The Church of England, Its Catholicity and Continuity/Lecture 6
LECTURE VI
The Oxford Movement.
In previous Lectures I have not spoken of the history of the Church of England since the accession of Charles II. to the throne. I shall not be able to dwell upon many important events which happened to our Church during the next two centuries succeeding that event. Our subject to-night is the Oxford Movement, which began in the year 1833.
Before proceeding to speak on this, you may, however, like to have the general outline of the Church's fortunes during the time where we left our history last week and the year 1833, of which I shall speak to-night.
When Charles II. came to the throne he found the Church of England in a very poor way indeed. The first work to be done was to restore it to its old position of influence, and to attain this many Acts of Parliament were passed to exclude the Puritans from the Church. It was hard work to settle the religious troubles of the people and to win back their love for the old Church. Before this could be accomplished nearly two thousand of the Puritan Clergy were ejected from the rectories and vicarages of England. They would not conform to the Church's teaching, and they could not expect, therefore, to benefit from the Church's property. These men went to swell the ranks of dissent. Dissenters then formed their own separated congregations in larger number than ever before. A spirit grew up which asked for greater liberty in religious matters, and such men as favoured it were called Latitudinarians. In the reign of Charles II. the Papists began again to plot against the Church and Government.
James II., who came to the throne, favoured the Romanists, and he became a Papist in reality. His wish was to bring the Church of England into bondage again. But the leading Churchmen of the day resisted his efforts. Many of the Bishops so much displeased him in opposing his aims and wishes that they were imprisoned for their conduct. But the popular voice was with them. Crowds of people stood by them, and welcomed their release, with every mark of public joy. To show you how James favoured the papal movement let us recall a few facts about his work. He filled his army with Roman Catholic officers, which was an unlawful thing for him to do, and he placed a Roman Catholic at the head of his army. He set at nought laws previously passed against the Roman Catholics. In his palace of S. James' a gorgeous Chapel was opened for him to worship in, with every Roman Catholic adornment. Monks of several Orders crowded to London, and boldly walked about the streets in the religious dress peculiar to their Order. James tried his best to put the Universities under Roman Catholic control. At Cambridge he ordered that a Benedictine monk should be given the M.A. Degree without the necessary qualifications. At Oxford the Master of University College acknowledged that he was a Papist, and James ordered that he, as the law directed, should not be for that reason deprived of his post. James did his best to appoint Farmer, a Roman Catholic, to the headship of Magdalen College, but the Fellows would not allow it. He also arbitrarily appointed seven Commissioners to govern the Church, with a similar object in view, but the nation was against him, and, as a result of this policy of his, he was forced to abdicate the throne.
Another change awaited the Church when William and Mary came to England. There was no fear then of the Church becoming Papist. William was brought up on the Continent under the teaching of the Reformers, and he had no love for episcopacy. During his reign, then, the Church lost much of the power it had gained in the time of Charles II. Bishops were appointed to govern it who had sympathies with William's tone of mind. The great cry in William's time was toleration in religious faith and profession. Bishops were allowed to hold Sees who, as far as teaching and doctrine were concerned, were not really Churchmen. In William's reign there was a movement on foot even for founding some method of public worship which might include all religious parties, Episcopalian and Dissenters, with the exception that Roman Catholics and Unitarians should be excluded. No Popery was the cry of the day. Controversy arose on doctrine. One was on the doctrine of the Trinity. Men began to explain the Holy Trinity in such a way that they ended in explaining it away. There was also a movement on foot for abolishing subscription to the Articles of Religion. The idea of that time seemed to be to establish a form of public worship which should be very broad and inclusive.
A better state of things was restored during the reign of Queen Anne. During her life the Church rose to great influence in the land again. With the exception of the last sixty years it was never more prosperous than during her reign. She took a great interest in the Church, and was very particular that the decencies of worship should be observed. Many new Churches were erected in her time, and a fund was started by her which has proved of excellent service since for the benefit of the poorer clergy. For many years Convocation had never met. But it was called back to power again in her time.
