^{page 243 note 1} Macaulay, T. B., Critical and Historical Essays, London 1854, i. 53.Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 2} ‘Not only did history become a principal branch of study, but it affected all other departments of mental activity. As an English writer once said, in the nineteenth century human thought in every field seemed to run to history; and this was true for example of philosophy in Hegel and of a great deal of Protestant theology’: Butterfield, Herbert, History and Human Relations, London 1951, 159.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 1} Froude, R. H., Remains of the late Reverend Richard Hurrell Froude, [edited by Keble, John and Newman, J. H.], London 1838 Google Scholar, part i, vols. i-ii; in 1839 part 2, vols. i-ii were published. Hereafter reference will be made to Remains, i-iv.

^{page 244 note 2} Stanley, A. P., The Life and Correspondence of Thomas Arnold, London 1852, 453 Google Scholar; The Christian Observer, April 1839, 146–51; Morley, John, The Life of William Ewart Gladstone, London 1905, i. 161.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 3} Stephen, James, ‘The Lives of Whitefield and Froude: Oxford Catholicism’, The Edinburgh Review, July 1838, 530–4Google Scholar. This article was revised and expanded under the title ‘The Evangelical Succession’ in Essays on Ecclesiastical Biography, London 1849, iv. 65–202.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 4} A notable exception is the short but sensitive treatment by Chadwick, Owen, The Victorian Church, London 1966, i. 172–7.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 5} Guiney, L. I., Hurrell Froude, London 1904.Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 1} Froude, J. A., Short Studies on Great Subjects, London 1883, 4th series, 170, 174.Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 2} R. H. Froude to Robert Froude, 10 August 1823: Froude Letters, Birmingham Oratory. I am especially grateful to Father Stephen Dessain for his assistance in the use of these MSS. Hereafter reference will be made to ‘Oratory’.

^{page 245 note 3} R. H. Froude to Samuel Wilberforce, 28 March 1827: Wilberforce Deposit, Bodleian Library, Box c. 193, Folder 12a. Hereafter this collection will be referred to as ‘Bodleian’.

^{page 245 note 4} R. H. Froude to Robert Froude, 30 October 1826: Oratory.

^{page 245 note 5} Newman, J. H., Apologia Pro Vita Sua, London 1883, 24.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 1} ‘In every thing but person and manner he seems so very like my Mother’: R. H. Froude to Robert Froude, 10 August 1823: Oratory.

^{page 246 note 2} R. H. Froude to Samuel Wilberforce, 16 March 1827: Bodleian.

^{page 246 note 3} See Keble, John, ed., The Works of Richard Hooker, 2nd ed., Oxford 1841, i Google Scholar. lix-lxi; cf. Keble's, Postscript to the Third Edition of the Sermon Entitled, ‘Primitive Tradition Recognised in Holy Scripture’, London 1837, 15–16.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 4} Coleridge, J. T., A Memoir of the Reverend John Keble, Oxford 1869, 243 Google Scholar: ‘Reverence in some sort sanctified Froude's love for Keble, and moderated the sallies of his somewhat quick and defiant temper’.

^{page 246 note 5} Remains, i. 435. For the best example of Keble's ‘snub’ replies to Froude's off-handed remarks, see The Autobiography of Isaac Williams, ed. Prevost, George, London 1892, 28.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 6} R. H. Froude to Robert Froude, 12 July 1825: Oratory.

^{page 246 note 7} R. H. Froude to Robert Froude, 22 July 1825: Oratory.

^{page 246 note 8} Samuel Wilberforce to R. H. Froude, 30 July 1827: Oratory.

^{page 246 note 9} Samuel Wilberforce to R. H. Froude, 9 October 1827: Oratory.

^{page 247 note 1} R. H. Froude to Samuel Wilberforce, 23 December 1827: Bodleian.

^{page 247 note 2} Reminiscences of Oxford by Oxford Men, 1559–1850, ed. Couch, L. M. Quiller, Oxford. 1892, 328–9.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 3} Remains, i. 221.

