SOURCE: “Difficulties Felt by Anglicans, I,” in A Historical Commentary on the Major Catholic Works of Cardinal Newman, edited by Peter Lang, 1993, pp. 35-47.

[In the following essay, Griffin concentrates on Newman's satirical lectures on the Oxford Movement in Difficulties Felt by Anglicans.]

You do me an injustice, if you think, as I half-gathered from a sentence in it, that I speak contemptuously of those who now stand where I have stood myself. But persons like yourselves should recollect the reason why I left the Anglican Church was that I thought salvation was not to be found in it. The feeling could not stop there. If it led me to leave Anglicanism, it necessarily led me and leads me to wish others to leave it … Moreover, he [the convert] will feel most anxiously about those whom he has left in it, lest they should be receiving grace which ought to bring them into the Catholic Church, yet are in the way to quench it, and sink into a state in which there is no hope. Especially will he be troubled at those who put themselves forwards as teachers of a system which they cannot trace to any set of men, or doctors before themselves.

(Letter to Thomas Allies; L&D, XIII, 59-60)

The Difficulties text is perhaps the most controversial of all of Newman's works. Catholic scholars are embarrassed at Newman's satiric portrait of the Church of England and seek to defend him by suggesting that he was working under orders from Nicholas Wiseman in a process “distasteful” to himself.¹ The result of such a process was a volume obviously “too polemical in intent”² to be of any use as a history of the revival. For similar reasons Owen Chadwick has described the work as the only book of Newman's that “many Anglicans found impossible to forgive.”³ More important than the infrequent mention of the text is the silence which has enveloped the Difficulties. In spite of the enormous body of writings about the Oxford Movement, I have found only one study which even mentions Difficulties.

The Difficulties text was originally a series of lectures delivered in May of 1850 on the occasion of the trial of G. C. Gorham, an Anglican clergyman, on a point of doctrine. The clergyman's interpretation of the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration was in effect a denial of its validity, and his bishop (Henry Phillpotts of Exeter) had therefore refused to install him in his diocese. Gorham took his case to a secular court, the Privy Council, and eventually won. The doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration was declared to be an “open question” in the church.⁴

Newman watched as the trial was in progress and found it to be a logical derivative of the Erastian system brought forth during the Reformation. For a while Newman was determined to do nothing, but suddenly he changed his mind and offered to give a series of lectures about the Oxford Movement, hoping to bring some of the remaining “Puseyites” (after Edward Bouverie Pusey) into the Catholic Church.⁵ It should be noted that Wiseman had nothing to do with Newman's decision. Indeed, the Newman version contradicts the suggestions of Wiseman that he (Wiseman) was partly responsible for the flood of converts in 1845 and after.⁶ Students of Cardinal Newman will appreciate the significance of Newman's decision to offer the lectures, for the resulting volume is the only one of his Catholic works that was not written directly under the call of duty.

A brief summary of those lectures on the Oxford Movement might be useful before an attempt is made to illustrate my theme that the work is a valid history of the movement. The lectures open with a description of the Church of England as the work of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. In keeping with its origins, the English church was no more than a “creature of the state,”⁷ with no life apart from its connections with the state and upper classes. The “Establishment” had not given rise to the revival of 1833, for the defining idea of the revival was anti-Erastianism, a principle in direct conflict with the traditions of the national church. The bishops and clergy, like the government they served, were agents of law and order, and while they exercised a useful influence on the national life of England, that life was not religious in character. The kind of spiritual life for which the Tractarians had argued was completely foreign to the refined ethos of the Church of England. Thus it was that the massive number of converts had not diminished the “work” of the national church. For the same reason, those who remained had not been able to prevent a liberal like Renn Hampden from ascending to an episcopal throne in 1848; nor should those who remained expect to influence the church in any other substantial way. The bishops, most of the clergy, and the laity were as opposed to the ideals of 1833, as were the leading representatives of the state. The bishops, moreover, had attempted to put down those who, in the original revival, had most professed to honor them. It was Newman's argument that either the earlier beliefs or their positions in the church ought to be given up, for the bishops had condemned both the doctrines and those who professed the doctrines.

