|Rather than an attempt at a comprehensive or even focus upon a summary history of the Tractarian, Newmanite (before he left), Puseyite (after Newman left) or Oxford Movement, the presentation considers its relationship with some liberal forms of religion and the argument made to counter the liberal direction in Christianity also taking place in the nineteenth century. Then this can be projected forward.|
|An invented tradition is the notion that something is created or recreated from the real or imagined past for purposes of legitimacy and authority in order to serve a need in the present. The contention is that the birth and early development of the Anglican-Catholic movement is an invented tradition. Its purpose was not, as such, simply to reconnect with a pre-Reformation past, because Anglicanism contains and always contains the Reformation within it; rather, it was a means by which in the early 1800s members of the Anglican Church in England could be specialist and dedicated members of the Church and not simply a religious arm of the State.|
|This is always a contentious argument, because it is giving sociological causality, a latent reasoning, for what is manifest, that is a set of theological and ecclesiological arguments given by the practitioners. But what sparked and motivated them, and what were the movements against which they worked?|
|Back in the early 1800s there was a huge middle class reform movement to overturn the old political and class regime. That regime was feudal and Anglican in nature. Mercantilists and capitalists were pushing for increasing political representation, and their method was to include toleration for non-conformists, Roman Catholics and Jews. The 1832 Reform Act made the decisive break, from which later reforms would follow. So after 1832 the Church of England's relationship with the High Court of Parliament was no longer exclusive, and this immediately opened questions of the relationship between Church as Church and the State. No longer could there be the pretence that the Church of England was the whole religious arm of the State, to be directed by the State.|
|The other change was that previously the bishops before and after the Restoration had understood they were Protestant bishops. The Oxford Movement was actually suggesting that the Reformation had been a mistake, that their Catholicism was seen in contradiction to Protestantism instead of being openly understood as a mixture.|
|When in 1833 Parliament decided to initiate the reduction of archbishops and bishops in Ireland from twenty two to twelve and direct any savings made to poorer parishes, a group of clergy centred in Oxford reacted with annoyance starting with a sermon on 'National Apostasy' by John Keble in 1833, a sensitive poet who nevertheless remained as a parish priest. Here was the State, tolerating all sorts, still directing one Church what to do. They reacted against such Erastianism for the purity of the Church; the Church had to recover itself as a Church, and they did this by asserting Catholic views of the Church. They did this despite the close relationship there had always been between the Church and Empire, even creating late on a fantastical Holy Roman Empire, and the Protestant Churches with the development of nation states. So here was a new relationship, the idea of Church against the State, a reaction as a result of new plurality, thus forming an invented tradition.|
|Yet it was still the Church of the full credal inheritance, and not the Primitive Church of before the Roman Empire. There was no pretence of going that far back: it was the Church fully formed and yet making a distance between it and the State authorities.|
|Secondly there was a variable reaction against the growth of a whole raft of rationalistic ideas across science, the new social science, historical method, and the invasion of theology itself. Theology, once the queen of the sciences, needed ecclesiastical support, especially from the changes taking place among Protestants particularly abroad.|
|To pull in a model of Roman Catholic ecclesiastical doctrine as the model to do the present day task can either be a matter of adding incomplete emphasis (sharing it) by which one stays Anglican, or complete conclusion, for which the end point is conversion to the Church that has that completeness.|
|Edward Bouverie Pusey encountered German theology and decided to react against it, and did so using limited Catholic emphasis, and John Henry Newman had a liberal religious brother with whom he had correspondence and for whom ethos and logic took him all the way to Rome.|
|John Henry Newman (1801-1890) was somewhat laughed at for his Tract 90 in 1842 that gave the Church of England Thirty-nine Articles an interpretation that most thought they could not stand; although they carry ambiguity they did acquire a generally Protestant interpretation. This was his attempt to stay in the Church of England, after which a personal struggle followed and so in 1845 this leader of the movement converted to Rome, after which he would become a Cardinal.|