^{page 247 note 4} R. H. Froude to Robert Froude, 9 February, 5 October, 30 October 1826: Oratory.

^{page 247 note 5} Church, R. W., The Oxford Movement: twelve Years, 1833–1845, London 1892, 47.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 6} Ibid., 48–9.

^{page 247 note 7} Newman, Apologia, 25.

^{page 248 note 1} Chadwick, Owen, The Mind of the Oxford Movement, London 1960, 12 Google Scholar: ‘it is right to see the Oxford Movement as an impube of the heart and the conscience, not an inquiry of the head’.

^{page 248 note 2} Mozley, Thomas, Reminiscences chiefly of Oriel College and the Oxford Movement, London 1882, i. 211–12Google Scholar: ‘What Froude and the others discussed continually was ἥθος, the dominant moral habit or proclivity’. In 1829 Newman, for example, referred to a student whose ethos was wholesome, as ‘during his residence with us he has conducted himself unblamably’: Letters and Correspondence of John Henry Newman during his Life in the English Church, ed. Mozley, Anne, London 1891, i. 210Google Scholar. Robert Wilberforce saw infidelity and a bad ethos being fostered at Cambridge because there did ‘not seem to be a due attention paid to moral character’: R. I. Wilberforce to R. H. Froude, 13 August 1829: Oratory.

^{page 248 note 3} Remains, i. 142, 378–9, 395.

^{page 248 note 4} Ibid., 252–3.

^{page 248 note 5} Ibid., 253, 393–4.

^{page 248 note 6} Ibid., 252, 339, 391. The ‘Bulteel’ reference is to H. B. Bulteel, an Evangelical in Oxford whose licence to preach was revoked by the bishop of Oxford and who, in 1831, withdrew from the Church of England.

^{page 248 note 7} Ibid., 434–5. See Dawson, Christopher, The Spirit of the Oxford Movement, London 1945, 45 Google Scholar: Dawson suggests that the reference is to Newman, but overlooks the fact that Froude would hardly have hesitated ‘to sport [his] opinions’ with Newman, with whom a relationship of youthful rapport produced uninhibited debate; cf. Church, The Oxford Movement, 48.

^{page 249 note 1} Remains, i. 336, 395, 434. By 1837 Newman was writing in a significantly similar vein: ‘I frankly own that if, in some important points, our Anglican ἥθος differs from Popery, in others it is like it, and on the whole far more like it than like Protestantism’: Mozley, Letters and Correspondence, ii. 231.

^{page 249 note 2} Remains, i. 254.

^{page 249 note 3} For Froude's treatise on Becket, see Remains, iv. 1–558. Froude was unconsciously a part of that great host of hero-worshippers in the nineteenth century, which included such disparate figures as Scott, Byron, Carlyle, Macaulay and J. A. Froude: see Houghton, W. E., The Victorian Frame of Mind, 1830–1870, New Haven 1957, 305–40.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 4} Remains, i. 389; iii. 6.

^{page 250 note 1} R. H. Froude to Samuel Wilberforce, i October 1832: Bodleian. See Remains, ii. 375–411.

^{page 250 note 2} Remains, iii. 325.

^{page 250 note 3} Ibid., 386–7. In Britain Lüber's thesis has been wrongly applied under the term ‘Erastianism’, ever since the Reformation, to any theory which advocated excessive control of the Church by the State. See Figgis, J. N., ‘Erastus and Erastianism’, The Journal of Theological Studies, ii (1900), 66–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 251 note 1} Remains, iii. 386.

^{page 251 note 2} Ibid., i. 325, 327.

^{page 251 note 3} Ibid., iii. 207.

^{page 251 note 4} Ibid., i. 333.

^{page 251 note 5} Keble, The Works of Richard Hooker, i. lxiv.