According to Newman, the laity had been even more rigorous in its opposition. Thus, those who would be consistent with their earlier efforts to restore the lost popularity of the “apostolic church in these realms” (John Keble's phrase in National Apostasy) must either give up that ideal or find a church in which those beliefs were accepted. The principles and doctrines of 1833 would never be accepted by the laity, and the Anglo-Catholics who professed such beliefs must conceal them from the public whom they served.

In his final lecture on the Oxford Movement, Newman urged that the “Puseyites” of 1850 were in effect “Patristico-Protestants” and a “party” within the English church. Consciously, and on principle, they had elevated their own private judgment to be the standard of orthodoxy in the Catholic Church. Such a process was a direct contradiction of the earlier ideal of following episcopal authority, but the process of ignoring all critics of their beliefs narrowed the exponents of Catholic orthodoxy to an extremely small number of Anglican clergy. Such a process was morally dangerous and intellectually absurd.

In developing this theme, Newman was especially concerned to address the recently stated arguments of Keble and Pusey for remaining in the Church of England. Pusey had argued that “no contradiction” from within the church should lead a man to abandon his basic duty to the church in which he had been baptized.⁸ Keble had argued even more vigorously against the idea of going over to Rome in a publication of 1848. Staying in the religion of one's birth was “the safest way,” and no one should consider leaving the English church without evidence against it and in favor of Rome that was “almost miraculous” in character.⁹ In answering these objections, Newman quotes from the lives of several prominent Methodists and Dissenters who had also expressed a perfect confidence in the truth of their professions. Yet the Anglo-Catholics had been unanimous in their protests against other forms of English Protestantism and in their convictions that persons who professed such beliefs were not necessarily safe. Personal conviction, therefore, was no argument against an overwhelming consensus against such beliefs.

The first revival had been based on a fundamental ignorance about the history and traditions of the Church of England, but the Gorham verdict had forever removed the excuse of invincible ignorance. The civil trial of doctrine and its verdict that the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration was an “open question” showed where the final authority in the church rested. As a measure of how seriously the Anglo-Catholics regarded the trial, each of them had signed a petition to the effect that the Church of England would cease to be a church if the verdict was not reversed.¹⁰ It was not reversed, though Pusey declared that it was “absolutely null and void.”¹¹ Keble's response was perhaps more typical. When the verdict was known, he declared, “If the Church of England were to fail, you will find it at Hursley.”¹² His premise was that the Anglo-Catholics could survive in the church by ignoring state or episcopal decisions with which they disagreed.

My summary of the lectures on the Oxford Movement and the position of the Anglo-Catholics does not really do justice to the brilliance of Newman's prose or the precise topicality of the lectures' challenge to the rationale for remaining in the English church. Still, it is easy to understand the resentment of Anglican scholars toward the Difficulties text and the growing popularity of the idea that Newman, after his conversion, had become a disciple of Lord Byron because of his attacks on the Church of England.¹³

From an historian's point of view, nevertheless, the most controversial aspect of the entire lectures is Newman's insistence that the revival did not derive from the Church of England and was completely “foreign” to that church. Such a version of the Oxford Movement does, as one scholar remarked, contradict “a great deal of what we already know.”¹⁴ The accepted version to which this scholar was appealing was to the effect that there was “nothing new”¹⁵ in the ideology of 1833. Keble and Pusey simply taught what they had learned from their parents, whose theological roots went back to the Caroline divines of the seventeenth century.¹⁶ As far as the Tractarians may be said to have worried about political issues, they were intent on preserving the alliance of church and state in the traditional form of Oxford Toryism.¹⁷

In spite of the difference between the two versions of the Oxford Movement, there is a case for the Newman version. Newman's other work as an historian and his reputation as an honest man should have preserved him from the suspicion of lying under orders from Wiseman; and, as we have seen, it was Newman who proposed the lectures, despite his chronic dislike of writing. Further, Newman had excellent credentials to write such a history. Contrary to the Anglican assertion that he was “the odd man out”¹⁸ in the revival (because of his evangelical background), Newman had been present from the first days of the revival—two years before Pusey's tentative joining in 1835¹⁹—and had remained a participant for nearly a dozen years after Keble's departure from what he later admitted was a “parenthesis”²⁰ in his life. It should also be remembered that Newman was the most prolific contributor to the Tractarian “literature.”

