In the exception which the Bishop takes to the slighting manner in which the Reformers have been spoken of in some of these publications, I entirely concur: but at the same time it does not seem difficult to account for it, on a principle common to both sides. The Reformers seem chiefly deserving of commendation, for having revived and established that principle of scriptural interpretation, which is alike preservative of Christian liberty and of Catholic truth; that principle, to the neglect of which all the corruptions of the Church of Rome are attributable; a principle which distinguishes the Church of England, in practice, from the Church of Rome, which commends the principle in theory, but fails to adhere to it; and which distinguishes it both in profession and practice from all the Protestant Dissenters, who count the principle altogether erroneous. The principle I mean, is that of trying the truth of all doctrine, alleged to be scriptural, by the testimony of the ancient Church, the divinely instituted "pillar and ground of the truth," according to the Canon for Preachers of 1571. It is, I conceive, purely men's regard to this principle which has led some to speak as they have done of the Reformers. The difference is this: some of us look chiefly at the testimony borne by the Reformers in favour of this principle, and are thankful to them for it, and willing to ascribe their occasional real or apparent defalcations from it to defective information, or human weakness under circumstances of great trial. The others look chiefly at the Reformers' defalcation from this principle, and are led to suspect that their professions of regard to it are not sincere, but put forward to serve a purpose, and consequently allow themselves to speak harshly of them. But I would submit to their second thoughts, that the first theory has enough in its behalf to make it probable, and being at the same time most charitable, should be deemed more worthy of regard than the latter.

One more consideration, and I have done. It will be asked, or, at least, it may be fairly asked, do you, upon calm reflection, approve of the course which was taken in 1833, and justify the Conference and combination from which all these things have sprung? My first answer is, that that Conference was the result of that mere instinct of self-preservation which prompts the cattle to herd together during a storm. By comparing the dates of some of the letters below, it will be seen, that at almost the same moment, the proposal for a Conference was suggested by Mr. Rose to his friend at Oxford, by his friend at Oxford to me, and by me to Mr. Rose, both of them being utter strangers to me, and neither of us writing with the knowledge that the other had written or thought of the subject. But apart from this, I suppose the old adage, “when bad men combine, good men unite," will sufficiently account for and excuse our seeking the advantage of mutual and personal counsel at such a period. But, it may be said, your Conference ended in a combination, not, indeed, on Mr. Rose's part, but on your own and that of the others who took share at the Conference, with the addition of two more: are you prepared to justify this? My answer is, that the chief, if not the only objection to which combinations are liable, is the danger of their interfering with constituted and legitimate authority; if all due regard to that be professed and bona fide observed, the utmost that can be said is, that still they

may be inexpedient or inconvenient, not that they are open to any considerate and legitimate reproof.

Let the reader turn then to the collection of Mr. Froude's letters published in his "Remains ;" and in the letter numbered 79, dated July 30, 1833, the day after the conference at Hadleigh broke up, he will find him giving an account of a suggestion made by one of our party on this very point: "His notion is, that the most important subject to which you can direct your reading at present, is the meaning of canonical obedience, which we have all sworn to our bishops; for that this is likely to be the only support of Church government, when the state refuses to support it. I myself have a most indistinct idea of what I am bound to; yet the oath must certainly contemplate something definite and sufficient to preserve practical subordination." Let him turn next to the short statement of our design in the letter from Oxford, given below, page 13, from another of our party, in which the first object avowed is, 66 a firm maintenance of the Apostolical Succession;" involving, necessarily, obedience to them whom we believe to be vested with our Lord's Commission. Let him turn, lastly, to Mr. Keble's statement exhibited in Mr. Newman's letter, dated September 6, 1833; in which the very pledge of co-operation is guarded and restrained by “reserving our canonical obedience." That that canonical obedience has ever been infringed, in the remotest degree, by any one of those concerned, no one has as yet pretended.

If it can be shown otherwise, I will be the last to attempt a justification of it. It has been said, indeed, that the continued circulation of Tract XC. is an infringement of episcopal prohibition. If the Bishop of Oxford so regards it, far be it from me to defend it: but I have that confidence in the author of the tract to believe, and take for granted, that, in continuing to circulate the tract, he is contravening no wish of his diocesan which has been communicated to him.

CHAPTER II.

Some account of the origin of the Theological Movement in 1833, in a Letter to the Editor of the Irish Ecclesiastical Journal.

SIR, THE sight of Mr. Sewell's letter in the Ecclesiastical Journal of November last, has induced me, with the hope of furthering the good work of reconciliation, to request permission to offer a word of explanation on a point connected with the theological or ecclesiastical movement of which Oxford has been the centre, which has given rise to much misunderstanding. I allude to the notion which has gone abroad, of there being, or having been, some secret association, combination, or conspiracy, among the original promoters of that movement, to alter the doctrine or discipline of the Church of England, from that which is exhibited in her authorized formularies. I believe the notion took its rise chiefly from an expression in one of the letters in "Froude's Remains," vol. i. p. 377, where, writing to one of his friends, he observes, "Do you know, I partly fear that you, and and, are going to back out of the conspiracy, and leave me and to our fate;" at least, I find this passage referred to by the Margaret Professor, as the ground for imputing to the parties in question the design above-named. As I am myself the individual last referred to by Mr. Froude, as likely, in his opinion, to continue steadfast with him in " the conspiracy," even if deserted by others; I may perhaps be allowed as a competent witness to speak of the origin, nature, and extent of the same. This, therefore, I proceed to state, and if there is any body of men likely to receive that statement favourably, I venture to think it is the body of the Irish clergy, when they shall be informed that that combination and conspiracy had its rise in sympathy for their deep affliction, when, in 1833, their loyal obedience to the British Crown, their faithful testimony to the truth, and their patient endurance of murderous persecution, were requited by the ministers of the day, with that wanton act of sacrilege, which produced an outcry of shame from some, even of their bitterest enemies, I mean the destruction of the ten bishoprics 4. This monstrous act had the effect of awakening some who till then had slumbered in the secure and easy confidence that the Church had nothing to fear from the State, into whatever