|Tract 1 was an assertion of apostolic descent, an immediate assertion of sufficient internal resources for decision making, but one which would start to cut off much understanding of the Church of England from dissenters. The new movement emphasised apostolic authority, more Holy Communion, spiritual discipline, litugical innovation and ceremonial, clerical formation in theological colleges and monasteries. The Tracts were published anonymously and continued until a sympathetic Bishop Bagot of Oxford - whilst positively recognising the spiritual practices introduced - asked that the controversial documents stop at the ninetieth.|
|Another emphasis was that clergy should be subject to detailed doctrinal oversight whereas the laity could be left alone so long as they did not propose alternative doctrines. Thus the Oxford Movement was a clerical movement. Arguably the Church of England had been a Church of the people of the country as a whole, with its clergy as servants of the people.|
|This movement came at a time of the parallel Romantic movement (a literary and artistic change to view rural life positively: a reaction against urbanism) and of gothic revival; indeed the Oxford Movement gave both romanticism and gothic forms wind across the denominations.|
|As late as the turn of the next century a Free Catholic movement was formed led by J. M. Lloyd Thomas of the Old Meeting, Birmingham, a Unitarian church, and W. E. Orchard of the King's Weigh House, London, a Congregationalist church. W. E. Orchard also went off to Rome, though J. M. Lloyd Thomas disappeared into Wales and the world of education. The the Oxford Movement in its later ceremonial practices became associated with Merrie England, and a peculiar over the top ritualism in corners of the English Church, nowadays shared by some Anglicans and even some Liberal Catholic Episcope Vagantes where supernatural practices also gained a magical interpretation. Incidentally Pusey first took an eastward position for Holy Communion as late as 1871, whereas the north position was normal before then for everyone and John Henry Newman himself wore a simple black scarf when presiding.|
|Both John Henry Newman and brother Francis William Newman (1805-1897) were evangelical in upbringing. Neither had the Anglican temperament of living with contradiction, or easily saying what they don't necessarily believe, where you can assert what you doubt on a more general and relaxed basis of assurance. They wanted a logical outcome, thus the treatment Newman gave to the Thirty-nine Articles. As a result, the brother of more subtle thought went in the direction of Rome, and the other of more ruthless logic went via the Unitarians to agnosticism.|
|In 1845 J. H. Newman wrote his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, which summarised a position he was developing through university sermons and which first saw the light of day in two letters of 1840 to Francis William and was within his Arians of the Fourth Century first published in 1833. The latter states on page 50 of the 1883 edition:|
|Surely the sacred volume was never intended, and is not adapted, to teach us our creed: however certain it is that we can prove our creed from it, when it has once been taught us. (Newman, 1883, 50, in Peterburs, 1996, 50)|
|John Henry's argument with his brother in 1840 is illustrative because it also shows the primary role for the Church as a teaching authority. For John Henry Newman, St. Paul's epistles alone could be regarded as Arian; John's Gospel only is Sabellian (modes or aspects of one God rather than distinct persons of God - the One God successively reveals Himself throughout time as the Father in creation, the Son in redemption and the Spirit in sanctification and regeneration: Tertullian called it Patripassianism in that for him it implies the Father suffered on the cross, although this is not Sabellian as Von Mosheim in 1868 maintains that Sabellius believed in three distinct forms of the one God and Clissold in 1873 states that Tertullian misrepresented him); and John Henry accepted readily that the first three Gospels and Acts are Unitarian. But the Catholic Creed, stated Newman, is the union of all these books held together which separately become heresies, each alone holding a doctrine that exists only when excluding other doctrine. The question for him was whether such a union of antagonistic doctrines was absurd or was it more likely that the New Testament writers agreed by holding to themselves a mystery, or even did they differ by having each only the surface of their writings. John Henry stated to his brother that he thought it more probable that the New Testament writers held to the same deep views, whereas his brother thought not. (Peterburs, 1996, 56-7)|
