Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

criticized at an Islington Clerical Meeting. One or two were rather severely reviewed in the Christian Observer. But so long as their object was mainly to defend the dignity of the Church,

Evangelical
Attitude.

there was no general outcry against them. "We need only express," wrote the Christian Observer,1 "our full conviction of the Apostolical succession of Holy Orders in the Church of England. There is no historical fact on which we more confidently rely": and when the Record in its review of the Tracts spoke rather slightingly on the subject, it raised such a storm amongst its readers, that the Editor had to apologize. "We do not deny the Apostolic Succession," he wrote,2 " we only attach an inferior degree of importance to it to that expressed by our correspondents."

But soon a change in the Tractarians themselves made opposition imperative. Younger and more

The

Romanizers.

daring men pushed their way to the front, while their elders followed in the rear with no small hesitation. Oakeley, Dalgairns, Faber, Ward were now the real leaders, and of their entire disloyalty there can be no question. Ward defended his marriage on the ground that, as English orders were invalid, he was in God's sight only a layman. His position is stated by his son with perfect candour: "He felt bound to retain his external communion with the English Church, be

1 September, 1836.

2 Record, December 12, 1833.

3 W. G. Ward and the Oxford Movement, p. 356.

THE ROMEWARD MOVEMENT

217

cause he believed that he was bringing many of its members towards Rome, and to unite himself with the Church which he loved, if by so doing he thwarted the larger and fuller victory of the truth, seemed a course both indefensible and selfish." Faber prepared for his work at Elton in Huntingdonshire, when he was appointed Rector, by a pilgrimage to Rome, where he gained "great comfort" from the shrine of St. Aloysius the Jesuit, and returned pledged that his life should be "one crusade against the detestable and diabolical heresy of Protestantism." ."1 While-to quote one more example, to show that the opposition of Evangelicals was no narrowminded bigotry, but a real duty, which could not possibly be shirked-Ward and Dalgairns wrote to the Univers, a French Roman Catholic organ:2 "We love with unfeigned affection the Apostolic See. We are destined to bring many wandering sheep back to the knowledge of the truth. Let us remain quiet for some years, till by God's blessing the ears of Englishmen become accustomed to hear the name of Rome pronounced with reverence." This side of the movement culminated in Tract No. XC (1840), in which Newman tried to prove that the ThirtyNine Articles, though "the product of an un-Catholic age," were "patient of a Catholic interpretation," and that the Roman doctrines of purgatory, pardons, images, and the mass were not condemned by them, but only certain perversions of those doctrines, 1 Life of Faber, 156.

2 April 13, 1841. Reprinted, Catholic Magazine, p. 310, 1841.

which all instructed Roman theologians themselves repudiate.

The
Opposition.

This Tract naturally aroused great indignation; but the leaders in the outcry were not the Evangelicals. Newman's chief opponents at Oxford were C. P. Golightly, a High Churchman of the older school, and A. C. Tait, the BroadChurch Fellow of Balliol, while the first really violent attack upon the Tractarians in the Press was an article in the Edinburgh Review written by Dr. Arnold.1 Broad Churchmen, Low Churchmen, and old-fashioned High Churchmen were quite as opposed to the Oxford school as any Evangelical, and again it is necessary to emphasize the fact that the Low Churchmen and the Evangelicals were quite separate bodies. The clergy who only gave their flock a service once a fortnight, the clergy whose churches were falling to pieces through dirt and dampness and decay, the fashionable, card-playing clergy of the towns, the port-loving, fox-hunting squarsons of the villages were all Low Churchmen to a man, but some of them would have used very strong language, if they had been called Evangelicals. Indeed, the whole Evangelical movement had been a protest and a struggle against the Low Church system, and the Low Churchmen had been the bitterest opponents of the Evangelicals. But they had hated Popery even more than prayer-meetings, and they turned aside. from persecuting "the nasty and numerous vermin of Methodism" to exterminate "the pragmatical,

1April, 1836. "The Oxford Malignants.”

ATTITUDE OF EVANGELICALS

219

perpendicular, Puseyite prigs." The language is that of Sydney Smith, their chief spokesman in the Press.

It is necessary to make this clear, because Evangelicals have sometimes been held responsible for all that was said and done in opposition to the Oxford Movement. As a matter of fact, at this stage in the struggle they were not very prominent. They helped to meet Froude's reckless attack on the Reformers by erecting the beautiful Martyrs' Memorial (1841), and by forming the Parker Society (1840) to reprint the works of Ridley, Latimer, Cranmer, and others, which were then almost inaccessible. Lord Ashley became President, 7000 subscribers were enrolled, and fiftyfive handsome volumes made the writings of the Reformation Divines so familiar to students that it was no longer possible to score an easy point by assuming that they were coarse and ignorant fanatics.

Surplice

But for the next few years Evangelicals were chiefly engaged, not in attacking others, but in claiming liberty for themselves. Bishop Blomfield of London chose this most unfortunate time, when all the laity were alarmed at what seemed to troubles in them a Popish plot, for an attempt to London. level up the ritual of his diocese. Few men living had ever seen a surplice in the pulpit. For three hundred years it had been the almost universal rule to read prayers in a surplice, but to preach in a black gown. Men of all schools of thought had done it as a matter of course. Now, however, the Tractarians began to preach in surplices, and the

Bishop in his charge of 1842 pronounced that they were right. In the following year, as he met the clergy at his Confirmations, he began to press the matter upon them, together with the use of the Prayer for the Church Militant, even when there was no Communion. Many fell in with his wishes: but he and they had reckoned without the laity. At Ealing the whole congregation walked out of church as soon as the Vicar appeared in the pulpit in his surplice, and in dozens of the other parishes the same thing happened. The congregation of All Hallows, Barking, by the Tower, passed over in a body to St. Dunstan's-in-the-East, which, as a peculiar of the Archbishop of Canterbury, was outside the Bishop's jurisdiction. The agitation was at its height when the time for the Islington Confirmation came, and it fell to the lot of the incumbents of the eleven parishes, into which Daniel Wilson's had now been divided, to tell the Bishop that it was impossible to carry out his wishes. It was not that they objected to the surplice in itself— indeed, from one point of view the putting on of a special vestment for the sermon was an act of ritual. "There is nothing," said the Record,1 “intrinsically objectionable in the change." 'Many clergy," said the Christian Observer,2 "have lamented that custom forces them to retire to the vestry, while the praises of God are being sung, instead of proceeding with their fellow-worshippers in the service without break 1 November, 1842. 2 April, 1845.

[ocr errors]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »