Assize Sermon at Oxford, and published his sermon, with the title "National Apostasy." Dr. Newman Dr. Newman held the publication of this sermon to be the startingpoint of the religious movement of 1833.

Of this we have next to speak, but may first add a word or two upon the latter days of Keble. Besides his edition of Hooker, and other writings, he produced in 1846 another collection of poems, "Lyra Innocentium," in which he looks at the doctrines of the Church in association with child-life. Though childless, he had a tender love for childhood. Keble's father died in his ninetieth year, in January, 1835. Later in the year the course of events advanced Keble from the curacy to the vicarage of Hursley, and in October, 1835, he married Miss Charlotte Clarke, daughter of an old friend of his father's-a lady whom he had known from childhood, and whose mother had been for some years a widow. Keble lived an active, happy life until March, 1866. In the following May his wife was buried by his side.

JOHN KEBF. (From a Photograph.)

The Oxford movement, which may be said to have attained full vigour in 1833, was in some respects the converse of that which began in the same university with the Wesleys just a hundred years before. In 1733, Whitefield had been a year at Oxford, and was associating himself with the small enthusiastic band of Methodists, who were to have a lasting influence on some of the forms of English religion. The Wesleys and their followers held by the Church, but laid more stress upon fellowship in realisation of the Christian life than upon ceremonial religion. They were forced out of the Church of England, Ithough not into antagonism with it, and their loctrinal opinions joined them in closest sympathy with that part of the Church which had least sympathy with Rome. They belonged to that section of religious thought which had been represented by the Puritans of former time. The next great wave of enthusiasm that spread from Oxford, arose from

reaction against the continued strengthening of that tendency in the Church against which Matthew Parker, Whitgift, Laud, and others had contended When our Church parted from the Church of Rome, there was a certain compromise, both as regards ceremonial and doctrine, which led, as we have seen, to active differences of opinion among Christians equally devout. We need only recall the controversy that gave rise to Hooker's "Ecclesiastical Polity." In the eighteenth century the great balance of zeal was so much against the Church system of Rome that it led even to a considerable secession from the Church of England, due in great measure to the feeble energies of a clergy that, if not touched with that form of zeal, had, as a body, no other in which there was united force. Such ornamental proprieties as Blair's sermons were read with critical satisfaction, though in the second half of the nineteenth century no critic would assign them value. The sceptical spirit in society was met with the reasoning of Butler, who did value ecclesiastical forms, and was accused even of a leaning to Catholicism, and by Paley, who was thought to share the tendency of his time in having, at least, no very great zeal for the established forms of ceremonial and doctrine as such, however much he valued them as aids to a useful religion. Unless a type of thought which had run through the history of many a past civil and religious struggle was really disappearing from amongst us, a reaction was inevitable. Given, in the nineteenth century, a few men as completely possessed with enthusiasm for their cause as the Wesleys were in the eighteenth, and as far as there were men in England apt to yield to the claim of supreme Church authority they could spread their opinions. The movement, like that of a century before, began at Oxford with about a dozen men; these, however, were not undergraduates, but men mature in power, with variety of gifts.

The devout imagination of John Keble fastened strongly upon the ecclesiastical system of the Church; its ordained ministers were the only ministers; its sacraments had mystical power in themselves; baptismal regeneration was a mystery of God dependent on the rite of the Church, and, loving children, he is said to have held in his arms a child that he had newly baptised, gazing down upon it with a tender adoration of the mystery by which it had been made clear from sin. This living faith in ceremonial shone from a life pure and beautiful, and in Keble the ties of home, and loving fidelity to its traditions as well as to traditions of the Church, made that spiritual life of love, which is the chief mark of Christianity, his most obvious characteristic, and kept him within the fold in which he had been born.