Mention of that enormous body of writings raises one of the most interesting characteristics of the Difficulties lectures. The lectures are almost unique in the literature on the movement for their recurrent appeal to the original texts of the Oxford Movement. On frequent pages, there are as many as twenty quotations from that material, so much so that its “literary” effects are often lost in the abundance of references and quotations.²¹

The form of the lectures is one that Newman used in most of his writings—that of defining and illustrating the meaning of an idea. The basic idea of 1833 was anti-Erastianism, and in illustrating that idea, Newman quoted from a series of Tractarian texts. The great difficulty in selecting those quotations was that much of the most valuable material was by John Keble, who was still alive and still an Anglican. A sense of decorum may have kept Newman from citing the early Keble against the Keble of 1850, and it would have been a violation of friendship for Newman to have quoted the frequent radical letters from Keble to himself and Richard Hurrell Froude, though Keble was the first to suggest the breaking of the state-church alliance and had directed his younger friends to maintain their “oaths of obedience” to the bishops.²² Thus Newman was somewhat confined in the materials available to him. He settled on taking his material from his own work, that of Froude (who had died in 1836), and that of several of the recent converts. Froude's essays and letters were public property, for they had been published in 1838-1839 under the title The Remains of R. H. Froude. In the four volumes of Froude's essays, poems, historical sketches, and correspondence, there is scarcely another idea besides that of anti-Erastianism. Newman deserves some credit for a sense of delicacy, for the various essays and letters are filled with derogatory remarks about the Church of England and its conservative clergy whose ministerial ideas went no higher than a good living and a hundred pounds a year, and Newman might have used some of Froude's more inflammatory statements. Instead, he contented himself with Froude's description of the English church as a “upas tree” and his perplexed questionings on what was to be done about changing the ideals of the English church. In summing up the conflict between the aspirations of the Church of England and those of the apostolicals, Newman remarked:

Passages such as this [Froude's] … show to me my brethren, clearly enough that these men understood the nature of the Church far better than they understood the nature of the religious communion which they sought to defined. … They did not understand that the Established Religion was set up in Erastianism, and that to destroy Erastianism was to destroy the religion. The movement, then, and the Establishment, were in simple antagonism from the first, although neither party knew it; they were logical contradictories … what was the life of the one was the death of the other.

In such comments, Newman shows the extreme difference between his version of the revival and that of later Anglican historians, for it was Newman's thematic insistence that it was the national church itself which provided the most essential support for the heresy of Erastianism brought forward by Henry and Elizabeth. Anglican historians have been known to gloss over the English Reformation, but the great historians of the nineteenth century boasted of the achievement of Henry in taking upon himself the authority of the church. Modern Reformation scholars, moreover, freely use the word “erastianism” in their assessment of the Henrician achievement. According to most historians, the English Reformation was rather more than an “unprofitable parenthesis”²³ in the history of English Christianity. The efforts of the sixteenth century, according to Newman, could not be corrected according to the Tractarian program, without destroying the church itself. The strongest case then for the Difficulties text is its fidelity to the original literature of the Oxford Movement. When Owen Chadwick described Newman's comments on the Church of England as an “attempt to burn what he had once worshipped,”²⁴ he neglected the extensive and invariably negative comments that Newman and the other apostolicals had made about the “Establishment” from the very start of the revival. The very title that the group took for themselves, “apostolicals,” was used to distinguish it from the conservative-Erastian forces at Oxford—the “Z's” as they were known to Froude and Newman. An hostility to the Establishment and what it stood for—tithing, the comfortable living system, connections with the aristocracy, the status of the clergy as the “resident gentlemen” of their frequently beautiful estates (livings)—was the defining note of the apostolical party; and while Newman supported his lecture with ample references to the literature of 1833 and beyond, he could have made his argument much stronger by citing the private “apostolic” correspondence, which is filled with sardonic comments on the church and its aristocratic clergy.²⁵

As Anglicans Newman and his friends had appealed to a system that they believed existed “behind” the Church of England. He once described the relationship of the apostolicals to the Establishment as that of a lifeboat to a sinking ship. In another letter he had described the growth of apostolic ideals as that of a butterfly within its cocoon. Its principle of growth was Catholicism. In time the Catholic system would come of age and break its bonds with the state and aristocratic forces. But each of the apostolics had agreed that a call might go forth from a bishop to the apostolicals and their flocks to follow them “out of the Establishment,”²⁶ an idea implicit in Keble's National Apostasy with its distinction between the Church of England and the “apostolic church in these realms.”²⁷ The reason for the satiric treatment of the Church of England in the lectures is that Newman wished to disabuse those who remained of the fallacy that had given rise to the revival in the first place.²⁸ There was no living apostolic system in the church.

