1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. A Golden Opportunity of Reconciliation
  5. Wooing the Allies
  6. Parties and Protests
  7. Did the Oxford Movement rescue the Church of England?
  8. Did the Oxford Movement complement the Evangelical Revival?
  9. Conclusion

The first centenary of the Oxford Movement was celebrated throughout the Anglican Communion in July 1933. Within the Church of England, the commemoration was officially sanctioned by the archbishops of Canterbury and York, a sign of growing rapprochement between the episcopate and the Anglo-Catholic movement. The triumphant Anglo-Catholic Congress organized exuberant demonstrations, but amongst the beleaguered Evangelical minority the birthday party caused widespread consternation and protest. The occasion became a battleground between rival interpretations of Anglican identity and competing visions for the future of the Church of England. This article examines Evangelical responses to the 1933 celebrations in England, focusing upon Evangelical contributions to Oxford Movement historiography. In particular, it explores Evangelical answers to two of the key questions concerning Tractarian origins: did the Oxford Movement rescue the Church of England, and did the Oxford Movement complement the Evangelical revival?


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. A Golden Opportunity of Reconciliation
  5. Wooing the Allies
  6. Parties and Protests
  7. Did the Oxford Movement rescue the Church of England?
  8. Did the Oxford Movement complement the Evangelical Revival?
  9. Conclusion

Pope Pius XI declared 1933 to be a “holy year,” observed with special celebrations throughout the Roman Catholic Church, marking the nineteenth centenary of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the Anglican Communion, by contrast, while Good Friday and Easter were celebrated as normal in 1933, it was another centenary three months later which loomed far larger in public discourse — one hundred years since the launch of the Oxford Movement, traditionally reckoned. The centenary became a battleground between rival interpretations of Anglican identity and competing visions for the future of the Church of England. The celebrations were officially sanctioned by the Anglican hierarchy — indeed Archbishop Lang of Canterbury speculated that John Henry Newman might have remained within the Anglican fold could he have foreseen the honour now bestowed on the movement.1 The Anglo-Catholic Congress made the most of the occasion as a triumphant demonstration of their invincibility, looking set to dominate the Anglican agenda for generations to come. Yet to the beleaguered Evangelical minority within the Church of England the birthday party was a cause for lamentation and for protest against what they saw as misleading interpretations of Anglicanism's history. This article will examine Evangelical responses to the 1933 celebrations in England,2 focusing upon Evangelical contributions to Oxford Movement historiography.

A Golden Opportunity of Reconciliation

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. A Golden Opportunity of Reconciliation
  5. Wooing the Allies
  6. Parties and Protests
  7. Did the Oxford Movement rescue the Church of England?
  8. Did the Oxford Movement complement the Evangelical Revival?
  9. Conclusion

The years after World War I were fraught with on-going theological conflict within the Church of England. Anglo-Catholic campaigners seemed to be setting the agenda for change. The controversy over a revised English Prayer Book dominated attention throughout the 1920s, approved by the Church Assembly but thrown out twice by Parliament because of its apparent drift away from reformed Protestantism.3 Meanwhile Anglo-Catholics and Roman Catholics enjoyed informal conversations at Malines in Belgium, until Pope Pius XI's encyclical Mortalium Animos banned Roman Catholics from taking further part. Evangelicals were also perturbed at the Church of England's official overtures to Eastern Orthodoxy and to the Old Catholics of mainland Europe, a new ecumenical relationship encouraged by the 1930 Lambeth Conference and forged by the Bonn Agreement the following year.4 In the parishes, Anglo-Catholic clergy continued to pioneer ritualist innovations which signified Romeward sympathies and seemed to flout their oaths of canonical obedience, to the horror of their Evangelical neighbours and the ineffectual protests of the Protestant societies.

Anglo-Catholicism's growing self-confidence was typified by the success of the congress movement. Thirteen thousand people had enrolled in the first congress of 1920, and twenty-nine thousand in the fourth congress a decade later.5 At first the Anglican hierarchy kept their distance. Few English bishops were prepared to associate with the movement, leaving that role to their colonial counterparts, and none was present at the congressional High Mass at Stamford Bridge football ground in June 1930, an absence which led to “much heart burning.” Nevertheless, Vernon Smith (bishop of Willesden) hoped for different attitudes to prevail by the time of the fifth Anglo-Catholic Congress, planned to coincide with the Oxford Movement centenary in 1933. He therefore approached Archbishop Lang in October 1930, recommending that the centenary be adopted by the whole Church of England as an official celebration.6 Soon the English Church Union (ECU) lent their support to the proposal, suggesting that the centenary would be a fitting moment for the Anglican episcopate at long last to recognize the valuable contribution of Tractarianism to the life of the church. Charles Harris (a leading member of the ECU) wrote to Lang:

I am most anxious that this should be observed in a non-party and non-polemical way, and that it should be used as a means of rapprochement between the A-C party and the Bench of Bishops, who have hitherto boycotted the whole Congress Movement, with lamentable results.7

In March 1931 the idea was made public when a prestigious deputation went to Lambeth Palace, headed by Bishop F. T. Woods of Winchester, supported by the lord chancellor, the dean of Westminster, the regius professors of divinity at Oxford and Cambridge, the warden of Keble College, the master of Sidney Sussex College, five diocesan bishops, and other dignitaries. They claimed to be “representative of almost every important element in the Church of England” and petitioned the archbishops to lead the celebrations on behalf of the whole church. From an Evangelical perspective, Bishop E. S. Woods of Croydon (former vice-principal of Ridley Hall, Cambridge) maintained that “the newer and broader Evangelicalism” was now ready to welcome “all that was best in the Oxford Movement, and its true lineal successors.” A letter was also read out from the Protestant spokesman and attorney-general, Sir Thomas Inskip, praising John Keble.8 Nevertheless the breadth of the deputation was illusory. As the alarming nature of the celebrations became clear in subsequent months, Inskip said he had been hoodwinked and would “rather have cut off my right hand” than lend them support.9 This was a sign of trouble to come.

The archbishops appointed a centenary committee, chaired by the bishop of Winchester (who died prematurely in February 1932) and then by Bishop Donaldson of Salisbury. It too aimed to be “representative of all sections of the Church.”10 The committee wanted to stimulate Anglican unity by focusing upon one particular Tractarian legacy, “the revival of the sense of the corporate life of the Church.”11 Donaldson naively viewed the centenary as “a golden opportunity of reconciliation among the various warring elements among us.”12 He hoped the celebrations would provide

a real reconciliation between schools of thought which have not always been overfriendly to one another, on the principle that the vocation of our Church demands not only mutual tolerance but mutual recognition among the elements which make up its comprehensive whole.13

Later Donaldson lamented to his congregation at Salisbury Cathedral that Anglicans were acrimoniously wrangling over petty internal issues while ignoring the great crises of the day: “The Church would never victoriously challenge the world until it spoke with a united voice. The call of the Oxford Movement centenary was above all a call to unity within their own Church.”14The Times agreed that the centenary was “a great spiritual opportunity” to show how various Anglican perspectives complemented each other:

Today Evangelicals and Liberals have as much reason to be grateful for the Oxford Movement as those of Tractarian sympathies have for the Evangelical and Liberal revivals. Indeed among the more thoughtful men of all parties the old antagonisms are breaking down.15