His friend, John Henry Newman, much influenced by Keble at Oxford, was urged by the energies of a vigorous mind to a foremost place in battle for the cause to which he gave both heart and intellect. The same vigour of mind caused him at last to accept the logical conclusion of his argument, and find all that he strove for by entering into communion with the Church of Rome. In the beginning of 1864, Charles Kingsley, who felt deeply the Romeward tendency of this reaction, expressed a belief that English clergymen had been deliberately drawn to Rome.

Dr. Newman defended himself by an Apologia, which was published in 1865, divested of the personality of controversy, as "History of my Religious History of my Religious Opinions." He was brought up to take great delight in reading the Bible, and recalls as faithfully as he can the shifting religious impressions in his childhood and youth. He was born in 1801, and is therefore one year younger than the century. His father was a banker in Lombard Street, and he was educated at Ealing School before he went to Trinity College, Oxford, where he was elected to a scholarship when very young. He graduated with classical honours in 1820, and obtained a fellowship at Oriel. In 1825 he became Vice-Principal to Dr. Whately, who was then Principal at St. Alban's Hall, but gave up that office in 1826, and became one of the tutors of his college.

He then preached his first university sermon ; in 1827 he was one of the public examiners for the B.A. degree, and in 1828 he became Vicar of St. Mary's. When the Fellows of Oriel had joined in welcoming him to their body, Newinan wrote to a friend at the time: "I bore it till Keble took my hand, and then felt so abashed and unworthy of the honour done me, that I seemed desirous of quite sinking into the ground." In 1827 the appearance of Keble's "Christian Year" had deepened his influence over his friends, and Newman found in it, he said as in Butler's "Analogy"-what may be called, in a large sense of the word, the Sacramental system; that is, the doctrine that material phenomena are both the types and the instruments of real things unseen-a doctrine which embraces in its fulness not only what Anglicans as well as Catholics believe about sacraments, properly so called, but also the article of "the Communion of Saints," and likewise the " Mysteries of the Faith ;" and also, as in Butler, through the doctrine that Probability is the guide of life, a sense of the logical cogency of Faith. In December, 1832, Newman visited with congenial friends the south of Europe, and during that excursion wrote most of the verses afterwards collected, with verse of Keble and other fellow-thinkers, in the "Lyra Apostolica." When he came home, in 1833, the Oxford movement had commenced, and Newman devised the plan of supporting it by a series of "Tracts for the Times," addressed partly to the clergy, headed "Ad Clerum," partly to Churchmen at large, headed "Ad Populum." They were sold at the price of twopence for an octavo sheet. The first Tract, sold for a penny, was an address to the clergy, in four pages, of "Thoughts on the Ministerial Commission." The clergy were called on to support their bishops as successors of the Apostles, and oppose the world by virtue of their own apostolical descent, received, through imposition of hands, from their bishops. All we who have been ordained clergy in the very form of our ordination acknowledged the doctrine of the apostolical succession. And for the same reason we must necessarily consider none to be really ordained who have not thus been ordained. For if ordination is a divine ordinance, it must be necessary; and if it is not a divine ordinance, how dare we use t? Therefore all who use it, all of us, must conider it necessary. As well might we pretend the Sacraments are not necessary to salvation, while we