Newman's comments on the episcopal response to the doctrines and ideals of 1833 are confirmed by later Anglican historians who boast of the opposition that Pusey and his followers endured from the “whole of the episcopate.”²⁹ Yet Newman was certainly accurate in his urging that the conflict between the bishops and the Anglo-Catholics was an absolute contradiction of the earlier ideal of getting the bishops, as befitted their office as heads of the church, to act in the struggle against state-control of the church. The Tracts of the Times, for example, were unsigned lest they seem to suggest a rival authority to that of the bishops. As Newman remarked in the opening sentence of “Tract One”: “I am but one of yourselves,—A Presbyter; and therefore I conceal my name, lest I should take too much on myself by speaking in my own person. …” Even Dr. Pusey, who later boasted that he had “never trusted the bishops,”³⁰ had committed himself to the Tractarian ideal of upholding the episcopal office.³¹ The spirit behind the anonymous tracts might be contrasted with the authoritative-sounding letters of Pusey, Keble, and some of the other leaders of the party to the Anglo-Catholic press in 1845 and beyond. The Anglo-Catholics virtually made it a point of honor to oppose their bishops. One historian has noted:

It was the gentle Dr. Neale who boasted that after sixteen years of disagreement with his bishop he had never taken back a word nor modified a practice except in those cases where he had gone farther.³²

Other historians also boast of the opposition that Pusey and his followers endured from the English bishops, but those innumerable contests between bishops and Anglo-Catholics were a direct contradiction to the earlier pledges of obedience and filial respect that were one of the defining notes of the original revival.

Newman's commentary on the lay response to the Tractarian program is also sustained by Anglican historians of the Oxford Movement. The great difference is in the interpretation of that response. It was Newman's argument that the Anglo-Catholic ideals and practices, even with the sharp mutations of 1845 and beyond, could survive only by concealment, whereas the first revival had intended to go directly “to the people”³³ for support and confirmation of its doctrines. The church of 1833, it had been agreed, was “too much a church for the aristocracy,”³⁴ and the intent of 1833 had been to break the aristocratic hold on the church—to make the apostolic church in England once more, as befitted its Catholic character, into a popular institution, broadly supported by the middle and lower classes. Keble had invoked the support of the laity at the very end of National Apostasy, and had asked Newman to write a tract for the lower classes, but when the opposition of the laity was known he did conceal his own kind of Catholicism.

A fair instance of his change is to be found in the second volume of his poetry. Keble's first biographer, J. T. Coleridge, noted that one of the poems, “Mother out of Sight,” was too controversial (i.e., Catholic) for the times and that Keble, after a soul-searching that Coleridge did not recorded, agreed to have the poem struck from the volume (Lyra Innocentium).³⁵ There are numerous instances of like episodes, and here it might be useful to go to the Anglican accounts of the post-1845 revival. All of the historians agree—whether they are accurate or not is another matter—that confession was widely practiced by Pusey, Keble, and their disciples.³⁶ But the confessional manuals that Pusey translated were not widely circulated among the clergy, and his bishop (Samuel Wilberforce) did forbid Pusey to continue his translations. More important, it should be noted that there were no confessional boxes built in any of the new churches. The laity would not allow it, and the revival could succeed only through turning its back on what one Anglican scholar has called the “mob violence”³⁷ of the laity against the “Puseyites.” But the process of turning away from the laity was itself a contradiction of the earlier ambition of making the church once more into a “popular” institution.

