That Pusey, the real founder of the church, should do so was a natural arrangement. But Pusey, it will be remembered, had been suspended from preaching at Oxford by the sentence of the Vice-Chancellor. The period of his suspension was over; but until he resumed preaching in Oxford, he did not like to preach elsewhere without the express sanction of the Bishop of the diocese. The Bishop, while unwilling to forbid his preaching, was also unwilling expressly to sanction it. Hook, indeed, before the Oxford suspension, had proposed that Pusey should preach both at the laying of the first stone of the new church and at its consecration; but the progress of events at Oxford, and the Bishop's attitude towards the new church, had not been without their effect on his impulsive, though generous, He still wished Pusey to preach at one service, but doubted about the Bishop's giving an express sanction for his doing so. The Bishop would probably preach himself in the morning; Pusey might do so in the afternoon.

nature.

In August, 1845, Pusey suggested daily sermons in St. Saviour's during the week following the consecration. This practice, which has since become so general as to attract no attention, was a novelty in the Church of England forty or fifty years ago.

E. B. P. TO REV. DR. HOOK.

Ilfracombe, August 11, 1845. I thought there might be a course of earnest sermons (more directed to the feelings, perhaps, than on ordinary occasions of regular continued instruction) on solemn subjects, as the Four Last Things, Repentance, &c. Will you preach one of them, or more if you can : at all events, on the Sunday? I thought that perhaps we might have two every day, and that one might ask some others likely to be there or to come. I should like to have asked J. Keble, Manning, Is. Williams. I think a good deal might be done in this way. According to Bishop McIlvaine's account, there were genuine 'revivals in this way in the Church in America,' and the R. C.s have something of the kind in their missions.

However, good must come, one should hope, from earnest stirring sermons, with earnest intercession, at least to some.

Ever your very affectionate friend,

E. B. PUSEY.

Proposed Sermons at the Consecration.

487

Hook had agreed with Mr. R. Ward, the incumbentdesignate of the new church, that Pusey should preach once every day during the week. He cordially accepted the scheme of two sermons a day by different preachers. He would not preach himself, but he begged Pusey to ask Keble, Manning, and Isaac Williams to help him. 'Will you write at once,' he asked Pusey, 'in my name as well as yours?' He suggested that Dodsworth should be added to the list. 'I am ready,' he continued, 'to do anything you think right, now that I know you to be a good Anglican.' Pusey replied in the highest spirits. He sent Hook a list of the proposed subjects, and added :

E. B. P. TO REV. DR. HOOK.

Aug. 25 (?), 1845.

My wish is that they [the sermons] should be, as perhaps I said, warm, energetic, earnest, with both severity and love, and addressed more to the feelings at the end than sermons generally are.

I think it would be best that you should take share, because the object would be the stirring up of people's souls in Leeds. There will be more difficulty to find preachers for the latter part, because people will wish to get back to their parishes, at least for the Sunday.

I have written to Manning, am writing to Is. Williams and Keble. I shall have sermons, I hope, from Copeland and C. Marriott.

I do hope that a good deal might be done in this way, and that we shall not leave the instrument of preaching in the hands of others. It too is a gift of God and a means of grace. . . .

Yours most affectionately,

E. B. PUSEY.

Hook objected, oddly enough, to Copeland's name, on the ground that 'he will certainly go to Rome with Newman.' He added:

'Aug. 24, 1845.

'If any of the preachers fall away into the fearful schism of Rome, against which I am accustomed to preach so very strongly (I am this very day about to denounce the heresy of Rome in praying to saints), more mischief will be done than I can calculate. If Copeland preaches, I ought to have some pledge that he is not going over to Rome. know how I abhor Popery.'

You

Pusey assured Hook that Copeland was quite safe. The Bishop cordially approved of the whole plan of the sermons. Hook invited Pusey to stay at the Vicarage for the occa

sion, but desired that he should consult the incumbent of St. Saviour's as to whether it would not be expedient, for practical reasons, to stay in the house attached to St. Saviour's. Pusey 'did not know how far people might not misinterpret his not being with Hook.' 'I wish,' he added. 'to do whatever is best, neither compromising you nor giving needless occasion to misconstruction.'

'I really know not what to advise; for as to what people will say, we know that, whatever is done, "Evangelicals" will say everything that is unkind and false. And I believe that it matters in these days very little what one does. Men think what they imagine maliciously that one ought to do, and state it as a fact that that is done.'

It was eventually decided that Pusey should stay at St. Saviour's.

There might have been no further difficulty; but within three weeks of the day fixed for the consecration, Newman left the Church of England. Towards the end of September rumours of his immediately approaching secession were already in circulation. When Pusey assured Hook that Copeland would not follow, he added, 'At least, as things now are he has no thought of it. But what will be the result of the next few years many, I fear, would not take upon themselves to say for themselves.' Hook was, not unnaturally, alarmed at a hastily - written sentence into which he read more than it meant, but which was likely to increase prevalent suspicions.