Soon the episcopal bench was enlisted to appoint diocesan committees to organize local events.16 A few stood aloof, like Bishop Barnes of Birmingham, still smarting from the affair of St Aidan's, Small Heath where he had refused to institute a rebellious ritualist clergyman who was licensed instead by Archbishop Lang in July 1931 under legal pressure from the ECU.17 Barnes said the Church of England would be healthier if the Oxford Movement had never taken place.18 Likewise Bishop David of Liverpool refused to sanction the celebrations because it would split his diocese.19 Yet most threw their support behind the initiative. Some were nervous that if they took a lead in their dioceses, the local Anglo-Catholics would simply organize a commemoration “more extreme”; however, Donaldson understood the episcopal sanction of the centenary as a pre-emptive strike, because “the more heartily the Bishops and all moderate people throw themselves into the Movement the more securely we are safeguarded against any forcing of our hand.”20 This radical shift in episcopal attitudes did not escape ribald comment. One Evangelical author sarcastically suggested it would be more appropriate for them to mark the centenary not with a birthday party, but with public repentance for the way in which Newman had been treated by the bishops in the 1840s — perhaps they might perform something akin to Emperor Henry IV's penitential pilgrimage to Canossa or King Henry II's flagellation at the tomb of Thomas a Becket.21 From a different perspective Anselm Hughes of Nashdom Abbey complained that these dignitaries had suddenly jumped “on to the bandwagon,” uninvited, as if claiming a share in the Oxford Movement's “glorious advance.” In a sermon of 1932 he remarked that the bishops' proper place was “not at the end of the procession, decked in cope and mitre . . . but at the head, barefoot and clad in the white sheet of the penitent.”22

Evangelicals were put in an awkward position by episcopal patronage of the centenary.23 Now it could no longer be ignored as an exclusively Anglo-Catholic affair. To join the celebrations would contradict their theological principles, yet to boycott them would be interpreted as hostility towards the diocese and the will of the bishop. At a Church Association meeting in Manchester, H. W. Hinde (principal of the newly founded Oak Hill theological college) protested: “We object against our Church being practically forced into a celebration. That is not fair; it is not playing the game. We don't wish to interfere with those who want to celebrate it. But it is not fair to attempt to force Evangelicals into it.”24 At the World's Evangelical Alliance, Lancelot Joynson-Hicks (later Viscount Brentford) observed that to invite Evangelicals to give thanks for the Oxford Movement was either “an amazing piece of humbug” or a fundamental failure to appreciate the Evangelical perspective.25 It was “a mockery” and “outrageous impertinence” on the part of the bishops, said others.26 Likewise a writer in The Churchman proclaimed:

But to select a particular day in a particular year when a particular event happened, a day which has a special meaning for a particular group of Churchmen, and to call on all Churchmen to use it as an occasion for giving thanks either for anything and everything, or for the over-ruling Providence which has brought good out of evil, goes very near to the margin of religious dishonesty. To those who believe the Tractarian Movement to have been, on account of its doctrine, a blessing to the Church, July 14, 1933, is the centenary of a great birthday, the centenary of a Pentecost. No one can blame them for celebrating that day. No one will wish to interfere with their celebration. But to call on Evangelicals to celebrate the day is like asking Roman Catholics to light fireworks on the Fifth of November.27

He continued:

Fraternisation of Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals already exists in Ruridecanal Conferences, Clerical Meetings, Diocesan Missionary Days and like occasions. But such fraternisation depends on the ignoring for the time being of the distinctive tenets and practices of two parties. Assuredly, the birthday of one of the two parties is the last day in all the year to select for the inculcation and promotion of a charitable spirit between the two. To one of the two parties it is a day of rejoicing and thanksgiving, to the other of sorrow and humiliation.28

As The Record observed, “if there is a desire to exhibit genuine corporate good feeling and unity in the Church, some less controversial rallying-point must be chosen than the battle-ground of the last three generations.”29 Given the choice, Evangelicals would have preferred to mark 1933 as the fourth centenary of the break with Rome. For example, Bishop Pollock of Norwich told the World's Evangelical Alliance that the benefits of the Oxford Movement compared to those of the Reformation were “like a molehill to a mountain.” Why then was the Church of England afraid to celebrate its Reformation heritage with similar enthusiasm?30

The bishops were living in “a pure day-dream,” wrote one Evangelical commentator, if they believed the centenary celebrations would foster Anglican unity. Indeed how ironic to give thanks for the Oxford Movement as a fount of unity, when it was the direct cause of the “wide cleavage” between Anglicans, having “rent asunder the unity of the Church.”31 In the face of accusations that Evangelicals were undermining Anglican unity by refusing to join the birthday party, Inskip replied, “it is not we who have caused the schism. It is the Anglo-Catholic Movement that has provoked what is a veritable schism within the ranks of our National Church.”32 Elsewhere he described it as “probably the most disruptive force in the Church of England in the last hundred years.”33 In similar vein, the Protestant Alliance asserted, “loyal Churchmen can have no part or lot in celebrating a movement which has split the National Church from top to bottom.”34

Wooing the Allies

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. A Golden Opportunity of Reconciliation
  5. Wooing the Allies
  6. Parties and Protests
  7. Did the Oxford Movement rescue the Church of England?
  8. Did the Oxford Movement complement the Evangelical Revival?
  9. Conclusion

The archbishops' centenary committee sought to build as many alliances as possible. Although traditional Protestants would have nothing to do with the enterprise, Bishop Donaldson hoped to recruit the Anglican Evangelical Group Movement (AEGM), representing “Liberal Evangelicalism.” He attempted to woo them by observing that, “we must close our own ranks against the common foe” of secularism and that “unity in diversity” was God's will for the church.35 Yet even the AEGM responded with “extreme caution” and would not come down “off the fence.”36 Vernon Storr (archdeacon of Westminster and president of the AEGM) agreed to lecture as part of the celebrations, but remained ambivalent in his appraisal of Tractarianism.37 Guy Warman (bishop of Manchester and a founder member of the AEGM) joined the archbishops' committee, and Arthur Tait (former principal of Ridley Hall) preached in Peterborough Cathedral in tribute to the Oxford Movement.38 Likewise Professor G. R. Potter of Sheffield University urged an Evangelical conference in York to welcome the centenary in a spirit of generosity because Tractarianism included “very much that was good and necessary.”39 Yet these are rare examples. Other self-styled “liberal” Evangelicals in the Keswick tradition, refused to join the celebrations because there was “more to regret than to rejoice over.”40

The archbishops' committee had more success in collaboration with the Anglo-Catholic Congress, yet even this partnership was fragile. The congress had their own committee organizing parallel celebrations, and those who belonged to both committees found it “very perplexing.”41 In the early months there was a sense of rivalry and mutual suspicion, until a sufficient number from the Anglo-Catholic side were recruited on to Donaldson's team.42 Some events planned by the congress were also taken over into the official Church of England programme. The difficulty for the archbishops' committee was that the closer they worked with the Anglo-Catholic Congress, the more they isolated Evangelicals. When the congress committee was thanked for its “full and vigorous cooperation” and the English Church Union for having “borne the main burden” of the work, Evangelicals were alarmed.43 Their suspicions that the official celebrations would be hijacked by Anglo-Catholics seemed justified. One advisor warned the archbishops that if the event was “cornered” by the Anglo-Catholics it would be a “real disaster” for the church, because Evangelicals would respond

at best by sullen acquiescence, at worst by counter-demonstrations (of which one hears rumours) . . . Nor could anything possibly do more harm to Christianity than the spectacle of an ecclesiastical squabble in our present political moral & economic situation. But, it may be turned into a heaven-sent opportunity if someone sufficiently authoritative can say the right thing before it is too late.44

Nevertheless, with Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics pulling in opposite directions, Archbishop Lang found himself in a fraught situation. His initial optimism at the possibilities of rapprochement quickly evaporated. As early as January 1932 he wrote in despondency to Archbishop Temple: “I am becoming more and more aware of the great difficulties involved in any adequate general observance of this Centenary”;45 yet by then it was too late — the machine was already in motion.

