90 at nine days'  notice. Might one possibly fight with more advantage now than if it were to be put off by the Proctors'  veto, if one can get it? There is no time to lose in deciding which course to take.

Recollect that I am committed to Tract 90 as well as you, and so are so many others who would feel the blow, as I should not for myself:

so give me your judgement, as to the best line for our common defence. Could you send in an answer by one to-morrow, when there is to be a meeting? I would not use or hint at your name, except to Marriott or Church.

His sanguine temperament had again blinded him to the process which had been steadily advancing in Newman' s mind. Newman had no heart for resistance, in a case where defeat would be an indication from above that he ought to leave his present position.

                                                                    MY DEAR PUSEY,                                                               Littlemore, Feb. 6, 1845.

Thank you much for your new book through Copeland. I should not be honest, if I did not begin by saying that I shall be glad, selfishly speaking, if this decree passes. Long indeed have I been looking for external circumstances to determine my course--and I do not wish this daylight to be withdrawn. Moreover, I have had to take so lukewarm a part about Ward, that I am really glad and relieved to find myself at last in the scrape. The only drawback is, that I am not alone in it, not, I fear, from tenderness towards him, so much as that it would be a more dignified thing if I stood by myself.

I cannot say that I have any pain about it, and I could not honestly approximate in the faintest degree to an appeal ad misericordiam.

All this makes me a bad adviser. But again my raw opinion is worth little. I continually change it. It is after talking with others, and one or two good nights'  sleep, that I begin to have a view, whether a right or wrong one. I fear my opinion at this moment would come to nothing.

As to the veto, I suppose the only reason for using it would be the hope that the Hebdomadal Board could not bring forward as a substantive measure next term, what it is encouraged to do by the occasion of the meeting on the 13th. Yet on the other hand, if the Government is for them, they may be forced on--and I really should fear that the Protestant spirit in the University is roused, and that it would force on the Heads of Houses. I do not see any chance of a reaction. They are in a tide of victories--the Exeter matters--the Stone Altar decision--the turn of the Times, will all add to the natural determination of Englishmen. Recollect, they disperse French mobs by playing water engines on them, which would in England lead to an insurrection. Then again, if they did bring it on again, would it not be a more stringent measure? Might they not bring on a negative test, viz, that subscribers to the Articles did not hold such and such opinions? If it be said that no act of the University can narrow a subscription which Church and State have left open (as the lawyers say) this can be said also of the proposed measure. I do not see then any reason for recommending a veto, unless an increase (if so) in the minority be an object.

I wish I had more or better to say, but I can think of nothing else.

                                                                Ever yours affectionately,

                                                                                              JOHN H. NEWMAN.

P. S. Of course if the measure were brought forward again, there would be an apparent feebleness and unworthiness in the Proctors having vetoed it--which showed itself in Hampden' s case; and an unpleasant imitation or paralleling of the then Proctors'  conduct.

Another letter, to another correspondent, shows how fatally Pusey was mistaken in thinking that he could any longer expect hearty counsel or co-operation from Newman.


MY DEAR MILLER,                                                                                         Littlemore, Feb. 11, 1845.

Many thanks indeed for your kind and feeling letter, though I could not help sadly smiling at your thinking me deficient in patience. I suppose many persons think so, but they are wide of the mark, and time, which shows so many things, will prove that to talk of patience is nihil ad rem, in this matter.

The matter now going on has not given me a moment' s pain--nay, or interest. I did not even open the letter at once in which came the information of what the Hebdomadal Board had done, and I think I should go to bed quietly Thursday, Friday, Saturday night, though the news of Thursday' s proceedings did not reach me.

Nothing that has yet happened all along has caused me to take any step which I have taken--though much has happened heretofore to augment the pain under which I acted. But now I have no pain about these ecclesiastical movements. I am too far gone for that.

...     Considering this conviction came on me going on for six years ago, when you think how much I have written against it, how much I have done in keeping others from it, I do not think, whatever be my fault, you will accuse me of want of patience.

It is now near six years since I have said a word against the Church of Rome, except in my letter to the Bishop of Oxford four years ago, when he bid me.