|This does bear some examination: this notion that the Gospels and other New Testament writings were secretly harmonised via some held-back gnosis of the writers, yet presented so differently, or if not secretly understood by them then the books can be harmonised by others. It seems absurd that the writers held back ideas they could have expressed, and there is a danger of violence done to the variety of texts to force them into some sort of unity they do not possess.|
|Nevertheless, the Bible itself was insufficient: it was the Church then that taught the creed. Yet early on J. H. Newman did believe that the young primitive Church enjoyed a freedom from symbols and articles that he considered was the highest Christian condition of communion. This sounds rather liberal, and again almost Gnostic (although we'll see how he qualified his view to prevent a Gnostic-like view later). Furthermore, he did actually have a liberal view of language: he realised, back in 1833, that language was an inadequate vehicle for suggesting holy truth, and although in the correspondence with his brother in 1840 he was almost repeating his views of 1833, he did not repeat the matter of the inadequacy of language in case his brother was to use that against him within the correspondence! (Peterburs, 1996, 58)|
|However, whatever he thought about the inadequacy of language and the highest purity of communion, the need for technicality and formulaism inevitably requires a public confession of faith. The Trinity in its expression had the function of ejecting the belief idol of heresies, although heresy itself had creative value in bringing forth the development of orthodox doctrine! The Trinity was thus a scripturally informed if imperfect expression of piety and, if undesirable contrasted with the earliest pure state of the Church, nevertheless was necessary so that there are not two (or three) Gods when reading the New Testament but the one if not the one as in Sabellianism or Modalism. Incidentally, such once secretive and later difficult doctrine was not regarded as a human construction to do the heresy chasing, but was revealed truth in order to interpret and harmonise scripture. (Peterburs, 1996, 50-51)|
|So the revealed creeds interpreted the whole of Scripture, and furthermore one could understand God's revelation with certainty. You start with the creeds, and for John Henry his brother Francis William had made the mistake of starting with scripture. For Francis William, the Church was an authority of an unseen abstraction but John Henry considered it must be visible in order that it had authority. (Peterburs, 1996, 57-58)|
|There was, however, at least one change in John Henry's views, and that was no longer a belief that there was a perfect and pure moment in early Christianity, but rather it grew awkwardly towards the truth as it was later set out by the Church. (Peterburs, 1996, 58)|
|One liberal cause is that of private judgement and individualism, and Francis William promoted that, for example in the reading of Scripture. For John Henry Newman, private judgement was something you could use if the Church either did not speak or could not be heard. Limits might have been given by God to statements made by the Church, either in time or scope. God may grant freedom in moral decision making in some cases, and restraint in others. However, the Church has authority to protect the faith as according to ecumenical councils and such then excludes private judgement. (Peterburs, 1996, 58-59)|
|So for John Henry, there was and is one large Church claiming the dispensation of the Gospel. The fourth and fifth centuries were crucial in developing doctrine, before which matters are less clear. There was no other system of Christianity, so we know what Christianity is according to what we received from the 300s and 400s CE. This is Apostolic Christianity, and does not differ from Scriptural Christianity any more than the scriptures disagree with each other. One wonders if that view is sustainable. All this unified variation has consistency for John Henry, each with the other, as defined in the temperament of the fourth and fifth centuries, and has been also from the Apostolic age to the nineteenth century. Doctrines were developed in response to internal and external events, but such developments were always consistent with the ideas they came from, and there were sufficient doctrines early on to justify later developments.|
|There might be added superstition in Rome and added rationalism in Anglicanism, but the essence of the Church is one throughout the ages in Roman, Anglican and Orthodox versions. To this imagined one Church John Henry Newman sacrificed his private judgement, or at least he did until he rejected this so-called branch theory of the three Churches as the imagined one. When he converted to Rome in 1845, he did so because he had changed his mind about the legitimacy of the Church of England. He still said private judgement was for where the Church had not spoken or was not heard, but this time it was the Roman Catholic Church.|
|It is interesting, however, that he is making a private judgement about dropping his private judgement in some areas and not others. Francis William held on to his private judgement consistently, which was why he became Unitarian rather than Anglican and partly why eventually he held to no Church at all.|