The most satiric portion of the Difficulties text, as an early reviewer noted,³⁸ was Newman's description of the Anglo-Catholics as a “party” within the Church of England. The process of forming a party was fairly common in the national church because of its flexible, or comprehensive, attitude toward doctrine, but the first apostolicals had worked especially hard to avoid the charge of party spirit by deferring absolutely to the bishops and addressing their ideals to the laity. The second generation, by ignoring all forms of opposition, had elevated themselves as the standard of orthodoxy in the Christian world. Newman's logic in this lecture (5) is inexorable. If the second generation of Anglo-Catholics were doctrinally orthodox, it would follow that their critics were wrong; and the list of critics included Anglican bishops, the laity of the Church of England, most of their fellow clergy, and Roman Catholics. It would follow, then, that the “Puseyites” were the only exponents of Catholicism in the nineteenth century. But such a process, according to Newman, narrowed the exponents to a very small number—“about half-a-dozen” was the figure given by Newman; and to postulate that the Catholic revelation was given to such a small number, who cannot be said to have always agreed among themselves on points of doctrine, was too absurd to be seriously discussed. Yet the Newman analysis is sustained by those scholars who glory in the small numbers of “loyal” English churchmen who struggled against every other authority in their own church and kept up the propaganda warfare against Rome. Still, the idea of forming a party was a direct contradiction of the earlier ideal of enlisting the aid (in Keble's phrase) of “tens of thousands”³⁹ of the laity and “every clergyman who was not an Erastian,”⁴⁰ as well as those bishops who were not afraid to assert their apostolical beliefs.

Support for the accuracy of Newman's description of the Anglo-Catholics as a party within the Church of England is to be found in Pusey's numerous letters to the Anglo-Catholic press in which he put forward some doctrine in an ex-cathedra manner. Even those who were to be numbered as his friends criticized him for his “self-appointed” role as leader of the Anglo-Catholics.⁴¹ It was with an unconscious irony that one of Pusey's biographers described him as “always independent.”⁴² The validity of Newman's account of the “Puseyites” in 1850 is stronger, perhaps, than Newman knew, for Keble's various biographers invariably describe him as the “saint of Anglicanism” because of his steadfast loyalty to the church in spite of all the opposition from bishops, statesmen, and others.⁴³

Further evidence for the accuracy of the Difficulties text is to be found in its general consistency with Newman's other writings about the Church of England and the anomalous position of the Anglo-Catholics within that church. Far from the text being “the only example of aggressive controversy”⁴⁴ of Newman's Catholic years, the lectures are consistent with all of his writings on the Church of England. The Essay on Development is, of course, a defense of the Tridentine church; but every one of the “notes” that Newman set forward as the test of an orthodox doctrine could be employed against the teachings of the Anglo-Catholics, especially the fifth note of a valid development—a conservative action on the past. It was Newman's argument that Anglo-Catholicism could survive only through a repudiation of the past, notably the events of the sixteenth century.⁴⁵ In an essay of 1846, “John Keble,” Newman commented on the abysmal state of the Establishment and its clergy and the dream-like quality of Keble's image of that church; and most important, the extreme difference of doctrinal beliefs that separated Keble from his professed religion.⁴⁶ An essay of 1850 might be read as an implicit attack on the Church of England and its conservative-Erastian bishops, for it was Newman's argument in the essay (and in 1833) that a real leader of the church, in this case the Pope, could never be a conservative as the term was used in the nineteenth century—to look out for “number one.”⁴⁷ In the lectures of 1851 (Present Position …), there is extensive ridicule for the national church and its traditions of anti-Catholicism. Parts of the Apologia can be read as a criticism of the Church of England, Pusey as the “leader of the party” within the church and the basic creed of Oxford—“Toryism.”⁴⁸ The most striking of Newman's later comments on the Establishment are to be found in the “Letter” of 1875. The Catholic Church, contrasted with the Church of England, was not an Erastian church, and the modern popes, including Pius IX, were loyal to the traditions of the great militant popes and bishops of antiquity, whereas the Church of England had not produced a genuinely apostolic bishop of the cut of Ambrose or Basil in its three hundred years of existence.⁴⁹

