ling in the south of Europe. He did not return till the month of July, and Froude and myself anxiously awaited his return.

Froude was the only one in the party then in Oxford besides myself. We met continually, and compared our information and correspondence, but as yet had no formed plan of action, though both feeling the necessity for the adoption of some course speedily. If the Church or the world could have seen two young men, without influence or station, thus attempting to lay the foundation of a movement in defence of the Church of England, they would have smiled at the insignificant instruments which were at work. Yet Froude was destined to make his mark upon the times in which he lived. In speaking of him, I will employ the language of another of our colleagues, Mr. Perceval:

“That fervent zeal and high-minded enthusiasm which shone from his eagle eye, and formed the charm of his conversation, and has left so deep an impression of affection to his memory in the minds of all who had the privilege of his friendship, while they prompted him to a noble course of great exertion, at the same time led him frequently to express himself, as is apparent from his letters, hastily, upon imperfect information, and without due consideration of all the bearings of the point before him. He was open to conviction, and ever ready to embrace that modification or alteration of any view he might previously have entertained, which, after due examination, he was persuaded approached nearer to the truth. This is plain from the letters published in his Remains.""

Froude had, with Newman, while travelling in Italy, been anxious to ascertain the terms upon which they could be admitted to communion by the Roman Church-supposing that some dispensation might be granted which would enable them to communicate with Rome without violation of conscience. They were soon undeceived, for they learnt from Dr. Wiseman, the then head of the English College at Rome, that they must accept all the definitions of the Council of Trent as a preliminary; upon which Froude's notions of union with Rome were immediately dissipated, and he became what is called "a strong Protestant." The incident, of which I was not aware, but which is related in Froude's "Remains," is illustrative at once of the absence of elementary knowledge of the Roman Catholic system, and of the disposition to form ingenious hypotheses upon the most important practical subjects, which were at times discernible in the subsequent life of this remarkable man. It is gratifying, however, to know that his opinions were only in the course of formation and settlement; and in the following year, when approaching death, he declared his view of the question between England and Rome in these terms, recorded by Mr. Perceval: "If I was to assign my reason for belonging to the Church of England in preference to any other religious community, it would be simply this, that she has retained an apostolical clergy and exacts no sinful terms of communion; whereas

on the other hand, the Romanists, though retaining an apostolical clergy, do exact sinful terms of communion; and on the other hand, no other religious community has retained such clergy"-language which at least shows that this bold and adventurous reasoner, whose sole object was Truth, wherever it might be found, was to the last a faithful adherent of the Church of England; that no fatal and withering doubt shook his fidelity to the system in which he had been trained; that in his case, as well as that of Rose, Keble, Perceval, the Church of England as a religious system stood the test of the fullest and freest inquiry. Only one of our company parted from his

brethren.

When the month of June, 1833, arrived, those friends who had been in correspondence upon the prospects of the Church, from Surrey, Suffolk, Hampshire, and Oxford, felt that the time had come for personal conference and comparison of views upon the all-important subject which occupied their thoughts. The suggestion for a meeting presented itself contemporaneously to several minds, and Rose took the initiative by inviting Froude, Perceval, Keble, Newman, myself, and those who thought with us, to a conference at Hadleigh Rectory, to meet in the latter part of July. We met there on July 25 for the transaction of business. Those present were, Hugh James Rose, Richard Hurrell Froude, Arthur P. Perceval, and myself. Keble had been expected to be present, but he did not appear. Newman had arrived from the Continent a fortnight before, but neither did he attend our meeting. I was not aware of any objection on their part, or indisposition to unite in the attempt. They both co-operated before and subsequently. But Keble was constitutionally shy and reserved; and Newman has since stated that he had no confidence in committees and meetings. We, however, met at Hadleigh, to do what we might towards the defence of the Church.

Our conference lasted for three days, for two or three hours each morning. Each in turn stated his views of the danger impending over the Church, and of the remedies to be adopted. We spoke much on the necessity of enlightening the popular mind by the composition of works or tracts in defence of the Church of England, with the hope of reviving attachment to her upon sound principles, and generally on the use of the press. But in what particular mode these purposes were to be carried out we did not so clearly see. It was suggested also that it was a matter of extreme importance that the meaning of the promise of canonical obedience to the bishops should be closely examined, inasmuch as that obligation of canonical obedience was likely to be the sole means of preserving the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, through the apprehended action of the State in severing itself wholly from the Church. No action was taken upon this. It was felt that the consideration of the subject

needed to be adjourned, in order to give time for further examination of the course to be pursued. The publication of tracts was much discussed, but we did not see our way to the practical solution of the difficulties connected with it, although we felt its extreme importance and necessity.