|Professor Francis William Newman was a polymath: including historian, classicist, mathematician, economist (Marx used him) and a theologian, and was said to be humourless and some writings were bizarre if direct. First he questioned infant baptism, and returned from a mission at Baghdad in 1833 to support mission from home with doubts about his orthodoxy on hellfire. So he stopped being a missionary and became more academic, in a non-sectarian college at Bristol and in 1840 he became professor of Latin in the broadly Unitarian based Manchester New College for about 6 years. The Soul, her Sorrows and Aspirations was published in 1849 and Phases of Faith, or Passages from the History of my Creed was published in 1850. The first was about the relationship the spirit of man with the Creator and the second his own story of moving from Calvinism to pure theism. His last publication was in 1891 about his theological relationship with John Henry Newman, almost as if he wasn't his brother due to lack of feeling. (Love to Know 1911, 2006)|
|John Henry had a sense of change too, but held within tradition: a view of development that understood tradition not to be a static sameness throughout but a sameness that allowed tradition as rich and revealing of itself as the Church reflects upon its faith deposit. Dogmatic development shows the Church to be alive.|
|So what happened to his branch theory? He read the Church fathers, and took the view that the Church of England was a schism. All the time Newman was facing the idea that if you remove Catholic theology, all you get is reasoning and words, like his brother did, and other liberal theologians, and these are not enough. Such thoughts cease to be of a whole, whereas doctrine and dogma preserve the wholeness of the faith of the Church. If language was still inadequate, then language was an outer form of what the Church held implicitly, so despite having dropped some sort of early Gnostic-like purity he was still using implicit faith to get him over the problem of the inadequacy of words and still the struggle with the content of the New Testament (see Peterburs, 1996, 66).|
|No one who has these struggles with an openness to Scripture is going to solve them in any Protestant Church unless any apparent sola scritura is a farce and Church Law comes first. Implicit, Church-first, understandings, questions of the diversity of the New Testament, are going to make you either a liberal individualist Protestant or a Conserving Church-first collectivist. And being such a collectivist, John Henry Newman came to a view that Roman Catholic additions were themselves roundly true developments of doctrine. The Patristic age was not the be all and end all of development: the Roman Church was; but the Roman Church was the one consistent with the Patristic age with its later developments. Given that the Roman Church made these additions, that was the place to be. Anglicanism had irregularities in its foundation and so being most like the oriental Church, it was like the Donatists, Monophysites and semi-Arians; the via media was a kind of nonsense as it had no connection with the central Church of the Patristic age but only with the practices of some schismatics. (Peterburs, 1996, 67-69)|
|By 1841 he already had considered that the Church of England was a Church of schism. He wanted his intellect to follow the ethos he already felt for Catholicism. In other words, he wanted some objectivity to follow his subjectivity. His difficulties with conversion were then with some practices like purgatory and matters concerning the Saints. He came to the view that such Catholic practices allowed the individual to absorb and build within the self the ethos that Roman Catholic doctrinal development itself suggested, and thus all was intellectually and emotionally consistent. With that, he converted.|
|J. H. Newman left, as did the much more hardline and papal infallibility advocate (if pro-social justice) Henry Edward Manning, but Edward Bouverie Pusey was one who stayed in the Church of England, as did John Keble.|
|On Henry Edward Manning (18081892), he also maintained the Branch Theory, though the division of the Church upset infallibility. Individuals submitted themselves to the entirity of the truth in a binding Church that was the Christ's Mystical Body (Pereiro, 1996, 181, 182) that held revelatory supernatural facts in its own laws above any analogy with nature (Pereiro, 1996, 179). He left the Church after a key moment in 1850, when the Privy Council (a secular court) ordered the Church to institute an Evangelical clergyman who denied that the sacrament of baptism had an objective effect of baptismal regeneration, a grave heresy for Manning (so influenced by Pusey - Pereiro, 1996, 182) and again showing that the English Church was an arm of the State. At first he protested to right this wrong, but a vote was lost in the House