There was widespread confusion between the official Church of England celebrations and the unofficial Anglo-Catholic celebrations, especially because several men served on both committees and several events appeared on both programmes. Despite repeated episcopal attempts to explain that they had not sanctioned the congress, the two sets of celebrations were blended together in public perceptions. Evangelicals were particularly scandalized by congressional plans to hold a “requiem high mass” for the heroes of the Catholic revival, and a “pontifical high mass” in the presence of Bishop Winnington-Ingram of London.46 When queried, the bishop's explanation that “pontificate” meant “bless” and that the Book of Common Prayer would be used throughout, did little to calm agitated Evangelical minds.47 The Protestant Alliance declared: “The undisguised Romish nature of the programme of celebrations itself bangs, bars, and bolts the door against any cooperation from Evangelicals and loyal sons of the Church of England.”48 Yet Archbishop Temple argued that just because one section of the church was celebrating in a regrettable way was no sound reason why others should not celebrate at all.49 Likewise Bishop Donaldson observed: “It is quite possible in a comprehensive Church to celebrate a particular religious movement with differing degrees of emphasis.”50

Many Evangelicals, nevertheless, found it impossible to ignore the Anglo-Catholic High Masses, which they saw as the natural consequence of Tractarian doctrine. They were not persuaded by the appeal to give thanks for the Oxford Movement's rediscovery of the church's corporate life, while closing their eyes to the rest of the theological package. The octogenarian E. A. Knox (retired bishop of Manchester) explained:

The real work of the Oxford Movement has been the unprotestantising of the Church of England, and that being so, Protestants who join in the celebration have only themselves to thank if Anglo-Catholics regard their complaisance with polite but ill-concealed amusement.51

Likewise the aged Dyson Hague wrote from Toronto:

It is mere camouflaging to speak of the genius of Newman, the scholarship of Pusey, the charm of the piety of Keble and Faber, the intensity of earnestness, the splendour of courage, the romance and beauty of music and colour and architecture and order. For the true nature of the Oxford Movement is revealed in its genesis as a reactionary movement, a movement to restore the sacerdotalism, ritualism and Romanism which all Evangelicals, from the days of Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer down, have so conscientiously resisted.52

As The Record put it, to celebrate the Oxford Movement while overlooking the Mass, the confessional, and the adoration of the Virgin Mary would be like commemorating Joseph Chamberlain “by ignoring his imperialism and his tariff reform principles and by expatiating on his monocle and his orchid button-holes.”53 Or, as another suggested, it was like praising a man for being a teetotal non-smoking vegetarian, while ignoring the fact he was a thief.54

Parties and Protests

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. A Golden Opportunity of Reconciliation
  5. Wooing the Allies
  6. Parties and Protests
  7. Did the Oxford Movement rescue the Church of England?
  8. Did the Oxford Movement complement the Evangelical Revival?
  9. Conclusion

The official Church of England celebrations were modest in their scope.55 In addition to local diocesan events, there were five lectures at Westminster Abbey, sermons by the two archbishops, choral Eucharists in Canterbury, York, and Winchester, a visit to Keble's grave at Hursley, and a special evensong at White City Stadium in Shepherd's Bush (attended, according to official figures, by 17,000 people). On the centenary day itself, 14 July 1933, Holy Communion was celebrated in the quadrangle of Keble College, followed by a silent procession to Pusey's grave at Christ Church, and sermons at noon at Lincoln College and the University Church (the same hour, the same day, and from the same pulpit as Keble preached his assize sermon). There were also exhibitions in the Oriel Common Room and at the Imperial Institute in South Kensington.

The keynote of the official celebrations was Anglican comprehensiveness, a frequent episcopal refrain during the theological party warfare of the previous decade. On Sunday 9 July congregations around the Anglican Communion were asked to intercede for the peace and unity of the church. That evening, Archbishop Lang preached his only Oxford Movement sermon, broadcast from Canterbury Cathedral, in which he insisted that Anglicanism had been enriched by all of its three great parties — the Catholic, the Evangelical, and the Liberal:

Must not every thoughtful man see that the Church of England, nay, the whole Church of Christ, would be the poorer if any one of them were to be excluded or effaced? We must school ourselves thankfully to recognise in each a tributary of the great spiritual River which makes glad the City of God . . . what we want is not compromise for the sake of peace, but comprehension for the sake of truth. Our ideal must be a unity fulfilled in and through diversity — a unity achieved by each part of the one body — shall we dare to say each party — maintaining its own function, yet respecting, learning from, working with the functions of other parts, all in loyalty to the life of the one fellowship. It is for this real and true peace and unity that, speaking from this mother church of the Anglican Communion, I make an earnest plea.56

These somewhat muted official celebrations were outstripped by the unofficial Anglo-Catholic ones.57 As Hughes put it, the Anglo-Catholic Congress “stole the show.”58 They arranged a vast array of public meetings and sermons, High Masses and solemn commemorations, processions, exhibitions, garden parties, and lantern lectures. There were pilgrimages to Neale's grave at East Grinstead and Froude's grave at Dartington; visits to Ascot Priory and the convents at Thames Ditton, Woking, and Clewer; and Tractarian heritage tours through London, Oxford, and Littlemore. During the week of 14 July there was a series of events at the Royal Albert Hall, with big-name speakers, ending in a youth pageant.59 The great climax was the pontifical High Mass at White City on Sunday 16 July, a spectacular service attended by between 45,000 and 50,000 people, probably then the largest Anglican congregation ever assembled for worship (though only a handful communicated).60 Procession after procession of priests and choirs entered the arena, followed by the bishops and their acolytes in the flame-coloured vestments of the Whitsun Festival. The altar was believed to be the largest ever erected in England: twenty-one feet long with a Byzantine canopy of purple and gold thirty-five feet across, and candles twelve feet high, designed by W. G. de Lara Wilson (an assistant curate in Mayfair). Mass was sung by Bishop Carpenter-Garnier of Colombo and the elevation of the host was marked by a fanfare of trumpets. After all the controversy surrounding his sanction of the event, the bishop of London was unable to attend (confined to his bed having caught a chill playing golf61) so Bishop Furse of St Albans went in his place.

