‘Seeking  common  ground  between  Tractarians  and  Evangelicals’  The  Rev’d  Peter  Kane  

               

Peter  Kane  is  currently  Vicar  of  the  Parish  of  St  James,  Clacton-­‐on-­‐Sea,  in  the  Diocese  of  Chelmsford.  He  studied  Music  at  King’s  College  London  and  the  Royal  College  of  Music,  and  originally  trained  for  the  Methodist  ministry  at  Wesley  House  and  Fitzwilliam  College,  Cambridge.  He  served  for  three  years  as  a  Methodist  minister  before  transferring  to  the  Anglican  ministry.  After  spending  a  year  at  Wycliffe  Hall,  Oxford  (during  which  time  he  undertook  a  research-­‐based  course),  he  served  as  Assistant  Curate  at  St  Paul’s,  Chichester,  before  taking  up  his  present  post.    

   Much  of  the  secondary  literature  relating  to  the  Oxford  Movement  and  the  response  of  Evangelicals  to  it,  tends  to  focus  predominantly  on  the  negative  of  aspects  of  that  response.  This  is  understandable,  given  the  fact  that  various  prominent  Evangelical  figures  at  the  time  were  rather  vocal  in  their  criticism  of  what  they  saw  as  Roman  Catholic  tendencies  in  the  teaching  of  the  Tractarians  –  something  which  they  regarded,  in  turn,  as  a  serious  threat  to  the  Protestant  identity  of  the  Church  of  England.  However,  this  negative  reaction  masks  the  fact  that,  at  the  deepest  theological  level,  the  two  ‘parties’  actually  had  much  in  common.  The  following  paper  is  an  extract  from  my  recent  MA  thesis,  “‘Protestantism  versus  Popery?’  An  Examination  of  the  reaction  of  Evangelicals  to  the  Oxford  Movement”,  which  aims  to  explore  the  common  ground  between  the  Evangelicals  and  Tractarians.  

                         

2

In  light  of  the  intense  criticism  leveled  against  the  teachings  of  the  Oxford  Movement  by  prominent  Evangelical  figures,  it  would  appear,  on  first  inspection,  that  the  two  parties  had  little,  if  anything,  in  common.  However,  if  one  were  to  look  beyond  the  surface,  it  becomes  evident  that  there  is  rather  more  to  the  relationship  between  Evangelicals  and  Tractarians  than  these  writings  seem  to  suggest.  Indeed,  if  the  motivation  behind  the  negative  response  of  Evangelicals  towards  the  Tractarian  teaching  is  as  much  about  matters  of  politics  and  identity  as  it  is  about  serious  theological  engagement,  it  does  prompt  one  to  suspect  that  the  two  parties  actually  had  rather  more  in  common,  in  purely  theological  terms,  than  Evangelicals  were  prepared  to  admit  at  the  time.  The  polemical  nature  of  so  much  of  the  Evangelical  writings  against  the  Oxford  Movement  tends  to  mask  the  fact  that  the  basic  theological  principles  underlying  the  two  movements  are  virtually  identical.  To  begin  with,  as  Toon  has  pointed  out,  they  both  held  strongly  to  the  divine  inspiration  of  Scripture,  the  Catholic  doctrines  of  the  Holy  Trinity  and  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  the  pursuit  of  holiness  (both  in  the  visible  Church  and  in  the  individual  life  of  the  believer),  the  hope  of  the  Second  Coming  of  Christ,  and  the  Resurrection  of  the  Dead  and  everlasting  life.    Furthermore,  during  the  earlier  part  of  the  19th  century,  there  were  two  particular  areas  of  concern  which  united  Tractarians  and  Evangelicals,  namely  the  quest  for  holiness  and  opposition  to  theological  liberalism.        Common  areas  of  concern  underlying  the  Oxford  and  Evangelical  Movements  A  profound  emphasis  upon  the  need  for  the  believer  to  live  a  life  of  holiness  was  a  fundamental  feature  of  Evangelicalism,  and  it  was  to  become  a  key  motivating  factor  behind  the  emergence  of  the  Oxford  Movement,  too.      John  and  Charles  Wesley,  key  figures  in  the  Evangelical  Revival  of  the  18th  century,  laid  a  great  emphasis  upon  the  life  of  holiness.  A  century  before  the  emergence  of  Tractarianism,  the  ‘Holy  Club’  in  Oxford,  which  came  under  the  leadership  of  John  Wesley  from  1729,  aimed  to  nurture  the  spiritual  life  of  young  men  through  guided  reading,  spiritual  exercises  and  good  works.  The  group  drew  upon  the  work  of  esteemed  devotional  writers,  both  ancient  and  modern,  and  central  to  it  all  was  the  pursuit  of  holiness.      A  century  later,  the  pursuit  of  the  godly  life  became  a  key  impetus  behind  the  teachings  of  the  Oxford  Movement.  In  his  sermon,  ‘Holiness  Necessary  for  Future  Blessedness’,  Newman  declares  that  “None  but  the  holy  can  look  upon  the  Holy  One;  without  holiness  no  man  can  endure  to  see  the  Lord”,  and  he  goes  on  to  state  that  “holiness,  or  separation  from  the  world,  is  necessary  to  our  admission  into  heaven.”  Moreover,  Newman  asserts  that  the  gift  of  holiness  is  the  work  of  a  lifetime,  and  he  even  declares  that  the  believer  should  be  “content  with  nothing  short  of  perfection.”  In  fact,  the  latter  is  reminiscent  of  John  Wesley’s  sermon  on  ‘Christian  Perfection’;  like  Newman,  Wesley  viewed  Christian  perfection  as  an  attainable  ideal.  Indeed,  in  Newman’s  later  reflections  upon  the  development  of  the  Oxford  Movement  in  his  Apologia,  it  is  clear  that  holiness  was  a  matter  of  central  importance  –  “…Holiness  as  the  true  test  of  a  Church  was  steadily  kept  in  view  in  what  I  wrote  in  connexion  with  Tract  90.”      