make use of the offices of the Liturgy; for when God appoints means of grace, they are the means." In the same year, 1833, when the "Tracts for the Times" were begun, their founder says: "I called upon clergy in various parts of the country, whether I was acquainted with them or not, and I attended at the houses of friends where several of them were from time to time assembled. I do not think that much came of such attempts, nor were they quite in my way. Also I wrote various letters to clergymen, which fared not much better, except that they advertised the fact that a rally in favour of the Church was commencing." The second Tract argued that the one Catholic Apostolic Church, of which the Sacraments and the Communion are necessary to salvation in the case of those who can obtain it, is the Church thus formed by bishops, priests, and deacons. "And when men say 'the day is past for stickling about ecclesiastical rights,' let them see to it, lest they use substantially the same arguments to maintain their position as those who say the day is past for being a Christian.'" The next Tract was against any alteration of the Liturgy; the next upon objection to reading the burial-service over those who are a scandal to religion-an objection to be met not by change of the service, but by adherence to the words of the Church introducing it, and restoration of the practice of excommunication. A note is added on Episcopacy as the Principle of Unity. Following Tracts dealt much with the doctrine of episcopal succession, urged return to primitive practice, and resisted all change in the way of innovation. As the Tracts proceeded, interpretation by light of the past led to argument, beginning in Tract 38 ("Ad Scholas"), for a Via Media, which met the objection that the religious system here enforced and by some called Apostolical was "like that against which our forefathers protested at the Reformation." It is argued in dialogue between "Laicus" and "Clericus" that the Reformers of the sixteenth century held opinions which many in the nineteenth account Popish; "and is it wonderful," asks "Clericus," "if such as I should be called Popish, if the Church services themselves are considered so? Men seem to think that we are plainly and indisputably proved to be Popish, if we are proved to differ from the generality of Churchmen, now-a-days. Upon which "Laicus

says:

L. All, however, will allow, I suppose, that our Reformation was never completed in its details. The final judgment was not passed upon parts of the Prayer Book. There were, you know, alterations in the second edition of it published in King Edward's time; and these tended to a more Protestant doctrine than that which had first been adopted. For instance, in King Edward's first book the dead in Christ were prayed for; in the second this commemoration was omitted. Again, in the first book the elements of the Lord's Supper were more distinctly offered up to God, and more formally consecrated than in the second edition, or at present. Had Queen Mary not succeeded, perhaps the men who effected this would have gone further.

C. I believe they would; nay, indeed they did at a subsequent period. They took away the Liturgy altogether, and substituted a Directory.

L. They? the same men?

C. Yes, the foreign party: who afterwards went by the name of Puritans. Bucer, who altered in King Edward's time, and the Puritans, who destroyed in King Charles's, both came from the same religious quarter.

L. Ought you so to speak of the foreign Reformers? to them we owe the Protestant doctrine altogether.

C. I like foreign interference as little from Geneva, as from Rome. Geneva at least never converted a part of England from heathenism, nor could lay claim to patriarchal authority over it. Why could we not be let alone, and suffered to reform ourselves?

L. You separate then your creed and cause from that of the Reformed Churches of the Continent?

C. Not altogether; but I protest against being brought into that close alliance with them which the world now-adays would force upon us. The glory of the English Church is, that it has taken the VIA MEDIA, as it has been called. It lies between the (so-called) Reformers and the Romanists; whereas there are religious circles, and influential too, where it is thought enough to prove an English clergyman unfaithful to his Church, if he preaches anything at variance with the opinions of the Diet of Augsburg, or the Confessions of the Waldenses.

This absolute confidence in my cause, which led me to the negligence or wantonness which I have been instancing, also laid me open, not unfairly, to the opposite charge of fierceness in certain steps which I took, or words which I published. In the "Lyra Apostolica," I have said that before learning to love, we must "learn to hate;" though I had explained my words by adding "hatred of sin." In one of my first Sermons I said, "I do not shrink from uttering my firm conviction that it would be a gain to the country were it vastly more superstitious, more bigoted, more gloomy, more fierce in its religion than at present it shows itself to be." I added, of course, that it would be an absurdity to suppose such tempers of mind desirable in themselves. The corrector of the press bore these strong epithets till he got to "more fierce," and then he put in the margin a query. In the very first page of the first Tract, I said of the Bishops, that, "black event though it would be for the country, yet we could not wish them a more blessed termination of their course, than the spoiling of their goods and martyrdom." In consequence of a passage in my work upon the Arian History, a Northern dignitary wrote to accuse me of wishing to re-establish the blood and torture of the Inquisition. Contrasting heretics and heresiarchs, I had said, "The latter should meet with no mercy: he assumes the office of the Tempter; and, so far forth as his error goes, must be dealt with by the competent authority, as if he were embodied evil. To spare him is a false and dangerous pity. It is to endanger the souls of thousands, and it is uncharitable towards himself." I cannot deny that this is a very fierce passage; but Arins was banished, not burned; and it is only fair to myself to sav that neither