Most Evangelicals stayed away from the celebrations, but some were determined to make their presence felt. At Oxford on 15 July, the Protestant Truth Society held a demonstration at the martyrs' memorial.62 The following day a small party from the Protestant Alliance did their best to disrupt the High Mass at White City. Before the service began, they flew two banners over the stadium attached to a kite, with the motto: “Protestant Alliance Declares High Mass Illegal.” A group of courageous Anglo-Catholics climbed on the roof of the stadium in a foiled attempt to cut the string of the kite, before officers from Scotland Yard intervened and brought it down. As soon as the service began, it was interrupted by a speech amplified from the Protestant Alliance van parked outside the stadium. Just as the bishop of St Albans was entering, and the choirs prepared to greet him with ecce sacerdos magnus, a voice was heard booming, “The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.” When the organ played, its music was mingled with the explosions of Protestant fireworks. Only after the police intervened again and forced the van to drive away, could the celebration continue in peace.63 Some Evangelicals interpreted this Anglo-Catholic exuberance in eschatological terms as “one of the signs of the times which spake of the near coming of Christ. The great religious spectacular displays, the growth of lawlessness, and the awful iniquity which was abounding everywhere, were clear indications of the approaching end of the age.”64

Three days later, the Protestant Truth Society called together another demonstration at the Queen's Hall in central London, where life-size figures of Latimer and Ridley stood in the middle of the platform, chained to a stake with a pile of faggots around their feet.65 In front of this striking visual aid, J. A. Kensit (son of the Protestant “martyr,” John Kensit) mocked Anglo-Catholicism as all about “posture and imposture,” and proclaimed:

We are unrepentant Protestants, protesting with every nerve and fibre of our religious conviction against that which has been witnessed in this city during the past few days . . . The gauntlet had been thrown down to challenge the whole Reformation settlement, and the question now before them was, “Are we on the side of the martyrs or on the side of those who burned them?”66

Others, like Dyson Hague, hoped the centenary might bring blessing by “rallying of the scattered forces” of English Evangelicalism:

It seems a magnificent opportunity for all who profess and call themselves Evangelicals of any and every stripe, Low Churchmen or Protestant Churchmen, Moderate Churchmen or Prayer Book Churchmen or Central Churchmen, to sink all non-essential phases of difference and stand together with a united front as the true Churchmen.67

The Anglo-Catholic Congress had enrolled 50,000 and the Church Times jibed that “no Protestant celebration could attract a quarter of the interest.”68 Yet C. W. Hale Amos declared that if they put their minds to it they could rally twenty times that number “to the flag of a militant Evangelicalism, energised by the Holy Spirit for the conversion of souls to Christ (not ‘Catholicism’).”69 Another called on the disparate Protestant societies to join forces and

stage a demonstration which will totally eclipse the one we have just witnessed. We have wasted enough time in passing resolutions and sending protests to the bishops: the time has come to act and to act in no uncertain fashion . . . there must be no hair-splitting about the points on which Protestants differ . . . by making a united stand we can definitely show that Anglo-Catholicism is, after all, but a drop in the bucket.70

Protestant agitation continued beyond July 1933. For example, the two archbishops were petitioned by a new organization calling themselves “The Laymen of England League,”71 who were “profoundly distressed” by the celebrations and “deeply outraged” by the High Mass at White City.72 Lang was conveniently absent when their delegation arrived at Lambeth Palace, but the laymen's persistent correspondence caused him to burst out in frustration, “I can't be bothered with the thing any longer!”73 The Oxford Movement centenary had brought the archbishop of Canterbury more trouble than he bargained for.

One of the major battle grounds during the furore surrounding the centenary celebrations was the area of historiography. Evangelical literature in 1933 focused on two key questions concerning Tractarian origins: did the Oxford Movement rescue the Church of England, and did the Oxford Movement complement the Evangelical revival? Here Evangelical commentators sought to expose what they saw as popular myths, one put forward by Anglo-Catholic hagiographers and the other by the Anglican hierarchy. The rest of this article will examine the Evangelical engagement with these two historiographical questions.

Did the Oxford Movement rescue the Church of England?

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. A Golden Opportunity of Reconciliation
  5. Wooing the Allies
  6. Parties and Protests
  7. Did the Oxford Movement rescue the Church of England?
  8. Did the Oxford Movement complement the Evangelical Revival?
  9. Conclusion

Eyebrows were raised in some university common rooms at the glaring absence of ecclesiastical historians from the centenary celebrations. Norman Sykes (professor of modern history at the University of Exeter) warned that the Church of England would become “pour rire in the eyes of instructed persons in 1933” unless competent scholars were recruited to “stamp the celebrations with the imprimatur of sound historical learning.”74 Likewise Bishop Bell of Chichester urged the archbishops' committee quickly to enlist some professional historians, lest the celebrations be thoroughly discredited. In addition to Sykes, he recommended Professors E. W. Watson (Oxford), Claude Jenkins (London), and Alexander Hamilton Thompson (Leeds). Perhaps also Yngve Brilioth could be brought across from Sweden.75 Sykes and Bell were particularly alarmed by the Anglo-Catholic “campaign of propaganda.” After reading Audrey and John: The Story of the Oxford Movement (1932), written by a Kilburn nun for teenagers, Sykes was horrified: “It is really a shocking travesty of history, closely correspondent with the sort of thing which, mutatis mutandis, the papists circulate about the Reformation.”76 Meanwhile, when C. E. Russell of the Anglo-Catholic Congress committee lectured at Chichester theological college on the origins of the movement, Bell was left “boiling with rage.”77 The lecturer gave the impression “that there was no religion at all in England before the Oxford Movement,”78 and the bishop rebuked him for his reliance on partisan caricature which was a symptom of “great arrogance and great indifference to historical fact.”79 Russell, however, was unrepentant and continued to speak of the era before the Catholic revival as “the dark ages.”80

This style of writing was widely employed by the raft of Anglo-Catholic hagiographies published to mark the centenary. Such was their prevalence that it took until the end of the twentieth century for the reputation of the Hanoverian Church to be rehabilitated.81 For example, according to S. L. Ollard's influential Short History of the Oxford Movement, “never, in the whole of its tangled story, had the English Church as a whole sunk to the depth it had reached in 1833.” In fact, the Church of England was “nearly spiritually dead” before the Tractarians arrived.82 Likewise C. P. S. Clarke asserted: “There is no reasonable doubt that the Church was in a bad way . . . It is a picture of a dead Church.”83 Desmond Morse-Boycott agreed: “It is beyond argument that the Church was, broadly speaking, spiritually moribund and discredited utterly.”84 Talbot Dilworth-Harrison explained that the Church of England in 1833 was “admittedly asleep . . . She was without leaders, without ideals, without hope. The Church had lost the respect of the nation.”85 These authors let their imaginations run riot in describing the decay of the pre-Tractarian church, while in contrast the Oxford Movement saints who had come to the rescue could do little wrong. Morse-Boycott extolled the movement as “unparallelled in history . . . a potent force.”86 Likewise B. C. Boulter's The Anglican Reformers (1933) was mocked in The Record as “lop-sided” hero-worship, an exercise in “incense-burning rather than biography” with factual details left to “peep through the cloud of votive praise.”87 When A. W. Evans republished Tract Ninety, his commentary was derided by Evangelicals as “an ex parte account . . . It cannot claim to be history.”88 Surveying this outpouring of ephemera, The Times complained:

Some of the Anglo-Catholic literature published in connexion with the Centenary is deplorable, both in its history and in its taste. An unwary reader would gather from it that the progress achieved by the English Church in the last hundred years has been due entirely to one party, that the Evangelicals existed merely to thwart and persecute the Anglo-Catholics, and that the Broad Church party founded by Kingsley and Maurice never existed at all.89

When Geoffrey Faber's Oxford Apostles was published in June 1933, the newspaper breathed a sigh of relief that here at last was a study of lasting value:

It differs from most of these recent “histories” by being really historical. In other words, it aims at providing an accurate study of people and events, not at demonstrating how entirely right (or wrong) were the Tractarians and how wholly wise (or foolish) in consequence are the Anglo-Catholics of today.90

