question, to which they themselves certainly were not prepared with a clear and satisfactory answer; that they had made the double mistake of declaring war against a formidable antagonist, and of beginning it by creating the impression that they had treated him shabbily, and were really afraid to come to close quarters with him.  As the excitement of hasty counsels subsided, the sense of this began to awake in some of them; they tried to represent the off-hand and ambiguous words of the condemnation as not meaning all that they had been taken to mean.  But the seed of bitterness had been sown.  Very little light was thrown, in the strife of pamphlets which ensued, on the main subject dealt with in No. 90, the authority and interpretation of such formularies as our Articles.  The easier and more tempting and very fertile topic of debate was the honesty and good faith of the various disputants.  Of the four Tutors, only one, Mr. H.B.  Wilson, published an explanation of their part in the matter; it was a clumsy, ill-written and laboured pamphlet, which hardly gave promise of the intellectual vigour subsequently displayed by Mr. Wilson, when he appeared, not as the defender, but the assailant of received opinions.  The more distinguished of the combatants were Mr. Ward and Mr. R. Lowe.  Mr. Ward, with his usual dialectical skill, not only defended the Tract, but pushed its argument yet further, in claiming tolerance for doctrines alleged to be Roman.  Mr. Lowe, not troubling himself either with theological history or the relation of other parties in the Church to the formularies, threw his strength into the popular and plausible topic of dishonesty, and into a bitter and unqualified invective against the bad faith and immorality manifested in the teaching of which No. 90 was the outcome.  Dr. Faussett, as was to be expected, threw himself into the fray with his accustomed zest and violence, and caused some amusement at Oxford, first by exposing himself to the merciless wit of a reviewer in the British Critic, and then by the fright into which he was thrown by a rumour that his reelection to his professorship would be endangered by Tractarian votes.[96] But the storm, at Oxford at least, seemed to die out.  The difficulty which at one moment threatened of a strike among some of the college Tutors passed; and things went back to their ordinary course.  But an epoch and a new point of departure had come into the movement.  Things after No. 90 were never the same as to language and hopes and prospects as they had been before; it was the date from which a new set of conditions in men’s thoughts and attitude had to be reckoned.  Each side felt that a certain liberty had been claimed and had been peremptorily denied.  And this was more than confirmed by the public language of the greater part of the Bishops.  The charges against the Tractarian party of Romanising, and of flagrant dishonesty, long urged by irresponsible opponents, were now formally adopted by the University