THE OXFORD MOVEMENT CENTENARY.

Waiapu Church Gazette, 1 July 1933, Page 2

THE OXFORD MOVEMENT CENTENARY.

AN HISTORICAL SUMMARY.

(By Canon A. Neild.) In the simplest historical paper the difficulty is to know where, to begin. My subject is the Oxford Movement, and Newman said that he always regarded July 14th, 1833, as' the beginning of it. But we are driven to ask, Why did it begin then, and what was m the minds of the founders? One could go back to the day of Pentecost and trace it from there. Or one could go further and trace the inevitable course of events from the fall of man. But I shall be content to assert (what I hope I shall be able to make clear) that there is a close connection between the revolution of 1689 and the movement of 1833. Let me quote from a recent history of the people of England, which has the distinction of being written by a devout and intelligent Churchman. "The substitution of Parliament for the Crown m 1689 had, m reality, been a staggering blow to the Church, altering its position without its consent. . It meant that the Church, m Btead of being ruled under the Crown by its own constitutional chief, was to be ruled by a political and lay hody. Its hierarchy, the bishops, were now themselves governed, not by an individual sovereign, but by a popular assembly collected by votes cast for political reasons. In the sovereign the clergy might see an authority beyond that of mere political government, which they could not m a fortuitous crowd of individuals. They might at all events reach the sovereign—a Charles, a Mary, a Victoria; but not a mass of M.P.'s. The Crown could be impartial and responsible. The House of Commons, neither. In practice the control of an absolute Parliament proved; ' more unfair to Churchmen than that of an absolute Star Chamber had ever been to the Puritans, for the principle adopted by

the reformed House of Commons was inherited from Whig and Puritan tradition of a past era. The national Church was during the eighteenth century regarded, like the national Army or Navy, as a well-manned institution useful for certain public pur? poses, as education, or poor relief, or keeping the masses m order — an institution to be administered, like the others, by an omniscent Parliament and especially to be restrained from competition with other interests or institutions recognised by Parliamentary constituencies as m the same field of business." So far Miss Greenwood. And m this slavery the Church had lived for 150 years (and is still living), with disastrous results. There had been protests, of course, and the most effective had been the Wesleyan and Evangelical movements. But these had concentrated most of their energy on individual reMgion, not on the corporate life. Moreover, Wesleyanism had ended m secession, while Evangelicalism was tainted by Calvinism, which has been described as investing God with the attributes of the devil. But the Oxford dons who began the movement of 1833 were not attacking Evangelicalism. They certainly regarded its teaching as inadequate, and, indeed, its greatest leaders had gone. Simeon, the last great Evangelical, was at the end of his career. Keble entitled his assize sermon National Apostasy. And I take it that he meant by this that England had ceased or was ceasing to be a Christian country. Time was when citizenship and Churchmanship had been synonymous. The rulers of the State controlled some things, the rulers of the Church controlled others, and all were under the summa gubernatio of the King, who was, at least theoretically, a member of the Church. Now, all alike were controlled by a job lot of politicians, whose fingers were m every pie. The immediate cause of the wrath of that gentle saint, Keble, was the abolition of some Irish bishoprics by Parliament. Quite possibly it was a wise move, but the authorities of the Church were never consulted. It seemed good to the Whig ministry of the day, whose attitude to the Christian faith was, to put it mildly, lukewarm, and that was all about it. The rights of the Church

had to be rediscovered and set m the light. So the problem looked to Keble. Newman came to it from a different angle. Brought up among Evangelicals, he found his engrossing interest m his personal religion— his own relation to God. At Oxford he learned something of the possible corporate life of the Church. To him the enemy was what he called Liberalism. And it is important to understand what he meant by the word. He defines it himself m the Apologia as the antidogmatic principle and its developments." Whether, m his own mind, Newman associated this antidogmatic principle with the political party called Liberal I do not know. Possibly he did. But the point is this: Is the Christian religion a revelation come down from God which we must accept or reject, or is it a human invention which we are at liberty to alter and correct and amend as we think proper? If it is a revelation it is obviously important to find out, and if necessary recover, the exact content. This led to renewed study of Scripture, Liturgies, History and Dogmatics, with varying results m different men. It led Newman m the end of Rome. It led Pusey and Keble to toil for a revival m the "Church of England. Keble, the High Churchman, and Newman, the ex-Evangelical, were brought together, by Harold Froude, who boasted that that was the great good deed of his life. He was a man of greater audacity than either, and when the three stood together the Oxford Movement was born. Passing over the work of some others, we come now to the Tracts for the Times. These were short and weighty appeals to the clergy, sometimes original, sometimes consisting of extracts from the early fathers or from English seventeenth century writers. They were grave, sober, perhaps to modern minds rather heavy, and they were meant to set forth the real teaching and position of the Church, as distinguished from Rome on the one hand and Continental Protestanism on the other. Old forgotten doctrines were brought to light, the Succession, the power of the keys, the Real Presence, and the effect as had been prophesied, was fearful. For eight years the tracts were continued with growing suspicion and antagonism from both the Evangelical and

that large party for whom it is rather hard to find a name, Erostea. The explosion came with the ninetieth, when, m deference to the Bishop of Oxford, Newman stopped the series. For Newman followed a few years of lingering doubt before, m 1845, he finally despaired of his Mother Church and went to Rome, as others did before and after him — but none so great as he. Pusey and Keble remained, distressed, but unshaken, to be the guides of. a new generation of clergy m the coming days. For the new ideas had to be translated into living work m the parishes, and I cannot but think that sometimes the new parish clergy got far away from the thoughts of their leaders. I am not imputing blame. A movement has got to move. But I sometimes wonder what Keble would think of Keble College, or Pusey of Pusey House. There has been an enormous upheaval, both outward and inward, m the life of the Church, and many things which are a commonplace to-day were staggering to many earnest Churchmen 80 years ago. E.g., I don't know if any of you have read Trace 90. It seems to-day dull and obvious. Ninety years ago it sent Bishops and Dons wild with righteous anger. Two points I wish to make m conclusion. The leaders of the movement paid very little attention to ceremonial. But m years between 1860 and 1870 began what is vulgarly and incorrectly called the ritualist movement, and increasing changes m the outward aspect of the services were made. The zeal was not always according to knowledge, and there was bitter strife over indefensible trivialities, such as the wearing of stoles at the daily offices. Even where there was more knowledge there has often been a tendency to let ceremonial be more prominent than doctrine. It is easier, but the consequences are disastrous. The ritual prosecutions of 1860-1890 are happily past and not likely to be revived. They were, of course, complicated by the hopeless confusion into which ecclesiastical courts' have been brought by politicians and lawyers. Keble passed away, Pusey passed, and m due course the leadership came into the hands of men like Scott, Holland and Gore.

New interests were stirred. For one a passionate desire for a better and fairer social order. The older leaders, I think, took for granted the existing order. They were eager to help the poor, but had no thought of trying to cure poverty. The rich man m his castle, The poor man at his. gate; God made them high and lowly, And ordered their estate. That might have satisfied John Keble. It was an abomination to Charles Gore. The same later leaders turned once more to the intensive study of Scripture and accepted largely much of the conclusions of modern criticism. I think they were wise, but it would have been sacrilege m the eyes of Newman, Pusey and Keble.