Evangelicalism was caught up in the general censure of the pre-Tractarian church by Anglo-Catholic writers, and sometimes singled out for particular criticism. As G. R. Balleine observed in his History of the Evangelical Party, Tractarian historiography had a long tradition of describing the heirs of the Evangelical revival as “quite degenerate, with narrow minds, filthy churches, empty shibboleths, and lazy lives.”91 Many took their lead from R. W. Church's Oxford Movement, which claimed that Evangelicalism in the early nineteenth century bore “all the characteristics of an exhausted teaching and a spent enthusiasm.”92 Clarke, for example, said it had “to a great extent spent its force” by 1833.93 W. J. Sparrow Simpson lamented Evangelicalism's “theological limitations,” for which the Tractarians had to compensate.94 Likewise C. B. Moss's 1933 Lenten lectures at Warminster criticized “the narrowness and feebleness of their theology . . . A school of thought so narrow as this was unfit to be the spiritual guide of a nation.”95

Evangelicals naturally refused to accept these derogatory interpretations. A. J. Macdonald (rector of St Dunstan-in-the-West, Fleet Street) protested:

Tractarianism, as a corpus of history, though centenarian, is very far from being hale and hearty. The vision of Tractarian writers has from the first been clouded by historical obliquity . . . The late Professor Gwatkin taught his crowded lecture room that “Church history never had a bad name in England until the Tractarians took it up.” If this pronouncement, although uttered with a merry twinkle in the eye, was somewhat sweeping, at least it was true of Tractarian attempts to write the history of the Oxford Movement, no matter how well they have done when treating other epochs of Church history . . . One cannot trust the Tractarians when they try to write the history of their own Movement.96

Likewise Archdeacon Storr believed a lack of historical criticism could be traced right back to the first Tractarian leaders. As he wryly observed in an earlier study: “It is an easy task to write history, if you may omit whatever conflicts with your preconceived theory.”97 At the Islington Clerical Conference in January 1933, a major annual gathering of Evangelical ministers, the chairman, J. M. Hewitt, singled out Dilworth-Harrison's book for particular derision as “neither just nor true.”98 Similarly at the Oxford Conference of Evangelical Churchmen in April, G. Foster Carter (vicar of Boscombe) said it was “a travesty of the facts” to present 1833 as the “low-water mark” of the Church of England.99 In the face of extravagant claims that Tractarianism was responsible for almost every improvement in nineteenth-century Britain — whether in art, architecture, social reform, literature, theology, or public worship —The Record mocked: “It was as though the Thames at London Bridge were supposed to owe its whole volume to the Cherwell at Oxford.”100

Evangelical authors aimed to refute Anglo-Catholic interpretations by publishing their own alternative histories, though many of these also peddled preconceived theories. Some took their lead from Walter Walsh's Secret History of the Oxford Movement, focusing upon what they saw as Tractarian heresy and duplicity. Exemplars of this style were W. Prescott Upton's The Churchman's History of the Oxford Movement, Thomas Houghton's The Oxford Movement Exposed, and Avary Forbes's The Oxford Movement: A Counterblast. More erudite and more restrained were W. H. Mackean's The Eucharistic Doctrine of the Oxford Movement and Bishop Knox's Tractarian Movement, which won plaudits for their careful scholarship.

Evangelical commentators were at pains to point out that their movement had been helping to awaken the Church of England long before the Tractarians arrived on the scene. For example, D. Taylor Wilson (vicar of All Saints, Tufnell Park) claimed that it was Evangelicals who were responsible for introducing weekly communion services, Lenten observance, hymn singing, and church building, before the Oxford Movement ever discovered them.101 Likewise at the Islington Clerical Conference, Hewitt asked why Anglo-Catholic historians so often overlooked the Church Missionary Society, the Religious Tract Society, the Bible Society, the London Jews Society, the Colonial and Continental Church Society, and the Church Pastoral Aid Society, all founded by Evangelicals between 1799 and 1836, and all “mightily used of God in the extension of His Kingdom.” With biting sarcasm he added that it was unfortunate that the slave trade had been abolished in 1807, because if it had been delayed for thirty years that also would have been credited to the Catholic revival.102 When the archbishops linked their slum-clearance appeal in May 1933 with the Oxford Movement centenary, giving tacit support for the claim that the Tractarians were pioneers in social reform,103 Evangelicals again protested. What about Wilberforce and Shaftesbury? What about the missions to the slums by the Church Army and the Salvation Army? What about Barnardo and Müller'swork with destitute children? The Anglo-Catholics, they insisted, dare not claim a monopoly on social concern. Indeed, could the Tractarian roll of honour provide anyone of equivalent stature to these Evangelical philanthropists?104 One Evangelical vicar optimistically proclaimed: “It was the Evangelicals who saved the life of the Church then; and with God's help they will do it yet again.”105

Yet Evangelical protests could ultimately do little to stem the flood of Anglo-Catholic myth-making. The Churchman admitted that they were losing the propaganda battle because they lacked historians to put their side of the story. Where were the scholars writing on Evangelicalism in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? Newman, Keble, Kingsley, and Maurice were household names — what about Evangelical heavyweights like Close of Cheltenham, Champneys of Whitechapel, McNeile of Liverpool, Stowell of Manchester? The journal also urged researchers to publish on more recent Evangelical theologians and evangelists, such as Dimock, Wace, Griffith Thomas, Watts-Ditchfield, Madden, Lefroy, Webb-Peploe, and Aitken, whose influence was too quickly being forgotten.106 The best that could be offered was the National Church League's 1933 reprint of Balleine's History of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England, but it was already twenty-five years out of date. In similar vein, Bishop Inskip of Barking's Golden Lectures of 1932–1933 attempted to show that England owed a significant debt to the Evangelical movement,107 but these rare publications could not compete in a market dominated by Anglo-Catholic histories.

Did the Oxford Movement complement the Evangelical Revival?

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. A Golden Opportunity of Reconciliation
  5. Wooing the Allies
  6. Parties and Protests
  7. Did the Oxford Movement rescue the Church of England?
  8. Did the Oxford Movement complement the Evangelical Revival?
  9. Conclusion

The second key historiographical question of concern to Evangelicals in 1933 was the connection between the Catholic revival and the Evangelical revival. Historians like James Pereiro and Peter Nockles have recently explored the sense in which the Oxford Movement should be considered a “revival,” and its commonalities with the preceding Evangelical revival.108 Peter Toon and Frank Turner stress the fundamental differences between the two movements, although David Bebbington argues for closer continuity.109

This was a major point of contention during the centenary celebrations. Professor Brilioth began to tease open the question in his cautious lectures at King's College, London, in June 1933 on “Evangelicalism and the Oxford Movement,” building on his previous analysis in The Anglican Revival.110 Yet most authors and spokesmen satisfied themselves with bald assertions. At the initial deputation to Lambeth Palace in March 1931, which kick-started the whole event, the bishop of Winchester insisted on a close link between Evangelicalism and Tractarianism, suggesting that Simeon and Keble were “at one” in their sense of personal responsibility to God. He proclaimed:

It could not be denied that the one movement was the necessary, and . . . the providential, complement of the other. Without the larger setting of historical, sacramental, and intellectual life, the spiritual enthusiasm of the Evangelical Movement would hardly have found that scope and permanence for which they were all devoutly thankful.111

This type of interpretation was often heard from the Church of England's hierarchy during the centenary celebrations, in an attempt to bring Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics together. The archbishops' centenary committee laid particular stress on this point:

It is significant that the Evangelical Revival of the Eighteenth Century, with its appeal to men's personal need of a Saviour, should have been followed by a Movement in the Nineteenth Century which emphasized men's corporate membership of the Body of Christ. The Oxford Movement is the corollary of the Evangelical Revival.112

Archbishop Lang drew attention to the fact that in July 1933 they were celebrating two centenaries — both Keble's assize sermon and the death of Wilberforce — a reminder that both movements had together revived the English church.113 Archbishop Temple concurred:

