OXFORD MOVEMENT

Taranaki Daily News, 15 July 1933, Page 13 (Supplement)

OXFORD MOVEMENT

CENTENARY CELEBRATED

(By

J.N.)

It is universally recognised that without discontent and friction a thing will never change, and that without change it must stagnate and ultimately pass away. This applies particularly to matters governing both the physical and the spiritual welfare of humanity. “Worthwhile discontent has been the urge for all reformations, and always will be,” said a well-known visitor to New Zealand No greater proof of the continued vitality and vigour of the Church, therefore, can be found than the constant demands for change and reform that mark the history of Christianity from its earliest days. Among the most interesting and important of church reforms is the movement known as the Oxford Movement; of which the centenary occurred yesterday,—interesting because it is one of the most recent, and important because of the storm of controversy it aroused and the wide-spread asknowledgement it received. The Oxford Movement; known also as the Trastarian movement; and by its supporters as the Catholic Revival, begun simply with the desire to reinstate the Church of England in , her rightful position in the country and to reassert her claim to be a true branch of the Universal Church. Its proximate cause was the abolition by the Government of ten Irish Bishopries in 1833, as a result of which many people began to ask on what the Church could rest if attacked by the Government. The reply came from Oxford in the insistence on the Divine Mission of the Church as the extension of the Incarnation.

A sermon on “National Apostasy” delivered on July 14, 1833 in St. Mary’s Church, Oxford, by John Keble has always been considered the starting point of the movement, although at the time it did not attract very much attention. Ten days later a conference took place at Hadleigh in Suffolk, which was .really more momentous than the sermon. Keble himself was not present a't it, but those who were had all come under his influence. H. J. Rose, the Rector of Hadleigh, William Palmer, Arthur Philip Perceval and Richard H. Fronde represented all the older Universities— Oxford, Cambridge and Dublin.' The purpose of their discussion was “how to save the Church of England in her darkest hour of aggression without and betrayal within.” The conference led to the publication of the famous tracts which gave the movement its first name. "We must make a row in the world,” said Fronde, and the Tracts certainly won immediate success in that direction. They were not the original intention of the conference; the first idea was to get up a monster petition addressed to the Government, but this never materialised.

Before dealing further with the development of the movement, it might be as well to consider briefly the men responsible for it. The three great leaders, Keble, Newman and Pusey were all Fellows of Oriel. John Keble was the son of a country clergyman of the old High Church school. He had a brilliant career at Oxford, being made a Fellow when only nineteen. He was for many years Professor of Poetry at Oxford,- and in 1827 published anonymously “The Christian Year, 1 ’ a collection of poems famous in its day and well-known even to-day.

While Keble may be said to stand for pastoral piety, John Henry Newman is contrasted by his intellectual brilliance. He too had a distinguished career at Oxford, and was made Vicar of St. Mary’s, the University Church. He was in many ways the most interesting of the Oxford leaders, the most brilliant, the most lovable, the most adventurous. But he alone of the three - great principals was driven to despair of the cause he had espoused, and failing to sustain his enthusiasm for the movement, felt conscience dictate secession to the Church of Rome.

The third great leader of the Revival, Dr. Edward Pusey, joined it later than the others, about a year after the Tracts had begun. His joining gave the movement an intellectual prominence that immediately altered its standing. While it would have been possible , to have regarded Keble and Newman and younger disciples simply as a body of hotheaded enthusiasts without much weight of experience or learning, it was impossible to regard Dr. Pusey in such a light. Until his death he remained the unofficial head; indeed the Revival was named after him in many quarters, although the word “Puseyite” was generally a term of contempt. To return to the development of the movement, we find that whereas the Tractarians had been concerned with doctrine rather than with ritual, many of their followers showed a desire to re-introduce ritual and ceremonial practices of the pre-Reformation Church. Authority for these was claimed from the formularies of the Reformation period, and cases relating to them occupied the Church courts for many years. The movement continued with increased vigour, and by the beginning of the twentieth century had transformed the face of the whole Anglican Communion. Its later development, however, is more generally known as AngloCatholicism, under which name it enjoys a very wide-spread support.

To sum' up, the Oxford movement was originated to show that the Church of England was not a man-made institution, dating from the Reformation, but a true branch of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church, having the Apostolic Succession and the fullness of sacremental grace, and being in fact the only Catholic Church in the realm. In accordance with these revised ideas, many of the old ceremonies and customs were brought back, including the singing of the Responses, the taking of he eastward position, the placing of candles or flowers on the altar, the eagle lectern and the surplice in. pulpit.

The wonderful surgical operation at St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, when stitches were put into a man’s heart while it was beating, was described at the inquest at Southwark recently on Ernest Crichton, aged 29, a goods porter at Nine Elms goods depot, Southern Railway. Crichton, who lived at Wandsworth Road, South Lambeth, was admitted to the hospital wi.h a wound in the heart. Dr. Norman Barrett, describing the operation, said: “The heart was only just beating, and I removed a blood clot and the heart-beats became stronger. I put four to six stitches in the hole on a ventricle of the heart, which entirely closed the hole.” Dr. Barrett said he had had to do it while the heart was moving, an extremely difficult operation. It lasted three-quarters of an hour, and was a race against time, but the man died. A verdict of death by misadventure was returned.