Newman supported the national church because it kept out evils worse than its own and because the Catholic Church was not ready for a position of leadership in England. Yet he regularly expressed his inability to understand the position of Pusey and many of his followers in the Church of England. Keble had broken off all correspondence with Newman after his conversion, but with those Anglo-Catholics who questioned him on points of controversy or Catholic doctrine—e.g., Thomas Allies, William Dodsworth, William Maskell—he frequently returned to the argument of 1850: there was something “foreign” or “outlandish” about the Anglo-Catholics in their own church,⁵⁰ and that such persons ought to be Catholics.⁵¹

A final defense of the Difficulties text is to be found in its prophetic element, that the Anglo-Catholics could not influence or change the Church of England. In spite of the Anglican insistence that the Oxford Movement was “full of life”⁵² because it had endured and Eugene Fairweather's comments on the victories of the later Anglo-Catholic priests in their “skirmishes against Parliament, Privy Council, and the Crown,”⁵³ the later trials of Anglo-Catholic doctrines and practice record no such victories. Edwin Hutton attacked at length Newman's insistence that the doctrinal authority of the national church was lodged in the state,⁵⁴ but the ecclesiastical trials of 1850 and beyond gave verdicts that were against an Anglo-Catholic belief or practice; and it is almost irrelevant for historians of the post-1845 revival to say that Pusey and his friends “refused to accept”⁵⁵ such verdicts, for the verdicts became the law of the land. In addition, it should be noted that the episcopal appointments of 1848 (Hampden) and later were given to men of an increasingly liberal cast of theology in the pervasive reaction of the Establishment against “Puseyism.” The petitions, essays and letters to the Anglo-Catholic press did nothing to change the Establishment.⁵⁶

But Newman's intent in the Difficulties lecture was not to satirize the Establishment simply for the sake of humor or to endear himself to the Catholic hierarchy. He believed throughout his Catholic years, that there was but “one ark of salvation.”⁵⁷ and he used every occasion that presented itself to drive home that unpopular fact.

Notes

1. Wilfred Ward, The Life of John Henry Cardinal Newman (2 vols.; London, 1912), I, 232-233; Meriol Trevor, Newman (2 vols.; London, 1962), I, 513.1; J. Derek Holmes, “Personal Influence and Religious Conviction,” Newman Studien, X (Heroldsburg, 1978).

2. Marvin O'Connell, The Oxford Conspirators (New York, 1969), ix.

3. The Victorian Church (2 Vols.; London, 1974), I, 288.

4. CF. Samuel Ollard, A Short History of the Oxford Movement (London, 1922), 113-114; Charles Clark, The Oxford Movement and After (London, 1932), 145.

5. L & D, XIII, 453.

6. Cf. “The Religious Movement,” Dublin Review, 19 (December, 1845), 522-538.

7. Difficulties Felt by Anglicans (2 Vols.; Westminster, 1968), I, 6-21.

8. “Letter” in English Churchman (December 14, 1845), 412.

9. “Preface,” Sermons: Academical and Occasional (2nd ed.; London, 1848) ix-xiv.

10. For an account of the effects of the Gorham trial, see Edmund Sheridan Purcell, Life of Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster (2 vols.; London, 1896), I, 522-551; Harry Liddon, Life of Dr. E.B. Pusey (4 vols.; London, 1898) III, 201; also Gerald Davies, Henry Phillpotts: Bishop of Exeter, 1778-1869 (London, 1954), 230-263, esp. pp. 239-240: “… it was absurd to suppose that the Church could hold two inconsistent systems of doctrine. Were she to do so, she would cease to be witness for the truth.”

11. The Royal Supremacy (Oxford, 1850), 213.

12. Quoted in Purcell, I, 549.

13. Cf. John Griffin, “The Anglican Response to Newman's Conversion,” 17-34.

14. Harold Weatherby, Cardinal Newman in His Age (Nashville, 1973), 236-237.

15. Francis Cross, The Oxford Movement and the Seventeenth Century (London, 1933), 12.

16. Cf. Thomas Parker, “The Rediscovery of the Fathers in the Seventeenth Century Anglican Tradition,” in The Rediscovery of Newman, ed. Thomas Allchin and John Coulson (London, 1967), 31.

17. Cf. Richard Church, The Oxford Movement (London, 1891), 95; Ollard, op. cit., 7; for a defense of the Newman version of the politics of 1833, see below, footnote 22.