The Oxford Movement has its place in a series of spiritual revivals which have greatly enriched the inheritance that we as Churchmen of the twentieth century have received. It was preceded by the great Evangelical Revival, in which it is itself rooted. The great Tractarians had been profoundly influenced by that revival, and no commemoration of the Oxford Movement can be intelligent which does not begin with thanksgiving for the Evangelical Revival. That alone should save our celebrations from partisanship.114

Likewise Cyril Bardsley (bishop of Leicester) wrote to his diocese:

If only our Anglo-Catholic brethren met together for thanksgiving and prayer, the highest hopes of those who are leading in the Centenary Celebrations would be disappointed, and an opportunity of increasing the spirit of unity among us would be missed. All of us must think of the movement in no limited or partisan way. We must see the movement as one in a series of spiritual movements in the Church, and not least in its relation to the Evangelical Movement which preceded it, and which had such great influence upon the early Tractarian leaders.115

Geoffrey Fisher (bishop of Chester) explained that Evangelicals and Catholics needed each other,116 while Francis Underhill (dean of Rochester) declared that the Oxford Movement was “a corollary of the previous Evangelical Revival . . . neither the Evangelical nor the Catholic Movement is complete in itself.”117 The diocese of Manchester deliberately decided to celebrate both movements together, as did St Albans where Bishop Furse insisted that Evangelicalism and Tractarianism were “not contradictory, but complementary.”118 It was made an occasion for “stressing things which unite rather than divide Church people” and for illustrating “the peculiar genius, the comprehensive character, of the Church of England.”119 Meanwhile amongst the events in Oxford on 14 July 1933, the archbishops' committee arranged for the Eucharist at Keble College to be followed by a sermon at Lincoln College, Wesley's alma mater, in which Bishop Frere of Truro declared that early Methodism and Tractarianism were “essentially co-partners in the progress of religion,” representing the prophetic and priestly offices, respectively.120 Nevertheless, these frequent claims for close continuity between the Evangelical and Oxford movements were not driven by the weight of dispassionate historical argument, but by a contemporary need in the 1930s for the episcopal bench to define Anglicanism as comprehensive.

Similar views were occasionally heard at the Anglo-Catholic Congress in 1933, for example from Lord Irwin (president of the Board of Education) who declared that the two movements were complementary and had much to learn from each other: “The difference between them was one of emphasis on different facets of the truth.”121 Yet many Anglo-Catholics were unwilling to accept that both Evangelicalism and Tractarianism played an important part in Anglicanism. For example, one commentator in the Church Times concluded that there was

absolutely no historical justification for the amiable claim now being made by dignitaries of the Church, that the Tractarian Movement was in any sense the result of the Evangelical movement, or was in any way connected with it, save in its protest against its results.122

Likewise Evangelicals roundly rejected what might be described as the “episcopal version of history.” One Evangelical rector wrote:

The two movements in the same Church at the same time are a contradiction in terms, the one being the direct antithesis of the other. Either the Reformation is to be the background of the Church, or this counter movement which seeks to destroy it. The Church must make its choice, and, in making it mark out its future destiny.123

The Protestant Alliance proclaimed:

In numerous dioceses efforts are being made to inveigle the Evangelicals into supporting the celebrations by attempting to identify the Evangelical Revival with the Oxford Movement . . . Loyal Churchmen know that history establishes the fact that the Oxford Movement leaders did not follow up the teaching of the Evangelical Revival, but on the contrary “repented with tears and ashes” the principles of the Reformation for which the revival stood.124

T. W. Gilbert (principal of St John's Hall, Highbury) said it was “mere sophistry” to include the Evangelical revival in the commemoration: “There was not the slightest connection between the two movements . . . So far from the Oxford Movement being the complement of the Evangelical Revival, it was a complete denial of the essential teaching of Evangelicalism.”125 Another argued that it would be “manifest hypocrisy” for Evangelicals to join the celebrations:

The measure of the success of Tractarianism is the degree of the expulsion of Protestantism from the Church of England. . . . The suggestion that Evangelicals should unite with Tractarians in praising God for the birthday of Tractarianism, has only one logical sequence, the abandonment of Evangelicalism. If Tractarianism as an interpretation of the Christian faith, as a system, is of God, Evangelicalism is not of God. It is what St Paul would have called “another Gospel.” Evangelicals, if they praise God for Tractarianism, should go on to repent of their Evangelicalism.126

Similarly T. C. Hammond (head of the Irish Church Missions in Dublin) dismissed similarities between the two movements as “superficial resemblances.”127 He observed:

It is not usual to find opponents of a religious system completing it in any other sense than finishing it. From the outset it was the aim of Tractarianism to finish Evangelical Christianity . . . There is an essential antagonism between the two systems of thought. It is impossible to fuse them. Where one flourishes the other perishes.128

Meanwhile in the West Country there was consternation when the archdeacon of Cornwall tried to stir up enthusiasm for the centenary celebrations by linking them with the preaching of John Wesley and the missionary work of Henry Martyn (born in Truro). The Cornwall branch of the National Church League observed that, “the truth is rather that the ideals of the two Movements were not only completely different but in distinct opposition.”129 The World's Evangelical Alliance went so far as to attribute the Oxford Movement to Satan: “the two Movements had nothing in common — one, the Evangelical Revival, was the work of God the Holy Spirit, the other, the Tractarian Movement, was the work of the enemy who sowed tares.”130 Likewise Knox declared of Newman and his allies: “They were emphatically what St Paul would have called ‘preachers of another gospel,’ whom he bids us mistrust ‘even though they were angels from heaven.’ ”131 Knox argued that “the two Movements were widely and definitely opposed . . . the ideals of the one could only be realized by the extinction or disappearance of the other.”132 He was content to call Tractarianism a “revival,” but of a very different type. The Evangelical revival was “progressive, associated with humanitarian reforms and world-wide missionary enterprise,” while the Tractarian revival was “reactionary, guided by romanticism and desire to re-establish the rule of the clergy over the laity.”133


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. A Golden Opportunity of Reconciliation
  5. Wooing the Allies
  6. Parties and Protests
  7. Did the Oxford Movement rescue the Church of England?
  8. Did the Oxford Movement complement the Evangelical Revival?
  9. Conclusion

The centenary of 1933 generated an abundance of literature about the history of the Oxford Movement — monographs, journal articles, pamphlets, newspaper correspondence, sermons, and platform speeches — more than at any other period, before or since. Yet these publications and exhortations did little to shed fresh light on that history. Rather than engaging in original and dispassionate research, most were only concerned to harness one-sided interpretations of the past to score polemic points against their present opponents. As Brilioth observed, with massive understatement, “a centenary does not always offer the atmosphere best suited for the task of critical inquiry.”134 The controversies of 1933 did, nevertheless, reinforce the competing ideologies held within contemporary Anglicanism during the inter-war period. In particular, Evangelical resistance to Anglo-Catholic advance was shown to be just as determined as in previous generations, though they lost most of the skirmishes. The Oxford Movement centenary celebrations did not stimulate patient analysis of Anglicanism's past, but they did provide a significant opportunity for widespread and vociferous debate over Anglicanism's future.

  • 1

    Minutes of the Canterbury Diocesan Conference, 17 July 1933 (bound with Canterbury Diocesan Gazette).

  • 2

    For antipodean attitudes to the centenary, see J. A. Moses, ed., From Oxford to the Bush: Essays on Catholic Anglicanism in Australia (Adelaide: SPCK, 1997).

