[322] [Suggestions for the Formation of an Association of Friends of the Church.]
[323] [The leader in the Movement was Newman, but others supported him.] Mr. Golightly has a similar statement, tartly expressed in his Correspondence Illustrative of the Actual State of Oxford, 1842: ‘Mr. Newman is the real leader of the party, not Dr. Pusey, who is no more entitled to give a name to it than Amerigo Vespucci was to give a name to the New World. This is, of course, understood in Oxford: but it is desirable that it should be known elsewhere.’
[324] [This effort is alluded to in Froude’s Remains. I cannot but think that Froude’s influence, which was very great, was on many occasions exerted in a direction contrary to mine. He has expressed his disapprobation of the only Tract in the composition of which I was in any degree concerned.] This is No. 15. See p. [194].
[325] Of ‘Romanising,’ in The British Critic, after 1840.
[326] Froude so called Newman in 1829 (see p. [55]), but not in relation to any new disapproved ‘speculations.’
[327] Lectures on certain Difficulties felt by Anglicans. London: Burns and Lambert, 1850, p. 32.
[328] Dean Church’s History of the Oxford Movement is a history of that Movement as bound up with its chief and hero; and the scope of it extends but to the year 1845. What Dr. Rigg takes to be the disproportionate space given to Froude is therefore no disparagement to the operative influence of Dr. Pusey, which may be said only to have thoroughly begun by 1845.
[329] Published while Mr. Keble, Dr. Pusey, and Dr. Newman were all living: in the year, in fact, of their memorable and touching meeting at Hursley, after the long outward separation.
[330] [Remains, part i., i., 389, 393, 394, 403, 405.]
[331] [Idem, 363.]