^{page 251 note 6} Remains, i. 308, 363. Isaac Williams described the principles of Froude, Newman and himself in the early 1830s as being ‘those of the Caroline Divines, thinking much of the Divine right of kings, and the like; but we approached perhaps more to those of the nonjurors’: Prevost, The Autobiography of Isaac Williams, 47.

^{page 252 note 1} Remains, i. 355; cf. Mozley, Reminiscences chiefly of Oriel College and the Oxford Movement, i. 211, 228.

^{page 252 note 2} On Lamennais and the ultramontanists, see Vidler, A. R., Prophecy and Papacy: a Study of Lamennais, the Church, and the Revolution, London 1954.Google Scholar

^{page 252 note 3} For a definite assertion of Froude's being influenced by the ultramontanists, see Dawson, The Spirit of the Oxford Movement, 60–1. But cf. Roe, W. G., Lamennais and England, Oxford 1966, 95–102 Google Scholar: Lamennais's outlook was essentially social and liberal while Froude's position was largely ecclesiastical and conservative. ‘In view of this, the indebtedness of Froude to Lamennais should not be overestimated’: op. cit., 99.

^{page 252 note 4} Remains, iii. 404.

^{page 252 note 5} According to a letter from Newman to archdeacon Froude, 30 March 1836: Oratory.

^{page 252 note 6} Keble, John, National Apostasy Considered in a Sermon Preached in St. Mary's, Oxford, Oxford 1833, 19.Google Scholar

page 253 note 1 Keble, op. cit., 25-6.

page 253 note 2 J. A. Froude, Short Studies, 178-9.

page 253 note 3 R. H. Froude to Robert Froude, 28 November 1830: Oratory. But in 1830 Froude still thought that ‘these do not seem to be times for tempo-rising, for I do not think we shall gain anything by it, and shall lose our character in the bargain’: R. H. Froude to Robert Froude, 30 November 1830: Oratory.

page 253 note 4 Remains, i. 430.

page 253 note 5 Ibid., iii. 188.

page 254 note 1 Remains, iii. xxi.

page 254 note 2 Newman, Apologia, 25.

page 254 note 3 R. H. Froude to Samuel Wilberforce, 16 March 1827: Bodleian.

page 254 note 4 Remains, i. 253-4. Froude was referring to Gilbert Burnet’s History of the Reformation of the Church of England, London 1679-1714, 3 vols., and to John Strype’s Ecclesiastical Memorials, London 1721, 3 vols. No doubt he used the Clarendon Press’s new editions of Strype (1822) and Burnet (1829).

page 254 note 5 Remains, i. 254.

page 254 note 6 R. H. Froude to J. H. Newman, 25 January 1834: Oratory.

page 254 note 7 Ibid.: ‘I do not hesitate to say that his [Jewel’s] Doctrine ought to be denied under pain of damnation’. Newman and Keble left this line out of the letter as published in the Remains, i. 339.

page 254 note 8 John Keble to A. P. Perceval, 16 February 1830: Pusey Papers, Pusey House, Oxford.

^{page 255 note 1} John Keble to Thomas Keble, January 1835: Keble Papers, Keble College, Oxford.

^{page 255 note 2} John Keble to Elizabeth Keble, n.d. (November 1836?): Keble Papers, Keble College, Oxford.

^{page 255 note 3} Liddon, H. P., The Life of Edward Bouverie Pusey, London 1893, ii. 71.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 4} Keble, John, Heads of Consideration on the Case of Mr. Ward, London 1845, 7.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 5} See Liddon, Life of Pusey, ii. 222–3, for Newman's own explanation of his reluctance to criticise the Reformers openly.

^{page 255 note 6} Oakeley, Frederick, ‘Bishop Jewel: His Character, Correspondence, and Apologetic Treatises’, The British Critic, July 1841, 8 Google Scholar. For more detail of Oakeley's relationship to Froude, see his Historical Notes on the Tractarian Movement, London 1865, 6, 27–33.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 7} British Critic, July 1841, 2, 4–5, 14.

