“If I thought that we could stand ten or fifteen years as we are, I should have little fear,” said Mr. Rose.  He felt that, if only he could secure a respite, he had the means and the hope of opening the eyes of Churchmen.  They were secure and idle from long prosperity, and now they were scared and perplexed by the suddenness of an attack for which they were wholly unprepared.  But he had confidence in his own convictions.  He had around him ability and zeal, in which he had the best reason to trust.  He might hope, if he had time, to turn the tide.  But this time to stand to arms was just what he had not.  The danger, he felt, was upon him.  He could not wait.  So he acquiesced in an agitation which so cautious and steady a man would otherwise hardly have chosen.  “That something must be done is certain.  The only thing is, that whatever is done ought to be quickly done.”  Nothing can show more forcibly the imminence and pressure of the crisis than words like these, not merely from Froude and his friends, but from such a man as Mr. Hugh James Rose.

“Something must be done,” but what?  This was not so easy to say.  It was obvious that men must act in concert, and must write; but beyond these general points, questions and difficulties arose.  The first idea that suggested itself at Hadleigh was a form of association, which would have been something like the English Church Union or the Church Defence Association of our days.  It probably was Mr. Palmer’s idea; and for some time the attempt to carry it into effect was followed up at Oxford.  Plans of “Association” were drawn up and rejected.  The endeavour brought out differences of opinion—­differences as to the rightness or the policy of specific mention of doctrines; differences as to the union of Church and State, on the importance of maintaining which, as long as possible, Mr. Newman sided with Mr. Palmer against Mr. Keble’s more uncompromising view.  A “third formulary” was at length adopted.  “Events,” it said, “have occurred within the last few years calculated to inspire the true members and friends of the Church with the deepest uneasiness.”  It went on to notice that political changes had thrown power into the hands of the professed enemies of the Church as an establishment; but it was not merely as an establishment that it was in most serious danger.  “Every one,” it says, “who has become acquainted with the literature of the day, must have observed the sedulous attempts made in various quarters to reconcile members of the Church to alterations in its doctrines and discipline.  Projects of change, which include the annihilation of our Creeds and the removal of doctrinal statements incidentally contained in our worship, have been boldly and assiduously put forth.  Our services have been subjected to licentious criticism, with the view of superseding some of them and of entirely remodelling others.  The very elementary principles of our ritual and discipline have been rudely questioned;