of Lords to decide issues of doctrine in the Upper House of Convocation, and only 1800 clergy of 17000 circulated signed a petition that the oath of supremacy was for civil matters only and not spiritual. Accepting the primacy of Peter and Rome's inheritance of infallibility after the Eastern schism, his other objections to the Church of England concerned the separation from the see of Peter, ending of penance, no daily sacrifice, the loss of minor orders and what he described as the mutilation of ritual (McClelland, 1996a, 200). So on 6 April 1851, he entered the Roman Catholic Church and on 14 June 1851 was ordained a priest as a first stage towards ending up a Cardinal, maintaining his interest in education, developing social theology and overseeing the building of Westminster Cathedral. (See Kent, 1910)|
|Edward Bouverie Pusey was a rising intellectual star, and studied German rapidly in 1825 so that he could go and study the new theology and biblical criticism coming from the continent. He was learning Hebrew as well; in June 1825 he left Oxford for Gottingen and studied under John Gottfried Eichborn, then already 73, to go on with further language study (at various stages absorbing Arabic, Syriac, and Chaldee), necessarily studying from fourteen to sixteen hours a day. He heard from Eichborn all about the books of Moses, and who back in 1779 had written (if anonymously) about the creation stories on the same lines as classical stories with the same creative human storytelling in both. Eichborn could see two interwoven God stories in Genesis and a difference regarding the Law in Deuteronomy from the other books. He had rationalistic explanations regarding miracles. This would certainly have clashed with anyone wanting to give a special place as revealed religion to the Hebrew creation stories, and Pusey at first observed all this potential conflict with tradition, and he realised that it was a matter of time before this material arrived in England. Pusey saw also the levity with which some of this material was taught and learnt, whilst for him it developed an outlook of grave consequences. (See Cupitt, 1984, 89-90)|
|He also observed the effect of this material in Lutheran church worship: how a preacher could advance views against the miraculous nature of the Gospels but do so in an educated language no one understood, but by repeating the holy name of Jesus the dutiful congregation bowed their heads reverently each time. Pusey was thankful that Lutherans continued to sing devotional hymns that might maintain their faith.|
|Pusey understood what was happening, and since then it can be argued that many a liberal in an apparent orthodox setting has learnt the skill of the coded sermon, saying one thing in professional theological language while appearing to say something more orthodox to the untutored even down to observing lots of theological 'questions' and very few answers. Pusey took a positive view: he regarded God as using the rationalistic preacher as an example of error, the error demonstrating the devotion in an opposite sense, as shown by the people and their response. It might be said, however, that the preacher was just having it both ways, finding a strategy to relate to his congregation while serving his own personal conscience about what was true and what was not: thus the skillful hearer of a sermon becomes the one who can read the code between the lines, revealing a sort of exercise in decoding communicative dishonesty. (See Cupitt, 1984, 91, and, directly, Liddon, 1894)|
|Pusey in Berlin was able to meet Schleiermacher, the great liberal divine, which he considered to be somewhat intellectually Socinian if emotionally more orthodox (Liddon, 1894), Strauss, the biblical critic, and Hegel, who believed in the synthesis of the higher Spirit of truth.|
|As a result of his studies, Pusey wrote a moderate two volume book about German theology and it was intended to correct the hostile impressions of the Cambridge scholar Hugh James Rose. Pusey, who was now well known in Germany, moved straight into a professorship of Hebrew at Oxford (that became a lifelong tenure - 54 years), a position that accompanied being Canon of Christ Church and thus he was rapidly priested. However, he found Hugh James Rose attacking his own book and questioning his orthodoxy and so Pusey reacted by defending his orthodoxy, and from then on he acquired increasingly doctrinal views and indeed disowned his own book. (Cupitt, 1984, 91-92)|
|Pusey came into the Oxford Movement in 1834 by publishing a Tract on Fasting, Number 18, with just his initials. In 1835 he published Tracts 67, 68, and 69 on Baptism of over 300 pages in length. His intellectual reputation, and the fact that he stayed in the Church of England when others left, meant that some Tractarians were called Puseyites. (See Catholic Literature Association, 1933)|