This excellent state of things received another check when the Georges were the ruling kings. They were about as irreligious as men could be, and they hated and despised England and our ways. They had no sympathy with our Church. They did not understand its teaching. The Church was bound to suffer in consequence. The spiritual life of England followed the example of the kings. No care was shown in the election of Bishops. Not only was the Church practically dead throughout the reign of the early Georges, but even Dissent had very little life. The ideal of morality was very low. As I am unable to spend much time in discussing this period of our history, I will give you the opinion of Professor Green on the religious state of England just before the revival of religion under the Wesleys. [1]"A Welsh Bishop avowed that he had seen his Diocese but once, and habitually resided at the Lakes of Westmoreland. The system of pluralities turned the wealthier and more learned of the priesthood into absentees, while the bulk of them were indolent, poor, and without social consideration. A shrewd, if prejudiced, observer brands the English clergy of the day as the most lifeless in Europe, 'the most remiss of their labours in private, and the least severe in their lives.' The decay of the great dissenting bodies went hand in hand with that of the Church, and during the early part of the century the Nonconformists declined in number and in energy." Green further says [2]"that not a new parish had been created. Hardly a single new Church had been built. Schools there were none, save the Grammar Schools of Edward and Elizabeth. The rural peasantry, who were fast being reduced to pauperism by the abuse of the poor laws, were left without moral or religious training of any sort. 'We saw but one Bible in the Parish of Cheddar,' said Hannah More at a far later time, 'and that was used to prop a flower pot.'" It was because of this state of things that the revival of religion took place under the Wesleys at Oxford. They themselves held private meetings for their own edification, and this led to their preaching in the fields or anywhere. This movement roused up the spiritual life of the Church. It was Wesley's movement which gave birth to the Evangelical party in the Church of England. One wishes one had time to go into this part of our history with greater detail.
But I must now come to the chief point of this Lecture: which is to show how the Church received a new impetus to put forth the life which it has to-day. This impetus was given by the Oxford, or Tractarian Movement, as it has been called, and it began in the year 1833.
About that time the Evangelical movement which had sprung up in the Church had lost much of its force, and alongside of this there had sprung up a liberal movement for disposing of Creeds and Confessions of Faith. The Broad Church party at this date were about the only men who took a practical interest in religious questions. Mr. Gladstone gives a graphic description of affairs of this time. [3]"It must be admitted," he says, "that the state of things … was dishonouring to Christianity, disgraceful to the nation; disgraceful most of all to that much-vaunted religious sentiment of the English public, which in impenetrable somnolence endured it, and resented all interference with it … The actual state of things as to worship was bad beyond all parallel known to me in experience or reading … Our services were probably without a parallel in the world for their debasement. As they would have shocked a Brahmin or a Buddhist, so they could hardly have been endured in this country, had not the faculty of taste, and the perception of the seemly or unseemly, been as dead as the spirit of devotion … But of the general tone of the services in the Church of England at that time I do not hesitate to say, it was such as when carefully considered would have shocked not only an earnest Christian of whatever communion, but any sincere believer in God." Mr. Hore gives us some interesting detail as to how the services were conducted just before the Oxford Movement. [4]"What was the state of the Parish Churches?" he asked. "They stood, beautiful in their pristine architecture, but rendered paragons of ugliness by modern barbarism, or, as it was termed, modern improvement; the high roof cut down; the windows robbed of their stained glass, and even their tracery; the pillars cut away to make room for some hideous monument; the frescoes buried beneath a dozen coats of whitewash; naves, aisles, and even choirs choked up with hideous pews, prominent amongst them standing that of the Squire, with its stove and easy chair and drawn curtains, the owner, perhaps himself a dissenter, sending his servants to occupy it and keep out intruders; the pulpit, with its red cushions, towering towards the ceiling, and often overhanging the altar; the reading desk, with the head of the curate scarcely visible above the books; the square box for the nasal-toned clerk; a basin, the miserable substitute for a font; the meanly-dressed altar, the common receptacle of the hats and cloaks of the congregation; a common glass bottle containing the wine for the Holy Communion, with some square pieces of bread placed on the Holy Table by the clerk before the service; the unused credence table—everything, in short, bore witness to a state of carelessness and neglect, and desecration of God's House."
