acts without waiting till disused functions are properly restored to their rightful place in the body politic. His studies of ecclesiastical history in the fifth century in 1839 first threw doubt upon his efforts to construct a defensio fidei; the Monophysite heresy caused the section of the Church in which that view was held to take the same attitude toward the whole Church which he found that the Anglican Church took toward the Roman Church, and the Roman Church then ruled as the mistress of the world. This comparison between ancient and modern history threw a doubt upon the validity of the Anglican position, in part represented by the Via Media, which he could not overcome, and from that moment he was in doubt as to the rightfulness of his staying in the Anglican communion as a true part of the Catholic Church. It was not that the Church revival had defects, it was not that the Church revival had not a rightful place in the Church of England, which disturbed him, but simply the similarity between the defective condition, as he thought, of the Church of England, and the light thrown upon it by St. Leo's treatment of the Monophysite heresy, which first impaired his confidence.

Then a personal issue entered into the Oxford Movement, in which there was hasty action by the English bishops, and equally hasty action on the part of Newman. It is not necessary here to recount the full story of the condemnation of Tract 90, in which Newman undertook to turn back the weapons of controversy employed by English divines before him, and establish the interpretation of the Thirty-nine Articles in a Catholic sense. He did this, not to impose a new doctrinal interpretation upon the Church of England itself, but to show those who were depending upon him for direction that there was legitimate standing-room for them in the English Church on truly Catholic ground. This document was utterly misunderstood and misinterpreted by the Anglican bishops, and compelled Newman and his friends to answer for their interpretation of it as a publication disloyal to the teachings of the Anglican Communion. His own bishop at Oxford was one of the first to give him trouble, and the Hebdomadal Board of the University, controlled by liberals who were utterly out of sympathy with the Oxford Movement, hastened with all speed possible to secure the condemnation of Tract 90 by the Oxford authorities. They were goaded on by the anger and resentment of bishops and clergy outside, among whom Dr. Bagot, then Bishop of Oxford, was foremost. Newman addressed a letter of explanation to Dr. R. W. Jelf, March 13, 1841, begging that Tract 90 might be candidly

way things were going. The condemnation of Tract 90 caused him to be distrusted by those who were not his immediate followers, and the new turn of the Movement made him responsible for Roman teaching to which he did not really consent. His feeling is truthfully set forth in the "Apologia." At the same time two influences were operating on his own thought. One was, whether the Catholic principles which had been the true motive of the Oxford Movement, and which were fully embodied in Tract 90, could find room in the present authoritative teaching of the Church of England; and the other was, whether, even if this were accepted, the English Church was not in a fatal condition of schism toward the Church Universal. It must be remembered that Newman at this time had not seriously thought of joining the Church of Rome. He was holding back within safe lines in the Church of England, and trying to control a company of impulsive men and women who had taken him for their leader, and whose vagaries of thought and action were a constant disturbance to him. He says at this period: "From the end of 1841, I was on my deathbed as regards my membership in the Anglican Church, though at the time I became aware of it only by degrees." It took him four years to see his way clear to reception into the Church of Rome, and even then he was hardly a willing convert. All his ties, all his thought, all his plans, were in the Church of England. Sir William Palmer, in his additions to the "Narrative of Events," blames Newman for impatience at his condemnation by the Anglican Church, and cites the condemnation of Pusey in 1843, and his subsequent vindication, as an example that Newman might have followed with equal grace and inward satisfaction. But Sir William will find, on reading the biography of William George Ward, and comparing it with certain passages in the "Apologia," that Newman's case was entirely different from Pusey's. The latter never doubted that the Anglican body was a true part of the Catholic Church, and Newman did doubt it; indeed, this was the fountain-head of all his troubles.

This brings us to the new element which was introduced by W. G. Ward, who, as Dr. Jowett says, "had never had any hope of finding the way of truth or of life through philosophy, and the want of some guide was a practical necessity to him, without which he could neither have clearness of thought nor consistency in action." He differed from Newman in being unable to depend upon himself in points where authority is needed. He had no imagination and no historical sense. He depended upon the