^{page 255 note 8} Ward, Wilfrid, William George Ward and the Oxford Movement, London 1889, 180.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 1} Ward, W. G., The Ideal of a Christian Church, London 1844, 44, 169.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 2} Ibid., 74.

^{page 256 note 3} Ibid., 588. See p. 95: Ward, a religious philosopher rather than a historian, believed that history could only confirm the moral promptings of the conscience.

^{page 256 note 4} Stanley, Life of Arnold, 582.

^{page 256 note 5} Trevor, Meriol, Newman, the Pillar of the Cloud, London 1962, 215.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 6} Mozley, Letters and Correspondence, ii. 252. Newman urged Keble not to be too vexed with Churton's letter: ‘All persons whose hearts have been with Cranmer and Jewel are naturally pained, and one must honour them for it’.

^{page 256 note 7} Edward Churton to William Gresley, 5 March 1839: Pusey Papers, Pusey House, Oxford. For Churton's views on the Reformers, see Baker, W. J., ‘F. C. Massingberd: Historian in a Lincolnshire Parish’, Lincolnshire History and Archaeology, i. 3 (1968), 6–7.Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 1} Guiney, Hurrell Froude, 210.

^{page 257 note 2} James Stephen to W. E. Gladstone, 11 August 1838: Gladstone Papers, British Museum Add. MS. 44356/131.

^{page 257 note 3} Joseph Romilly's MS. diary for 1839–41 (13 January 1839): Cambridge University Library Add. MS. 6820.

^{page 257 note 4} Church, The Oxford Movement, 192. The idea of a memorial probably originated with C. P. Golightly and his small circle of Evangelical friends at Oxford.

^{page 257 note 5} The Christian Observer, January 1839, 64.

^{page 257 note 6} The British Magazine, April 1840, 477. By March 1841 the number of subscribers totalled 1,858 (ibid., March 1841, 364), and by the beginning of 1843 £7,000 had been contributed (The Christian Observer, January 1843, 1–2).

^{page 258 note 1} Plan of the Parker Society, for the Publication of the Works of the Fathers, and Early Writers of the Reformed English Church, 1844: a pamphlet in the Dawson Turner Correspondence, Trinity College, Cambridge.Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 2} Gough, Henry, A General Index to the Publications of the Parker Society, London 1855, iii Google Scholar; for a chronological list of the authors published, see ibid., 812.

^{page 258 note 3} Plan of the Parker Society. By 1844 there were 7,000 members of the Society, each paying £1 annually and receiving a copy of each volume published—usually four per year.

^{page 258 note 4} George Stokes to Dawson Turner, 27 March 1844: Trinity College, Cambridge, Dawson Turner Correspondence, January-June 1844, no. 156.

^{page 258 note 5} Gough, op. cit., iv.

^{page 258 note 6} W. E. Gladstone to R. I. Wilberforce, 13 September 1854: Gladstone Papers, British Museum Add. MS. 44382/123.

^{page 259 note 1} See Brilioth, Yngve, The Anglican Revival, London 1925, 31.Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 2} The Guardian, 19 November 1890, 1846; reprinted in Church, R. W., Occasional Papers, London 1897, i. 392–400.Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 3} Church, The Oxford Movement, 44.

^{page 259 note 4} ‘It is true that during the last sixty years’, A. W. Hutton wrote in 1899, ‘the one-sided and ill-informed estimate that for over two centuries almost exclusively prevailed, has been persistently criticised and has been largely abandoned; but meanwhile, as an outcome of the Oxford Movement, a new but equally unhistorical estimate has been gaining acceptance; an estimate that, in the interests of the “continuity” of the Church of England, makes light of the great issues that were really fought out and determined in the middle of the sixteenth century’: Maitland, S. R., Essays on Subjects connected with the Reformation in England, London 1899 Google Scholar, introduction by A. W. Hutton, ix.

^{page 259 note 5} Coulton, G. G., Some Problems in Mediaeval Historiography, London 1932, 24.Google Scholar