THE OXFORD MOVEMENT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 76, Issue 167, 18 July 1933, Page 4

THE OXFORD MOVEMENT

Sir, —In your leading article of the 12th inst. you say: “The Church of England is inaugurating the Centenary of the Oxford Movement.” Is it the Church of England that is doing, or has by now done it? What is the Oxford Movement? From your article one would understand that it is, on the whole, a desirable movement, and one which is authorised by the Church of England, or at least its centenary celebrations authorised thereby. The Oxford Movement was, and is, a movement for re-union with Home. Avery H. Forbes, M.A., in his booklet “The Oxford Movement a Counterblast,” published by the Protestant Truth Society, states: “The present generation, therefore, needs to be informed that it wan and is a movement for re-union with Rome; and that (by the confession of its leaders themselves it was begun and carried on in secret and by duplicity, fraud and falsehood.’’

The loaders of the Oxford Movement were Newman, Pusey, Hurrcll Fronde, Ward, Faber, Manning, Mackonochie, and otheres. Tho plot began in July, 1833. Shortly before that date Newman and Hurrell Froude paid a visit to Wiseman at Rome. They went, wrote Froude, “to find out whether they (the Church of Rome) would take us in on any terms to which we could twist our consciences.” Another leader wrot’c: “Let us remain quiet for some years till, by God’s blessing, Englishmen are become accustomed to hear the name of Rome pronounced with reverence.”—“Fronde’s Remains,” page 377.

It appears that Newman was the real originator of the movement. Charles Kingsley said of Newman: “1 am henceforth in doubt and fear, as much as an honest man can be, concerning every word Doctor Newman may write.” Though Newman repudiated Kingsley’s charge in correspondence, and then wrote his “Apologia pro Vita Sua,” new information since brought to light, proves that Kingsley wrote “a great deal more truth than he knew.” Archbishop Whately treated Newman in his earlier years as a son. Newman acknowledged his indebtedness to him. “He showed great kindness to me,” said Newman. “A man of generous and warm heart. ... he was particularly loyal to his friends. ... I became very intimate with him in 1825.” —Apologia, page 11 (Ed. 1892). Whately saw through Newman’s duplicity, and stated: “Newman set such an example of hair-splitting and wiredrawing and shuffling equivocation and dishonest garbling of quotations as made the English people thoroughly ashamed, that any man calling himself a gentleman and a clergyman should insult their understanding and consciences with such mean sophistry.” Newman did not attempt to refute Whately’s charge! In order to allay popular suspicion Newman and others in 1833, “got up a temporary anti-Roman controversy.” After visiting Wiseman at Rome to see if the Church of Romo would take them in on any tonus to which they could twist their consciences, Newman wrote of that church as “a lost church,” “heretical,” “bound to the cause of anti-Christ,” etc., etc. Newman subsequently withdrew, according to plan, all the charges he made against Rome. In 1840 Newman commenced the esstablishment of an Anglican monastery, buying some land for the purpose at Littlcmore. He moved thither in 1842. The Bishop of Oxford became alarmed, and wrote Newman about it in April. 1842. Newman replied by saying: “I am often accused of being underhand and uncandid. . . . No monastery is in progress of erection.” Three months before this reply to the Bishop of Oxford Newman had written to a friend: “I am almost in despair of keeping men together. The only possible way is a monastery.” The monastery was quickly established, and filled with Newman’s priests. This kind of double dealing was commonly practised by the founders of the Oxford Movement.. Tho movement spread, “monasteries multiplied, sisterhoods and convents were established, and a host of secret societies sprang up”. The chief of these was the Society of tho Holy Cross. It was “an inner conspiracy for promoting Popery more rapidly and effectively.” It dreaded the light of publicity. “Its synods were in secret within locked doors. . . . said Masses in secret for the souls of tho departed.” “They set up the Confessional, and gave or withheld absolution.” They published, anonymously a book “The Priest in Absolution.’’ - It was printed in English and was so disgusting that Lord Redosdale drew attention to it in the House or Lords while Archbishop Tait said it was “a disgrace to the community. The late Dean of Canterbury, the late Verv Key. H. W. Wace, D.D., in a public address to the United Protestant Congress held in London, October, 19—., made this statement: ‘‘Now the object of those Anglo-Catholic congresses is to overthrow the simple Catholic form of worship and to introduce one which is indistinguishable from that of Romo. To a Roman Catholic priest in Germany the loaders of this Oxford Movement said: “Wo are with you in faith and we have a common toe to light.’ Wo seek to make no terms; we come only in the spirit of love ami humility. It is only through the English Church that England can bo (Roman) Catholicised.”— Seo “Union Review” for 1863, vol V, p.p. 409-410. You say that neither Newman nor PusO y “had a familiar acquaintance with the Evangelical Movement ’ Both of these gentlemen wore wholly opposed to tho Evangelicals; their thoughts being Homewards. The two movements were, and are, contradistinct. Tho Oxford Movement was, and is for trans-substantiation, the Romish doctrine of the Eucharist for tho Confessional, for tho Mass. Tho Evangelical Movement is for none of these, and means the death of each. Yet you say that, “This,” the fact that neither Nowman nor Pusey were acquainted with the Evangelical Movement, was a distinct disadvantage lor the growth of tho Oxford Movement into a nationwide influence.” What do you mean? The movement initiated by Wesley was in a totally different direction from that of the'Oxford Movement. The one cannot drink from tho springs of the other. Ono has to conclude that the “Chronicle” is either ignorant of what tho Oxford Movement really is, or is endeavouring to placate this movement which has for its avowed object, the subjugation of England to Rome. One is confident that the centenary celebrations were inaugurated by the AngloCatholic, party, not by the Church of England.—l am et., ' D. SUTHERLAND. Tho initiators of the Oxford Movement. to use Newman’s words, “had

a contempt” for the Evangelicals. This contempt was founded ami supported by Newman’s and Pusey’s lack of knowledge of the Evangelical Movement. Had Newman and Pusey been wider in their knowledge and comprehension and understanding the Oxford Movement would not have boon so narrow nor so limited and would have achieved a wide usefulness and a wider acceptance, that is, assuming that breadth of view would have been acceptable to a large mass of tho English people. Mr. Sutherland has evidently misread tho “Chronicle’s” article. Tho comparison with Wesley was quite justified, Wesley’s Movement was nationwide in its appeal. The Oxford Movement was not. The former movement was broader in its outlook than the Oxford Movement and had the Oxford Movement the same breadth it would not have developed its defects but would have broadened in appeal, in usefulness and in vision.—Editor, “Chronicle. ’ ’