The further prosecution of the matter was then adjourned to Oxford, where Newman, Froude, and myself would be assembled, with aid from Keble, and from correspondence with others. The month of August, 1833, had come, and we commenced our labours at Oxford, at Oriel College. Those who there met were overshadowed by the superior influence and authority of Keble, whose lightest word, whether he was present or absent, was received with an indescribable veneration. Froude had been the pupil of this great and good man; and Newman had, upon his election as Fellow of Oriel, some nine or ten years before, felt the influence of such a character, and been drawn to the acceptance of those principles, in a great degree, which Keble favoured. Keble was the guide and the authority upon whom these young and highly-gifted minds depended. I was unfortunately not within the circle of his intimates. His shyness and reserve, together with his non-residence in Oxford, combined with my indisposition to intrude on one so justly honoured, permitted me but little of the privilege of his acquaintance. It was, perhaps, not in the nature of things that I should entertain towards him exactly the same description of feelings as those who, like Newman and Froude, had been permitted to enjoy his intimacy. In principles, however, we entirely agreed-with this exception, that Keble (in which he was followed by Froude, and by others in the Church of England) adopted the views of the Nonjuring writers to a greater extent than I could do. I had paid much attention to these writers, and while admitting their value in many respects, I had not been able to enter fully into their views as to the relations of Church and State, or with reference to the Reformation, being of opinion that their views on the latter were founded on too narrow a basis, and on the former were not warranted by the practice of the Universal Church. At the same time I felt that these are topics on which churchmen may agree to differ. I thought that I traced to this source, however, Froude's sentiments of hostility to the Reformation, and the anxiety to revive certain forms prescribed by the first, and omitted by the second, Prayer Book of Edward VI., and which created much misapprehension and opposition. I traced these difficulties to the Nonjuring principles which had so much weight with Keble, and were zealously approved by Froude.

In our conferences upon the Church and religion, which commenced in August, at Oriel College, in continuance of the conference at Hadleigh, Keble took part by letter. Froude and Newman were

his representatives. It appeared to me that the desideratum at the moment was some plan by which our efforts might be combined and given a practical direction, lest our expressions of opinion in common should issue in smoke without flame. With this purpose, on the resumption of the conferences I ventured to suggest the formation of an association, based on definite principles, for the promotion of those objects which all sincere churchmen cherished in common. The suggestion was entertained and approved by my colleagues, and it was agreed that a declaration of principles should be drawn up to define the objects and purposes of our association or movement.

Keble, as I have said, was in continual correspondence with Newman and Froude, and he favoured us with his advice and support. He drew up more than one statement of principles and objects, embracing a series of articles more or less theological. He proposed that we should put forward the doctrine of apostolic succession as our basis, together with the exclusive validity of the Eucharist administered by a ministry preserving that succession; the unlawfulness of the interference of persons or bodies external to the Church in matters spiritual, and other points. I fear that I was guilty of an unwarrantable presumption in venturing to suggest that declarations of this kind, however true in themselves, were calculated to narrow the scope of our influence, by introducing topics upon which the opinions of sound and zealous churchmen were by no means united; and that it would be desirable to adopt a broader basis, calculated to meet the specific dangers which presented themselves to the minds of all true churchmen, and comprising a minimum of theological detail upon which hostile ingenuity might fasten itself. These views obtained the acceptance and approval of my distinguished colleagues; and I was ultimately permitted to draw up a new form of association, with a view to avoid unnecessary offence, while retaining what was essential. This form was revised by Newman and Froude, and was accepted by Keble, and it was adopted as the basis of the movement. The paper was immediately printed, and circulated widely, but privately, amongst all churchmen whose principles were known, or probably ascertained, to be those of attachment to the Church. Of the effects I shall speak presently.

The document which had thus been prepared was entitled, "Suggestions for the Formation of an Association of Friends of the Church." It commenced by reminding churchmen of recent events calculated to inspire deep uneasiness-the privilege possessed by persons of different faith and communion of legislating for the Church of England-their avowed hostility and increasing efforts against her -their alliance with infidelity, and the lax principles of many nominal churchmen-the assiduous attempts to prepare the way for alterations in the Church's doctrine and discipline, with a view to a

total change in our most elementary principles-the excessive danger arising from the proneness of the public mind to adopt sudden and extreme innovations. It concluded with the statement that a few members of the Church in various parts of the kingdom had agreed to form an association on a few broad principles of union, calculated by their simplicity to commend themselves to the approbation and support of churchmen at large, and which might serve as the grounds of a defence of the Church's best interests against the immediate difficulties of the day. Churchmen, both clergy and laity, were invited to take part in the effort. The "objects of the association" were stated to be

"1. To maintain pure and inviolate the doctrines, the services, and the discipline of the Church—that is, to withstand all change which involves the denial or suppression of doctrine, a departure from primitive practice in religious offices, or innovation upon the apostolical prerogatives, orders, and commission of bishops, priests, and deacons.

"2. To afford churchmen an opportunity of exchanging their sentiments, and co-operating together on a large scale."

Thus far our attempt had succeeded.

We had laid the foundation

of a combination of churchmen in defence of their threatened institutions and religion. Our feeble voice had gone forth to the Church. It was the first sign of life, of will, of fixed and determined principle, that had manifested itself on behalf of the Church of England.

How were our Declaration and Resolution received by churchmen? The appeal was met by earnest and hearty approbation from all quarters. Churchmen hailed our Declaration as the echo of their own opinions and feelings, and rejoiced in this sign of reviving vitality, too long needed, and too late realized. They pressed their aid and co-operation upon us, but they asked from all quarters, What are we to do in order to co-operate with you? What do you

ask us to do? We are ready and willing to respond to your summons. Name to us the course which we are at once, and unanimously, to adopt.

Our movement had involved so much discussion and consideration in its initial stages, that we had not as yet been able to consider the details of the plan. We left these details open to future consideration. What was first wanted was to rally our forces-to unite churchmen; when united they could be easily organized, and a plan of action defined. But we were at once called upon for action, in order to satisfy the general demand.

Under these circumstances I proposed, and the suggestion was approved, to unite the whole body of the faithful clergy of the Church of England in a Declaration confirmatory of that which we had issued, and to invest it as far as possible with a formal and public character, by addressing it to the spiritual head, the Primate of the English Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury. It was felt that such a declaration of the wishes and principles of the clergy of the