he was leading his followers, because he did not know how far he was going himself. So far he could honestly deny the imputation that he was a Romanist in disguise while seemingly fighting for a via media between Anglicanism and Romanism. But it appears from a touching series of letters between his sister and himself that he was practically a Romanist in disguise for some years—probably as many as four—before he took the final step. It is curious that his consciousness of being drawn towards Rome should have coincided in point of time with the rejection by the Anglican Church, and to a certain extent by his own party, of the doctrines of 'Tract No. xc.' Here again we seem to have glimpses of quasi-personal motives in what appear to be doctrinal developments that clash with our preconceived notions of his humility and disinterestedness in the highest sense of the word.
There is one thing that comes out in these letters that is explanatory of much. He was a theologian, or rather a theological thinker, but he was not, comparatively speaking, a theological scholar in the sense in which we can apply that term to Dollinger or even to Pusey. It is curious to find a thinker who laid such absolute stress on authority in the living Church, and on development in the