at this, nor any other time of my life, not even when I was fiercest, could I have even cut off a Puritan's ears, and I think the sight of a Spanish auto-da-fè would have been the death of me. Again, when one of my friends, of liber! and evangelical opinions, wrote to expostulate with me on the course I was taking, I said that we would ride over hm and his, as Othniel prevailed over Chushan-rishathaim, K.-; of Mesopotamia. Again, I would have no dealings with my brother, and I put my conduct upon a syllogism. I said, "St. Paul bids us avoid those who cause divisi¤.... you cause divisions: therefore I must avoid you." I də suaded a lady from attending the marriage of a ser who had seceded from the Anglican Church. No wiI that Blanco White, who had known me under such different circumstances, now hearing the general course that I was taking, was amazed at the change which he recognis d in me.

Meanwhile he was losing as well as winning friends, was exposed not only to the wrestle of argument, but to the fierceness too common in al religious contests, and that was not wanting in s opponents. The inner spirit of the man who hai organised the movement in the Church which was called, after the "Tracts for the Times," "Tre tarian," may be gathered from this poem of J. H. Newman's in the "Lyra Apostolica:

Time was I shrank from what was right,
From fear of what was wrong;

I would not brave the sacred fight,
Because the foe was strong.

But now I cast that finer sense
And sorer shame aside;
Such dread of sin was indolence,

Such aim at heaven was pride.

So, when my Saviour calls, I rise And calmly do my best; Leaving to Him, with silent eyes Of hope and fear, the rest.

I step, I mount where He has led;
Men count my haltings o'er;-

I know them; yet, though self I dread,
I love His precept more.

At the close of 1833 Dr. Pusey, who was Res Professor of Hebrew in the University, joined in 2 movement. Edward Bouverie Pusey, born in 1. was son of the Hon. Philip Bouverie, who had tik t the name of Pusey by royal licence. He had b educated at Christ Church, and he also became one o the Fellows of Oriel, at a time when the Fellows : Oriel represented a compact body of the best intem" in the University. He became Regius Profess Hebrew and Canon of Christ Church in 1828. I December, 1833, he contributed to the Trans the Times" the twenty-first of the series, on le of Fasting " Mortification of the Flesh a S Duty;" but it was not until 1835 and 1836 tis became fully associated with the movement. four tracts, 67, 68, 69, and 70, entitled Views of Holy Baptism, as established by từ of sent of the Ancient Church, and contrasted

::.

The aim of the treatise was to enforce the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration-baptism being set forth as the only spiritual New Birth-and the necessity of Faith with Baptism to Salvation. Its writer said, "St. Matthew records the words of the commission given through the Apostles to the Church; St. Mark alds the awful sanction, 'He that believeth and is laptised shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be damned.' Our Lord thus states positively what He had before to Nicodemus said negatively. Through Nicodemus, He warned us that without Baptism there was no entrance into His Kingdom; here he tells us, that whoso believeth in Him shall then have the blessings, which are in Him, imparted to him if he be baptised." Dr. Pusey also established the publication of a "Library of the Fathers" in aid of a reaction towards past opinions in the Church, and became thenceforth so prominently connected with the movement, that its supporters were often called by his name " Puseyites." Dr. Pusey's example caused Dr. Newman also to enter upon larger works of publication.

CHAPTER XIV.