I know how much this will pain you; but I have borne patiently the charge of impatience long--and the truth must be known now.


After writing to Newman on Shrove Tuesdays Pusey wrote to Mr. Gladstone, who had just resigned the Presi–dency of the Board of Trade in Sir R. Peel' s Cabinet on the question of the Maynooth grant.


MY DEAR GLADSTONE,                                            Christ Church, Shrove Tuesday, 1845.

I can write more freely to you, now you yourself are free, and commit, I suppose, no one but myself: and much misgiving as the announcement caused me as to our immediate prospects, I felt much comfort that you are free, parted from those whom I mistrust, so as not to be responsible for their acts, and reserved, I trust, under God' s Providence and by His grace, for a future day.

I am sorry to break in upon you thus, although your time, I suppose, is scarcely ever your own; yet I could not but wish to write to you, as to this monstrous attempt to condemn at nine days'  notice Tract 9O, and with it one to whom we all owe more than we can say--God' s chosen instrument to us for our souls'  good.

I know not what will or can be done, but I am sure you will do what you can to avert such a blow.

                                 Yours most faithfully,

                                                          E. B. PUSEY.

You will not suppose that by the first page I wish for any answer, The only object of my note is the second. I must feel the uncongeniality of mind and principle between you and your late colleagues, more than you, who are obliged to look on everything on its best side. I must not write on thus: but only say that in expressing my own feelings I do not mean to elicit yours nor to imply that they are the same.

Mr. Gladstone' s reply defines with great explicitness his attitude to the controversy which was dividing Oxford.


MY  DEAR DR. PUSEY,                                              13 Carlton House Terrace, Feb. 7, 1845.

No man more bitterly deplores than I do the more recent changes in the views of Mr. Newman: but I never felt anything more strongly than the proceedings now meditated at Oxford: it is enough to make the heart burst to witness them. They pass mere argument, and appear like the fruits of a judgement of God.

Of my own motion however, and without concert or advice, I wrote yesterday to Dr. Hawkins a letter, intended by way of appeal, from myself as a member of the Convocation, to the Board of Heads: and in terms as respectful as I could devise, I have demanded time. I made some reference to Mr. Newman: but the main tenor of the letter was to demand time on the ground of public decency, and that I may have some opportunity of considering the matters on which I am called to vote.

I have written again to-day at greater length, in the way of objection to the form of the Proposal on many grounds: and have selected two particular interpretations from Tract 90 (Articles XII. and XIX.), which I, as at present advised, adopt, and ask to know whether they are or are not included in the vote for condemnation; pointing out that the Proposal itself tells me nothing, and that to give my voice upon the matter involved in a state of such ignorance would on my part be profanation.

Although sorrow for Oxford and the Church is even at this moment the strongest feeling in my breast, yet indignation at this proposal to treat Mr. Newman worse than a dog really makes me mistrust my judgement, as I suppose one should always do when any proposal seeming to present ai,~ aspect of incredible wickedness is advanced.

But I feel most strongly that this is a season in which there is no effort that ought not to be made: and in writing as I have done I have assumed a character most offensive to me and most unwholesome, only to avert, or rather to contribute by God' s help a ten-thousandth part towards averting, greater evils.

I hope that if necessary there will be a veto: for the sake of the Church, and of the character of Oxford. Its effects on the Tract 90 may be many-sided: but it is upon the whole for every interest that the first principles of morality and justice should be observed.

And after all, looking back on the countless mercies we have received, I am hopeful of the issue: and should be even more so but for that which the Heads of Houses do not know.

                                 Most sincerely yours,

                                                   W. B. GLADSTONE.

Dr. Hook, although, in the event, he voted against the condemnation of Ward' s book, as well as against his degra–dation, was at first so afraid of countenancing Romanism if he voted with Pusey, that he decided not to vote at all.  'He added:--


Feb. 6, 1845.

I do honestly confess that the publication of Romish Methodism by yourself and your eulogy of the founder of the Jesuits had some influence upon my mind, and makes me pause as a strong, decided, vehement Anti-Romanist. These publications and the legendary Lives of the Saints will have the same effect in England as the fanatical movement in France; they will make men decided infidels. Infidelity and Romanism will always go hand in hand; except where, as in England, Romanists act with caution and take the philosophical line, such as is taken by Wiseman.