3

As  Hylson-­‐Smith  points  out,  both  Evangelicals  and  Tractarians  were  strongly  opposed  to  the  contemporary  forces  of  rationalism,  liberalism  and  utilitarianism,  and  they  shared  a  common  emphasis  upon  the  life  of  holiness,  dogma,  the  supreme  authority  of  Scripture,  the  need  for  a  personal  faith,  and  a  life  marked  by  dedication  and  service.  Alongside  this,  there  was  a  common  agreement  between  Tractarians  and  Evangelicals  that  the  social,  political  and  ecclesiastical  reforms  occurring  at  the  time  could  be  seen  as  an  attack  on  the  Church.  As  Newsome  has  observed,  the  common  fear  of  rationalism  and  latitudinarianism  amongst  Evangelicals  and  Tractarians  is  reflected  in  the  devotional  writings  of  leading  members  of  both  parties.  The  sense  of  impending  catastrophe  is  evident,  for  instance,  in  Newman’s  1833  hymn,  ‘Lead,  kindly  light,  amid  the  encircling  gloom’,  and  in  the  phrase  of  the  Evangelical  H.F.  Lyte’s  hymn,  ‘Abide  with  me’  -­‐  ‘Change  and  decay  in  all  around  I  see,  /  O  Thou  who  changest  not,  /  abide  with  me.’    Instances  of  Tractarians  and  Evangelicals  coming  together  in  a  common  cause  The  common  opposition  of  Evangelicals  and  the  leaders  of  the  Oxford  Movement  to  theological  liberalism  is  demonstrated,  in  practical  terms,  by  the  way  in  which  they  were  united  in  their  outrage  at  the  appointment  of  R.D.  Hampden  as  the  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity  at  Oxford  in  1836.  Both  parties  strongly  objected  to  Hampden’s  view  that  some  formularies  of  the  Church  of  England  merely  reflected  an  interpretation  of  Scripture  in  a  certain  age,  as  well  as  the  way  in  which  he  advocated  the  abolition  of  the  requirement  that  all  those  who  wished  to  be  members  of  Oxford  University  should  consent  to  the  Thirty-­‐Nine  Articles.  Indeed,  a  letter  in  the  Evangelical  publication,  the  Record  (dated  24th  March  1836),  expressing  concern  about  the  proposed  appointment  of  Hampden,  even  quotes  from  Pusey’s  Propositions  maintained  in  Dr  Hampden’s  Works.      Another  indication  of  the  common  concern  of  Evangelicals  and  Tractarians  about  developments  in  the  Church  of  England  at  the  time  can  be  seen  in  a  series  of  letters  written  by  Newman  (signed,  ‘A  Churchman’)  to  the  Record  between  28th  October  and  14th  November  1833.  The  subject  of  his  letters  is  that  of  sound  discipline  within  the  Church,  and  in  particular,  he  proposes  a  revival  of  the  practice  of  excommunication.  Concern  about  matters  of  discipline  had  been  the  cause  of  many  recent  secessions  of  Evangelical  ministers  from  the  Church  of  England,  thus,  as  Altholz  suggests,  it  was  “a  theme  which  might  appeal  to  moralistic  Evangelicals  while  drawing  them  to  acknowledge  the  authority  of  bishops,  who  had  the  power  to  excommunicate.”      In  the  first  of  his  letters  (dated  24th  October),  Newman  raises  the  question  of  a  revival  of  Church  discipline,  and  he  interprets  what  he  regards  as  the  troubles  facing  the  Church  and  nation  at  the  time  in  terms  of  God’s  judgement  upon  the  national  Church.  In  his  second  letter  (dated  31st  October),  he  gives  Scriptural  proofs  “of  the  duty  of  both  separating  from  notorious  sinners  and  reviving  ecclesiastical  excommunication.”  In  the  third  letter  (dated  7th  November),  Newman  asserts  that  churchmen  are  guilty  of  neglecting  the  duty  of  discipline  within  the  Church.  Newman’s  fourth  letter  (dated  11th  November)  seeks  to  defend  the  practice  of  formal  excommunication  by  the  Church.  Meanwhile,  his  fifth  letter  (dated  14th  November)  appeals  to  the  revulsion  of  Evangelicals  towards  ‘popery’.  Newman  argues  that  