18. Parker, op. cit., 43.

19. Cf. Edwin Greenfield, “The Attitude of the Tractarians to the Roman Catholic Church”, Ph.D. dissertation; 2 vols; Oxford, 1965, I, 5-13; David Forrester, “The Intellectual Development of E. B. Pusey,” Ph.D. dissertation; Oxford, 1970, chapters I, II; John Griffin, “Dr. Pusey and the Oxford Movement,” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, xi (June, 1973), 137 ff.

20. Isaac Williams, Autobiography (London, 1892), 118.

21. Charles Dessain, John Henry Newman (London, 1966), 97.

22. For a survey of the radical letters, see John Griffin, “The Radical Phase of the Oxford Movement,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 17 (January, 1976), 47.

23. Quoted in James Munson, “The Oxford Movement by the End of the Nineteenth Century: The Anglo-Catholic Clergy,” Church History, 44 (September, 1975), 383.

24. The Victorian Church, I, 288.

25. Cf. Letters and Correspondence of John Henry Newman, ed. Anne Mozley (2 vols.: London, 1891), I, 484; II, 7-36.

26. Ibid, I, 441.

27. Cf. John Griffin, “The Meaning of National Apostasy,” Faith and Reason, 2 (June, 1976), 29 ff.

28. L & D, XIV, 173; also, 35: “They [the lectures] are addressed solely to Puseyites.”

29. Desmond Morse-Boycott, They Shine Like Stars (London, 1947), 210.

30. Liddon, IV, 270; also, III, 163: “I never attached any weight to the bishops.”

31. Ibid, II, 60.

32. Pierre Thereau-Dangin, The English Catholic Revival in the Nineteenth Century, (2 vols.; London, 1932), II, 463.

33. British Magazine (October, 1833), 422.

34. Newman to H. J. Rose, April, 1836, in the manuscript collection H. J. Rose, 1836-1839, Birmingham Oratory, England.

35. John Coleridge, A Memoir of the Rev. John Keble (5th ed.; London, 1880), 289 ff.

36. Cf. James Sparrow-Simpson, “The Revival from 1845-1933,” in Northern Catholicism, ed. Norman Williams (Oxford, 1933), 60-62.

37. Ollard, 134.

38. Cf. James Capes, “The Rise and Progress and Results of Puseyism,” Rambler, VI (1850), 504-506.

39. “Advertisement,” National Apostasy, ed. Eugene Fairweather, in The Oxford Movement (Oxford, 1964), 46-47.

40. Keble to B. Holmes, October, 1833, in the Keble Collection, Keble College, Oxford.

41. William Palmer, Narrative of Events (2nd ed,; London, 1843), 4.

42. Ludwig Prestige, Pusey (London, 1933), 107; see also Thomas Carter, “Introduction,” to E. B. Pusey, Notes on the Catholic Faith and Religion, ed. Thomas Carter (London, 1891), viii: “… To make him [Pusey] a standard of teaching and guide to truth, would have been repudiated by him with the utmost force of his intense nature. It seems … impossible for many reasons to regard him otherwise than in such a position.”

43. Georgina Battiscombe, John Keble (London, 1963), 334.

44. Holmes, loc. cit.; also Ward, I, 232.

45. Difficulties, 14 ff.; Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (London, 1890), 199-200.

46. Reprinted in Essays, Critical and Historical, 2 vols.; (London, 1948), II, 340.

47. “A Characteristic of the Popes,” Essays and Sketches, ed. Charles Harrold, 3 vols.; (London, 1948), II, 340.

48. Apologia Pro Vita Sua, ed. Wilfred Ward (London, 1913), 60.

49. Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, ed. Alvan Ryan (Notre Dame, 1962), 98-120.

50. L & D, XVI, 108; L & D, XX, 495.

51. Difficulties Felt by Anglicans, II, 3: “I cannot pay them a greater compliment than to tell them they ought to be Catholics, nor do them a more affectionate service than to pray that they may one day become such.”

52. Clark, op. cit., 304-305.

53. The Oxford Movement, 7.

54. Cited in Ward, II, 529.

55. Clark, II, 394.

56. Difficulties Felt by Anglicans, I, 114.

57. Ibid, 4.