FORTY YEARS UNDER VICTORIA.-NEWMAN, ARNOLD, MAURICE, KINGSLEY, CARLYLE, TENNYSON, BROWNING, AND OTHERS.-A.D. 1837 to A.D. 1877. THE tendency towards Rome and the actual passing over of young clergymen into the Roman communion after they had been for some time under his teaching, caused Dr. Newman to consider how far he might satisfy the consciences of those who, with Roman opinions, felt unable to remain within the English Church. The Thirty-nine Articles were said to be in part levelled against the doctrines now associated with the Via Media of the English Church as writers of the Tracts wished it to be. Early in 1841 Dr. Newman resolved to write a Tract for the purpose of showing that the Thirty-nine Articles of the English Church were elastic enough to include the opinions at which he and his companions and followers had now arrived. He says, "The actual cause of my doing so was the restlessness, active and prospective, of those who neither liked the Via Media, nor my strong judgment against Rome."

answer. "What do you mean by Rome?" and then I proceeded to make distinctions, of which I shall now give

an account.

66

By "Roman doctrine" might be meant one of three things: 1, the Catholic teaching of the early centuries; or, 2, the formal dogmas of Rome as contained in the later Councils, especially the Council of Trent, and as condensed in the Creed of Pope Pius IV.; 3, the actual popular beliefs and usages sanctioned by Rome in the countries in communion with it, over and above the dogmas; and these I called dominant errors." Now Protestants commonly thought that in all three senses, "Roman doctrine" was condemned in the Articles: I thought that the Catholic teaching was not condemned; that the dominant errors were; and as to the formal dogmas, that some were, some were not, and that the line had to be drawn between them. Thus, 1. The use of Prayers for the dead was a Catholic doctrine,-not condemned in the Articles; 2. The prison of Purgatory was a Roman dogma,-which was condemned in them; but the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils was a Roman dogma,-not condemned; and 3. The fire of Purgatory was an authorised and popular error, not a dogma,-which was condemned.

Further, I considered that the difficulties, felt by the persons whom I have mentioned, mainly lay in their mistaking, 1, Catholic teaching, which was not condemned in the Articles, for Roman dogma which was condemned; and 2, Roman dogma, which was not condemned in the Articles, for dominant error which was. If they went further than this, I had nothing more to say to them.

A further motive which I had for my attempt, was the desire to ascertain the ultimate points of contrariety between the Roman and Anglican creeds, and to make them as few as possible. I thought that each creed was obscured and misrepresented by a dominant circumambient "Popery" and Protestantism."

The main thesis then of my Essay was this:-the Articles do not oppose Catholic teaching; they but partially oppose Roman dogma; they for the most part oppose the dominant errors of Rome. And the problem was, as I have said, to draw the line as to what they allowed and what they condemned.

Such being the object which I had in view, what were my prospects of widening and of defining their meaning? The prospect was encouraging; there was no doubt at all of the elasticity of the Articles: to take a palmary instance, the seventeenth was assumed by one party to be Lutheran, by another Calvinistic, though the two interpretations were contradictory of each other; why then should not other Articles be drawn up with a vagueness of an equally intense character? I wanted to ascertain what was the limit of that elasticity in the direction of Roman dogma.

The result was, in February, 1841, No. 90 of the "Tracts for the Times," which made a very great stir in the Church. It was headed "Remarks on Certain Passages in the Thirty-nine Articles." The storm raised by this Tract brought its writer face to face with his actual position. Confidence in him was lost, but he had lost, he says, full confidence in himself. He admitted doubt as to his future opinions, and felt that this breaking of his influence within the English Church had saved him from an impossible position in the future. The bishops one after another directed their charges against him, and he writes, "From the end of 1841, I was on my death-bed as regards my membership with the

Littlemore, October 8th, 1845.-I am this night expecting Father Dominic the Passionist, who, from his youth, has been led to have distinct and direct thoughts, first of the countries of the North, then of England. After thirty years' (almost) waiting, he was without his own act sent here. But he has had little to do with conversions. I saw him here for a few minutes on St. John Baptist's Day last year.