REV. DR. HOOK TO E. B. P.

Sept. 22, 1845.

The latter part of your letter distressed me. Surely we ought to put forward the Protestant view of our Church in the strongest way, if there is danger of persons apostatizing to Rome. I shall take this course indubitably. I find that many sensible and right-thinking men take a very different view of poor Newman's fall from that taken by Woodgate. They think that his strong mind will soon be disgusted with the abominations of Popery, and will lapse into infidelity. It will be awful indeed if we find him at the head of an infidel movement, for infidelity is only waiting for a leader to be aggressive. The times indeed are out of joint.

Yours most affectionately,

W. F. HOOK.

Hook and Pusey on Secessions to Rome.

489

Pusey's reply is important, as stating clearly one of those deep convictions which from first to last shaped his religious life.

E. B. P. TO REV. DR. HOOK.

Sept. 24, 1845.

I am very sorry to have distressed you. I wholly forget what I wrote. But I am quite sure that nothing can resist infidelity except the most entire system of faith; one said mournfully, 'I could have had faith; I cannot have opinions. One must have a strong, positive, objective system which people are to believe, because it is true, on authority out of themselves. Be that authority what it may, the Scriptures through the individual teaching of the Spirit, the Primitive Church, the Church when it was visibly one, the present Church, it must be a strong authority out of one's-self.

I am sure that our Church will do absolutely nothing, through any 'Protestant view' or system in it. It is only by identifying itself with some stronger authority that it can have any hold of people's minds. If we throw ourselves in entire faith upon the early undivided Church, and say dogmatically, 'Whether this people will hear or whether they will forbear,' 'This is the truth, the voice of the whole Church, and, in it, of God, to you,' this will tell. But in proportion as we do this, I am sure that our protest against Rome will be weakened, and that we shall see that she is Catholic in some points, at least, where we have been taught to consider her uncatholic.

What I wish to do is to treat positive truth uncontroversially, and leave the issue with God.

But on October 9, as we know, Newman had taken the decisive step. The consequences, with respect to St. Saviour's, Leeds, were at once apparent. Archdeacon Churton declined to be one of the preachers after the consecration : 'Late events had too much disheartened him for any public effort.' He would stay at home and pray to Him Who walked the waves to still a storm which is past our powers of pilotage.' Hook thought that the proposed course of sermons must be given up; and Pusey himself had been too intimate with Newman not to think that Hook would be relieved if he were not present at the consecration.

E. B. P. TO REV. DR. HOOK.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

[Christ Church], Oct. 16, [1845.]

I would not of course do in your parish what you would not wish, and therefore, if you so think best, I will not be at the

consecration at all. My only feeling is for others. I had written to E. C[hurton] that I see no ground why what is for the good of souls should be given up. . . . Things distressing around, so far from being any occasion for not exerting ourselves in anything which we hope to be for God's glory, seem the very reason why we should the more. I am sure that increased prayer, and more devoted exertion, are the only remedies in this crisis.

You must also take into account the great injury of adding to dejection as if we were paralyzed. The plan, having been once arranged, cannot be abandoned without a virtual confession of disqualification on our own part to preach. You have no idea of the extent of dejection. . . To me the abandonment of the plan appears a most mistaken step.

...

However, you must judge as you think best.

Yours very affectionately,

E. B. PUSEY.

If we were all sitting at home fasting and weeping for our own sins, and the sins of our people, this would be a different thing. If we are to go on doing our active duties, I see not why we should give up what is for God's honour.

Hook would not hear of Pusey's absence :—

REV. DR. HOOK TO E. B. P.

Vicarage, Leeds, Oct. 17, 1845. Robert Wilberforce is with me, and I have consulted him, and we have agreed that it would be inexpedient to give up the sermons entirely, but that they had better not be continued beyond the following Sunday. As to your not coming, it would be ruin to us, as it would be supposed that you were prohibited by the Bishop. I only hope things will be done as quietly as possible. You must remember that there are not five persons in Leeds who will sympathize with you.

Pusey persevered in insisting that the week of sermons should not be given up.

'It is not,' he wrote to Hook on Oct. 19, 'as if we were coming together to preach controversy, or lecture on the Church's Apostolical commission. How can one preaching on earnest subjects stir up Puritanism? And after all what harm can Puritanism do? And then there is the good, if some are edified; rather, if Puritanism clamours, it will be ashamed afterwards.'

Upon this Hook consented, somewhat reluctantly, to carrying out the original plan. If the sermons were to be printed, they might as well be preached.