If a wise, decided, cautious address be got up to the Heads of Houses, calling upon them to propose the degradation of Dr. Whately, and showing the points of heresy in his works, I shall be most willing to sign it--not, of course, till I see what it is.

My present intention is not to vote. I should have voted against the test.

Hook wrote with an impetuosity which was at once the charm and the danger of his character; but Pusey took every man' s language literally, and felt it necessary to discuss Hook' s criticisms in a characteristic letter, which concludes as follows:--


Feb. 7, 1845.

To me, the condemnation of Newman when he has retired successively from every means of influence, Tracts, British Critic, St. Mary' s, inter–course with young men, residence, sermons, Lives of the Saints, and has won more souls to Christ than any besides, is beyond measure dreadful. I should expect some dreadful chastisement to follow.  'They entreated him shamefully and beat him, and sent him away empty.'  He has been, to an amazing extent, God' s messenger to us for the good of souls, and now men would cast him out.

Notwithstanding the widespread anxiety respecting New–man' s future, the attempt of the Hebdomadal Board to utilize the odium against Ward for the purpose of con–demning Tract 90 provoked warm indignation among moderate men, who had no sympathy with Ward, and no enthusiasm, to say the least, for the tract in question.


Crayke, Feb. 5, 1845.

Let us hope that now the worst seems come we shall soon see better days. The attempt to overwhelm Newman with Ward, Achilles with Thersites junior, will bring up every vote that can be mustered.

My good friend John Miller and I have been corresponding a good deal about a Protest we are concocting against [the] Hebdomadal Board--which must be  'put down'  as a public nuisance. Where could we have a meeting after Convocation to draw up resolutions condemna–tory? Query, in Exeter or B.N.C. Hall?

As the day approached it became known that the Heads of Houses would not, in any circumstances, have things their own way. The Proctors for the year, Mr. Guillemard of Trinity and Mr. R. W. Church of Oriel, had decided to exercise their statutable right of forbidding proceedings in Convocation which they judged inexpedient for the Uni–versity. They were urged to do this by others than the friends of Newman and Pusey.


MY DEAR SIR,                                                                                        Close, Salisbury, Feb. 8, 1845.

In a very nice letter I received this morning from Stanley of University, he tells me the Proctors intend to veto the proposal about Newman. This is a very great relief to me, as it is quite impossible for me to get away on Thursday. I am very sorry not to vote against Ward' s degradation, but my feeling about the other measure is necessarily a much stronger one. Was it necessary that Convocation should be called together in Ember week? if not, it is really shocking that when love for our Church is the plea for its assembling, one of her most solemn seasons should be profaned, as it must be on Wednesday next, by much feasting, and on Thursday by much excitement of strong if not bitter feeling.

I have done all I can here; and I hope all who go up will vote with you.

If it is generally known that the Proctors intend to veto the proposal about Newman many will stay, I should think, away.

                                        I remain, my dear Sir, yours gratefully attached,

                                                                                            W. K. HAMILTON.

It will be gathered from this letter that the Rev. A. P. Stanley and other younger members of the Liberal party in Theology were exerting themselves to defeat the pro–posals of the Heads of Houses. A fly-leaf which bears marks of Stanley' s hand, insisted on a supposed analogy between the proceedings against Dr. Hampden and those of which Mr. Ward was the object:  'the wheel of time had come round,'   'the victors of 1836 were the victims of 1845.'  The object of the paper was to condemn the proceedings against Hampden, and to induce Liberals to vote for Mr. Ward.

Whatever may be said against the proceedings in Con–demnation of Dr. Hampden, it would be superfluous at this distance of time to point the many obvious ways in which the analogy between the two cases advanced by Mr. Stanley broke down. While, however, the younger Liberals had many motives for assisting the Tractarians on this occasion, as a matter of fact it was not they who saved the Tractarians from disaster, as in after-times Dean Stanley so often boasted.  'The Liberals of his school,'  as Dean Church says,  'were still a little flock . . . too young and too few to hold the balance in such a contest. The Tractarians were saved by what they were, and what had and could do themselves.'  If this statement requires further proof, an analysis of the signa–tures to the vote of thanks to the Proctors for their action on February 15th (to be mentioned directly) would give ample evidence.