  • 3

    J. Maiden, National Religion and the Prayer Book Controversy, 1927–1928 (Woodbridge, U.K.: Boydell, 2009).

  • 4

    A. Atherstone, “Anglican Evangelicals, Old Catholics and the Bonn Agreement,” Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift 97 (March 2007): 2347.

  • 5

    For surveys of the congress movement, see G. Rowell, The Vision Glorious: Themes and Personalities of the Catholic Revival in Anglicanism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 241–47; W. S. F. Pickering, Anglo-Catholicism: A Study in Religious Ambiguity (London: Routledge, 1989), 48–64; J. Gunstone, Lift High the Cross: Anglo-Catholics and the Congress Movement (Norwich, U.K.: Canterbury Press, 2010).

  • 6

    Smith to Lang, 28 October 1930, Lang Papers 102, fols. 132–34, Lambeth Palace Library, London (hereafter cited as Lang Papers).

  • 7

    Harris to Lang, 1 December 1930, Lang Papers 102, fols. 135–36.

  • 8

    The Times, 13 March 1931, 19.

  • 9

    The Record, 24 February 1933, 103.

  • 10

    Lang to Hewlett Johnson, 21 December 1931, Lang Papers 108, fol. 40.

  • 11

    Lang to Metropolitans of the Anglican Communion, 2 February 1933, Lang Papers 121, fol. 3. See also, “The Oxford Movement Centenary,” June 1932, Lang Papers 113, fols. 248–49.

  • 12

    Donaldson to bishops, June 1932, Lang Papers 113, fol. 245.

  • 13

    Letter drafted by Donaldson, June 1932, Lang Papers 113, fol. 258.

  • 14

    The Times, 12 July 1933, 16.

  • 15

    The Times, 12 September 1932, 11.

  • 16

    Donaldson to bishops, June 1932, Lang Papers 113, fols. 244–45.

  • 17

    J. Barnes, Ahead of His Age: Bishop Barnes of Birmingham (London: Collins, 1979), 236–85.

  • 18

    The Times, 13 December 1932, 11.

  • 19

    A. A. David, “The Oxford Movement,” Liverpool Review 8 (April 1933): 11516.

  • 20

    Donaldson to Lang, 20 June 1932, Lang Papers 113, fols. 246–47.

  • 21

    Attitude of Evangelicals to the Celebration of the Centenary of the Oxford Movement,” The Churchman 47 (January 1933): 8.

  • 22

    A. Hughes, The Rivers of the Flood: A Personal Account of the Catholic Movement in the Twentieth Century (London: Faith Press, 1961), 97–98.

  • 23

    For petitions to the bishops, see The Times, 7 September 1931, 13. See also Bishop Bell of Chichester's correspondence with A. F. Griffith, T.C. Lawson, and B. C. Mowll, July–November 1932, Bell Papers 161, fols. 78–104, Lambeth Palace Library, London (hereafter cited as Bell Papers); and Chichester Diocesan Gazette 13 (November 1932): 392–94.

  • 24

    The Record, 11 November 1932, 674.

  • 25

    “Our 87th Anniversary,”Evangelical Christendom (July–August 1933): 135.

  • 26

    The Record, 3 June and 18 November 1932, 354, 687.

  • 27

    “Attitude of Evangelicals,” 5–6.

  • 28

    “Attitude of Evangelicals,” 6–7.

  • 29

    The Record, 3 June 1932, 356.

  • 30

    “Our 86th Anniversary,”Evangelical Christendom (May–June 1932): 96.

  • 31

    “Attitude of Evangelicals,” 6.

  • 32

    The Record, 24 February 1933, 103.

  • 33

    The Times, 10 May 1933, 12.

  • 34

    The Times, 12 January 1933, 15.

  • 35

    The Record, 17 February 1933, 95.

  • 36

    Donaldson to Lang, 20 June 1932, Lang Papers 113, fol. 247.

  • 37

    V. F. Storr, The Oxford Movement: A Liberal Evangelical View (London: SPCK, 1933).

  • 38

    A. J. Tait, “Our Anglican Heritage,” The Churchman 47 (October 1933): 23541, and 48 (January 1934): 5–12.

  • 39

    The Record, 12 August 1932, 501. See also The Record, 14 October 1932, 614.

  • 40

    The Centenary of the Oxford Movement: Three Points of View,” St Paul's Review: The London Diocesan Quarterly 5 (June 1933): 101.

  • 41

    Underhill to Lang, 27 November 1931, Lang Papers 108, fol. 37.

  • 42

    Underhill to Lang, 19 June 1931, Lang Papers 108, fol. 29.

  • 43

    “The Oxford Movement Centenary,” June 1932, Lang Papers 113, fols. 248–49.

  • 44

    Barry's memorandum, December 1931, Lang Papers 108, fol. 41.

  • 45

    Lang to Temple, 2 January 1932, Lang Papers 108, fol. 47.

  • 46

    For episcopal criticism of this act of Anglo-Catholic provocation and “vulgar ostentation,” see Gloucester Diocesan Magazine (December 1932): 137, and (August 1933): 84; Exeter Diocesan Gazette 32 (February 1933): 15–16.

  • 47

    A. F. Winnington-Ingram, “Misunderstandings,” London Diocesan Leaflet 6 (March 1933): 12; The Record, 3 March 1933, 121. The archbishop of Canterbury had encouraged the bishop of London to give permission for the event: Lang to Winnington-Ingram, 11 July 1932, Lang Papers 113, fol. 254. See also Lang to Winnington-Ingram, 11 January 1933, Lang Papers 121, fol. 2. For related discussion concerning Glastonbury Abbey, see Lang's correspondence with Bishop Wilson of Bath and Wells, 17 and 21 March 1933, Lang Papers 119, fols. 346–50.

  • 48

    The Times, 12 January 1933, 15.

  • 49

    The Times, 14 January 1933, 7.

  • 50

    The Times, 23 January 1933, 13.

  • 51

    E. A. Knox, “Forthcoming Oxford Movement Celebrations,” Evangelical Christendom (MarchApril 1933): 64.

  • 52

    The Record, 3 February 1933, 68.

  • 53

    The Record, 20 January 1933, 29.

  • 54

    The Record, 29 July 1932, 474.

  • 55

    For the final programme, see “The Oxford Movement Centenary Celebrations,” May 1933, Lang Papers 121, fols. 28–29.

  • 56

    Church Times, 14 July 1933, 57. For the archbishop's only other centenary offering, see C. G. Lang, “Mr Gladstone and the Oxford Movement,” Nineteenth Century and After 114 (September 1933): 37484.

  • 57

    For details, see Oxford Movement Centenary: Official Handbook (London: Anglo-Catholic Congress Committee, 1933); and Report of the Oxford Movement Centenary Congress, July 1933 (London: Catholic Literature Association, 1933).

  • 58

    Hughes, The Rivers of the Flood, 98.

  • 59

    Archbishop Lang declined to attend the Albert Hall, but he did send his blessing by letter: Maurice Child to A. C. Don, 3 February 1933, Lang Papers 121, fol. 5. See also fols. 8, 54.

  • 60

    For reports, see The Times, 17 July 1933, 7; Daily Telegraph, 17 July 1933, 12; Church Times, 21 July 1933, 98.

  • 61

    The Bishop of London,” St Paul's Review: The London Diocesan Quarterly 5 (September 1933): 132.

  • 62

    The Record, 30 June 1933, 377; The Times, 17 July 1933, 7.

  • 63

    The Times, 17 July 1933, 7; Daily Sketch, 17 July 1933, 2.