4

the  growth  in  Roman  Catholicism  in  England  at  the  time  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  enforced  doctrine  and  discipline  with  authority,  whereas  Protestants  failed  to  make  use  of  the  authority  implicit  in  the  Church  of  England.  Alongside  this,  Newman  calls  for  the  appointment  of  a  “more  spiritual  class  of  bishops.”      It  is  apparent  that  Newman  is  advocating  here  a  particularly  high  doctrine  of  the  Church,  one  which  would  perhaps  have  been  quite  novel  in  an  Evangelical  publication.  Nonetheless,  two  letters  published  in  the  Record  of  12th  December  in  response  to  Newman  were  quite  favourable  in  tone;  one  of  them  agreed  that  the  succession  of  bishops  was  a  matter  of  history,  while  the  author  of  the  other  letter  claims  that  he  had  been  strengthened  spiritually  by  the  views  set  out  in  the  Tracts  which  had  been  published  up  until  then.      Even  though,  ultimately,  Newman’s  attempt  to  reach  out  to  Evangelicals  through  his  letters  to  the  Record  was  not  particularly  successful,  it  nevertheless  illustrates  the  fact  that  one  of  the  key  concerns  which  served  as  an  impetus  for  the  publication  of  the  Tracts  for  the  Times  was  one  which  the  Tractarians  held  in  common  with  Evangelicals.  It  might  seem  that  the  subject  Newman  chose  to  expound  in  his  letters  was  a  rather  specific  one,  but  at  the  heart  of  his  proposed  revival  of  Church  discipline  was  a  concern  for  upholding  orthodox  Christian  teaching  in  the  face  of  liberal  tendencies  in  the  Church.  Anti-­‐liberalism  united  all  conservative  Christians,  whether  they  be  Evangelicals  or  Tractarians.  Indeed,  whilst  the  primary  theme  of  Newman’s  letters  to  the  Record  was  that  of  church  discipline,  at  the  same  time,  it  seems  that  he  was  ultimately  seeking  co-­‐operation  with  Evangelicals  on  an  even  wider  range  of  issues,  including  the  rejection  of  liberalism,  reverence  for  Scripture,  and  the  need  to  uphold  doctrinal  orthodoxy.    One  further  notable  instance  which  involved  some  collaboration  between  Tractarians  and  Evangelicals  was  the  publication  of  a  ‘Library  of  the  Fathers’,  a  project  first  proposed  in  1836.  In  particular,  the  prominent  moderate  Evangelical,  Edward  Bickersteth,  lent  his  support  to  this,  and  it  was  he  who  even  encouraged  Pusey  to  write  an  introductory  address  refuting  those  of  an  ‘ultra-­‐Protestant’  tendency  in  the  18th  century  who  had  been  disparaging  towards  the  patristic  testimony.  Such  was  the  significance  of  this  Evangelical  interest  in  the  ‘Library  of  the  Fathers’,  that  Nockles  has  remarked  that  “Here  was  a  consensus  on  which  the  Tractarians  could  have  built.  They  chose  not  to.  They  had  their  own  agenda.”      It  was,  of  course,  the  case  that  the  reason  behind  the  interest  shown  by  Evangelicals  in  the  writings  of  the  Church  Fathers  was  quite  different  from  that  of  the  Tractarians.  For  the  former,  Scripture  was  the  ultimate  rule  of  faith;  the  writings  of  the  Church  Fathers  might  be  seen  as  an  aid  to  interpreting  the  Bible,  but  this  did  not  usurp  the  place  of  private  judgement  in  interpreting  Scripture.  Moreover,  Evangelicals  would  have  regarded  the  writings  of  the  Protestant  Reformers  as  an  equally  important  resource  for  biblical  interpretation.  By  contrast,  the  Tractarians  sought  to  create  a  ‘Library  of  the  Fathers’  as  they  regarded  the  writings  of  the  Church  Fathers  as  indispensable  to  a  correct  understanding  of  the  Scriptures;  furthermore,  they  sought  to  appeal  directly  to  the  Fathers,  bypassing  the  

5

Reformation  in  the  process.  Nevertheless,  despite  these  different  intentions,  the  fact  remains  that  there  was  some  collaboration  between  the  two  parties  in  this  project,  which,  in  turn,  points  to  a  degree  of  shared  appreciation  of  the  value  of  Antiquity.    The  three  different  cases  outlined  above  serve  to  demonstrate  the  fact  that  there  was  some  acknowledgement  amongst  Evangelicals  and  Tractarians  that  the  need  to  uphold  doctrinal  orthodoxy  in  the  Church  was  of  common  concern  to  both  groups.  However,  the  direction  in  which  the  teachings  of  the  Oxford  Movement  developed  was  such  that  any  sense  of  a  common  purpose  between  the  two  parties  was  soon  forgotten.  Had  the  teachings  of  the  Tractarians  remained  in  a  distinctly  Protestant  framework,  there  may  well  have  been  further  opportunities  for  them  to  work  collaboratively  with  Evangelicals  in  pursuit  of  a  common  cause.      Evangelical  tendencies  towards  Sacramentalism  Sacramentalism  lay  at  the  heart  of  the  Tractarian  approach  to  faith.  This  high  sacramental  outlook  often  brought  them  into  conflict  with  Evangelicals,  who  detected  in  the  writings  of  the  Tractarians  a  certain  inclination  towards  Roman  Catholic  doctrine.  The  response  of  Evangelicals  to  the  sacramentalism  of  the  Oxford  Movement  therefore  tended  to  focus  on  this  particular  concern.  However,  the  polemical  style  of  the  Evangelical  writers  masks  the  fact  that  prior  to  the  Oxford  Movement,  many  prominent  Evangelical  leaders  themselves  had  certain  leanings  towards  a  more  sacramental  approach.      A  key  element  of  the  spiritual  discipline  of  members  of  Wesley’s  ‘Holy  Club’,  for  instance,  was  that  they  received  Holy  Communion  on  a  weekly  basis.  Indeed,  Cocksworth  has  demonstrated  that  John  Wesley  actually  held  a  high  view  of  the  Eucharist,  his  sacramental  views  being  largely  an  outworking  of  his  teaching  on  the  presentation  of  the  gospel  and  the  call  to  holiness.  For  Wesley,  the  Eucharist  was  a  means  of  grace.  Whilst  he  maintained  that  there  was  a  need  for  faith  on  the  part  of  the  recipient  (thus  rejecting  an  ex  opera  operato  understanding),  he  nonetheless  believed  in  an  objective  consecration  of  the  elements,  the  Holy  Spirit  being  the  agent  of  consecration.  Moreover,  Wesley  went  as  far  as  to  propose  that  the  Eucharist  is  a  ‘converting  ordinance’,  in  that  the  Eucharistic  elements  may  “create,  or  at  least  facilitate,  faith  and  then  convey  the  Gospel’s  gift  to  faith.”  Like  Wesley,  Charles  Simeon  also  maintained  an  openness  to  the  possibility  of  conversion  taking  place  through  the  Eucharist.  As  he  put  it,  “Christ  sometimes  reveals  himself  in  the  breaking  of  bread,  to  those  who  had  not  so  fully  discovered  him  in  the  ministration  of  the  word.”    In  fact,  Wesley  and  Simeon  were  far  from  alone  amongst  Evangelicals  in  their  strong  sacramental  emphasis.  As  Russell  puts  it,  in  the  18th  century  the  Evangelical  movement  actually  embraced  many  who  “preached  Christ  crucified,  while  they  maintained  the  old  theology  concerning  the  Church,  the  ministry,  and  the  Sacraments.”  Even  more  significantly,  there  were  those  who  were  to  become  leading  Evangelical  critics  of  Tractarianism  who,  in  their  earlier  writings  and  practices,  demonstrated  a  clear  inclination  towards  a  sacramental  outlook.  For  instance,  in  his  earlier  writings,  Daniel  Wilson  (as  Russell  puts  it)  “had  used  language  about  the  font,  the  altar,  and  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice,  which,  after  the  Tracts  had  