It is well that you should hear these details respecting the state of the Church before the Oxford Movement, that you may be the more ready to enter into the spirit of that Movement.
There were men at Oxford who, dreading the future of the Church if this state of things were allowed to go on, determined to do something to save the Church. They were alarmed at the indifference of the Broad Churchmen to the importance of doctrine to the life of the Church.
It was in the year 1833—remember that year, it is a very important one—the Oxford Movement began in the Common Room of Oriel College. Its chief leaders were Newman, Keble, Pusey, the two Wilberforces, and Hurrell Froude. They were all resident Fellows of Oriel. They saw [5]"that the Church could no longer stand still," as Mr. Hore has said; "it must either become worse or better; either become committed to a formal Latitudinarianism, and the Broad Church become the Church of the future, in which case there would be an expungement from its services, certainly of the Athanasian Creed, probably of the Nicene Creed, possibly of the Apostles' Creed also, or she must reclaim her Catholic birthright."
These men, therefore, upheld the Catholicity of the Church of England. They taught that the Church was Apostolic in origin; that the Bible should be received as interpreted by the Church and Fathers of the early centuries. They laid great stress upon the importance of doctrinal teaching and the Sacraments. They considered that the Evangelicals were greatly mistaken in explaining only one of the important doctrines of the Church, to the neglect of all the others, and complained that the Broad Church party was not particular about teaching doctrine at all.
A revival was made in this respect as early as 1827, when Keble put his book of poems called "The Christian Year" before the people. How much is that book prized now! But at the time of its publication, because it dwelt upon seasonable Church teaching, and laid stress upon Saints' Days, it was called the "Fons et origo mali," the root and foundation of evil.
The Tractarians began their work by holding meetings for Bible readings, on which they had general discussions. One of the early subjects brought under consideration in this way was, "Is the Pope Antichrist?" The question was answered in the affirmative. Newman, who afterwards went over to Rome, in those days considered that the Church of Rome was bound up with Antichrist.
In the year 1833, Hurrell Froude and W. Palmer in the Common Room of Oriel resolved to form an Association for upholding the rites and principles of the Church. They communicated their idea to Keble and to the Rev. A. Percival, Rector of Hadleigh in Essex, and a Conference soon followed, held at the rectory, and it lasted a week. They came to the conclusion, considering recent events in Parliament, that Parliament had a wrong idea of the character and constitution of the Church of England. They decided, therefore, that they would revive the practical recognition of the truths so clearly set forth in the Prayer Book. This formed a good starting-point for their work. The public were given the opinions of these men in what were called the "Tracts for the Times" These productions at first consisted only of four pages each, but they ultimately reached the size of treatises. One of them, written by Pusey in 1837, had 42 pages, and another Tract reached to 424 pages.
In his "Apologia," Newman tells us what he thought of this new movement in its infancy. [6]"I had a supreme confidence" he says, "in our cause; we were upholding that primitive Christianity which was delivered for all time by the early Teachers of the Church, and which was registered and attested in the Anglican formularies and by the Anglican Divines."
The Tractarians, in the first place, thus desired to give to the people the doctrines of the Church in opposition to the movement known as liberalism in the Church. They maintained that there was a visible Church with sacraments and rites which were, as Newman expressed it, "channels of invisible Grace."
Their efforts had not attracted much notice before Keble preached at S. Mary's, Oxford, a sermon entitled, "The National Apostasy." It was this sermon which brought the Tractarians formally before the public, and it was from this event that Newman considers their Movement to have really begun. In 1833 there was formed "An Association of friends of the Church." A draft of its objects and aims was drawn up and submitted to the public. Its object was, in the first place, [7]"To maintain pure and inviolate the doctrine, the discipline, and the services of the Church; that is, to withstand all change which involves the denial of, or departure from, primitive practice in religious offices, and innovations upon the Apostolic prerogative, order, and communion of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons."
Secondly, its object was "To afford Churchmen an opportunity of exchanging their sentiments, and co-operating together on a large scale."
As a result of this Association, an address was sent to the Archbishops, signed by 7,000 Clergy, acquainting them with their object, and in 1834 another was sent from the laity which was signed by 230,000 heads of families. This showed undeniably how much the people were in sympathy with the Movement.