|On May 14, 1843 Pusey gave the University Sermon on the subject of the Eucharist, which many regarded as no more than high Anglican, but a professor objected and in secret six intellectuals appointed by the Vice Chancellor judged it as teaching doctrine contrary to the Church of England and suspended Pusey from preaching in the University for two years. Keble and Gladstone suggested he publish it with its theological authoritative support, which he did, and then two years on summarised it on the basis of its doctrinal correctness. Between 1850 and 1852 Pusey was limited by Bishop Wilberforce to officiating at Pusey itself in the Oxford Diocese, after which Pusey was not further restricted. (Catholic Literature Association, 1933)|
|His sermon upon resumption drew on Anglican formularies to claim that the Church of England teaches priestly absolution as explicitly as in any part of the Catholic Church, although it was not a necessity. He was hearing confessions and made some to John Keble, starting in 1846. His other main focus was continuing to explain the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, with two books about the real presence in 1855 and 1857. The second book attempted to show that real presence was consistent with Anglican formularies and Keble published similarly in 1857, both in defence of Archdeacon Denison who had been condemned by the Diocesan Court of Bath and Wells for teaching the doctrine of the real presence in two sermons preached in Wells Cathedral. In 1872 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council stated that on strictly legal terms real presence was permissible with Anglican formularies. (Catholic Literature Association, 1933)|
|Pusey also assisted with the revival of community life. He founded a community on March 26, 1845, at Park Village, Regent's Park. (Catholic Literature Association, 1933)|
|Pusey accepted the Catholic faith of the Council of Trent, but retained his objection to what he regarded as unauthorised beliefs and practices. Although he saw the need for more ceremonial around the Eucharist, he didn't himself push ceremonial beyond that which a congregation would accept. The ceremonial push, along with Romanticism and the Gothic, was a later feature of the movement. (Catholic Literature Association, 1933)|
|What is interesting, perhaps, is that later Catholicism started acting as a wrapping paper for theological liberalism, a style of liturgical presentation along with liberal theology. You can see the potential in some of John Henry Newman's questionings with his brother, but of course he took on the whole doctrinal package as a teaching whole. Pusey might be suprised that the High Church direction acquired this side, when he was decidedly anti-liberal in his acquisition of this form of High Anglicanism.|
|An earlier In depth session noted the work of Charles Gore and Lux Mundi (1902) in synthesising the later liberal movement in Oxford around the book Essays and Reviews (1861) with the Catholic tradition from the Oxford Movement. Thus can be identified at least three Catholic tendencies in the Church of England existing to this day. The first is the pro-Roman dogmatic Anglo-Catholicism, after Newman and Manning. The second is high Anglican Catholicism, after Pusey and Keble. The third is the Affirming or Liberal Catholicism that its more doctrinal opponents call 'Faux Catholicism'. There is no doubt now that the combination of female ordination of bishops and Pope Benedict XVI's Ordinariate offer finally will end the tradition of doctrinal Anglo-Catholicism and seriously weaken the remnant of high Anglican Catholicism, which otherwise would not want to go to Rome but members of which may also go that way, or to Orthodoxy, or to tiny Continuing Churches. Affirming Catholicism will remain but is, arguably, the flavour without the equivalent doctrine, and one might question if it is the wrapping paper without so many of the presents inside. The present Archbishop of Canterbury may just be forming a conserving theology and ecclesiology, very purple in colour, internationalist and pyramidal, of a literary detailed narrative theology that tries to be as history-like and biography-like as possible, born in a postmodern age, something similar then (if arguably more deceptive) than the postmodern bubble of imagined Platonic Anglican Catholicism in the Radical Orthodox movement (that tries to stretch to Lutheranism, if with difficulty).|
|In other words, Anglo-Catholicism has added to the devotional life and qualities of the Church of England and, indeed, other denominations, thanks to the Romantic era and gothic art and architecture, but it seems to be running out of steam or going up some strange and uncommunicative back avenues. The (re)invention of its tradition seems to have little place now, except perhaps as a cover for liberality, or for alternative sources for legitimating spiritual practices.|
The Catholic Literature Association (1933), Edward Bouverie Pusey, Project Canterbury, [Online], Available World Wide Web, URL: http://anglicanhistory.org/bios/ebpusey.html. [Accessed: Thursday July 01 2010]
Cupitt, D. (1884), The Sea of Faith, London: BBC Books, 80-92.