6

alarmed  the  Evangelicals,  would  have  been  stigmatized  as  rank  Popery.”  Indeed,  his  own  conversion  experience  had  been  closely  connected  with  the  Eucharist.  Similarly,  Edward  Bickersteth,  in  his  Treatise  on  the  Lord’s  Supper  (1822),  states:    

The  Lord’s  Supper  was  designed  to  represent,  commemorate,  and  show  forth  the  Lord’s  Death  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin.  This  is  done  as  a  prevailing  mode  of  pleading  His  merits  before  God…..we  plead  the  virtues  and  merits  of  the  same  Sacrifice  here  which  our  great  High  Priest  is  continually  urging  for  us  in  Heaven.  

 Whilst  Bickersteth  is  certainly  not  advocating  anything  resembling  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  the  language  he  uses  does  suggest  vague  echoes  of  it.  And  once  again,  Bickersteth  himself  claimed  that  his  own  ‘spiritual  faculties’  had  been  first  awakened  during  a  service  of  Holy  Communion.      According  to  Bebbington,  such  a  revival  of  interest  in  the  Sacraments  amongst  certain  Evangelicals  was  a  consequence  of  a  stronger  sense  of  churchmanship  which  emerged  amongst  Evangelicals  around  1830.  The  move  towards  a  higher  view  of  the  Church  was  largely  aimed  at  counteracting  tendencies  towards  individualism.  Indeed,  alongside  the  renewed  emphasis  on  the  Eucharist,  a  higher  view  of  the  effects  of  Baptism  was  adopted  by  many  Evangelicals.  Bebbington  even  goes  as  far  as  to  suggest  that:    

[These]  radical  Evangelicals  were  not  just  similar  to  the  Tractarians  but  were  actually  an  earlier  phase  of  the  same  movement  that  in  the  1830s  proliferated  into  many  strands  –  including.....Tractarianism.  

 According  to  Newsome,  those  who  subscribed  to  the  Evangelical  publication,  the  Christian  Observer,  were  particularly  inclined  towards  an  insistence  on  church  order,  and  by  the  1820s,  “they  seem[ed]  to  use  the  language  of  the  High  Churchmen.”  Such  ‘radical  Evangelicals’  included  Newman  and  others  who  were  to  become  leading  members  of  the  Oxford  Movement.    Although  pre-­‐Tractarian  Evangelicals  did  not  attempt  to  define  their  thinking  on  the  Eucharist  in  a  systematic  way,  they  certainly  related  it  to  Christ’s  sacrifice,  to  the  believer’s  faith  and  to  Christ’s  presence.  As  Cocksworth  observes,  for  them  the  Eucharist  was  not  simply  a  past  event  “but…an  eternally  effective  one  which  is  powerfully  present  –  to  the  eye  of  faith  –  in  the  dynamic  symbolism  of  the  sacramental  event…..”        Therefore,  what  we  witness  prior  to  the  Tractarian  era  is  a  highly  positive  and  creative  approach  to  Eucharistic  thinking  amongst  many  prominent  Evangelicals.  Moreover,  there  is  little,  if  any  polemic  in  their  writings  on  the  Eucharist.  Indeed,  as  Cocksworth  has  pointed  out,  the  various  sacramental  manuals  and  sermons  on  the  Lord’s  Supper  written  by  Evangelicals  at  this  time  were  not  concerned  with  condemning  Roman  Catholic  Eucharistic  doctrine.  Rather,  any  warnings  they  contained  focused  more  on  the  danger  of  mere  formality  in  Eucharistic  practice.  However,  the  attitude  of  Evangelicals  towards  the  Eucharist  