Newman was the leading spirit of the cause, and as it came before the public it was called by wags "The Newmania." In 1835 Pusey fully associated himself with this Movement, and thus added to its influence. The knowledge of the work of the Tractarians spread to the Court, where William IV. told the Bishops that he would be devoted to the cause of the Church.
Let us look into the teaching of the "Tracts for the Times." The first Tract appeared on September 9th, 1833. Its subject was "Thoughts on the Ministerial Commission." The teaching in this pamphlet was opposed to both the views held by the Evangelical and the Broad Church party of that time. This Tract says, "The Lord Jesus Christ gave His Spirit to His Apostles; they in turn laid their hands on those who should succeed them; and these again on others; and so the sacred gift has been handed down to our present Bishops, who have appointed us as their assistants, and in some cases their representatives. Everyone believes this, for it is the doctrine of the Ordination Service." This cannot be denied.
The Tractarians often used very forcible language to spread the truths they had at heart. In speaking of Rome Newman said, [8]"We must deal with her as we should towards a friend who is visited by derangement; for in truth she is a Church beside herself, abounding in noble gifts and rightful titles, but unable to use them religiously, crafty, obstinate, wilful, malicious, cruel, unnatural as madmen are. Or rather she may be said to resemble a demoniac . . . the system itself, so called, as a whole, and therefore all parts of it, tend to evil."
Very strong language for one who afterward joined the ranks of Rome.
In 1836 Newman published his Tract called "The prophetical office of the Church reviewed relatively to Romanism and popular Protestantism." This was called forth by the efforts of Cardinal Wiseman, who had come to London to give a course of lectures on the Roman Catholics.
By the year 1837 the Oxford Movement had spread throughout all England. It was attacked everywhere. It was discussed at Court, in the Bishops' Palaces, in Parliament and among the people. The leaders were denounced as enemies of the Church and as Papists in disguise. In Scotland and Ireland the attitude was the same. The clergy in Ireland were ready en masse to rise up against this cause, but the strange part, as far as could be found was that not a Tract of the Times had crossed the channel. The opposition which these men received, however, was chiefly due to prejudice. People heard general reports, and jumped to the conclusion that the Tractarians were trying to bring England under Rome again. But however their work was received at first, the principles of the Movement spread rapidly, and were largely endorsed by the people and clergy. Newman had a splendid chance of spreading their views through the British Critic, of which he was Editor from 1838–1841. This was made the organ of the party.
The supporters of the Oxford Movement next began to try their strength by influencing the public in the appointment of men to important offices in the Church and University. The first instance of this was in reference to the nomination of Dr. Hampden to the Regius Professorship of Divinity in Oxford. Hampden had some years previous to this given the Bampton Lectures at S. Mary's, and had caused great offence by some of his statements. In 1834 he also published a pamphlet dealing with Dissenters and subscription to the Articles by University Graduates. In this he said that the Creeds were matters of opinion, and he advocated the abolition of subscription. He spoke of [9]"putting Unitarians on the same footing precisely of earnest religious zeal and love for the Lord Jesus on which," he said, "I would place any other Christian." This pamphlet was evidently directed against the teaching of the "Tracts for the Times." For these opinions the Tractarians hoped to hinder his appointment to so important a post. They had hoped that Keble would have been offered it, for he was certainly well qualified for it, and he had great influence at Oxford. But he belonged to their party, and that was enough in those days to disqualify him. What the Tractarians lamented was the influence that Hampden would have on the growing generation of clergy should he be appointed. He would be in a position to influence one half of the clergy. A protest was, therefore, made against his appointment. It was signed by seventy-three resident Fellows and nine Heads of Colleges in the University, and this was sent to the king. But their object was defeated. The next step was to approach the University itself, to curtail Hampden's influence when he came into residence. Convocation was petitioned to submit Hampden's writings to examination. But to this the Heads of Colleges would not agree. A compromise was finally agreed to, and it was decided that Dr. Hampden should not be allowed to have a voice in the appointment of the select preachers who spoke to the undergraduates every Sunday from S. Mary's pulpit. This decision was arrived at by 474 votes against 94 votes.