Goodwin, C. W., Jowett, B., Pattison, M., Powell, B., Temple, F., Williams, R., Wilson, H. B. (1861, first published 1860), Essays and Reviews, 8th edition, London : J. W. Parker.
Gore, C. (ed.) (1902, first published 1899), Lux Mundi: A Series of Studies in the Religion of the Incarnation, London: John Murray.
Hobsbawm, E. (1959), Primitive Rebels: Studies in Archaic Forms of Social Movement in the 19th and 20th Centuries, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Kent, W. (1910), 'Henry Edward Manning', The Catholic Encyclopedia, New York: Robert Appleton Company [Online], http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09604b.htm, New Advent [Accessed: Friday July 02 2010]
Liddon, H. P. (1894), Life of Edward Bouverie Pusey, 4 vols. London: Longmans, Revd R D Hacking transcription 2002 for Project Canterbury [Online], Available World Wide Web, URL: http://anglicanhistory.org/pusey/liddon/ and see specificallyhttp://anglicanhistory.org/pusey/liddon/1.4.html [Accessed: Thursday July 01 2010]
LoveToKnow 1911 (2006), 'Francis William Newman', LoveToKnow 1911, October 27 2006, based upon 1911 Encyclopaedia Brittanica, [Online], Available World Wide Web, URL: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Francis_William_Newman [Accessed: Thursday July 01 2010]
McClelland, V. A. (ed.) (1996), By Whose Authority: Newman, Manning and the Magesterium, Bath: Downside Abbey.
McClelland, V. A. (1996a), 'Manning's Second Conversion', in McClelland, 1996, 187-203.
Pereiro, J. (1996), 'The Mystical body of Christ: Manning's Ecclesiology in his Late Anglican Period', in McClelland, 1996, 168-186.
Peterburs, M. (1996), 'Newman and the Development of Doctrine', in McClelland, 1996, 49-78.
Newman, J. H. (1845), An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, London: James Toovey.
Newman, J. H. (1883), The Arians of the Fourth Century, London: Pickering.
Newman, J. H. (1891), The Via Media of the Anglican Church, 2 vols., London: Longman, Green & Co..
Clissold, A., The Creeds of Athanasius, Sabellius and Swedenborg, Adamant Media Corporation, 2001 (originally published by Longmans Green and Co, 1873) Partly reproduced online at The Creeds of Athanasius, Sabellius and Swedenborg: Examined and Compared With Each Other.
Von Mosheim, J. L., Historical Commentaries on the State of Christianity During the First Three Hundred and Twenty-Five Years from the Christian Era, Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2006, p220. ISBN 1597527041 Originally published by Trow & Smith Book Manufacturing Co, 1868. Partly reproduced online at Google Book Search.
Pluralist - Liberal and Thoughtful