But if the opposition of the young Liberals to the proceedings against Mr. Ward was not very weighty and not altogether disinterested, it was much more creditable to Liberal principles than the course taken by the older representatives of Liberalism. The Provost of Oriel had been for many years a Liberal in Church matters. He was the friend of Copleston, Whately, Bunsen, and Arnold. He had supported the attempt to abolish subscription at matri–culation: he had been the great defender of the Liberalism of Hampden. He was now acting with sincere ultra-Protestants like Dr. Symons, who were in no sense Liberals; but he himself had not at all abandoned the latitudinarian eclecticism which his older friends were anxious to fit on somehow to the system of the Church of England. Yet his fear of a stronger religious faith than his own now led him not merely to assent to, but to be the principal author of measures compared with which the action taken against Hampden was a civil expression of disapprobation.

The scene on the 13th of February has been so graphi–cally described both in Dean Church' s  'Oxford Movement'  and in the Life of Mr. W. G. Ward, that it is unnecessary to enter much into detail here. The Sheldonian Theatre was crowded with Masters, no one but voters being admitted. When the Registrar had read the selected passages from the  'Ideal'  on the score of which the con–demnation of the book was to be pronounced, Ward made his defence. The book was condemned by a majority of 391 votes; the degradation of Mr. Ward was affirmed by a majority of 58 only. The tide of victory seemed, however, to be still flowing strongly for the ultra-Protestant cause, when the proposal to condemn Tract 90 was brought forward. Then, to the unconcealed disgust of the victorious party headed by the Vice-Chancellor, the Proctors rose in their places to exercise the veto which statutably belonged to them. Never in the history of the University was the procuratorial  'non placet'  more courageously or more wisely uttered.

An address to the Proctors thanking them for their conduct was signed by men of all parties in the University. Not only the friends of the Movement, but Mr. Stanley of University College and Mr. Jowett of Balliol appear among the signatories, which altogether amounted to some eight hundred' . The address was presented to the Senior Proctor by the Rev. C. Marriott on March 1st.

The victory, however, on the whole lay with the assailants of the Movement; and as new Proctors would enter upon office after Easter they determined to renew their efforts to procure a condemnation of the Ninetieth Tract.

It will be remembered that on March 22, 1836, Mr. Bayley of Pembroke and Mr. Reynolds of Jesus College, the Proctors for the year, had vetoed the proposal that Dr. Hampden should be suspended from certain privileges and duties attaching to his professorship; and that, when they had gone out of office, the proposal which they vetoed was carried on May 5th in the same year by an over–whelming majority. It was hoped that a similar reversal of the procuratorial veto might be repeated. But any such expectation overlooked the difference between the cases. It was one thing for the Proctors to use their veto as an expression of little more than their own opinions; it was another to use it on behalf of a very large and influential minority.

 'The procuratorial veto,'  so wrote a keen observer,  'has been treated in this case as if persons somehow or other felt that they had no real right to complain of it; as if there was an impression, whatever might be said in an ordinary party view against it, that the Proctors had, after all, a fair right to do what they did do.'

But the address to the Hebdomadal Board in favour of another attempt to procure a condemnation of Tract 90 received comparatively few signatures, and was treated with coldness in unexpected quarters.