7

started  to  change  when  the  Tractarians  increasingly  began  to  emphasise  the  objectivity  of  sacramental  grace  and  the  mediation  of  the  priest  in  the  process.      There  is  evidence  to  suggest,  though,  that  after  all  the  furore  surrounding  the  Tracts  had  abated,  a  renewed  interest  in  a  more  sacramental  approach  (along  with  a  higher  view  of  the  visible  Church)  occurred  amongst  Evangelicals  in  the  later  part  of  the  19th  century  and  beyond.  The  prominent  Evangelical  leader,  Edward  Garbett,  even  suggested  in  1871  that  the  High  Church  and  Evangelical  parties  should  combine,  asserting  that  (as  Bebbington  puts  it)  “Evangelicals  had  neglected  the  doctrine  of  the  church  ‘as  a  visible  organised  society’…and  the  Tracts  for  the  Times  had  done  some  good.”  The  result  of  this  was  a  copying  of  High  Church  practice,  where  it  seemed  not  to  involve  any  sacrifice  of  principle  on  their  part.  Indeed,  by  the  beginning  of  the  20th  century,  a  new  Evangelical  party  was  forming  which  sought  to  put  an  end  to  the  assumption  that  Evangelical  theology  and  low  church  practice  necessarily  went  together,  and  they  even  began  to  freely  use  terms  such  as  ‘altar’,  ‘Eucharist’  and  ‘Catholic’.  It  is  what  Brilioth  calls  “the  renaissance  of  sacramental  religion…here  seen  bearing  fruit  in  the  evangelical  party…”  This  sacramental  emphasis  was  eventually  to  culminate  in  the  pronouncement  (though  not  without  some  controversy)  at  the  Keele  Evangelical  Anglican  Congress  of  1967  that  Evangelicals  would  “work  towards  weekly  communion  as  the  central  corporate  service  of  the  church.”    In  briefly  surveying  some  of  the  evidence  for  a  sacramental  approach  amongst  Evangelicals  both  before  and  after  the  controversies  surrounding  the  Tracts  for  the  Times,  I  am  not  suggesting  that  what  the  various  prominent  Evangelical  figures  were  advocating  in  regard  to  the  Eucharist  was  in  any  way  akin  to  what  the  Tractarians  were  teaching  on  this  matter.  Rather,  my  point  is  that  there  was,  and  continues  to  be,  a  strong  sacramental  tradition  within  Anglican  Evangelicalism.  It  was  a  tradition  that  often  came  across  as  advocating  a  high  view  of  the  efficacy  of  the  Eucharist  in  the  life  of  the  believer  and  which,  as  was  the  case  with  the  Tractarians,  made  a  direct  link  between  the  Eucharist  and  the  pursuit  of  holiness.  Indeed,  it  seems  that  the  response  of  prominent  Evangelicals  to  the  Tractarians  on  the  matter  of  Eucharistic  doctrine  was  something  of  a  ‘low  point’  in  Evangelical  Eucharistic  thought.  The  writings  of  such  Evangelical  figures  as  Goode,  Lee  and  Maguire,  and  the  Evangelical  reaction  to  the  Denison  affair  tend  to  come  across  as  negative  and  defensive.  As  Cocksworth  puts  it,  they  largely  comprise  a  traditional  restatement  of  Reformed  doctrine,  an  attempt  to  set  limits  on  the  parameters  of  Eucharistic  experience,  and  a  tendency  towards  reinforcing  non-­‐sacramental  spirituality  along  with  a  focus  on  the  word.  The  Evangelical  response  to  Tractarian  Eucharistic  theology  tends  to  mask  the  fact  that,  despite  their  quite  different  perspectives  on  the  matter,  there  was  a  long  tradition  of  sacramentalism  amongst  Evangelicals  (together  with  a  higher  view  of  the  visible  Church),  something  which  represents  a  deep  area  of  common  ground  between  the  two  parties.    Interest  shown  by  Evangelicals  in  the  earlier  Tracts  There  is  evidence  to  suggest  that  when  the  earlier  numbers  of  the  Tracts  for  the  Times  were  published,  some  Evangelicals  did  show  a  degree  of  positive  interest  in  them,  and  in  particular,  their  seemingly  spiritual  character.  Charles  Sumner,  the  Evangelical  Bishop  of  

8

Winchester,  for  instance,  was  said  by  Henry  Wilberforce  to  have  approved  of  the  first  few  Tracts.  As  late  as  October  1835,  Sumner  had  a  positive  encounter  with  Newman  at  Wilberforce’s  home,  though  Sumner  was  later  to  change  his  mind  about  Tractarianism.      Particularly  revealing,  in  terms  of  Evangelical  interest  in  the  earlier  Tracts,  are  some  letters  written  by  a  Mrs  Anne  Tyndale  to  her  friend,  Pusey.  Mrs  Tyndale  was  the  wife  of  the  Evangelical  incumbent  of  Holton,  and  she  and  her  husband  regularly  visited  John  Hill  at  St  Edmund  Hall  in  Oxford,  where  Hill’s  rooms  had  become  something  of  a  meeting  place  for  Evangelicals.  As  Toon  puts  it,  the  letters  illustrate  the  response  of  “one  intelligent  lady,  who  was  no  stranger  to  Evangelical  theology…to  the  teaching  of  the  Tracts”,  copies  of  which  Pusey  himself  had  sent  her.      The  letters  reflect  a  thoughtful  and  often  appreciative  reading  of  some  of  the  earlier  Tracts,  though  at  the  same  time,  Mrs  Tyndale  is  quite  open  about  certain  misgivings  she  has  about  some  of  the  views  expressed.  In  a  letter  dated  11th  November  1833,  she  begins  by  acknowledging  the  division  of  the  Church  of  England  into  Evangelical  and  High  Church  parties,  but  at  the  same  time  recognizes  “in  each,  the  love  of  Christ  the  constraining  principle.”  In  an  allusion  to  the  content  of  Tract  8  (‘The  Gospel  a  Law  of  Liberty’),  she  touches  on  the  subject  of  the  Apostolic  Succession.  Although  she  herself  expresses  some  personal  doubts  about  the  doctrine,  she  nonetheless  demonstrates  a  certain  openness  to  the  Tractarian  point  of  view  –  “If  I  could  quite  enter  into  the  opinion  with  regards  to  the  apostolical  succession,  I  shall  like  to  have  hundreds  of  that  paper  on  Gospel  liberty  to  circulate…”  Meanwhile,  in  regard  to  Tract  3  (‘Thoughts  on  Alterations  in  the  Liturgy’),  Mrs  Tyndale  expresses  a  willingness  to  circulate  copies  of  this  Tract  –  “as  many  as  you  will  commit  to  me.”  On  the  specific  proposal  in  the  Tract  for  more  frequent  Communion,  Mrs  Tyndale  cautions  that  this  should  be  done  “without  running  the  risk  of  its  being  done  formally”;  her  main  concern  is  that  believers  should  “receive  the  Communion  profitably.”  It  is  interesting  to  note  here  that  she  is  not  at  all  opposed  to  frequent  Holy  Communion  in  principle.  Rather  her  concern  is  the  same  as  that  of  pre-­‐Tractarian  Evangelicals,  namely  that  it  should  not  become  a  mere  formality.  In  fact,  her  views  actually  reflect  a  deep  reverence  for  the  Sacrament  on  her  part.      In  a  letter  of  20th  November  1833,  Mrs  Tyndale  raises  with  Pusey  the  issues  of  regeneration  and  Baptism.  She  affirms  her  belief  in  the  appropriateness  of  bringing  infants  for  Baptism.  At  the  same  time,  however,  she  expresses  caution  about  the  use  of  the  word  ‘regeneration’;  she  mentions  she  would  be  open  to  clarification  from  Pusey  as  to  what  precisely  he  meant  by  the  term  in  regard  to  infant  Baptism.  Furthermore,  in  regard  to  Tract  5  (‘A  Short  address  to  his  brethren  on  the  nature  and  constitution  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  by  a  Layman’),  Mrs  Tyndale  suggests  that  “upon  a  first  reading  [the  Tract]  would  perhaps  be  better  understood  by  a  Catholic  than  a  Protestant”,  and  she  expresses  some  misgivings  about  the  author’s  high  view  of  the  role  of  the  ordained.  Nevertheless,  after  all  of  this,  she  implicitly  acknowledges  that  Evangelicals  and  the  writers  of  the  Tracts  were  united  in  the  same  basic  vision:    