4 See upon this subject, Mr. Keble's sermon at the Oxford Assizes, in July, 1833, entitled "National Apostacy considered."

hands the management of the latter might fall; and it set those whose attention had long been painfully alive to the difficulties and dangers of the time, upon considering whether some combined effort might not or could not be made, with the hope, if possible, even at that late hour, to arrest that fatal measure, or at any rate, to offer resistance to further outrage upon the Church on either side of the Channel; and, whether the resistance might or might not be successful in arresting the evil, yet, at all events, to leave on record a witness of the evil, and a protest against it. With this view three of the parties alluded to in the passage of Froude's letter, given above, (Mr. Froude, another, and myself,) met at the house of a common friend, now no more, in July of that year, to talk over matters, and consider what could be done. And it being very clear, that the support which such a measure as the Irish Church Bill had received in both Houses of Parliament, was to be attributed to ignorance [or forgetfulness] of the constitution and nature of the Church; ignorance [or forgetfulness] of its existence as a society distinct from the State, and ignorance [or forgetfulness] of the Divine commission and authority of government which its chief pastors had received, we came to the conclusion, that the first and most necessary step to be taken for the defence and preservation of the Church was, to revive in men's minds a practical recognition of the truth set forth in the preface to the ordination service. On the breaking up of our meeting, Mr. Froude and returned to Oxford, from

whence, after they had consulted with the two others alluded to in the extract cited above, I heard from them both, to the effect, that it was agreed we should at once make an united effort, both by ourselves and as many as we could by private or public appeal induce to exert themselves, in behalf of these two points: namely, first, the firm and practical maintenance of the doctrine of the Apostolical Succession, so grievously outraged by the Irish Church Act. Secondly, the preservation in its integrity of the Christian doctrine in our prayer books, with a view to avert the Socinian leaven with which we had reason to fear it would be tainted, by the parliamentary alteration of it, which at that time was openly talked of. These formed the whole and sole basis of the agreement for united exertions then entered into by the five individuals of whom Mr. Froude speaks. Nor was any extension of the objects either agreed to or proposed at any subsequent period.

Appeal was forthwith extensively made to the members of the Church for their support of these two objects: see below. And one of the first results of the conspiracy" was, the clerical address to the Archbishop of Canter

5 Rev. H. J. Rose, then Rector of Hadleigh, in Suffolk. It is right to state that Mr. Rose was not, as far as I know, in any way concerned with the proceedings which took place subsequently to the meeting at Hadleigh, nor in any way responsible for them. Indeed as late as the 18th of August, "the Oxford resolutions " as he calls them in a letter of that date, now lying before had not been communicated to him.

me,

• When I say that the doctrine of Apostolical Succession was outraged by the Irish Church Act, I mean that disregard was shown to the doctrine, as though it had no foundation in truth.

bury, signed by (I think) about 7,000 of the clergy; and another was, the lay declaration of attachment to the Church, signed by upwards of 230,000 heads of families. From which two events we may date the commencement of the turn of the tide, which had threatened to overthrow our Church and our religion.

Now, that it may not be supposed that this explanation is an afterthought, or that I have in any way misrepresented the state of the case, I subjoin an extract from the letter which I received from Mr. Froude after his return to Oxford from the meeting of which I have spoken, and also the statements of two others of "the conspirators" on the same subject.

"THE impression left on my mind by my visit to Rose was, on the whole, a gloomy one; i. e. that in the present state of the country we have very poor materials to work upon; and that the only thing to be done is, to direct all our efforts towards the dissemination of better principles.

"Since I have been back to Oxford, Keble has been here, and he, and Newman, have come to an agreement, that the points which ought to be put forward by us are the following :

"I. The doctrine of apostolic succession as a rule of practice; i. e.

64

66

"(1.) That the participation of the body and blood of Christ is essential

to the maintenance of Christian life and hope in each individual.

(2.) That it is conveyed to individual Christians only by the hands of the successors of the Apostles and their delegates.

' (3.) That the successors of the Apostles are those who are descended in a direct line from them by the imposition of hands; and that the delegates of these are the respective presbyters whom each has commissioned.

"II. That it is sinful voluntarily to allow the interference of persons or bodies, not members of the Church, in matters spiritual.

"III. That it is desirable to make the Church more popular, as far as is consistent with the maintenance of its apostolical character. "Newman and

add, but Keble demurs.

"IV. We protest against all efforts directed to the subversion of existing institutions, or to the separation of Church and State.

"V. We think it a duty steadily to contemplate and provide for the contingency of such a separation.

66

"Keble demurs to these, because he thinks the union of Church and State, as it is now understood, actually sinful. In the next we all agree. VI. We hold it to be the duty of every clergyman to stir up his brother clergy to the consideration of these and similar subjects, and if possible to induce them to do the same."

Having expressed to my friends my concurrence in the objection, under the existing aspect of the times, to any such pledge as that implied in the fourth section, considering, that unless the course then pursued and threat