Pusey on his part felt that if Newman was to be by any possibility saved from going to Rome, Tract 90 must not be condemned. The condemnation of Tract 90 would be interpreted by Newman as a last sign from Heaven; it would precipitate his secession. This motive led Pusey to suggest to Mr. Gladstone that he should ask the Archbishop of Canterbury to dissuade the Heads of Houses from any further measures. But Mr. Gladstone felt that matters had been further complicated by the action of one of Ward' s friends. Immediately after the decision of Convocation on Feb. 13, Mr. Oakeley had written a public letter to the Vice-Chancellor, in which he claimed to hold (as distinct from teaching) all Roman doctrine; and four days later this was followed by another letter to the Bishop of London, in which he brought this clause formally under the notice of his Diocesan. Whatever is to be said of its theological tenable–ness, nothing could be more frank than Mr. Oakeley' s attitude, nor more unequivocal than the terms in which he brought his theological position under the notice of authori–ties who could not but condemn it; but his action at this juncture greatly added to Pusey' s difficulties, and lessened the prospects of that  'peace'  which Pusey so earnestly desired.

Mr. Gladstone, as the following letter shows, was willing to do anything in his power to promote the cause of peace. But could Dr. Pusey answer for Mr. Ward or Mr. Oakeley? Had they not used, were they not likely to use again, language which was provocative and indefensible?


13 Carlton House Terrace, Feb. 17, 1845.

I concur with my whole heart and soul in the desire for repose: and I fully believe that the gift of an interval of reflection is that which would be of all gifts the most precious to us all, which would restore the faculty of deliberation now almost lost in storms, and would afford the best hope both of the development of the soundest elements that are in motion amongst us, and of the mitigation or absorption of those which are more dangerous.

Then as to my addressing the Archbishop. I have no right or reason to suppose that any representation from me would come to him with any special advantage. Still, it is impossible not to see from his late Pastoral, and still more from his Charge of last autumn, that no one more fervently ensues peace than our Primate; and if it were your desire that I should write to his Grace, I should readily do so, as my addressing him would be simply in the way of information, and would not be with the view of drawing him into communication with myself.

My opinion continues to be, that the subject of the Ninetieth Tract will most probably not be revived; but I by no means state this as ~ reason for doing nothing of the kind you indicate.

However, it occurs to me that the Archbishop' s first thought might naturally be, that the hope of peace must depend on the pacific intentions and desires not of one side or body only, but of all; and that if you, on behalf of the assailed, take the initiative, it would be very fair to ask you what guarantees, or at all events what reasonable expecta–tions, you can hold out that they will keep the peace. The signs of the last few days do not altogether give such a promise. For instance, even in his defensive speech, admirable as its tone was in all personal and in some other respects, Mr. Ward chose to carry his theology to a point beyond any which he had theretofore reached, and to pro–pound an Ultramontane definition of Roman doctrine, viz, whatever is approved by the Pope.

It is true indeed, as I conceive, that Mr. Ward represents an indi–vidual, not a class; and it is difficult to make others responsible for his proceedings. But Mr. Oakeley is a man who appears generally desirous to manage his opinions, extreme as they are, with gentleness and consideration for the peace of the Church. Yet he has just pub–lished, as I perceive with great pain, a challenge to the academical authorities, founded on the votes against Mr. Ward; with respect to which I will only say, that I cannot conceive how it could be in place until the validity of those votes should have been established, either by the sentence of an appellate tribunal, or by a legal certainty that the pro–ceedings of the Convocation cannot be brought under review elsewhere.

It is on this account that I have replied to you, instead of acting at once on your suggestion.

Pusey thanked Mr. Gladstone for his letter, but ac–knowledged that he could in no way answer for the action of Oakeley and Ward. But the prospect gradually brightened. On the following day Pusey wrote to Mr. Gladstone

 'There seems a general impression that the Heads are becoming more pacific; and that the renewed requisition against us will be a failure.. . . Your communications with the Board and your name have done us good service.' 

A day or two later Mr. Gladstone acted on Pusey' s suggestion that he should apply to the Archbishop of Can–terbury. He reported the result in the following letter:--



13 Carlton House Terrace, Feb. 22, 1845.

I have had a kind note from the Archbishop of Canterbury, in which he expresses his opinion that there will be no further proceed–ings at Oxford in respect to the 90th Tract.

I lose no time in making known to you the circumstance, as it may contribute to reassure your mind (on mine it leaves no doubt); but probably it would be well to keep back the Archbishop' s name except from persons altogether in your confidence.

If there be no intention of reviving the matter, what a conclusive testimony does this afford that the interposition of the Proctors was no less wise and just than it was courageous.