He is a simple, holy man; and withal gifted with remarkable powers. He does not know of my intention; but I mean to ask of him admission into the One Fold of Christ.

When John Keble received the letter containing this announcement he dreaded to open it, expecting what it contained. He carried it about in his pocket, and opened it at last in an old sandpit. When some friend afterwards, during a walk, called attention to the sandpit, he said, "Ah, that place is associated with one of the saddest events in my life!"

JOHN HENRY NEWMAN.
From a Photograph by Mr. H. J. Whitlock, Birmingham.

The "Tom Arnold" who came as sunshine among the earliest visitors to Keble at Hursley grew to be a power in aid of English religion, differing from Keble not in that which he himself distinguished from "opinion" as "principle," although in latter years opinion put an imagined distance between these friends, whose goodwill dated from the days when they had both been students of Corpus and Fellows of Oriel,

Thomas Arnold, famous in after years as the Head-master of Rugby, was born in 1795 at West Cowes. His father, who was collector of customs there, died when his seventh child and youngest son Thomas was scarcely six years old. When eight years old he was sent to a school at Warminster in Wiltshire, and after four years there he went at the age of twelve, in 1807, to Winchester School, where he

remained till 1811. He was then, in his sixteenth year, elected as a scholar at Corpus Christi College, Oxford. John Keble was fifteen when he obtained his scholarship at the same college in 1807, and he had obtained in 1810 his Fellowship at Oriel. Arnold, having graduated in 1814, obtained his Fellowship in 1815, and gained the Chancellor's prize for the two University Essays, Latin and English, in 1815 and 1817. He had written verse as a boy, and still wrote it as exercise; but a taste for history caused him to fasten with relish at Oxford on Herodotus and Thucydides, in whom he delighted always. Delight in Thucydides caused Arnold afterwards to become his editor. He was also thoroughly at home in Aristotle, and often associated Aristotle's thoughts with the living truth of his own life. At Oxford, Arnold was lively, ardent, earnest, and bold of thought. In December, 1818, he was ordained deacon, and in 1819 he began life in partnership with a brother-in-law, who established a school at Laleham, near Staines. Arnold settled there with his mother, aunt, and sister; and next year, in August, 1820, he married a clergyman's daughter who was the sister of one of his most intimate school and

college friends. Nine happy years were spent at Laleham. With the school was associated private preparation of young men for the Universities. Arnold began by taking charge of such pupils, and also assisting in the school. Afterwards he made it his whole business, without partnership, to prepare young men for Oxford. He helped the curate of the place in church and workhouse, visited the parish poor, was happy in the young life about him, and in the domestic peace of home. To a friend who thought of becoming private tutor, he wrote thus of the calling, in 1831, when he was at Rugby :

I know it has a bad name, but my wife and I always happened to be fond of it, and if I were to leave Rugby for no demerit of my own, I would take to it again with all the pleasure in life. I enjoyed, and do enjoy, the society of youths of seventeen or eighteen, for they are all alive in limbs and spirits at least, if not in mind, while in older persons the body and spirits often become lazy and languid without the mind gaining any vigour to compensate for it. Do not take your work as a dose, and I do not think you will find it nauseous. I am sure you will not, if your wife does not, and if she is a sensible woman, she will not either if you do not. . . . . I should say, have your pupils a good deal with you, and be as familiar with them as you possibly can. I did this continually more and more before I left Laleham, going to bathe with them, leaping, and all other gymnastic exercises within my capacity, and sometimes sailing or rowing with them. They, I believe, always liked it, and I enjoyed it myself like a boy, and found myself constantly the better for it.

In August, 1827, Dr. Wooll resigned the Headmastership of Rugby, which he had held for twentyone years. Arnold, late in the contest for the next appointment, was induced to offer himself as a candidate. His testimonials were the last sent in and the. last read. Among them was one from Dr. Hawkins which predicted that if Mr. Arnold were elected at Rugby he would change the face of education