Hampden's pamphlet, before alluded to, was sent to Newman soon after its publication. Newman acknowledged it, and said, [10]"While I respect the tone of piety which the pamphlet displays, I dare not trust myself to put on paper my feelings about the principles contained in it; tending as they do, in my opinion, altogether to make shipwreck of Christian Faith. I also lament that, by its appearance, the first step has been taken towards interrupting that peace and mutual good understanding which has prevailed so long in this place." It was by these and similar efforts that the influence of the Tractarians was felt all over England.
Now we must turn to another important event in the history of this Movement. In the year 1841 Newman published what was known as Tract 90. Its title was "Remarks on certain passages in the Thirty-nine Articles." The object of this was to show that the Thirty-nine Articles were not, as people commonly thought they were, Protestant in their tone. You nowhere find the word "Protestant " mentioned in them nor in any other part of the Prayer Book. Newman's endeavour was to show that they upheld Catholic teaching as distinct from Roman Catholicism, and that a Protestant interpretation had bean imported into them. Newman says of his object afterwards, [11]"The main thesis of my essay was this: the Articles do not oppose Catholic teaching, they but partially oppose Roman dogma; they for the most part oppose the dominant errors of Rome. And the problem was to draw the line as to what they allowed, and what they condemned. Such being the object which I had in view, what were my prospects of widening and defining their meaning? The prospect was encouraging, there was no doubt at all of the elasticity of the Articles. To take a preliminary instance: the fourteenth was pronounced by one party to be Lutheran, by another Calvinistic, though the two interpretations were contradictory to each other; why then should not other Articles be drawn with a vagueness of an equally intense character." In this Tract Newman said, [12]"Our Articles neither contradict anything Catholic, nor are meant to condemn anything in early Christianity even though not Catholic, but only the later definite system in the Church of Rome."
Tract 90 made a very great stir. As a result of its publication Newman was accused of holding the theory that a man could subscribe the articles in a non-natural sense. But this he vigorously denied. Four tutors at Oxford, named Churton, Griffiths, Wilson, and Tait, a late Archbishop of Canterbury, took steps to condemn the treatise. Through their means a Council of the Heads of Colleges was held to examine into its teaching. At that time they did not know that Newman was its author. Newman wrote to them to ask them to defer deliberations until another Tract should be published which was then almost completed. But they refused to stop their proceedings. They met together and resolved that the Tract [13]"had a highly dangerous tendency: that it appears to have a tendency to mitigate, beyond what charity requires, and to the prejudice of the pure truth of the Gospel, the very serious differences which separate the Church of Rome from our own. This Tract," they said, "puts forth new and startling views as to the extent to which that liberty may be carried. … We are at a loss to see what security would remain were his (the author's) principles generally recognized, that the most plainly erroneous doctrines … might not be inculcated … from the pulpits of our Churches." This Tract made so much stir that it was the last one published of the Series. Dr. Bagot, the Bishop of Oxford, requested that the Tracts be discontinued, and Newman, out of respect for the Bishop, obeyed. The Tracts had come to an end. But, as Mr. Hore says, [14]"The object for which they were undertaken was accomplished. Long forgotten truths concerning the apostolical character of the Anglican Church were brought to light: a higher tone of feeling pervaded society; a taste for theological study manifested itself amongst the clergy; an increased devotion amongst the laity; a more reverent performance of Divine Service; more frequent Communions; and an improvement in Church Music followed."
The success of the Movement was so great that a party at Oxford who opposed it raised subscriptions enough to erect a handsome piece of workmanship known as the "Martyrs' Memorial," thinking that by putting the nation in mind of the martyrs, Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, they might give this Movement a check. But their good motives were doomed to disappointment. These men were mistaken in considering that the Oxford Movement was Roman Catholic, although several of its chief men were ultimately driven to Rome.