Robert Phillimore is desirous to sign the thanks. I mention this in case his name should not have been otherwise transmitted.

                                           Believe me, your sincerely attached

Rev. B. B. Pusey, D.D.                                                            W. B. GLADSTONE.

Thus this chapter of the history of the Movement had well-nigh closed. Mr. Ward was degraded, and the question of Tract 90 was not to be re-opened. But in order to complete this portion of our subject, it is necessary to follow for a while the fortunes of the Rev. F. Oakeley.

Mr. Oakeley, as will have been seen, had declared in his letter to the Vice-Chancellor that he held (though he did not claim to teach) all Roman doctrine, and had subse–quently repeated this claim in a letter to the Bishop of London. Thereupon the Bishop requested Mr. Oakeley to resign his licence as minister of Margaret Chapel. In this the Bishop was acting at the suggestion of Dr. Chandler, the Dean of Chichester, within whose London parish Margaret Chapel was situated. Mr. Oakeley pleaded for delay, but offered to take no part in the church services until he gave a reply. Meanwhile he wrote very earnestly to Pusey, with a view to inducing Pusey, Keble, and others to withdraw their support from the Church Societies, and to induce others to do the same, unless the Bishop of London withdrew his request. Pusey and Keble both felt unable to comply with this suggestion; and the Bishop, on his part, found the case to be full of unsuspected difficulties, and at last decided against withdrawing Mr. Oakley' s licence, but with the proviso that the circum–stances might still be the subject of legal determination.

Pusey, however, had been obliged, in his correspondence with Oakeley, to express himself with regard to Oakley' s actions in terms which inevitably led to a certain estrange–ment, and a loosening of those personal ties which, in binding Oakeley to himself, bound him also to the Church of England. This was inevitable; but it did not prevent Pusey from doing what he could to help his friend even to the last. Mr. Oakeley' s letter to the Bishop of London was made the basis of a suit in the Arches Court, which was opened on June 9. Mr. Oakeley himself did not appear, nor was he represented by counsel. On June 30 Sir Herbert Jenner Fust, the Dean of the Arches, revoked Mr. Oakeley' s licence to officiate at Margaret Chapel or elsewhere in the diocese, and prohibited him from performing any ministerial office in the Province of Canterbury until he retracted his errors. The judge held that if any Roman doctrine was opposed to the doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles, Mr. Oakeley must, according to his own statements, bold it; and that such a position was inconsistent with his engagements as a minister of the Church of England.

This decision added to the unsettlement and distress of many minds. In order to relieve this, Pusey, besides preaching to the distressed congregation at Margaret Chapel on the day before the judgment, wrote at length on the subject to the English Churchman. He pointed out that Mr. Oakeley' s case had been undefended: consequently it created no precedent. Had it been defended, some parts of the Judgment must have been modified. The judge had assumed that  'the Articles have one plain definite gram–matical sense, and that whoever does not see this, simply strains them, because he has a repugnance to their meaning. Nothing,'  Pusey added,  'can be less true.'  But the judge had condemned Oakeley' s claim to hold all Roman doc–trine, and not all constructions of the Thirty-nine Articles which might differ from his own. Mr. Oakeley' s case, then, did not really affect anybody except himself. That a decree of the Court of Arches was not a decision of the Church was clear from the fact that when a few years earlier this same court had decided in favour of the'  primitive practice of Prayers for the Dead,  'the Bishop of one of our first sees felt it to be his duty on the following Sunday to preach against it in the cathedral church of our metropolis.'  Pusey deplored the inequitable onesidedness which tolerated anything in one direction and nothing in another. The rulers of the Church would do well to commit her to God, and  'let her drive'  under His guidance; to thrust her, by measures of peremptory repression, would mean a situation in which  'the fore part'  might  'stick fast and remain immoveable,'  while the  'hinder part'  was broken by the violence of the waves. Pusey did not explain--there was no need for doing so--who were meant by the  'fore part'  and who by the  'hinder part.'

The events of the next few months were to afford a tragical illustration of the last - named feature of the catastrophe thus described.


Project Canterbury