keep all, according to their real importance, simultaneously in view; when we remember also what are the temptations of human nature in great collisions of religious belief, the excitement and passion of the time, the mixed character of all religious zeal, the natural inevitable anger which accompanies it when resisted, the fervour which welcomes self-sacrifice for the truth; and when we think of all this kept aglow by the continuous provocation of unfair and harsh dealing from persons who were scarcely entitled to be severe judges; the wonder is, human nature being what it is, not that so many went, but that so many stayed.

FOOTNOTES: 

[97] [Greek:  Tolma alogistos andria philetairos enomisthae ... to de sophron tou anandrou proschaema, kai to pros apan xyneton epi pan argon to de emplaektos oxuandros moira prosetethae ... kai ho men chalepainon pistos aei, ho de antilegon auto upoptos.]—­Thuc. iii. 82.  “Reckless daring was held to be loyal courage; moderation was the disguise of unmanly weakness; to know everything was to do nothing; frantic energy was the true character of a man; the lover of violence was always trusted, and his opponent suspected.”—­Jowett’s translation.

[98] One of the strangest features in the conflict was the entire misconception shown of what Mr. Newman was—­the blindness to his real character and objects—­the imputation to him not merely of grave faults, but of small and mean ones.  His critics could not rise above the poorest measure of his intellect and motives.  One of the ablest of them, who had once been his friend, in a farewell letter of kindly remonstrance, specifies certain Roman errors, which he hopes that Mr. Newman will not fall into—­adoring images and worshipping saints—­as if the pleasure and privilege of worshipping images and saints were to Mr. Newman the inducement to join Rome and break the ties of a lifetime.  And so of his moral qualities.  A prominent Evangelical leader, Dr. Close of Cheltenham, afterwards Dean of Carlisle, at a complimentary dinner, in which he himself gloried in the “foul, personal abuse to which he had been subjected in his zeal for truth,” proceeded to give his judgment on Mr. Newman:  “When I first read No. 90, I did not then know the author; but I said then, and I repeat here, not with any personal reference to the author, that I should be sorry to trust the author of that Tract with my purse,”—­Report of Speech in Cheltenham Examiner, 1st March 1843.

[99] [Greek:  ou gar apochrae to echein a dei legein, all’ anankae kai tauto os dei eipein.]—­Arist. Rhet. iii.  I.

[100] Dr. Richards, the Rector of Exeter, seems to have stood apart from his brother heads.—­Cf. Letters of the Rev. J.B.  Mozley, p. 113.

CHAPTER XVI.

THE THREE DEFEATS: 

ISAAC WILLIAMS, MACMULLEN, PUSEY