Mr. Newman from the claim to bona fides?  He had attacked no foundation of Christianity; he had denied or doubted no article of the Creed.  He gave his explanations, certainly not more far-fetched than those of some of his judges.  In a Church divided by many conflicting views, and therefore bound to all possible tolerance, he had adopted one view which certainly was unpopular and perhaps was dangerous.  He might be confuted, he might be accused, or, if so be, convicted of error, perhaps of heresy.  But nothing of this kind was attempted.  The incompatibility of his view, not merely with the Articles, but with morality in signing what all, of whatever party, had signed, was asserted in a censure, which evaded the responsibility of specifying the point which it condemned.  The alarm of treachery and conspiracy is one of the most maddening of human impulses.  The Heads of Houses, instead of moderating and sobering it, with the authority of instructed and sagacious rulers, blew it into a flame.  And they acted in such a hurry that all sense of proportion and dignity was lost.  They peremptorily refused to wait even a few days, as the writer requested, and as was due to his character, for explanation.  They dared not risk an appeal to the University at large.  They dared not abide the effect of discussion on the blow which they were urged to strike.  They chose, that they might strike without delay, the inexpressibly childish step of sticking up at the Schools’ gates, and at College butteries, without trial, or conviction, or sentence, a notice declaring that certain modes of signing the Articles suggested in a certain Tract were dishonest.  It was, they said, to protect undergraduates; as if undergraduates would be affected by a vague assertion on a difficult subject, about which nothing was more certain than that those who issued the notice were not agreed among themselves.

The men who acted thus were good and conscientious men, who thought themselves in the presence of a great danger.  It is only fair to remember this.  But it is also impossible to be fair to the party of the movement without remembering this deplorable failure in consistency, in justice, in temper, in charity, on the part of those in power in the University.  The drift towards Rome had not yet become an unmanageable rush; and though there were cases in which nothing could have stopped its course, there is no reason to doubt that generous and equitable dealing, a more considerate reasonableness, a larger and more comprehensive judgment of facts, and a more patient waiting for strong first impressions to justify and verify themselves, would have averted much mischief.  There was much that was to be regretted from this time forward in the temper and spirit of the movement party.  But that which nourished and strengthened impatience, exaggeration of language and views, scorn of things as they were, intolerance of everything moderate, both in men and in words, was the consciousness with