  • 64

    The Record, 9 December 1932, 759.

  • 65

    The Times, 20 July 1933, 17.

  • 66

    The Record, 28 July 1933, 439.

  • 67

    The Record, 3 February 1933, 68.

  • 68

    Church Times, 30 June 1933, 779.

  • 69

    The Record, 14 July 1933, 412.

  • 70

    The Record, 21 July 1933, 422.

  • 71

    For the correspondence, see Lang Papers 121, fols. 48–53, 56–71, 75–84, 88–103. Some of the letters were published in English Churchman, 14 December 1933.

  • 72

    Don's memorandum, 17 July 1933, Lang Papers 121, fol. 57.

  • 73

    Lang to Don, 18 August 1933, Lang Papers 121, fol. 89.

  • 74

    Sykes to Bell, 10 October 1932, Bell Papers 161, fols. 87–88.

  • 75

    Bell to W. M. Whitley, 22 and 28 October 1932, Bell Papers 161, fols. 96, 101. The archbishops' committee eventually added Cambridge University's Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History, J. P. Whitney, to their number.

  • 76

    Sykes to Bell, 10 October 1932, Bell Papers 161, fol. 87.

  • 77

    Bell to Talbot Dilworth-Harrison, 15 March 1932, Bell Papers 161, fol. 62.

  • 78

    Bell to Sykes, 15 March 1932, Bell Papers 161, fol. 65.

  • 79

    Bell to Russell, 15 March 1932, Bell Papers 161, fol. 63.

  • 80

    Russell to Bell, 16 March 1932, Bell Papers 161, fol. 66.

  • 81

    For recent historiographical surveys, see J. Walsh and S. Taylor, “The Church and Anglicanism in the ‘Long’ Eighteenth Century,” in The Church of England c. 1689–c. 1833: From Toleration to Tractarianism, edited by J. Walsh, C. Haydon, and S. Taylor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 1–64; P. B. Nockles, The Oxford Movement in Context: Anglican High Churchmanship, 1760–1857 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 1–24; A. Burns, The Diocesan Revival in the Church of England, c. 1800–1870 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 1–22; J. Gregory, Restoration, Reformation and Reform, 1660–1828: Archbishops of Canterbury and their Diocese (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), 1–19; J. Pereiro, “Ethos” and the Oxford Movement: At the Heart of Tractarianism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 42–52.

  • 82

    S. L. Ollard, A Short History of the Oxford Movement, rev. ed. (1915; repr., London: Mowbray, 1932), 16.

  • 83

    C. P. S. Clarke, The Oxford Movement and After (London: Mowbray, 1932), 31, 36.

  • 84

    D. Morse-Boycott, Lead, Kindly Light: Studies of the Saints and Heroes of the Oxford Movement (London: Centenary, 1932), 12.

  • 85

    T. Dilworth-Harrison, Every Man's Story of the Oxford Movement (London: Mowbray, 1933), 4.

  • 86

    Morse-Boycott, Lead, Kindly Light, 19.

  • 87

    The Record, 30 June 1933, 376.

  • 88

    The Record, 7 July 1933, 392.

  • 89

    The Times, 8 July 1933, 13.

  • 90

    The Times, 30 June 1933, 20.

  • 91

    G. R. Balleine, A History of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England, rev. ed. (1908; repr., London: Longmans, Green and Co, 1933), 210.

  • 92

    R. W. Church, The Oxford Movement: Twelve Years 1833–1845, rev. ed. (1891; repr. London: Macmillan, 1932), 15.

  • 93

    Clarke, The Oxford Movement and After, 8.

  • 94

    W. J. Sparrow Simpson, “Centenary of the Oxford Movement,” in Official Year-Book of the Church of England (London: SPCK, 1933), 699.

  • 95

    C. B. Moss, The Orthodox Revival 1833–1933 (London: Mowbray, 1933), 17–18.

  • 96

    The Record, 28 April 1933, 233.

  • 97

    V. F. Storr, The Development of English Theology in the Nineteenth Century, 1800–1860 (London: Longmans, Green and Co, 1913), 258.

  • 98

    The Record, 13 January 1933, 21.

  • 99

    The Times, 8 April 1933, 8.

  • 100

    The Record, 7 July 1933, 396.

  • 101

    D. T. Wilson, The Oxford Movement: A Centenary Sketch (London: Church Book Room Press, 1933), 15.

  • 102

    The Record, 13 January 1933, 21.

  • 103

    The Times, 16 May 1933, 14; Minutes of the Canterbury Diocesan Conference, 17 July 1933 [Lang's presidential address].

  • 104

    A Glimpse of the Oxford Seven by Veritas Vincit (London: Stockwell, 1933), 14–15; The Record, 23 June 1933, 366.

  • 105

    The Record, 11 November 1932, 670.

  • 106

    The Churchman 47 (October 1933): 232–33.

  • 107

    J. T. Inskip, Evangelical Influence of English Life (London: Macmillan, 1933).

  • 108

    Pereiro, “Ethos” and the Oxford Movement, 40–71; P. Nockles, “The Oxford Movement as Religious Revival and Resurgence,” in Revival and Resurgence in Christian History, edited by K. Cooper and J. Gregory (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2008), 214–24.

  • 109

    P. Toon, Evangelical Theology 1833–1856: A Response to Tractarianism (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1979); F. Turner, John Henry Newman: The Challenge to Evangelical Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002); D. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London: Routledge, 1989), 96.

  • 110

    Y. Brilioth, Three Lectures on Evangelicalism and the Oxford Movement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1934); Y. Brilioth, The Anglican Revival: Studies in the Oxford Movement, rev. ed. (1925; repr., London: Longmans, Green and Co, 1933).

  • 111

    The Times, 13 March 1931, 19.

  • 112

    “The Oxford Movement Centenary,” June 1932, Lang Papers 113, fol. 248.

  • 113

    Canterbury Diocesan Gazette 41 (July 1933): 97–98.

  • 114

    York Diocesan Leaflet (September 1932).

  • 115

    The Times, 29 September 1932, 13.

  • 116

    The Times, 12 July 1933, 16.

  • 117

    F. Underhill, “The Centenary of the Oxford Movement,” Liverpool Review 7 (October 1932): 349, 351.

  • 118

    Manchester Diocesan Leaflet 3 (July 1933); St Albans Diocesan Leaflet (September 1932).

  • 119

    St Albans Diocesan Leaflet (November 1932), supplement.

  • 120

    W. H. Frere, “The Debt Owed by the Church of England to the Evangelical Revival,” in Report of the Oxford Movement Centenary Congress, 175.

  • 121

    The Times, 13 July 1933, 16.

  • 122

    Church Times, 27 January 1933, 118.

  • 123

    The Record, 8 May 1931, 298.

  • 124

    The Times, 12 January 1933, 15.

  • 125

    The Record, 20 January 1933, 31.

  • 126

    “Attitude of Evangelicals,” 7.

  • 127

    T. C. Hammond, “The Evangelical Revival and the Oxford Movement,” The Churchman 47 (April 1933): 79.

  • 128

    Hammond, “The Evangelical Revival and the Oxford Movement,” 85.

  • 129

    The Record, 16 June 1933, 355.

  • 130

    Evangelical Christendom (January–February 1933): 37.

  • 131

    Knox, “Forthcoming Oxford Movement Celebrations,” 61.

  • 132

    E. A. Knox, The Tractarian Movement 1833–1845 (London: Putnam, 1933), 62.

  • 133

    Knox, The Tractarian Movement, 53.

  • 134

    Brilioth, Three Lectures, 1.