 

9

May  God  give  his  blessings  to  your  efforts  and  those  of  your  friends  and  to  all  who  are  anxious  that  Christ  should  be  glorified  in  his  Church  that  it  may  deserve  to  be  addressed  as  Ignatius  addresses  it  as  a  truly  beautiful  Church,  when  once  the  stones  really  become  living  stones  then  will  no  one  dispute  its  claim  to  the  encouraging  promise.  

 In  a  letter  dated  29th  January  1834,  Mrs  Tyndale  focuses  on  the  nature  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  particularly  on  the  way  in  which  the  doctrine  is  usually  divided  into  four  parts  –  Celestial,  Ecclesiastical,  political  and  spiritual.  She  suggests  that  High  Churchmen  are  most  anxious  to  support  the  Ecclesiastical  kingdom,  whereas  the  spiritual  kingdom  is  “that  to  which  the  attention  of  the  Evangelical  is  chiefly  directed…”  She  therefore  cites  the  only  cause  of  division  between  the  two  parties  on  this  issue  as  being  “perhaps  that  each  takes  a  part  instead  of  the  whole.”  Mrs  Tyndale  sees  the  Tractarians  as  seeking  to  place  an  equal  emphasis  on  both  the  Ecclesiastical  and  spiritual  aspects  of  the  Kingdom  –  they  are  “anxious  to  take  both  and  in  proportion[;]  as  they  do  this  I  expect  to  see  the  Evangelical  party  flock  in  to  them.”      Finally,  in  a  letter  of  6th  September  1835,  Mrs  Tyndale  expresses  her  appreciation  for  the  latest  Tract  which  Pusey  had  sent  her,  namely  his  own  Tract  67  (‘Scriptural  Views  of  Holy  Baptism’).  She  describes  “The  salutary  solemnity  and  deep  religious  tenor  –  once  which  it  is  calculated  to  diffuse  over  the  mind,  I  deeply  feel.”  She  expresses  admiration  for  Pusey’s  ability  to  discern  spiritual  things  and  “the  sweet  spirit  of  Christian  love  in  which  it  is  written…”  Furthermore,  Mrs  Tyndale  once  again  recognizes  that  the  basic  motivations  behind  the  writing  of  the  Tracts  are  shared  by  Evangelicals  too:    

One  thing  I  clearly  see  and  bless  God  for,  that  he  has  given  you  that  spiritual  vision  and  that  spiritual  taste  whereby  you  are  enabled  to  see  Christ’s  wonderful  workings…  

 The  overall  impression  given  in  Mrs  Tyndale’s  letters  is  of  an  Evangelical  genuinely  attempting  to  understand  and  to  engage  with  the  Tractarian  perspective  on  various  issues.  It  has  to  be  admitted  that  the  Tracts  to  which  she  was  responding  were  perhaps  not  as  controversial  as  some  of  the  later  writings  of  the  Oxford  Movement  which  were  to  move  in  a  more  explicitly  ‘Romeward’  direction.  Nevertheless,  the  letters  do  touch  on  some  issues  which  were  soon  to  become  points  of  controversy  between  Evangelicals  and  Tractarians.  In  contrast  to  the  later  Evangelical  writings,  the  tone  here  is  noticeably  non-­‐polemical.  Indeed,  although  not  a  prominent  Evangelical  herself,  the  content  of  Mrs  Tyndale’s  letters  might  perhaps  be  representative  of  the  views  of  many  Evangelicals  at  the  time  who  were  nonetheless  somewhat  reluctant  to  be  seen  to  demonstrate  an  openness  to  the  Tracts  in  the  same  way  that  she  had  done.            