We must now refer further to Newman's great influence. He was appointed Vicar of S. Mary's Oxford, and here he had wonderful advantages for spreading the principles he had at heart. Immense congregations of undergraduates flocked together to listen to his sermons. Gladstone was one of his listeners, and spoke of his influence there in these words: [15]"Newman's manner in the pulpit," he says, "was one which, if you considered it in its separate parts, would lead you to arrive at a very unsatisfactory conclusion. There was not much change in the inflexion of his voice; action there was none; his sermons were read, and his eyes were always on his book … but you take the man as a whole, and there was a stamp and a seal upon him; there was a solemn sweetness and music in his tone; there was a completeness in the figure, taken together with the tone and the manner, which made even his delivery such as I have described it, and though exclusively with written sermons, singularly attractive."
Newman tells us himself in his "Apologia" of how his influence was felt in Oxford, and so throughout all the country. [16]"As is the custom of a University," he said, "I had lived with my private, nay, with some of my public pupils, and with the junior Fellows of my College, without form or distance, on a footing of equality. Thus it was through friends younger, or the most part, than myself, that my principles were spreading. They heard what I said in conversation, and told it to others. Undergraduates in due time took their degrees and became private tutors themselves. In their new status they in turn preached the opinions with which they had already become acquainted. Others went down to the country, and became curates of parishes. Then they had down from London parcels of the Tracts and other publications. They placed them in the shops of local booksellers, got them into newspapers, introduced them to clerical meetings, and converted, more or less, their Rectors and their brother curates."
The Tractarian Movement, or High Church party, as it now began to be called, thus had considerable influence outside Oxford. Centres were started away from its home, from which rays of light emanated to the surrounding neighbourhood. London was made acquainted with the Movement through the work of Oakley and Leeds, through W. F. Hook, who became the Vicar of Leeds in 1837. Mr. Hook found a shocking state of things in the parish when he went to it. [17]"Of the seven Churchwardens," says Mr. Hore, "none, except the one appointed by the Vicar, were Churchmen; they resolutely refused to spend a farthing on such matters" as surplices, which they called rags, "until they were threatened with proceedings by the Archdeacon. When they assembled for Vestry Meetings, they piled their hats and coats on the altar, and even sat upon it, and soon afterwards, under the increased number of communicants, they grumbled exceedingly at the increase of wine required for the Holy Communion, and objected that the consecrated wine was, as the Rubric directed, drunk in Church after Celebration, instead of being reconsecrated; and they remained in the Vestry to guard, although there was strong reason for suspecting that they themselves drank, the wine." All these evils, however, Hook soon removed. This was the state of things, remember, only as far back as sixty years ago, and it was what could have been found in many Parish Churches. You can see then what a change the Oxford Movement wrought in England. Hook showed his love for the cause in another way. He was honoured with an invitation to preach before the Queen, in her Royal Chapel. He took for his subject, "Hear the Church." It was his object to show that the Church was not founded at the Reformation, as it was commonly believed, but that it existed in continual succession from the days of the Apostles downwards. This sermon was greatly disliked by the Queen's advisers, and it took away from Hook's popularity. But 100,000 copies of this sermon were sold and read, and thus the views which he advocated were spread.
Another sermon of importance was preached in the year 1843, and this by Dr. Pusey, at Oxford. The subject was, "The Holy Communion a comfort for the penitent." This sermon brought such a hornet's nest about Pusey's ears that he was suspended for the next two years from preaching in the University pulpit. He desired to explain the meaning of his statements in this sermon, but his judges, very unfairly, would not hear him.
I now come to a very sad story in the history of the Oxford Movement. A split was made in the party. Keble, Pusey, and Isaac Williams took one side, and Newman, Oakley, and Ward the other side. In years to come the first three men were looked upon as the representatives and leaders of the High Church party in the Church of England. Newman, Oakley, and Ward seceded from the Church, and went over to the ranks of Rome.
I will not dwell upon the struggles through which they passed before they were able to acknowledge themselves obedient to the Pope. They gradually drifted away from the Church. Ward had published his work "The ideal of the Church considered." In this he stated that he did not renounce any one of the Roman doctrines. This expression of his opinions aroused Convocation, and as this was in flat contradiction to the teaching of the Articles, he was condemned. Oakley was also condemned for holding all the Papal doctrines while exercising his office as an Anglican priest in London. His license to perform his sacred duties was revoked until he should renounce his errors. These events helped to shake Newman's faith in the Church of England. He withdrew from the living of S. Mary's, and retired to Littlemore—about two miles from Oxford—where he had built a Church in connection with S. Mary's—to think over his position and to decide upon his future course of action. At the end of the year 1841 he describes himself as being on his death-bed with regard to the Church of England—the Church of his baptism. In February, 1843, he wrote, [18]"I made a formal recantation of all the hard things which I had said against the Church of Rome. In September I resigned the living of S. Mary's, Littlemore included. … As I advanced, my difficulties so cleared away that I ceased to speak of the Roman Catholic and boldly called them Catholics."
On October 8th, 1845, he wrote to some friends from Littlemore: [19]"I am this night expecting Father Dominic the Passionist. I mean to ask of him admission into the one fold of Christ."
On February 23rd, 1846, Newman left Oxford. He was received into the Church of Rome, and for many years to come he did not see his University again. Oakley and Ward very soon followed in his footsteps.
The blow which this act of Newman gave to thousands of Englishmen cannot be described. His action has been spoken of as "a national calamity." It was a pity to lose him. He and his fellow-workers were good men, and in a sense we may say they were driven out of the Church of England by the action the Bishops took. [20]"The Tractarians had been condemned by the Bishops," said Mr. Hore, "almost without exception. They had been told incessantly that they were Papists in disguise; that they were dishonest men, professing one thing and teaching another; till at length they began to believe it themselves. It was very hard to bear. To be stigmatized as Papists when they were writing strongly against Rome; violators of Rubrics when they were enjoining obedience to the Rubrics; upholders of human tradition when they were thanking God that the Church rested on no human names, but was derived from the Apostles; founders of a party when they advocated the maintenance of One Catholic Church; their position was unique; they were accused of being inventors of novelties and bigots of antiquity."
I think it is perfectly certain that they were driven into Rome because they saw no prospect of a better state of things in the English Church. But they were over-hasty in their conclusions. It is not stated without reason that Newman went over to solve his doubts and to be freed from the responsibility of deciding his own religious convictions for himself. The "Sturm-und-Drang" of the last fifteen years must have told upon his endurance. Newman, without doubt, was a saintly man, a great scholar, and a great loss to Oxford and to the cause which he had at heart.
It is interesting to notice what he said of the Anglican church long after he joined the Romanists, as stated in his "Apologia." In that book he says, [21]"I recognize in the Anglican Church a time-honoured Institution of noble historical memories, a monument of ancient wisdom, a momentous arm of political strength, a great national organ, a source of vast popular advantage, and, to a certain point, a witness and teacher of religious truths. I do not think that, if what I have written about it since I have been a Catholic be equitably considered as a whole, I shall be found to have taken any other view than this."
You know that recently the Pope has decided against the validity of Anglican Orders. It is curious to read a passage of Newman's in the light of this decision. [22]"As to its possession (i.e., the English Church) of an Episcopal succession from the time of the Apostles," he says, "Well! it may have it, and, if the Holy See even so decide, I will believe it, as being the decision of a higher judgment than my own; but, for myself, I must have S. Philip's gift, who saw the sacerdotal character on the forehead of a gaily attired youngster, before I can by my own will acquiesce in it, for antiquarian arguments are altogether unequal to the urgency of visible facts."
We may perhaps point to another cause why Newman went over to Rome. The early efforts of the Tractarians were devoted to reviving the doctrines of the Church of England. They wished to show that our Church possessed, and that it taught in the past, Catholic doctrines. But they gave no attention whatever to ritual. At least they did not advocate its usefulness though they saw its importance. The time was not ripe enough for that. Their aim rather was to teach doctrine first, and then, when a chance offered itself, to advocate the ritual which explained these doctrines. Newman, with his ascetic nature, must have overpoweringly felt the need of ritual to aid devotion and true worship. And this he would find to excess among the Romanists. I cannot help thinking that he was largely drawn to Rome for some such reason as this.