10

 To  what  extent  is  Tractarianism  a  development  of  Evangelicalism?  Having  considered  some  of  the  profound  links  between  the  Evangelical  and  Tractarian  parties,  one  could  go  further  by  asking  whether  Tractarianism  is,  in  some  ways,  actually  a  natural  development  of  Evangelicalism.  A  helpful  line  of  inquiry,  in  this  regard,  is  to  consider  some  of  the  reasons  as  to  why  certain  prominent  Evangelical  churchmen  made  the  journey  towards  Tractarianism,  and  some  even  to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  Was  the  transition  from  Evangelicalism  to  Catholicism,  for  them,  as  radical  as  it  might  at  first  appear?      One  practical  reason  for  their  move  was  the  lack  of  effective  leadership  within  the  Evangelical  party.  Whilst  they  were  still  a  powerful  and  influential  group  in  the  Church  of  England  in  the  1810s  and  1820s,  they  had,  nonetheless,  lost  their  greatest  leaders  and  there  were  no  successors  to  them  just  at  a  crucial  time  when  the  problems  within  the  Church  were  at  a  peak.  As  Kings  has  remarked,  “evangelicalism  faced  the  rise  of  the  Oxford  Movement  without  moderate,  wise  and  strategic  leaders  who  could  combine  rigour  without  rancor.”  In  such  a  context,  “any  party  which  championed  the  cause  of  the  Church  against  secular  interference  and  adopted  the  appropriate  militant  tone  would  be  likely  to  attract  large  numbers…”  If  the  Evangelical  party  failed  to  raise  up  effective  leaders  in  this  regard,  then  there  would  inevitably  be  an  exodus  of  its  members  to  other  groups  where  such  leadership  was  evident.      The  deeper  theological  issues  underlying  the  change  of  allegiance  of  some  prominent  Evangelicals  mirror  some  of  the  broader  areas  of  common  ground  between  Evangelicals  and  Tractarians,  outlined  above.  Thus  these  individuals  shared  with  Tractarians  a  common  concern  about  the  advance  of  materialism,  liberalism,  and  state  interference  in  the  Church’s  affairs.  Moreover,  Evangelicals  were  attracted  by  the  emphasis  of  the  Tractarians  on  the  pursuit  of  holiness,  expressing,  for  instance,  an  admiration  for  Keble’s  religious  poetry  and  Newman’s  sermons.  Indeed,  some  Evangelicals  were  so  inspired  by  a  new  understanding  of  holiness  which  they  gained  from  study  of  the  early  Church,  that  they  even  went  as  far  as  to  look  for  the  realization  of  the  ideal  in  a  place  they  would  have  previously  regarded  as  forbidden,  namely  Roman  Catholic  teaching  –  “…some,  in  despair,  came  to  believe  that  the  Roman  Church  alone  possessed  the  true  marks  of  sanctity  and  the  effective  authority  to  withstand  the  progress  of  secularism.”      Furthermore,  as  outlined  earlier,  sacramentalism  was  far  from  an  alien  concept  to  Evangelicals.  As  Newsome  again  puts  it,  Evangelicals  were  actually  “pioneers  in  recalling  Christians  to  the  importance  of  the  sacraments  and  in  encouraging  the  practice  of  frequent  communion.”  Therefore,  in  light  of  the  considerable  sacramental  tradition  amongst  Evangelicals  prior  to  the  Oxford  Movement,  the  move  from  Evangelical  to  Tractarian  would  not  necessarily  have  seemed  so  radical  to  them  as  we  might  at  first  suppose.  As  Bebbington  has  remarked:    

   

11

…the  sons  of  William  Wilberforce,  with  Henry  Manning,  found  the  transition  from  Evangelicalism  to  a  much  higher  churchmanship  a  natural  evolution.  Later,  when  the  battle  lines  were  drawn  between  Evangelical  and  Anglo-­‐Catholic,  the  affinity  was  forgotten,  but  at  the  time  it  was  substantial.  

 It  appears  that  underlying  the  transition  of  certain  prominent  Evangelicals  to  Tractarianism  is  a  certain  fluidity  in  their  understanding  of  religious  identity.  Whereas  the  Evangelical  critics  of  the  Oxford  Movement  were  deeply  concerned  about  retaining  their  distinctive  Protestant  and  Evangelical  identity,  individuals  such  as  Robert,  Samuel  and  Henry  Wilberforce  and  Henry  Manning  were  ultimately  willing  to  set  aside  their  Evangelical  (and  even  Protestant)  identity  in  the  cause  of  truth  and  holiness.  In  the  midst  of  the  present  crisis  in  the  Church  of  England,  if  it  was  in  Tractarianism  (or  even  Roman  Catholicism)  where  doctrinal  orthodoxy  was  most  clearly  seen  to  be  upheld  and  where  the  commitment  to  the  pursuit  of  holiness  was  greatest,  then  they  were  willing  to  sacrifice  their  previous  allegiances  in  favour  of  these.  For  these  individuals,  therefore,  Tractarianism  would  have  been  seen  as  a  development  of  Evangelicalism.      Taking  the  matter  one  step  further,  the  question  could  be  gainfully  asked  as  to  whether  Tractarianism  is  actually  to  be  regarded  as  a  successor  to  Evangelicalism.  It  is  a  view  which  had  originally  been  expressed  by  William  Gladstone  when  he  suggested  that  the  leaders  of  the  Oxford  Movement  would  not  have  been  aware  as  “to  how  large  an  extent  they  were  to  be  pupils  and  continuators  of  the  Evangelical  work,  besides  being  something  else.”  As  we  have  already  observed,  there  were  many  profound  theological  perspectives  which  the  two  parties  held  in  common.  At  the  same  time,  though,  there  were  many  Evangelical  distinctives  which  were  not  shared  by  the  Tractarians,  including  the  sole  authority  of  Scripture  as  the  word  of  God,  justification  by  faith  alone  and  an  emphasis  on  the  preaching  of  the  Atonement.  Moreover,  the  Tractarians  held  to  views  about  the  nature  of  the  Church  and  of  ordained  ministry  which  could  not  be  subscribed  to  by  Evangelicals.  This  dichotomy  has  led  Toon,  for  instance,  to  suggest  that  Tractarianism  could  not  be  seen  as  a  continuation  or  fulfillment  of  the  Evangelical  movement;  he  argues  that  the  change  from  Evangelical  to  Tractarian  required  a  fundamental  change  in  one’s  doctrines  of  salvation  and  ecclesiology.          On  the  other  hand,  however,  for  certain  individuals  who  made  the  transition  from  Evangelicalism  to  Tractarianism,  they  would  have  probably  felt,  from  their  personal  perspective,  that  the  latter  was  indeed  a  natural  successor  to  the  former.  This  is  a  view  clearly  expressed  by  Robert  Wilberforce  in  his  Charge  to  the  Clergy  of  East  Riding  (1851),  where  he  asserts:      