John Keble and Newman were great friends, and Keble knew Newman through nearly all his struggles just before the latter joined Rome. In fact, Newman often asked him his advice in his troubles and doubts. The correspondence between these two men is most pathetic reading. I will give you a few extracts from it. Keble wrote in 1843, [23]"Believe me, my very dear Newman, that any thought of wilful insincerity in you can find no place in my mind. You have been and are in a most difficult position, and I seem myself in some degree able to enter into your difficulties."
When Newman was talking of withdrawing from the Ministry of the Church, as his troubles first came upon him, Keble wrote, [24]"My feeling is that your withdrawing from the English Ministry, under present circumstances, will be a very perilous step … as I fear it would, in every respect," bring you "nearer, what I must call, the temptation of going over."
Again, Keble wrote, [25]"Another thought one has is of the utter confusion and perplexity, the astounding prostration of heart and mind into which so many would be thrown, were their guide and comforter to forsake them all at once, in the very act, as it would seem to others, of giving them directions which they most needed." Again, [26]"I really suppose that it would be to thousands quite an indescribable shock, a trial almost too hard to be borne, making them sceptical about everything and everybody."
Again, [27]"Do not in any case imagine, my dear Newman, that you have not hundreds, not to say thousands, sympathizing with you, and feeling indeed that they owe their very selves to you." Then, on October 11th, 1845, he wrote, [28]"I find that the thunderbolt has actually fallen upon us, and you have actually taken the step which we greatly feared. … It is very mysterious, very bewildering indeed; but being so, one's duty seems clearly pointed out: to abide where one is, till some new call come upon one. … Besides the deep grief of losing you for a guide and helper … you may guess what uncomfortable feelings haunt me."
Then in the same letter Keble says, [29]"My dearest Newman, I cannot well bear to part with you—most unworthy as I know myself to be, and yet I cannot go along with you. I must cling to the belief that we are not really parted. … May you have peace where you are gone, and help us in some way to get peace. … So, with somewhat of a feeling as if the spring had been taken out of my year,
"J. Keble."
These letters are rather sad reading, but a few extracts show in what estimation Newman was held. They also show that it is not true that the Tractarian Movement was a secret Jesuitical affair. Were that the case, when the leader left for Rome, all his allies would have followed him. As a matter of fact, considering the immense influence of Newman, it is a matter of great wonder that more men did not follow Newman than actually went over with him. The Tractarian Movement was not a secret Romanizing movement, although Mr. Walsh has recently published a book to try to prove that it was. Anyone who has read that book ought to read the criticism which has latterly been made upon it. There was nothing secret at all about the work of the Tractarians. What they did they did openly, and they brought great odium upon themselves for doing it. But they also won a blessing.
Next week I shall give the last Lecture of this course, and the subject will be—The Growth of Church Life during the last Sixty Years.
- ↑ Short History, pp.716, 717.
- ↑ Ibid. p.717.
- ↑ Quoted by Hore, Vol. II., pp. 238, 239. Church in England from William III. to Victoria.
- ↑ Ibid, pp. 235, 236.
- ↑ Ibid, p.266.
- ↑ Apologia, p.43. Longmans, 1890.
- ↑ Quoted by Hore, Ibid, p. 278.
- ↑ Ibid. p.283.
- ↑ Quoted by Hore, Ibid, p.287.
- ↑ Apologia, pp.57, 58.
- ↑ Quoted by Hore, p.290.
- ↑ Quoted by Hore, p.290.
- ↑ Quoted by Hore, p.291.
- ↑ Ibid. p.293
- ↑ Quoted by Hore, p. 294.
- ↑ Apologia, pp.58, 59.
- ↑ Ibid, p.295.
- ↑ Quoted by Hore, pp.301, 302.
- ↑ Ibid, p.304
- ↑ Hore, pp.308, 309.
- ↑ Apologia, p. 340.
- ↑ Ibid, p.341.
- ↑ For these letters see Life of Keble, in "Leaders of Religion," by Walter Lock, p.119.
- ↑ Ibid, p.119
- ↑ Ibid, p. 123.
- ↑ Ibid, p.119
- ↑ Ibid, p.125.
- ↑ Ibid, pp.126, 127.
- ↑ Ibid, p. 128.