…that  these  movements,  though  distinct,  were  not  repugnant.  On  the  contrary,  persons  who  had  been  most  influenced  by  the  one,  often  entered  most  readily  into  the  other…So  then  the  second  movement  was  a  sort  of  consequence  of  the  first.    

     

12

In  the  end,  it  is  not  possible  to  demonstrate  conclusively  that  the  Oxford  Movement  is  a  successor  to  Evangelicalism.  However,  those  individuals  who  made  the  move  from  Evangelical  to  Tractarian  no  doubt  regarded  this  to  be  the  case.    On  the  whole,  therefore,  there  was  a  great  deal  more  common  ground  between  Evangelicals  and  Tractarians  than  the  former  were  often  prepared  to  admit.  Due  to  their  profound  adherence  to  their  Protestant  identity,  Evangelicals  tended  to  be  very  reluctant  to  acknowledge  these  considerable  areas  of  agreement  between  the  two  parties  openly.  Instead,  they  opted  to  focus  on  their  differences,  and  especially  what  they  regarded  as  an  increasing  inclination  towards  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  in  the  Tractarians’  teaching.  Had  the  Evangelicals  sought  to  engage  in  dialogue  with  the  Tractarians  (rather  than  reacting  to  their  teachings  in  a  somewhat  defensive  manner),  they  would  no  doubt  have  discovered  that  there  was  actually  much  common  ground  which  they  could  build  upon.  At  the  same  time,  though,  had  the  Tractarians,  on  their  part,  chosen  not  to  move  in  such  a  seemingly  ‘Romeward’  direction,  it  might  have  made  it  a  lot  easier  for  Evangelicals  to  work  together  with  them  in  pursuit  of  their  common  aim,  namely  to  uphold  doctrinal  orthodoxy  in  the  Church  of  England.      

 

                    Peter  Kane    (September,  2013)  

 

 

 

Bibliography    Altholz,  J.L.   “Newman  and  the  Record,  1828-­‐1833.”  In  Victorian  Periodicals  

Review,  vol  23,  no  2  (Summer,  1999),  pp160-­‐65    Bebbington,  D.W.   Evangelicalism  in  Modern  Britain:  A  History  from  the  1730s  to  the  

1980s  (London:  Unwin,  1989)    Brilioth,  Y.     Eucharistic  Faith  &  Practice:  Evangelical  &  Catholic    

(London:  SPCK,  1934)    Cocksworth,  C.   Evangelical  Eucharistic  Thought  in  the  Church  of  England    

(Cambridge:  CUP,  2002)    Hattersley,  R.   A  Brand  from  the  Burning:  The  Life  of  John  Wesley    

(London:  Little,  Brown,  2002)  

13

 Hylson-­‐Smith,  K.   High  Churchmanship  in  the  Church  of  England:  From  the  Sixteenth  

Century  to  the  late  Twentieth  Century  (Edinburgh:  T&T  Clark,  1993)    Kings,  G.   “Canal,  River  and  Rapids:  Contemporary  Evangelicalism  in  the  Church  

of  England.”  In  Anvil,  vol  20,  no  3  (September  2003),  pp167-­‐184    Newman,  J.H.   Parochial  and  Plain  Sermons  (London:  Rivington,  1835)    Newman,  J.H.   Apologia  Pro  Vita  Sua:  Being  a  History  of  his  Religious  Opinions  

(London:  Longman,  Green,  Longman,  Roberts  &  Green,  1864)    Newsome,  D.   The  Parting  of  Friends:  A  Study  of  the  Wilberforces  and  Henry  

Manning  (London:  John  Murray,  1966)    Nockles,  P.   The  Oxford  Movement  in  Context:  Anglican  High  Churchmanship,  

1760-­‐1857  (Cambridge:  CUP,  1994)    Russell,  G.     A  Short  History  of  the  Evangelical  Movement    

(London:  Mowbray,  1915)    Toon,  P.     Evangelical  Theology  1833-­‐1856:  A  Response  to  Tractarianism    

(London:  Marshall,  Morgan  &  Scott,  1979)    Tyndale,  A.     Letters  from  Mrs  Anne  Tyndale  to  Dr  E.B.  Pusey,  1833-­‐1835         (Held  in  the  MS  Letters  archive  of  Pusey  House,  Oxford)    Wesley,  J.     Sermons  on  Several  Occasions  (Peterborough:  Epworth  Press,  2000)    Wolffe,  J.     The  Protestant  Crusade  in  Great  Britain  1829-­‐1860  

(Oxford:  Clarendon  Press,  1991)